Thoughts on the DA 62

[denverpilot]

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

I couldn't tell you were joking, and I've met at least one pilot in person with more money than brains who thought his twin made him safer, who lives here at high altitude and flies to places here in the west.

Was just trying to keep y'all alive to fly another day.

 

[asicer]

...and I've met at least one pilot in person with more money than brains who thought his twin made him safer, who lives here at high altitude and flies to places here in the west.

Ever do a search on DA42 accidents in the NTSB database?

 

[Monpilot]

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.

I may be wrong but the SR22 has a useful load of around 1k lbs meaning four adults can fly for several hours.

Based on the AOPA review of the DA42 the useful load is 600-800 so that's really only 3 adults, akin to the 172.

Am I correct or will the DA42 fit 4 adults for a 3 hour flight?

Unfortunately the DA42's I've seen listed for sale are still in the $400k plus range.

 

[labbadabba]

I may be wrong but the SR22 has a useful load of around 1k lbs meaning four adults can fly for several hours.

Based on the AOPA review of the DA42 the useful load is 600-800 so that's really only 3 adults, akin to the 172.

Am I correct or will the DA42 fit 4 adults for a 3 hour flight?

Unfortunately the DA42's I've seen listed for sale are still in the $400k plus range.

Useful Load in a DA42-NG is nearly 1,300 lbs.

 

[JOhnH]

I think it is a beautiful and practical plane.
The fact that it is expensive is not a "con". It just means you can't afford it.

 

[RudyP]

I think it is a beautiful and practical plane.
The fact that it is expensive is not a "con". It just means you can't afford it.

That's a little presumptuous. In fact, I very well could afford it but I choose not to pay that much for that airplane when I find that there are better options for same or less money on the market.

 

[JOhnH]

That's a little presumptuous. In fact, I very well could afford it but I choose not to pay that much for that airplane when I find that there are better options for same or less money on the market.

Point taken.
But "too expensive" is still a personal observation.

 

[RudyP]

Point taken.
But "too expensive" is still a personal observation.

My whole list was personal observations. Isn't that what the OP was asking for? I'm guessing if all he wanted were hard facts and specs, the manufacturer's website would have done a better job than asking for "thoughts on the DA62" on a bulletin board.

But if it is still bugging you, I will amend to clarify that *I* find it a bit too expensive for what you get but that is my subjective personal opinion and others may find it to be a great value.

 

[gsengle]

The issue is some people want value and others want the best money will buy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JOhnH]

My whole list was personal observations. Isn't that what the OP was asking for? I'm guessing if all he wanted were hard facts and specs, the manufacturer's website would have done a better job than asking for "thoughts on the DA62" on a bulletin board.

But if it is still bugging you, I will amend to clarify that *I* find it a bit too expensive for what you get but that is my subjective personal opinion and others may find it to be a great value.

Sorry. I didn't meant to offend you. But just like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", so is "too expensive".
I agree that your observation that it is too expensive is valid for you, even though I assume you can probably afford it even more than I can.

Any time you buy a depreciable asset, you have to weigh your personal preferences to come up with your own decision. In fact, it is also too expensive for me. In order to buy a DA62 I would have to trade off other things that are more important to me.

 

[denverpilot]

The issue is some people want value and others want the best money will buy.

Those two are the same thing.

Now if you said the most expensive that money can buy, that's different, but it's rarely a good value.

 

[gsengle]

They are not the same thing. The first means the best ratio between cost and benefit. The second means the most benefit regardless of cost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

They are not the same thing. The first means the best ratio between cost and benefit. The second means the most benefit regardless of cost.

Spending more doesn't necessarily increase benefit. That's the fallacy in your definition. It's used by a lot of luxury car salesmen, though. It also ignores lost opportunity cost.

There's a lot of stuff that will fly circles around a DA-62 and leave it hundreds of miles behind very quickly, for less money. If you're going for "benefit" per dollar, it's priced poorly.

 

[Utah-Jay]

Spending more doesn't necessarily increase benefit. That's the fallacy in your definition. It's used by a lot of luxury car salesmen, though. It also ignores lost opportunity cost.

There's a lot of stuff that will fly circles around a DA-62 and leave it hundreds of miles behind very quickly, for less money. If you're going for "benefit" per dollar, it's priced poorly.

Wouldn't that be true of most new airplanes?

 

[denverpilot]

Wouldn't that be true of most new airplanes?

Yes. If the goal isn't "show off and buy new airplane", they're generally a poor value. Same as the new luxury car analogy. You trade a lot of opportunity cost for saying you got a new one in nearly any durable goods purchase.

 

[gsengle]

Spending more doesn't necessarily increase benefit. That's the fallacy in your definition. It's used by a lot of luxury car salesmen, though. It also ignores lost opportunity cost.

There's a lot of stuff that will fly circles around a DA-62 and leave it hundreds of miles behind very quickly, for less money. If you're going for "benefit" per dollar, it's priced poorly.

It's not my definition, it's English. In most things the highest value item is not the "best money can buy". Most luxury items for example add a lot of cost for marginal benefit. That's the way of most things. I suppose occasionally the best value item is also the best at any cost, but rarely...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

It's not my definition, it's English. In most things the highest value item is not the "best money can buy". Most luxury items for example add a lot of cost for marginal benefit. That's the way of most things. I suppose occasionally the best value item is also the best at any cost, but rarely...

"Best money can buy" is slang for "most expensive". The use of the word "best" is marketing-speak. Tortured English at "best".

 

[gsengle]

It does mean the best you can get regardless of what you have to pay. Which is usually way more than you have to pay to get something merely good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cowman]

If a decent used DA-62 in my price range existed it would probably be my first choice or at least in the top 3.

 

[labbadabba]

"Best money can buy" is slang for "most expensive". The use of the word "best" is marketing-speak. Tortured English at "best".

What about bigly?

 

[denverpilot]

If a decent used DA-62 in my price range existed it would probably be my first choice or at least in the top 3.

Somebody has to take the depreciation hit. Buy buy buy!

I thoroughly enjoy purchasing well kept durable goods from folks who think they need the next new shiny. It's how I ended up with everything paid off in my early 40s and spares of everything critical to what I need or want to accomplish, except the airplane.

Maybe I need to shop for a spare one of those airplane thingys too? Nah. Not right now. Doesn't meet any current mission requirements.

But no doubt. Buy that thing. Someone will be happy to buy it off you later at a screaming discount!

 

[PPC1052]

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.

The only person I have ever known that was killed in a plane crash died in an apparent Vmc roll due to an engine issue on take off. Single engine is fine for me. A man's got to know his limitations.

 

[StinkBug]

I notice people here keep making reference to 180hp and comparing it to other light aircraft with 180hp. The fact is though 180hp in a diesel is a lot different than 180hp in a gasoline engine. The numbers may be the same (in HP) but it's still an apples to oranges comparison.

Here's an example if you don't know what I'm talking about. A lot of cars have 300hp these days, it's considered a good amount of power, but not supercar territory anymore. You can find much more in a lot of 4-door luxury cars. Guess what also has 300hp....the race hauler I used to travel in.

The 300hp car is certainly gonna win any race hands down, but it isn't gonna go anywhere, much less across the country at 60,000lbs gross weight.

 

[Rockymountain]

One thing to keep in mind with this bird is the Diamond reputation. They are all the safest small pistons flying by a long shot, this one will be no different. This plane is high tech, roomy, has a nice range payload factor, and like the DA42 will fly nicely on one engine. They are quiet, efficient, and pretty darn reliable. Will have to see how these new Austro engines hold up, but so far they seem to have better reliability than their AV gas cousins.

 

[George Mohr]

I notice people here keep making reference to 180hp and comparing it to other light aircraft with 180hp. The fact is though 180hp in a diesel is a lot different than 180hp in a gasoline engine. The numbers may be the same (in HP) but it's still an apples to oranges comparison.

Here's an example if you don't know what I'm talking about. A lot of cars have 300hp these days, it's considered a good amount of power, but not supercar territory anymore. You can find much more in a lot of 4-door luxury cars. Guess what also has 300hp....the race hauler I used to travel in.
The 300hp car is certainly gonna win any race hands down, but it isn't gonna go anywhere, much less across the country at 60,000lbs gross weight.

Actually, 180 HP is 180 HP no matter what. You are referring to the difference in torque at low RPM vs high RPM, which is obviously super relevant in large trucks. That's why a corvette engine cant pull a semi trailer (actually, with the right gearing, it could. What it could not do would be to get moving from a standing start).

In airplanes though, it doesn't matter what RPM you make your HP at, the prop (CS) or gearing (rotax for example) will ensure you are getting there.

 

[StinkBug]

Well really the difference simply is torque. A 300hp corvette might make in the range of 350lb.ft. of torque, where that semi makes like 1400 or more. That means a lot. There's a reason all the diesel converted 172s are only like 120hp, yet have performance numbers that match the 180hp AvGas planes.

 

[George Mohr]

Well really the difference simply is torque. A 300hp corvette might make in the range of 350lb.ft. of torque, where that semi makes like 1400 or more. That means a lot. There's a reason all the diesel converted 172s are only like 120hp, yet have performance numbers that match the 180hp AvGas planes.

Sorry, but I don't believe this is true. As stated earlier, airplane engines are always running at or near peak torque RPM by design, so HP is the only figure that matters for performance. Remember that HP = (T * RPM) / 5250, so it is mathematically impossible for one engine to have more torque at the same RPM than another engine if the HP is equivalent.

I have no explanation for a 120HP Skyhawk performing like a 180, but I honestly don't know of any such installations. Can you offer an example? The conversions I'm aware of are in the 150HP range, and the boost in real world performance is based on turbonormalization, not from a torque advantage.

Edit: I did some digging and found a Flying mag article about a 135HP Redbird conversion.

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/we-fly-diesel-redhawk

"After a touch-and-go, we climbed in a right-hand pattern to do a full-stop landing. The performance of the RedHawk was clearly affected by the heat and our relatively heavy weight. Still, climb performance seemed a little less than that of a 160 hp Skyhawk."

 

[dell30rb]

I think its a winner.

FADEC and auto-feather is a really big deal. This, coupled with turbocharged engines that produce full power up to the mid-teens means that the airplane should have comparatively excellent single engine performance. I haven't seen the performance charts but I see that Vr is 80kts, Vyse is 87kts and the single engine climb performance at max gross is 288fpm. This, coupled with autofeather tells me there is a very narrow window where you could not fly out of an engine failure on takeoff. Basically as soon as the gear is up you will be at Vyse. On most twins, you are vulnerable for the first several hundred feet as the time it takes to identify, verify and feather an engine is very significant at low altitude.

CAPS loses almost nothing and in some cases is better in an emergency than traditional light twins, due to their lackluster OEI performance and the time it takes to identify and feather an engine.

The DA62 has all of the creature comforts of an SR22 and will do 185ktas on 14.5 gph of cheaper Jet-A. It has a radar in the nose.

One more thing - I know CAPS will bring you down safely on the water but I would not do a long over-water flight in a Single. Cold Water and/or sharks with rescue possibly hours away. A twin would shave an hour off of a Bahamas trip for me

 

[asicer]

Well really the difference simply is torque. A 300hp corvette might make in the range of 350lb.ft. of torque, where that semi makes like 1400 or more. That means a lot.

Theoretically, it doesn't. Torque measured at the engine is meaningless. If you had a CVT with an infinite range, you could produce all the torque you want regardless of what the engine produces, just as long as the engine is producing HP >0.

In practice, it does since such a transmission does not exist and other practical considerations.

There's a reason all the diesel converted 172s are only like 120hp, yet have performance numbers that match the 180hp AvGas planes.

They're in the 135-155hp range, actually. The reason they have such good numbers are the turbo, CS prop and FADEC. A 180hp fixed pitch Skyhawk rarely puts out 180hp.

 

[StinkBug]

Sorry, but I don't believe this is true. As stated earlier, airplane engines are always running at or near peak torque RPM by design, so HP is the only figure that matters for performance.

If this were true your engine would only spin at one RPM, not whatever RPM you set it at. Have you ever flown a plane with a constant speed prop? It seems like you don't know how it works. This would also be even less true for a fixed pitch prop where the RPM is entirely dependent on throttle position.

 

[George Mohr]

If this were true your engine would only spin at one RPM, not whatever RPM you set it at. Have you ever flown a plane with a constant speed prop? It seems like you don't know how it works. This would also be even less true for a fixed pitch prop where the RPM is entirely dependent on throttle position.

Ok, if you are interested in learning a bit more about this topic, check out the below links. The first one is car focused, but is a great overview. The second is airplane focused.

https://danielmiessler.com/study/horsepower/#gs.38dwds8
http://www.121five.com/admin/FeatureArticles/torque_v_hp_1b.pdf

A thought experiment. If torque is the only thing that maters, how does a 100HP rotax with 92 ft-lbs torque comare favorably with an O-200 with about the same HP but about 200 ft-lbs of torque? (hint: gearbox).

 

[Marky_24]

I'm guessing part of the advantage is the torque multiplication from the gear reduction from the engine to the propeller . Its almost a 30% reduction from 3880 to 2300 on the da62

 

[dell30rb]

I couldn't tell you were joking, and I've met at least one pilot in person with more money than brains who thought his twin made him safer, who lives here at high altitude and flies to places here in the west.

Was just trying to keep y'all alive to fly another day.

What about a Turbo Baron?

 

[coloradobluesky]

You need torque for acceleration.
You need horsepower for speed.

 

[mulligan]

I plan on ordering one based on the following three conditions. # 1 - Sell my plane which may not be easy in this market. # 2 - Pass my multi add on in the DA42 which is being scheduled now prior to 1/1/2017. # 3 - Find a hangar big enough to handle it in BTR which seems to be the biggest challenge.

I have done some research and only 11 have been registered in the US. I really like this plane and it fits my mission with the most cabin room. I know it will be a huge loss buying a new plane like this but with the safety record, room, load, distance, and ease of flying make it a perfect option for me!! Then again, if a baron G58 shows up that I can pass on, may swing that way too!

 

[Rockymountain]

I plan on ordering one based on the following three conditions. # 1 - Sell my plane which may not be easy in this market. # 2 - Pass my multi add on in the DA42 which is being scheduled now prior to 1/1/2017. # 3 - Find a hangar big enough to handle it in BTR which seems to be the biggest challenge.

I have done some research and only 11 have been registered in the US. I really like this plane and it fits my mission with the most cabin room. I know it will be a huge loss buying a new plane like this but with the safety record, room, load, distance, and ease of flying make it a perfect option for me!! Then again, if a baron G58 shows up that I can pass on, may swing that way too!

One plane to consider if you want to spend that much money is an M350 or a G1000 Mirage. The same money gets you the M350 though. Gain a lot with the M350. Full passive and active ESP, radar standard, better and more redundant G1000 implementation, AC standard, faster, flies higher, flies farther, pressurized, more weather capability. Probably more service centers, would have to check on that. I have been eying the DA62 as a second plane, but would still want something a little more weather capable, when the weather stinks.

 

[mulligan]

One plane to consider if you want to spend that much money is an M350 or a G1000 Mirage. The same money gets you the M350 though. Gain a lot with the M350. Full passive and active ESP, radar standard, better and more redundant G1000 implementation, AC standard, faster, flies higher, flies farther, pressurized, more weather capability. Probably more service centers, would have to check on that. I have been eying the DA62 as a second plane, but would still want something a little more weather capable, when the weather stinks.

For the same price I'd take the extra engine. He reason for this preference is my 2nd most frequent would take me off shore and I just don't feel comfortable going 100 miles off shore without a capable plane. It will be KBTR to KFLL to that puts me in the twin category unfortunately. Otherwise I'd probably just get a cirrus for speed and fuel burn.

 

[sferguson524]

For the same price I'd take the extra engine. He reason for this preference is my 2nd most frequent would take me off shore and I just don't feel comfortable going 100 miles off shore without a capable plane. It will be KBTR to KFLL to that puts me in the twin category unfortunately. Otherwise I'd probably just get a cirrus for speed and fuel burn.

Even with the reliability of a single turboprop you'd still go twin?

 

[Rockymountain]

For the same price I'd take the extra engine. He reason for this preference is my 2nd most frequent would take me off shore and I just don't feel comfortable going 100 miles off shore without a capable plane. It will be KBTR to KFLL to that puts me in the twin category unfortunately. Otherwise I'd probably just get a cirrus for speed and fuel burn.

Seems like reasonable reasoning except that in the Mirage if you put Cross City (CTY) in your flight plan, you will always be in glide range to an airport in the Mirage (I have flown that route into Southern FL many times). From 25,000 feet you have 75 nm of no wind glide with a stopped prop. You would be looking at 3hr 23 minutes KBTR To KFLL in the Mirage with only 10 knots on the tail today and 4 hrs even direct in the DA62 at normal cruise with the 9 knots on the nose right now. So you are taking the risk of flying over water, and getting there 37 minutes later in the DA62 ;-)

 

[mulligan]

Even with the reliability of a single turboprop you'd still go twin?

Purchase price and operation costs considered so I guess yes.