Thoughts on the DA 62

Utah-Jay

Utah-Jay

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
446
Location
KHCR
Display Name
Display name:
Jay
Looks like a cool plane, twins with low fuel burn (175ish kits @ 14 GPH of Jet fuel), decent useful load and good range (1,285 NM)

Anyone have any experience?

I searched, but nothing on the 62 came up.

Thanks
 
Ive test flown it. Nice airplane overall. My quick take from an hour flight is:
Pros:
- Dead simple engine start/stop and management, it does everything for you, push button start, automagic runup, and flies pretty darn well with one shut down (auto feathers) and all you need is a little rudder trim and minor bank
- Roomy cabin - very comfortable 5 seater, potentially 7 seater with some kids for a short hop and limited luggage
- Flies very nicely, precise feeling in the controls
- Good overall performance and phenomenal fuel economy
- Redundancy in case of engine failure (obviously)
- Ramp presence is high for an unpressurized piston airplane
- AC worked well - similar to a newer SR22

Cons:
- Expensive, especially since you can't buy used
- Performance is not blistering given the price tag - turbo SR22 or Corvalis have higher top speed, certified ceiling and similar climb rates with all engines turning
- Center sticks take some getting used to and would drive my fiancee crazy if she was in the front right seat because she likes to have her purse, blanket, ipad, all kinds of junk in footwell, lap etc..
- G1000 implementation is bare bones, no keypad, small screens, not much customization/integration into the airframe (unlike my G1000 based Perspective in the Cirrus)
- Very standard, old school style vertical panel - I like the wraparound, pilot-oriented, more ergonomically laid out panel of the SR22
- Feels very heavy on the ground and you have to watch those long wings. Taxiing requires much more care and heavy rudder pushing than what I'm used to
- Won't fit in most T hangars
- Kind of odd looking IMO (but obviously subjective)

Overall, I liked it but not enough to put down that kind of money for me personally. Your milage may vary...
 
Last edited:
There are probably a couple of planes uglier than that in the history of aviation, but...

When I see the DA 62, I throw up in my mouth a little.
 
Really? Ugly? I don't get that at all...

csm_DSC_7822_af386c2279.jpg
 
I think it's a very nice looking airplane, just like all the Diamonds. I used to fly a DA20

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
The 62 is definitely out of my price range. And not truly meaning to hijack this thread but can anyone give an opinion on he 42? Is it just a 172 with more maintenance?
 
denverpilot said:
What altitude were you at and what was the climb rate (or descent rate) when you had one caged?
Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing. The sales brochure shows a single engine service ceiling of around 13,000 but that seems a bit generous to me with only 180hp per side.

Even with the published gross weight and 180hp per side it doesn't strike me as a real heavy hauling twin. At least it is turboed though, which ought to help.
 
I think this plane is built for foreign markets where jet fuel is much easier to come by than 100ll. Reality is, if you are spending 1.2 million on a plane, a baron is waaaaay more capable, and if you throttle down to da42 speeds (55% power) you are only burning 26 an hour and jet is 2 dollars less a gallon it's still less than $100 a hour

Fly 200 hours a year, Barron costs $20,000 more in gas, but you ran it at 55% power and flew a way more capable airplane. You spend 1.2 million, 20k is nothing.

In the US multiengine airplanes are becoming fewer in ga. With parachutes and relatively safe people on the ground a cirrus with a parachute makes more sense than a twin if you don't have load and distance to carry.
Places like Brazil, Europe, Aussie and others, an engine out in a single, even with a successful off field landing, yields rather low chance of survival. Mix that need to keep flying with really hard to find 100ll and the da62 looks amazing

If they priced this thing closer to 800 I'd say this thing could take some cirrus sales
 
Last edited:
MassPilot said:
I think it's a very nice looking airplane, just like all the Diamonds. I used to fly a DA20

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I actually like the DA-20 a lot; I've got about 80 hours in one. It's just that the DA-62 is too Transformer-y, with the junked-up ventral fin on the tail and those tumorous engine cowlings. The high front 3/4 pic that George Mohr posted is definitiely the best angle I've seen, though.
 
mondtster said:
I wondered the same thing. The sales brochure shows a single engine service ceiling of around 13,000 but that seems a bit generous to me with only 180hp per side.

Even with the published gross weight and 180hp per side it doesn't strike me as a real heavy hauling twin. At least it is turboed though, which ought to help.
Click to expand...

Turbo Seminole goes down around here anywhere from 100 fpm to 400 fpm at altitude around here. Same horsepower. Leave the gear hanging out and it'll be worse. Way worse.

Book says it'll climb but haven't met anyone yet who believes the book.

To get the engine restarted you'll do better in a 120 knot dive which will result in even worse numbers, which granted may be a plus for the push-button engine start system if it works. At least for training purposes.

I don't have enough hands to even attempt a single pilot restart without being awfully careful about it in the Seminole. Safer to just leave it caged and go land it somewhere.

So I was curious if the OP paid any attention to the performance or not. I get a feel these posts are just carefully written spam, though. Anyone else?

GRG55 said:
Deja vu all over again...;)
Didn't we do this just a couple of months back?

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/what-do-you-think-about-the-da62.97582/
Click to expand...

Sure. Everything repeats here eventually.

Shall we discuss airplanes on treadmills? ;)

But that explains the feel of spam.
 
denverpilot said:
Turbo Seminole goes down around here anywhere from 100 fpm to 400 fpm at altitude around here. Same horsepower. Leave the gear hanging out and it'll be worse. Way worse.

Book says it'll climb but haven't met anyone yet who believes the book.

To get the engine restarted you'll do better in a 120 knot dive which will result in even worse numbers, which granted may be a plus for the push-button engine start system if it works. At least for training purposes.

I don't have enough hands to even attempt a single pilot restart without being awfully careful about it in the Seminole. Safer to just leave it caged and go land it somewhere.

So I was curious if the OP paid any attention to the performance or not. I get a feel these posts are just carefully written spam, though. Anyone else?



Sure. Everything repeats here eventually.

Shall we discuss airplanes on treadmills? ;)

But that explains the feel of spam.
Click to expand...

No, not spam at all, I posted as I was curious. Info I have further read says 400 FPM on one engine, but I don't recall at what altitude.

JetA is less expensive, and the fuel burn is amazing at 70-80% power. 1000 LB useful with full fuel is not too bad.

I live in Florida, so the idea of a twin for over water is a bonus rather than parachuting into water
 
Zhunter said:
No, not spam at all, I posted as I was curious. Info I have further read says 400 FPM on one engine, but I don't recall at what altitude.

JetA is less expensive, and the fuel burn is amazing at 70-80% power. 1000 LB useful with full fuel is not too bad.

I live in Florida, so the idea of a twin for over water is a bonus rather than parachuting into water
Click to expand...

Sorry. Not your post but the very few who've shown up and said they flew it. They never seem to have noticed what the actual performance was.

Maybe they signed NDAs or something. Haha.
 
Zhunter said:
No, not spam at all, I posted as I was curious. Info I have further read says 400 FPM on one engine, but I don't recall at what altitude.

JetA is less expensive, and the fuel burn is amazing at 70-80% power. 1000 LB useful with full fuel is not too bad.

I live in Florida, so the idea of a twin for over water is a bonus rather than parachuting into water
Click to expand...

No doubt an interesting airplane.

However, if you plan to own a twin in the USA or Canada (as opposed to Europe or elsewhere), and especially if you do not have to regularly contend with the altitudes that denverpilot and I deal with, you have a large number of other choices of twins for a lot less than what it would cost to own and operate a DA 62. Of course one could say the same thing about a Cirrus SR22T,,,and those things seem to sell as fast as they can make them, so what do I know. :D

With respect to the oft made criticism about single engine performance (climb rate and ceiling) one factor that has an enormous influence in real world operations is how the airplane is loaded...as I have posted before I fly my Aztec light (well below gross) on the vast majority of my trips and that makes a big difference in both figures.
 
Last edited:
Monpilot said:
The 62 is definitely out of my price range. And not truly meaning to hijack this thread but can anyone give an opinion on he 42? Is it just a 172 with more maintenance?
Click to expand...

A 40 or a 42? I've actually done a comparison between the newest DA42's and SR22. They're closer than you think in terms of performance at least when comparing book numbers. The SR22 top-end is higher but if not pushing it, the DA42 compares very favorably and in a lot of ways fits many missions better.
 
All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that DA-62 has better engine out climb performance than my 182, or your guys' Cirrus's.....I could be wrong though, don't quote me on that...o_O:D
 
JustinD said:
All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that DA-62 has better engine out climb performance than my 182, or your guys' Cirrus's.....I could be wrong though, don't quote me on that...o_O:D
Click to expand...

Checked the books on that?

Some light twins with the gear down and one prop windmilling will underperform the glide ratio of a 182 with the prop stopped...

Especially at max gross.

The DA-62 falls into that size range where it's pretty likely a gliding 182 will beat it until the gear is up and the prop is feathered. And then it won't beat the 182 at some altitudes by much.

In most light twins losing an engine doesn't mean a 50% reduction in performance, it often means an 80% reduction when configured ideally and more in a non-optimal configuration.

At sea level, having that second engine can mean good things as long as you don't need to climb. At higher altitudes and DAs, the engine on the wing might convince a pilot to try to stretch the resulting downward glide to an airport that's just too far away, passing over a lot of good off-airport landing options.

Or the more common accident, setting up a standard low altitude approach many miles out from an airport and getting slow and not having the power to make it to the airport, so then adding too much power and slowing too much simultaneously and becoming a smoking Vmc hole in the ground.

That happens WAY too much in light twins. The total number isn't high because there's a lot less twins an twin pilots flying the stuff small enough not to hit the requirements to be able to climb out on a single engine, but in the light twin segment, it's unfortunately common.

In the case of the DA-62, just remember that 180 horsepower is a reasonably capable upgrade engine for a Skyhawk in the mountains around here, on a good weather day. And the Skyhawk weighs less and the thrust is centerline for that 180 HP. Not dragging a heavier airplane through the sky sideways.

Add weather, ice, winds, pilot inattentiveness or being lulled by the "safety" of that second engine, heavy loads, all the stuff people say they buy light twins for...

... they'll bite you square in the butt if you let them.
 
For that money I want pressurization and deice. Nor do I care for diesel engines that no one knows how to work on....
It IS cool looking and I'm sure it would be fun to fly!
 
denverpilot said:
What altitude were you at and what was the climb rate (or descent rate) when you had one caged?
Click to expand...

It's been a few months so my memory is a little fuzzy but I believe we were at 6000 ft and able to get 300-400fpm climb. 3 adult males in the plane but I don't remember how much fuel was onboard.
 
I have been looking at it pretty seriously. Going to Ft Lauderdale the week after next and will test fly it and a G58 and see which one wins the new home. The DA has better fuel burn and as a result a larger useful load but not sure that will be worth the huge difference in price consider used G58 is available for lots less. Will likely come down to comfort as a pilot and passenger.
 
my question is costs for maintenance and overhaul (or replacement if they cannot be overhauled) on a new design engine that nobody knows how to work on and there may not be a good parts network set up yet. I have not seen those numbers.

bob
 
denverpilot said:
Checked the books on that?

Some light twins with the gear down and one prop windmilling will underperform the glide ratio of a 182 with the prop stopped...

Especially at max gross.

...
Click to expand...

Any twin rated pilot that is at max gross with one engine out, leaves the gear down and doesn't feather the prop deserves a lousy glide ratio for being an idiot...unless of course the engine quit just after take off (which is pretty well by definition what must have happened if the plane is at max gross ;) ) and he/she is putting 'er down straight ahead with both throttles closed, not now, but right now.

btw, while you are speculating about glide ratios you may want to pause and reflect on the generous wing span (10 feet more than a Baron 58) and rather high aspect ratio (15 sq ft less wing area than a Baron 58) of the Diamonds...
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Any twin rated pilot that is at max gross with one engine out, leaves the gear down and doesn't feather the prop deserves a lousy glide ratio for being an idiot...unless of course the engine quit just after take off (which is pretty well by definition what must have happened if the plane is at max gross ;) ) and he/she is putting 'er down straight ahead with both throttles closed, not now, but right now.

btw, while you are speculating about glide ratios you may want to pause and reflect on the generous wing span (10 feet more than a Baron 58) and rather high aspect ratio (15 sq ft less wing area than a Baron 58) of the Diamonds...
Click to expand...

Well of course, but sometimes the gear doesn't come up and sometimes the prop won't feather. The point of mentioning them was that book values assume the best configuration and someone said the 182 was worse, which simply isn't always true.

As far as glide ratios go, the information given would help figure out wing loading but not necessarily a glide ratio. Which is why I asked the person who'd flown it for the real world numbers.

400 fpm up at 6000' isn't awful with the load he says he had on board, but it does likely mean that at max gross, and a hot day at my 6000' airport, the thing is going down, not up. Just like most twins that size.

If the gear is still hanging out after takeoff it may even go down faster than a 182 with one mill stopped.

Feather quick and you might make it to the same crash site as the 182.
 
Jeez I try to make a joke and everyone turns it into a large scientific discussion!

Without my cowl on and both doors open my 182 is also a falling a brick....we aren't talking about absurd situations cause if we start factoring in everything it's like trying to compare a modded car to a stock one. Bottom line is In cruise if I lose an engine and the da-62 loses one. It will win that engine out climb performance contest. I am at best a glider, it at least has some forward thrust whichever way you want to slice it

Also with the da-62 and it's fadec barring anything ridiculous it autofeathers! So fancy
 
I prefer the simplicity of single engine.

Running = great! Not running = glider. Running poorly = crappy motor glider, but with symmetric thrust. If the fan quits, pick your spot, manage the energy, don't stall, and you might walk away.
 
denverpilot said:
Well of course, but sometimes the gear doesn't come up and sometimes the prop won't feather. The point of mentioning them was that book values assume the best configuration and someone said the 182 was worse, which simply isn't always true.

As far as glide ratios go, the information given would help figure out wing loading but not necessarily a glide ratio. Which is why I asked the person who'd flown it for the real world numbers.

400 fpm up at 6000' isn't awful with the load he says he had on board, but it does likely mean that at max gross, and a hot day at my 6000' airport, the thing is going down, not up. Just like most twins that size.

If the gear is still hanging out after takeoff it may even go down faster than a 182 with one mill stopped.

Feather quick and you might make it to the same crash site as the 182.
Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it, but at max gross on a hot day at your 6000' airport there are undoubtedly any number of piston singles that won't get off the ground before running out of asphalt.

So what was your point? That light twin airplanes can't do things beyond their performance envelope? Imagine that...;)
 
JustinD said:
Jeez I try to make a joke and everyone turns it into a large scientific discussion!

Without my cowl on and both doors open my 182 is also a falling a brick....we aren't talking about absurd situations cause if we start factoring in everything it's like trying to compare a modded car to a stock one. Bottom line is In cruise if I lose an engine and the da-62 loses one. It will win that engine out climb performance contest. I am at best a glider, it at least has some forward thrust whichever way you want to slice it

Also with the da-62 and it's fadec barring anything ridiculous it autofeathers! So fancy
Click to expand...

But I think you're missing the point. Cruise isn't where you need more power in an underpowered twin. Takeoff is. :)

The most dangerous light twin flying is done from the start of the takeoff roll to whatever altitude you need to return single engine by pushing the remaining engine as hard as it can go to maintain altitude at most any airport above standard ISA atmospheric numbers and above about 4000'.

Unless you offload some weight, the second engine doesn't help much.

Lots of people are lured into thinking that second engine behaves like two on a single. Heck even on a 337 the rear one isn't as efficient.

Your examples of doors open and cowl off isn't a normal takeoff configuration *every* flight like you must plan for in a twin... one going dead and the gear still down.

That's the plan. If you get better, great... but you have to plan for the worst case. You have to fly it like it's going to try to kill you, because it will.

In a single that entails picking a landing spot.

In a twin, you add Vmc rollover to the mix and a horrendous performance hit when one stops turning. You may still need to pick a landing spot.

Here's what Vmc rollover looks like in a Queen Air:


14 dead, 20 injured. The aircraft actually came down on the proverbial elementary school that we all joke about online that the media is always concerned about with single engine off airport landings and crashes.

Only takes a few seconds of inattentiveness or forgetfulness to go splat in a twin. Just let it get too slow on a single engine.
 
GRG55 said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but at max gross on a hot day at your 6000' airport there are undoubtedly any number of piston singles that won't get off the ground before running out of asphalt.

So what was your point? That light twin airplanes can't do things beyond their performance envelope? Imagine that...;)
Click to expand...

Any number? Like which ones? This should be good. A C-150 is fine loaded light and a Skyhawk is usable year round.

And we are talking about a twin with the same engines on it in HP as a slightly overpowered Skyhawk. A twin that is nearly 1000 lbs heavier and has more drag and performance problems on a single engine than a Skyhawk.

The point was that people think light twins add safety and speak of them as if they do, until they go fly them and read the POH.

There's a cross over airport altitude where the single actually does offer more options and performance than a typical light twin on takeoff.

It'll glide better, even with fixed gear, than the twin with gear down, and won't run any risk at all of Vmc rollover on the way to the off airport landing that's inevitable for both aircraft when losing an engine on departure above that critical altitude.
 
I point out I'm talking about cruise and I still get lectured! I know everything you guys are saying I'm just trying to add some humor in! If I believed a twin was better I wouldn't be flying around a single!

What a bunch of pilots you guys are :rolleyes:
 
Dr. O said:
You have been on here long enough you should have learned that no comment goes un-stomped, un-molested, and un-eviscerated by the haters

And I am flying around in a twin
Click to expand...

+1

Occasionally the temptation to poke back at some of the absurdities that get posted here becomes irresistible, LOL

[If I was in my light twin with an engine out, at max gross, on a hot day, with gear that won't retract and a prop that won't feather, I'll admit about then I too would probably prefer to be taxiing around on a 6000' airstrip in a Cessna 150 :D ]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top