New, 2019 DA42-VI or SR22TG6

[labbadabba]

I did a cost and performance comparison a couple years back.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...een-sr22t-and-da42-vi-check-my-numbers.91281/

 

[genna]

Full fuel payload is dubious, because the DA42 carries 16 less gallons or about 100 lbs. That's what I like about the massive tanks on the Cirrus. For most local flying I stick to tabs.. but it gives you some flexibility as far as loading, etc.

That comparison is meaningful if you are trying to go long range. Sure, DA carries less fuel, but it still has a slightly better range. You can still leave a lot of air in DA's tanks for shorter flights. Also, JetA is heavier and you save more weight that way.

 

[labbadabba]

Considering the SE service ceiling is 18k, I'd say that provides a better safety value than the chute.

 

[Rockymountain]

Both planes are amazing. The Cirrus is a little more capable in hardcore weather in my experience, mainly handling and mitigating ice. Flies a little faster, a little higher, but then above FL180, in a non-pressurized aircraft..... That is some real deal serious stuff. You lose your O2 and don't recognize it, and you are done. Plus nose hoses are a pain for pax, and IMHO, dangerous for kids, because they knock them off and if you don't notice right away, can become a distressing shade of blue. ;-) But if you fly IFR light, both are a delight. Can't go wrong with either. The DA42 is definitely more fun to fly. Just a bigger aircraft feel. 2 props, lots of knobs and switches, quieter, prettier (opinion)

 

[PaulS]

Both planes are amazing. The Cirrus is a little more capable in hardcore weather in my experience, mainly handling and mitigating ice. Flies a little faster, a little higher, but then above FL180, in a non-pressurized aircraft..... That is some real deal serious stuff. You lose your O2 and don't recognize it, and you are done. Plus nose hoses are a pain for pax, and IMHO, dangerous for kids, because they knock them off and if you don't notice right away, can become a distressing shade of blue. ;-) But if you fly IFR light, both are a delight. Can't go wrong with either. The DA42 is definitely more fun to fly. Just a bigger aircraft feel. 2 props, lots of knobs and switches, quieter, prettier (opinion)

The newer Cirrus recognize if you have disabling hypoxia and will descend you to a safer altitude.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The newer Cirrus recognize if you have disabling hypoxia and will descend you to a safer altitude.

How do they do that?

 

[EdFred]

How do they do that?

Like every other plane does: When it runs out of fuel, it descends on its own to an altitude with more oxygen.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Like every other plane does: When it runs out of fuel, it descends on its own to an altitude with more oxygen.

Well, to be fair, newer Citations will automatically descend to 15,000 feet if they get depressurized... But a cabin altitude sensor is a lot easier than sensing a hypoxic pilot, unless the pilot has to wear a pulse ox attachment the entire time.

 

[genna]

How do they do that?

from Cirrus site

"Never before have avionics integrated your well-being. If key strokes haven’t been made for a certain time dependent on altitude the avionics will ask, “Are you alert?”. If there is no acknowledgement after a few different messages the aircraft will automatically descend to a lower altitude."

 

[SoonerAviator]

How do they do that?

Borrowed MCAS from Boeing?

 

[EdFred]

I'm curious. Given that 18000ft ceiling is for 1 or 2 engines on DA, its stands the reason that with both engines(they are turbo) running it should be able to go higher. So, this is probably a POH limitation rather than power limitation.


from Cirrus site

"Never before have avionics integrated your well-being. If key strokes haven’t been made for a certain time dependent on altitude the avionics will ask, “Are you alert?”. If there is no acknowledgement after a few different messages the aircraft will automatically descend to a lower altitude."

But if I'm direct from A to B over 700nm apart at 17500 VFR, why would I be pushing keys?

How low does it keep descending?

 

[PaulS]

You guys are funny. Cirrus has a system in the perspective system that monitors your altitude and interaction with the avionics. If it notices that you haven't pushed a button or turned a knob in a while, it will prompt you with "Are you alert?" If you are, then you push a button. If you are not, the airplane will automatically descend to a safer altitude.

https://cirrusaircraft.com/cirrus-perspective/

 

[Grum.Man]

I would take the DA for two reasons only... two engines are cooler, and you dont see 10 of them at every airport buzzing the pattern.

 

[PaulS]

But if I'm direct from A to B over 700nm apart at 17500 VFR, why would I be pushing keys?

How low does it keep descending?

 

[genna]

But if I'm direct from A to B over 700nm apart at 17500 VFR, why would I be pushing keys?

How low does it keep descending?

http://takeflightsandiego.com/assets/documents/SR22T GFC 700 Supplement.pdf

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I would take the DA for two reasons only... two engines are cooler, and you dont see 10 of them at every airport buzzing the pattern.

Plus, you don't have to do a 50-mile straight in final.

 

[zaitcev]

I would take the DA for two reasons only... two engines are cooler, and you dont see 10 of them at every airport buzzing the pattern.

And don't forget the respect you're getting from the ATC. They know you're a serious operator in a twin.

 

[PaulS]

And don't forget the respect you're getting from the ATC. They know you're a serious operator in a twin.

Yes, that's what I live for, respect from ATC.

 

[EdFred]

http://takeflightsandiego.com/assets/documents/SR22T GFC 700 Supplement.pdf

no idea what I'm looking for in 32 pages.

Edit: Showed in the video

By what if you are hypoxic and asleep at 12,500?

 

[PaulS]

By what if you are hypoxic and asleep at 12,500?

Then your bowl of Lucky Charms is empty.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Well, to be fair, newer Citations will automatically descend to 15,000 feet if they get depressurized... But a cabin altitude sensor is a lot easier than sensing a hypoxic pilot, unless the pilot has to wear a pulse ox attachment the entire time.

I've known high-flyers that used a pulse-ox whenever on oxygen; I sure as heck would!

 

[genna]

no idea what I'm looking for in 32 pages.

Edit: Showed in the video

By what if you are hypoxic and asleep at 12,500?

it's on page 10

 

[Kenny Phillips]

no idea what I'm looking for in 32 pages.

Edit: Showed in the video

By what if you are hypoxic and asleep at 12,500?

Then you are likely an out-of-shape chain smoker.

 

[EdFred]

Then your bowl of Lucky Charms is empty.

I also wonder how that works with terrain in, say Colorado. Which wins out? Hypoxia descent or terrain avoidance? I can imagine a lawsuit if it auto-descended into cumulogranite.

 

[PaulS]

I also wonder how that works with terrain in, say Colorado. Which wins out? Hypoxia descent or terrain avoidance? I can imagine a lawsuit if it auto-descended into cumulogranite.

I suspect that is why 14,500 was chosen instead of 10,000 or even 8,000. The odds of descending into a mountain at 14,500 is very, very low as there aren't too many mountains higher than that. But it still could happen, not sure if that would be a liability issue or not, at the end of the day falling asleep is not good airmanship.

 

[genna]

I also wonder how that works with terrain in, say Colorado. Which wins out? Hypoxia descent or terrain avoidance? I can imagine a lawsuit if it auto-descended into cumulogranite.

Looking through that supplemental for GFC 700 Autopilot, i did not see any terrain avoidance features. So, you are flying into the mountain.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Note that both planes have "envelope protection" and other similar safety features (and I believe terrain avoidance). A pulse-ox would be required for hypoxia prevention, but as it would ping the alarm as soon as your levels started to drop, one would hope that you would switch the two guarded stabilizer trim cutout switches to the off position, or descend to a lower altitude whilst still able to avoid granite.

 

[genna]

I suspect that is why 14,500 was chosen instead of 10,000 or even 8,000. The odds of descending into a mountain at 14,500 is very, very low as there aren't too many mountains higher than that. But it still could happen, not sure if that would be a liability issue or not, at the end of the day falling asleep is not good airmanship.

You are at 14,000 for 4 minutes. Then you are continuing to descent to 12,500. These are legal oxygen altitudes

 

[PaulS]

You are at 14,000 for 4 minutes. Then you are continuing to descent to 12,500. These are legal oxygen altitudes

Good point, I should have know that, but then again, I don't go that high.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Note that both planes have "envelope protection" and other similar safety features (and I believe terrain avoidance). A pulse-ox would be required for hypoxia prevention, but as it would ping the alarm as soon as your levels started to drop, one would hope that you would switch the two guarded stabilizer trim cutout switches to the off position, or descend to a lower altitude whilst still able to avoid granite.

It turns out that the Garmin system checks for "pilot interaction" to determine hypoxia; I know I've flown IFR for 30 minutes or more with little ATC contact, will it ping me every few minutes? That would be annoying.

 

[genna]

It turns out that the Garmin system checks for "pilot interaction" to determine hypoxia; I know I've flown IFR for 30 minutes or more with little ATC contact, will it ping me every few minutes? That would be annoying.

"Pilot interaction with the Integrated Avionics System is monitored by detecting key presses and turns of the knobs. If the pilot has not made a system interaction within a defined interval - based on altitude and time of useful consciousness - the AFCS prompts the pilot for a response with an ARE YOU ALERT? CAS Advisory."

 

[Kenny Phillips]

"Pilot interaction with the Integrated Avionics System is monitored by detecting key presses and turns of the knobs. If the pilot has not made a system interaction within a defined interval - based on altitude and time of useful consciousness - the AFCS prompts the pilot for a response with an ARE YOU ALERT? CAS Advisory."

That would get old quickly!

 

[genna]

That would get old quickly!

Beats the hell of flying over Cuba and splashing into the gulf.
it's not too bad unless you are at FL250 and I don't think a lot of people actually go up to FL250

Altitude (measured barometrically) TUC (normal ascent)
FL180 (18,000 ft; 5,500 m) 20 to 30 minutes
FL220 (22,000 ft; 6,700 m) 10 minutes
FL250 (25,000 ft; 7,600 m) 3 to 5 minutes

 

[AA5Bman]

There's two big things you've gotta consider for the takeoff roll: Power loading (how many pounds per horsepower) and the airfoil itself. My Mooney is 280hp but has a relatively long takeoff roll because it has a "fast" wing (low drag, laminar flow) that needs a fair bit of air flowing over it before it gives you much lift.

I lift off around 65-70 KIAS, my Vx is 85 KIAS and Vy is 105 KIAS. This is a speed wing, not a lift wing. I think the Cirrus is the same. Here's a comparison:

Power loading: M20R 12.03 lb/hp, DA42 13.11, SR22T 11.61 lb/hp, C182T 13.48
Vso: M20R 59 KCAS, DA42 61 KCAS, SR22T 60 KCAS, C182T 49 KCAS
Takeoff roll, ft: M20R ~1500, DA42 1503, SR22T 1517, C182T 795
Takeoff +50, ft: M20R ~2600, DA42 2405, SR22T 2080, C182T 1514

I couldn't find the "official" takeoff roll and 50-foot distances for my Mooney, so I got those from the performance charts in the POH.

But, looking at all of this, you can see that the 182, which is lower horsepower but has a big fat high-lift wing, is better in takeoff performance despite having less power. That's because its wing will fly a lot slower than the others, so it'll get up off the ground sooner and climb at a steeper gradient. The 182's Vy is slower than my Vx!

Hope that all makes sense.

My experience being that "book" numbers are always the bleeding edge of optimistic, I'm wondering what constitutes a reasonable field length for a Cirrus? Would the Cirrus owners out there think twice about landing at a 2,000 foot runway? 3,000'? Curious what you all are comfortable with.

 

[PaulS]

My experience being that "book" numbers are always the bleeding edge of optimistic, I'm wondering what constitutes a reasonable field length for a Cirrus? Would the Cirrus owners out there think twice about landing at a 2,000 foot runway? 3,000'? Curious what you all are comfortable with.

There is a Cirrus outfit in San Carlos, KSQL, 2,600 foot runway. I did a bay tour from there with myself, an instructor and 2 passengers on a 75 degree day in a 22T. We were a few hundred under gross. The takeoff was fine, at least 500 feet left at lift off. Landing, my first time in a 22t, we could have turned at a little over half the runway had I done full braking. Fun stuff.

 

[mtnflyr]

neither. id take the new cessna turbo station air hd. that way i can actually take 4 adults and all their stuff and not have to stop every hour for fuel. sure the cessna is slower but it makes up for it not having to stop twice to go 500 miles. with 4 adults and baggage id only be able to put 40 gallons in the cirrus. if you take 18 gallons for your reserve thats only 22 gallons available..no thanks for a million dollar plane.

but if i had to choose it would be the DA only because ive never flown one and it looks cool.

 

[GRG55]

Austro has been around a while. How much time do you need? (Zero snark intended, BTW)

Time on an Austro is one of the very fastest and most predictable ways to lose money in aviation. They are much better left in the hangar, idle so the unbelievably onerous maintenance doesn't drain your credit line.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Time on an Austro is one of the very fastest and most predictable ways to lose money in aviation. They are much better left in the hangar, idle so the unbelievably onerous maintenance doesn't drain your credit line.

Several here have made similar statements. Zero have pointed me to a source of information from which they've made such a statement. Where can I look?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Time on an Austro is one of the very fastest and most predictable ways to lose money in aviation. They are much better left in the hangar, idle so the unbelievably onerous maintenance doesn't drain your credit line.

???

I looked at the maintenance intervals, and it didn't seem that bad, with the possible exception of the alternator. You don't even need to change oil more than every 100 hours!

 

[GRG55]

Several here have made similar statements. Zero have pointed me to a source of information from which they've made such a statement. Where can I look?

???

I looked at the maintenance intervals, and it didn't seem that bad, with the possible exception of the alternator. You don't even need to change oil more than every 100 hours!

I have posted a bit about this before, but I have an interesting, up close vantage point on one of these DA42s for the past couple of years.

Two doors down from my partnership office is the office of a company that owns and uses 7 airplanes carrying their specialized proprietary technology instrumentation; five singles and two twins - a Diamond DA42 NG and a turbocharged Cessna 310R. They fly constantly, single pilot, VFR only in the singles, and have the twins because some of their customer's have recurrent time deadlines for their data requirements and the company needed capable IFR platforms with FIKI. They bought the Diamond for its range and economy, and on paper the DA42 looks like the perfect fit for what they do and what they need.

The hangar attached to our office building houses the aircraft maintenance shop that, among other things, is the Diamond maintenance center for this region. I've been wandering in there over the years checking out whatever expensive aluminum (or plastic?) they happen to be working on whenever I get tired of staring at my work computer screen. Got to know the techs there very well, and this shop now maintains my Husky.

The DA42 spends more time in the shop with the cowls off than it does in the air. The company hasn't yet come close to meeting their expected dispatch frequency and annual flight hours. The engine itself seems fine. It's all the stuff around the engine that has had issues including the alternators (replaced both sides), voltage regulators (replaced) the clutch system between the gearbox and the propellers (replaced), the gearboxes themselves (replaced), and repeated ECU failures - still ongoing. This is an abbreviated list of the issues they have had. The aux fuel tanks have transfer pumps that keep frying the fuses - fuses, not circuit breakers - which are hidden behind the panel and not accessible in flight. Apparently the aux tank fuel has to be transferred to the main tank to be usable. That has resulted in aborted flights for them and the requirement to fly the whole thing again as an incomplete data set is a write off. The latest is some sort of recent maintenance notice from Diamond about 900 hour life limits on the fuel injectors (they have 1200 hours on the Diamond).

Sounds like a fairly typical auto engine conversion experience to me, quite frankly. Basically a science experiment. Given enough time and enough money thrown at the problem the performance is improving. But who wants to be the lab rat for this sort of thing?

We host a Friday afternoon weekly wind-up for the building in our office, and serve scotch, Their CEO was just in here and told me they finally had enough spending gobs of money on this plane (over two years more than double the all-in-cost-per-hour of the C310 is what I was told), called up Diamond (with whom they had been discussing a fleet purchase) and told them to come and get the airplane, take it back and "f'ing fix it". Purely coincidentally, as I type this the plane is in the air, on the way back to Diamond in London, Ontario, Canada, piloted by a Diamond test pilot.

The CEO is totally frustrated with the cost and downtime, and won't consider another Diamond in the fleet - the comment was "My Board will fire me if I tell them I am thinking about buying another Diamond" - unless Diamond fixes the airplane at its cost and can assure a reasonable dispatch reliability.

Having said that the CEO also told me they have reports from other knowledgeable commercial Diamond DA42 operators they have contacted that the DA42-VI is a LOT better than the NG in this regard, and most of the same problems they also experienced with the earlier model Diamond twin seem to have largely been addressed successfully.