New, 2019 DA42-VI or SR22TG6

genna

genna

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
1,721
Display Name
Display name:
ТУ-104
This is purely hypothetical.

Since I'm kind of bored right now, I feel like starting yet another Cirrus vs something else thread ;)

This time, 2019 Diamond Twin Star DA-42 VI vs 2019 Cirrus SR22T G6

So, if one was in the market for around $800,000 4 seat NEW airplane(I'm not, just dreaming), it seems that the Diamond is a pretty interesting alternative.

Attached is a performance comparison

Capture.JPG

EDIT: Cirrus range includes 45 min reserve, Diamond range does not specify

It's hard to find pricing for Diamond, so i took one from Controller. It had some optional equipment on it. Cirrus is base with FIKI

Cirrus has slightly higher max speed, not sure about cruise speed, 5 seats, higher ceiling and parachute. Diamond is pretty much better at everything else with extra engine.

I realize that there is a considerable cost associated with Mx for the second engine. But that fuel consumption is quite a bit lower(I don't have the number for Cirrus, but it's definitely not 10gph) and at least you do not have to repack the chute every 10 years. There is probably a slight advantage to Cirrus in long term costs, but it's probably not that drastic. My guess, most new plane owners do not get these to where they actually need to replace/rebuild engines.

Also, I feel like the DA42 has a nicer ramp presence.

Thoughts? :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
You should be able to get Diamond pricing from their website. That's where I configured my DA62. One-point-four with all the goodies!
 
Kenny Phillips said:
You should be able to get Diamond pricing from their website. That's where I configured my DA62. One-point-four with all the goodies!
Click to expand...

I tried, but I don't see any pricing. Only "How to buy"... "contact"....
 
genna said:
I tried, but I don't see any pricing. Only "How to buy"... "contact"....
Click to expand...
Yes, it appears as if they've removed their price lists (which gave pricing and weights for the plane and various accessories.)
 
Note that the Diamond has a 6 foot longer wingspan. Could impact your parking options.
 
genna said:
(I'm not, just dreaming)
Click to expand...
This is one of those cases where a misplaced comma has dramatic impact on the message.

If I put people in the backseat on a regular basis then I'd go DA42 because they would have their own door.
 
asicer said:
This is one of those cases where a misplaced comma has dramatic impact on the message.

If I put people in the backseat on a regular basis then I'd go DA42 because they would have their own door.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that I misplaced a comma? I meant to say, "I am not in the market. I am just dreaming about these planes." I think my admittedly not grammatically correct remark conveys that meaning.
 
I would buy a Diamond over a Cirrus for fit and finish reasons alone. They’re some of the best built I’ve seen.
 
eman1200 said:
technically, wouldn't the cirrus also have a single engine service ceiling? technically?
Click to expand...

0 AGL is the SE Ceiling for Cirrus. Service and absolute.
 
As cool as the DA62’s are, I’d still opt for the G6 SR22 if I was in the market.
 
I am not a pilot, so take my comments for what they're worth (less than a cup of coffee?). Just based on what I've read and seen, I think the SR22 is a cool plane. The chute sure puts a "pro" in its column. And if you like traveling from point A to B, it seems like they fulfill that mission extremely well.

On the other hand, I think the DA42 is an even cooler plane. There's something about the extremely efficient diesel engines, and several other things, that appeal to me. Only time will tell if the diesel engines, the gearboxes, and the electronic engine and prop controls are reliable long term. But if they are, I think it is an impressive plane. Losing an engine tends to be much more manageable than typical twins (or though it seems), although, I'm not sure about the single-engine performance at max gross weight.

One thing is for sure, both of those planes are very pricey new.
 
Last edited:
Fallsrider said:
Only time will tell if the diesel engines, the gearboxes, and the electronic engine and prop controls are reliable long term
Click to expand...
Austro has been around a while. How much time do you need? (Zero snark intended, BTW)
 
SR22, cause as much as I like the DA42, I don't fly enough even with all the gizmos in the world to trust myself when tired in an engine out scenario with my family in the back seats. Pretty sure I'd mess something up. Single engine, I know exactly what to do...
 
wheaties said:
SR22, cause as much as I like the DA42, I don't fly enough even with all the gizmos in the world to trust myself when tired in an engine out scenario with my family in the back seats. Pretty sure I'd mess something up. Single engine, I know exactly what to do...
Click to expand...

This, low time pilots in twins don't have very good statistics, I know it's not manly around here, but when all goes to crap, it's nice to have a final out. To the guys who do it safely and regularly, kudos, but in reality how much experience does it take to get to truly twin engine proficient in all maneuvers?
 
JC150 said:
DA42 gets my vote. Yeah with a cirrus if you lose an engine you have the chute, but if you're flying over cold Lake Michigan or over mountains, i'd rather have the second engine to get to an airport
Click to expand...

Actually for me, the DA42 with a chute would be the perfect machine.
 
asicer said:
Austro has been around a while. How much time do you need? (Zero snark intended, BTW)
Click to expand...
I guess they've been around a little longer than I thought. I'm reading good things about them.
 
It's true that ME needs more practice. I'd postulate that if one is spending near $1Mil on a plane, one will be flying it rather often. I know I would. Thus this should not be too much of an issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
I vote for the DA-42. I have compared the Cirrus and Diamond too. Having a twin to cross mountains and water would be the “kitties titties”! An all wx, multi would really be the pennicle of my GA flying needs. Too bad that is probably out of reach for anyone that makes less than $500k/yr.
 
2600 ft grass strip (with +50) requirement.
 
Does an SR22 really have a 1,500’ book takeoff roll? Is it just me or is that really long for such a high hp plane?
 
genna said:
View attachment 72747
Click to expand...

Some of those numbers seem suspect. On the Cirrus, 1180 useful minus 92 gallons * 6 pounds equals 628 pounds of payload, not 720.

It's really odd to me that Diamond designates the maximum operating altitude to be the same as the single-engine service ceiling, too. Probably some sort of certification thing...

I realize that there is a considerable cost associated with Mx for the second engine.
Click to expand...

It's likely not what you'd think. We're conditioned to think that about twins, and rightfully so, because most of them are using 1940s technology. The Austro Diesels are a new design that's controlled by a computer, which will avoid any of the issues a ham-fisted pilot may cause. They're also liquid cooled. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out that you can run two of them for the same price as the single Continental TSIO-550-N on the Cirrus.

In fact, it looks like the overhaul cost of the single TSIO-550-N is about the same as the cost of overhauling both Austros. The Austros together will burn significantly less fuel than the one Conti, and Jet-A is cheaper.

jsstevens said:
0 AGL is the SE Ceiling for Cirrus. Service and absolute.
Click to expand...

Uh, no... It'd be the same as the service ceiling. It's the single-engine ceiling, not the n-1 ceiling. ;)

Fallsrider said:
I'm not sure about the single-engine performance at max gross weight.
Click to expand...

284 feet per minute at sea level, but with the turbocharged engines, and their critical altitude being up around 16,000 feet, you should be able to maintain that rate of climb above any obstacle in the ConUS. Single-engine service ceiling (where it'll climb 50 fpm on one) is 18,000 and that is the max operating altitude.
 
Stephen Shore said:
I would rather have a 2nd engine than a parachute any day. The idea of floating down uncontrolled versus "flying" to the crash site in a twin is not appealing.
Click to expand...
Chute is useful in more scenarios then the extra engine. For example, in certain species of mid-air collision, or failure of controls, or getting disoriented in IMC. In addition, professionals keep killing themselves with asymmetric thrust below Vmc, despite all their mandatory sim time. We've all seen those King Air videos. Think seriously if your performance is likely to be up to the challenge of one-engine operation when the time comes. Some people down in the comments suggested that flying a twin often counts as a practice. That's the stupidest idea ever -- it's outright dangerous. You aren't practicing the skills that you need when you're tooling around in a twin! Sim and only sim is what you need.
 
AA5Bman said:
Does an SR22 really have a 1,500’ book takeoff roll? Is it just me or is that really long for such a high hp plane?
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
@fiyingcheeshead I realized that right after I posted. I meant one engine out of course. But it was a joke anyway.

I’m surprised it took that long for someone to catch it.
 
I've always liked the DA42, and twins in general, and for flying around the mountains, it has a lot of appeal for me. And the proficiency aspect of it wouldn't bother me, in fact I'd just plan on taking a lot more proficiency training to always stay on top of it.

I doubt I'd ever buy one, however, because of service and support. I've read bits and pieces of info over the years that because not many are sold in the US (compared to something like a Cirrus), parts and service can be an issue. I could be totally wrong on that, it's just what I've gathered. I would also guess that because of the relatively low supply in the US (again, compared to something like Cirrus), availability and resale would be tougher - not as many to pick from, and harder to sell. Of course if somebody is buying new, it doesn't matter that there might not be as many to pick from in the used market.

Anyway, I really like them, and if I were ever in the market for a twin, it would definitely be on my short list to consider. But it would still be behind an Aerostar, especially if we're talking ramp appeal :) But something like an Aerostar would have its own parts and maintenance issues also.
 
LoneAspen said:
I've always liked the DA42, and twins in general, and for flying around the mountains, it has a lot of appeal for me. And the proficiency aspect of it wouldn't bother me, in fact I'd just plan on taking a lot more proficiency training to always stay on top of it.

I doubt I'd ever buy one, however, because of service and support. I've read bits and pieces of info over the years that because not many are sold in the US (compared to something like a Cirrus), parts and service can be an issue. I could be totally wrong on that, it's just what I've gathered. I would also guess that because of the relatively low supply in the US (again, compared to something like Cirrus), availability and resale would be tougher - not as many to pick from, and harder to sell. Of course if somebody is buying new, it doesn't matter that there might not be as many to pick from in the used market.
Click to expand...

I dunno, based on our ownership experience of the DA40, I'd expect to wait an extra day or two for international shipping (from London, Ontario, not Austria) on a part once or twice a decade. The DA42 shares many parts with the DA40. Plus, the DA40 tends to spend less time in the shop than the other birds.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Diamond for service and support reasons.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I dunno, based on our ownership experience of the DA40, I'd expect to wait an extra day or two for international shipping (from London, Ontario, not Austria) on a part once or twice a decade. The DA42 shares many parts with the DA40. Plus, the DA40 tends to spend less time in the shop than the other birds.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Diamond for service and support reasons.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that - That's good updated info to have from an actual Diamond owner.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top