Flew a DA-42 today

A

Alexb2000

En-Route
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
3,530
Location
Dallas, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Alexb2000
All this talk about 100LL going away, again. Plus the price of 100LL being high and going higher made me wonder about the only production diesel aircraft I can think of in the U.S. the DA-42. So, since I was in Texas I found a place that had one and went and flew it. This was the Centurian 2 liter version, not the NG with the Austros that I wanted to fly.

Anyway here is the performance at 9,500':

70% power 134 KTAS at 10 GPH total
80% power 145 KTAS at 12 GPH total
90% power 155 KTAS at 13.2 GPH total

Nice handling, diesels are very quiet, we had the canopy open for ventilation, both engines, running and we were talking without headsets!

Single power levers in a piston, oh hell yes. So much easier and more natural.

Master on turn key to start, viola, engine running.

Only downside was that the low horsepower really presents itself in OEI practice. Left engine out and featured, 3-5 degree bank for the dead engine, clean, couldn't hold 6,000 with two adult large men and 3/4 fuel (0 baggage). I'm sure I didn't have absolutely perfect technique in that airplane, but the chief pilot I was flying with said he couldn't do it either.

I didn't shoot a single engine approach, I decided after the above to quit burning money (it wasn't cheap to rent). I can't imagine a OEI go around would be possible unless you were very light.

I would love to hear from anyone else with more experience in them. The concept sure makes sense, I just wish there were about 40 HP more on each side.
 
About 75 different GA models in my logbook. The DA-42 is one of my favorites. Biggest problem is the pronounced lack of speed. But what a great handling airplane!
 
You came up to DTO and didn't stop by the yard to say howdy? )pout( :(
 
AggieMike88 said:
You came up to DTO and didn't stop by the yard to say howdy? )pout( :(
Click to expand...

I had to get back to work to pay for that rental rate, wow! I have a buddy looking for VW TDI parts, if you have any we'll have to make another trip . I'll come along just to swap some lies.
 
How would that compare to a PA34? If you had the opportunity to learn ME on a DA 42 or a PA 34 which would you choose?
 
Flown them both. OEI is miserable in DA42>PA34200T but at gross both are miserable. The key is to reduce to 5% undergross- trouble is in the DA42 you can't carry anything at that weight. It is sufficient to say, it is a delightful "seminole class" twin.

In the PA34200T you can carry 750 lbs and 4.5 hours' fuel at 160 kts, and be 200 undergross.
 
airbornejohnny said:
How would that compare to a PA34? If you had the opportunity to learn ME on a DA 42 or a PA 34 which would you choose?
Click to expand...

I'd have to defer to Bruce on the comparison. I will say that if you're just looking for a rating and that's it, the DA-42 is very easy to fly. Maneuvers are dead simple, stalls, turns, etc. No bad habits that I could find. Single power levers and auto-feathering sure make OEI easy, turn off one master, it's featured.

If we're talking about using an airplane for real world use, to be honest I'd much rather fly a high power single. If we're talking twins I'd much rather have a 600 HP Baron and just fly LOP and slow(ish) to save operating cost and still have some real world redundancy.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I'd have to defer to Bruce on the comparison. I will say that if you're just looking for a rating and that's it, the DA-42 is very easy to fly. Maneuvers are dead simple, stalls, turns, etc. No bad habits that I could find. Single power levers and auto-feathering sure make OEI easy, turn off one master, it's featured.

If we're talking about using an airplane for real world use, to be honest I'd much rather fly a high power single. If we're talking twins I'd much rather have a 600 HP Baron and just fly LOP and slow(ish) to save operating cost and still have some real world redundancy.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on the mission. If my wife and I wanted to routinely fly from Florida to the bahamas with a couple of suitcases, the Diamond would be choice. 800 mile trips with the kids and dogs, well thats another matter.

The other issue is reliability. I'm all for newer airplanes, as I've had my fill of ancient hinges and wiring harnesses. But as the Centurion engines showed, a track record is a good thing too.
 
Ken Ibold said:
The other issue is reliability. I'm all for newer airplanes, as I've had my fill of ancient hinges and wiring harnesses. But as the Centurion engines showed, a track record is a good thing too.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm definitely a fan of moving towards Jet-A for piston aircraft, and I do see the advantages of single lever control as well. The problem is that, right now, I don't see an option that I'd buy myself. SMA diesel I like the concept of, but it needs some further development, as well as a higher-powered version.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Exactly. I'm definitely a fan of moving towards Jet-A for piston aircraft, and I do see the advantages of single lever control as well. The problem is that, right now, I don't see an option that I'd buy myself. SMA diesel I like the concept of, but it needs some further development, as well as a higher-powered version.
Click to expand...

The Chinese now have the SMA through Continental. A 6 cyl 350hp is i n the works I was told at OSH but wouldn't release until after the 230hp 4 cyl.
 
Henning said:
The Chinese now have the SMA through Continental. A 6 cyl 350hp is i n the works I was told at OSH but wouldn't release until after the 230hp 4 cyl.
Click to expand...

While that wouldn't surprise me, it will also probably take another 5-10 years before it's in some form that I'd be willing to put in a plane that I have financial responsibility for.

So we're probably going to do this round of engine overhauls on the 310 with something that still burns 100LL.
 
Ken Ibold said:
The other issue is reliability. I'm all for newer airplanes, as I've had my fill of ancient hinges and wiring harnesses. But as the Centurion engines showed, a track record is a good thing too.
Click to expand...

Jepessen's club DA-40 is a hangar queen. That thing is always broken. They've had some weird ignition problem on it for a while now.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While that wouldn't surprise me, it will also probably take another 5-10 years before it's in some form that I'd be willing to put in a plane that I have financial responsibility for.

So we're probably going to do this round of engine overhauls on the 310 with something that still burns 100LL.
Click to expand...

That's one of the nice things about the IO470s, they're good for 94UL, but the Continental guy was pointing at a TSIO 550 on display that he said was ready to go on 94UL and he was hoping for a 414 owner to order a set to put them on. He also had an EFI engine....
 
Does it smell like a jet? Or a diesel vehicle?
 
Henning said:
That's one of the nice things about the IO470s, they're good for 94UL, but the Continental guy was pointing at a TSIO 550 on display that he said was ready to go on 94UL and he was hoping for a 414 owner to order a set to put them on. He also had an EFI engine....
Click to expand...

I don't see 94UL being a particularly viable option, so I think that's more or less irrelevant.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Exactly. I'm definitely a fan of moving towards Jet-A for piston aircraft, and I do see the advantages of single lever control as well. The problem is that, right now, I don't see an option that I'd buy myself. SMA diesel I like the concept of, but it needs some further development, as well as a higher-powered version.
Click to expand...


These guys are working on another engine right down the road from me.
http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-11-23_flatvee.asp

I think there is plenty of potential for diesel and Jet-A in GA. In theory, reliability should not be an issue. The diesel engine is made to turn slow and produce high torque; exactly what an aircraft engine needs to do. And tractor-trailers go a million miles before a complete overhaul all the time. I would love that TBO!
 
MN_Flyer said:
These guys are working on another engine right down the road from me.
http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-11-23_flatvee.asp
Click to expand...

That looks neat, I'll want to read up more on it.

I think there is plenty of potential for diesel and Jet-A in GA. In theory, reliability should not be an issue. The diesel engine is made to turn slow and produce high torque; exactly what an aircraft engine needs to do. And tractor-trailers go a million miles before a complete overhaul all the time. I would love that TBO!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that tractor-trailer engines also weigh several thousand pounds. Even the Cummins or PowerStroke diesels found in light-duty trucks that we buy would be far too heavy for aviation use. While diesels do typically get built for low RPM and produce high torque with their inherent nature, the reliability that they are known for typically comes at the cost of weight. To get the weight down while maintaining equal or better reliability to present engines, that is the challenge, and that has been a challenge not yet met.

It is my guess that it will be 10 years or more before a truly reliable diesel that I would put in my plane will be available.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I would love to hear from anyone else with more experience in them. The concept sure makes sense, I just wish there were about 40 HP more on each side.
Click to expand...

I fly the NG model. Overall I don't have any complains, great aircraft.
I would not mind having extra HP and it's not really needed. Service ceiling on a single engine is 15K.
You should defiantly try it if you get a chance.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Keep in mind that tractor-trailer engines also weigh several thousand pounds. Even the Cummins or PowerStroke diesels found in light-duty trucks that we buy would be far too heavy for aviation use.
Click to expand...

How about if we make the cases out of magnesium and heads of aluminum? :popcorn:
 
Henning said:
How about if we make the cases out of magnesium and heads of aluminum? :popcorn:
Click to expand...

Give it a shot and let me know how it works out for you.

I'm inclined to believe it won't be very reliable. But what do I know. :rolleyes:
 
MachFly said:
I fly the NG model. Overall I don't have any complains, great aircraft.
I would not mind having extra HP and it's not really needed. Service ceiling on a single engine is 15K.
You should defiantly try it if you get a chance.
Click to expand...

How would you compare your OEI performance to mine (2 adult men say 450 pounds 3/4 fuel no baggage)? I couldn't hold 6K.
 
MachFly said:
I fly the NG model. Overall I don't have any complains, great aircraft.
I would not mind having extra HP and it's not really needed. Service ceiling on a single engine is 15K.
You should defiantly try it if you get a chance.
Click to expand...
Why should he be defiant when he tries it? :)
 
Alexb2000 said:
How would you compare your OEI performance to mine (2 adult men say 450 pounds 3/4 fuel no baggage)? I couldn't hold 6K.
Click to expand...

Just checked the charts and that configuration would give you a service ceiling of 14K.
The heaviest I've been when practicing engine outs was with 3 people (380lb front seats and 200lb rear seats) and 40 gal in the main tanks. I could easily hold 10K and 100kts with about 65-70% power on a single engine.

If you want I can send you a pdf copy of the POH.

When I was choosing an aircraft the reason why I went with the 42 was mainly because of it's OEI performance. I live in the mountains and flying a twin that can't hold 5K defeats the purpose. You increase the possibility of engine failure (by having two engines) and you still can't hold altitude on one engine. So it was either the twin-star or something with a single engine.
 
Last edited:
I hoped when they had Thielert problems they would look at the SMA 230hp (all it really needs is a mechanical supercharger with the turbo feeding) and solve the HP deficiency. I see the DA 42 as such a travesty of unfulfilled potential, strangled by a lack of power. 230hp a side would make it an excellent airplane, maybe cut a few feet of wing off.
 
Henning said:
I hoped when they had Thielert problems they would look at the SMA 230hp (all it really needs is a mechanical supercharger with the turbo feeding) and solve the HP deficiency. I see the DA 42 as such a travesty of unfulfilled potential, strangled by a lack of power. 230hp a side would make it an excellent airplane, maybe cut a few feet of wing off.
Click to expand...

There is always room for extra HP but I would not call it under-powered (at least the NG model). Normal service ceiling is 18K and that's only because it's not certified above that, it can easily get to 18K. Cruise is 175 TAS and as I mentioned before IOE performance is great.
Perhaps the reason why they went with the Austros is to get a good fuel consumption. At 175 TAS you get 16gph, if you slow down to 160 TAS you get 13gph.
So I'd welcome the extra HP but I'm not complaining with it's current performance.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
There is always room for extra HP but I would not call it under-powered (at least the NG model). Normal service ceiling is 18K and that's only because it's not certified above that, it can easily get to 18K. Cruise is 175 TAS and as I mentioned before IOE performance is great.
Perhaps the reason why they went with the Austros is to get a good fuel consumption. At 175 TAS you get 16gps, if you slow down to 160 TAS you get 13gps.
So I'd welcome the extra HP but I'm not complaining with it's current performance.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but with that drag profile it could go a good bit faster until you get into serious penalty curve. If I buy a plane that looks like that I want 240kts cruise.;)
 
Henning said:
Yeah, but with that drag profile it could go a good bit faster until you get into serious penalty curve. If I buy a plane that looks like that I want 240kts cruise.;)
Click to expand...

Yeah.

I do think that diamond could have made it faster. The reason they didn't is for business reasons, it would have been a lot more expensive. I think the same about the DA40.
But that's just my opinion, don't know how true it is.
 
MachFly said:
There is always room for extra HP but I would not call it under-powered (at least the NG model). Normal service ceiling is 18K and that's only because it's not certified above that, it can easily get to 18K. Cruise is 175 TAS and as I mentioned before IOE performance is great.
Perhaps the reason why they went with the Austros is to get a good fuel consumption. At 175 TAS you get 16gps, if you slow down to 160 TAS you get 13gps.
So I'd welcome the extra HP but I'm not complaining with it's current performance.
Click to expand...

I live at 7,300. When my OEI with the 2L Centurions was that bad, I thought if I lost one in the mountains I'd have to find a large mine shaft to keep this thing flying.

Is the right front stick removable? That was something I thought would get in the way of passengers and could easily cause me some problems as well.

Are those fuel consumptions 175 TAS at 16 Gallons Per Side??? Or total?

Do you have FIKI TKS? What is your useful?

I couldn't get a straight answer on fuel heaters, do you have them? Do you use Prist? I noticed the earlier POH said no fuel additives.

How's the ride in turbulence?

I'd really like a copy of the POH. I'll PM you my email, thanks.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Is the right front stick removable? That was something I thought would get in the way of passengers and could easily cause me some problems as well.
Click to expand...

No it is not removable. But it does not get in the way. Because the Diamond has a canopy not a door you get in though the top so the stick is no trouble at all. I never has a passenger say that it gets in the way.

Are those fuel consumptions 175 TAS at 16 Gallons Per Side??? Or total?
Click to expand...

That is total

Do you have FIKI TKS? What is your useful?
Click to expand...

Do not have any de-icing equipment but it is an option if you want to pay extra.

I couldn't get a straight answer on fuel heaters, do you have them? Do you use Prist? I noticed the earlier POH said no fuel additives.
Click to expand...

Yes but their not actually heaters. Because it has diesel engines the high pressure fuel pumps pressurized the fuel to 80,000psi (the exact number might be a little off but it's somewhere in that range). As you compress fuel it heats up. Then what ever extra fuel you have in the fuel lines (that the engine does not need) gets sent back to the fuel tanks.
On the way back the fuel goes around the back of the nacelle where you have a small airvent for cooling. That airvent is about 2in in diameter so it does not cool the fuel completely and that warm fuel then gets send back to the main tanks where it heats up the rest of the fuel.

How's the ride in turbulence?
Click to expand...

Don't have any complains. Yellow line starts at 152kts.

I'd really like a copy of the POH. I'll PM you my email, thanks.
Click to expand...

PM received and I'll send it to you in a few min.


One thing I can complain about is that it really needs bigger ailerons. Because they took the wind from the DA40 and increased the size of everything else the roll rate at high speeds (130+) is rather slow.
 
I'd agree on wanting the extra speed. While 175 kts @ 16 gph is nice, you basically end up with Twin Comanche speed and fuel burn.

I'd like to see 200 kts out of that plane at a reasonable altitude, say 10,000 ft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top