What do you think about the DA62?

[FloridaPilot]

I don't know if this has been posted or not but the specs on this plane is pretty impressive:

(No hot starts)
19 Gallons an Hr (Both engines)
190-195 Knots cruise
Engines are Diesel

What do you think? Is Diesel the wave of the future with GA

 

[Zeldman]

Yeah, if they ever are forced to stop making 100LL.

I drive diesel vehicles, so I would be interested in a diesel airplane, if it is feasible and affordable.

 

[asicer]

Nice plane. Wish I could afford it.

 

[RudyP]

I took a demo flight in it a few months ago. I liked it and it would be great if I had a family but it is pretty expensive considering what you can get used at that price point (I know used vs. comparison isn't really fair but you can't buy a used DA62). I I really liked the engine start, runup and overall management. Very easy to fly and good handling characteristics. Not a huge fan of the center stick but I guess one could get used to it. Similarly, it takes real leg muscle to taxi it around - again would get used to that. I also think it's more of a ~180KT cruise speed airplane in typical use (just like my SR22TN can do 220kts but in reality it's more of an honest 200kts airplane unless you like wearing masks and being very careful up at FL250).

 

[CC268]

DA62 is so cool..dream plane..but I will never be able to afford one lol

 

[Grum.Man]

Awesome airplane but for that money you can buy a very nice Baron and lots of gas... That's the case with about any new airplane. A business will buy them for the sake of reliability, interest write off, and depreciation write off and eventually it will be affordable as any other twin on the market.

I think Diesel is the future but for it to take off (no pun intended) they need to price the engines competitively with conventional ones.

 

[Art VanDelay]

I think I could even get a used King Air for what it costs !

 

[edo2000]

I don't know if this has been posted or not but the specs on this plane is pretty impressive:

(No hot starts)
19 Gallons an Hr (Both engines)
190-195 Knots cruise
Engines are Diesel

What do you think? Is Diesel the wave of the future with GA

That is absolutely an impressive airplane. I wish I could afford one. But if I could, I would probably buy something cheaper, used.

I believe Diesel is the definitely the future of GA, the engines are considerably more efficient than pretty much anything else available that can power an aircraft, and can burn Jet A. 100LL is a relatively small/unimportant market to oil/gas suppliers. If it were made illegal, I doubt if the the energy industry would fight the effort. Reliable/good quality supplies of 100LL are not available in many remote areas of the world where aviation is essential and this is getting worse instead of better. 100LL is considered a "dirty" fuel, because of its considerable lead content. Several groups including the U.S. E.P.A. are pushing to change it or eliminate it. At some point in the future, it will surely be gone.

That said, 100LL is integral to GA and probably will remain so for decades.

 

[Shopshirt]

Diesel and ultimately diesel/electric hybrid engines make the most sense for general aviation. The problem is that there will be very few of the existing airframes that will benefit from a diesel powerplant retrofit due to the laborious and costly STC process. For example: If a company could get certification for a diesel engine of similar weight and power output as a direct placement for all Lycoming IO-540 powerplants instead of a diesel engines specific to say the C182Q aircraft. If a company could do that without having to get each airframe certified you might have something. Otherwise aircooled 100LL burning engines will be all we will have available to us and any competition with Lycoming and Continental in the market will be stifled.

 

[hindsight2020]

I don't know if this has been posted or not but the specs on this plane is pretty impressive:

(No hot starts)
19 Gallons an Hr (Both engines)
190-195 Knots cruise
Engines are Diesel

What do you think? Is Diesel the wave of the future with GA

If living vicariously through rich people's youtube channels is the future of GA, then yes. If not, then no. You may belong to the former; I certainly don't. So I'm inclined to side with the rest of the thread responders so far. Da rent is too damn high!

waiting for the "but but but in 50 years when it's depreciated....." in 3....2.....

 

[GRG55]

Diesel and ultimately diesel/electric hybrid engines make the most sense for general aviation. The problem is that there will be very few of the existing airframes that will benefit from a diesel powerplant retrofit due to the laborious and costly STC process. For example: If a company could get certification for a diesel engine of similar weight and power output as a direct placement for all Lycoming IO-540 powerplants instead of a diesel engines specific to say the C182Q aircraft. If a company could do that without having to get each airframe certified you might have something. Otherwise aircooled 100LL burning engines will be all we will have available to us and any competition with Lycoming and Continental in the market will be stifled.

100LL isn't the only fuel getting attention because of emissions.

Diesel automobiles are now under considerable scrutiny after the Volkswagen affair. It's debatable whether these small automotive diesel engines will survive - there's a chance Europe legislates them out of existence and forces the light vehicle industry back to more petrol (gasoline) and new electrics. With the automotive base gone it's debatable if aircraft diesels, with their low production volumes, can be at all economic. The engines in the D62 are derived from the Daimler diesel engine in the Mercedes B-class cars.

 

[deonb]

Diesel automobiles are now under considerable scrutiny after the Volkswagen affair. It's debatable whether these small automotive diesel engines will survive - there's a chance Europe legislates them out of existence and forces the light vehicle industry back to more petrol (gasoline).

They won't. It's easy enough to create a NO2 compliant Diesel engine by using DEF (Urea). VW just tried to cut corners on some models.

Heck my GMC Duramax diesel (with DEF) has 1 tenth of the NO2 emissions of a VW Jetta TDI. So it's doable. AFAIK a DEF dispenser isn't even that expensive - will add < $500 to the cost of the car.

Of course they may still die out because of 'image' issues and bad sales, but they won't be legislated out before gas.

 

[GRG55]

They won't. It's easy enough to create a NO2 compliant Diesel engine by using DEF (Urea). VW just tried to cut corners on some models.

Heck my GMX Duramax diesel (with DEF) has 1 tenth of the NO2 emissions of a VW Jetta TDI. So it's doable. AFAIK a DEF dispenser isn't even that expensive - will add < $500 to the cost of the car.

Of course they may still die out because of 'image' issues and bad sales, but they won't be legislated out before gas.

It's a bit more than hanging a dispenser on a vehicle. The DEF works with a downstream catalyst in the exhaust system. The cost of installing, operating and maintaining those systems on trucks like your Duramax GMC or my Ford F-350 diesel is comparatively small against the purchase and ongoing operating costs for vehicles like ours (or a Mercedes BlueTEC sedan or SUV).

Quite a different matter in those tiny diesel econobox jellybeans that populate European and some Asian nation roads. Given small diesel engines are generally more expensive to manufacture than gasoline engines, the added cost of the DEF system will further cut into the fuel savings difference. When I say they risk being legislated out of existence in small cars I don't mean directly banned; I mean the enforcement of stringent air emissions laws will make the cost of a compliant diesel potentially noncompetitive against the latest generation small highly efficient gasoline engines. It's not just VW that is under scrutiny now, given the revelations this past spring from Mitsubishi, Nissan and Suzuki.

100LL is under pressure to be phased out because of air emissions concerns. I am sceptical automobile derived diesel engines burning Jet A are going to get a pass in that respect.

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

Other than the cost, which is shockingly high, I think it's a fantastic aircraft with very impressive performance. I'd love to own and fly one, and it would be perfectly suited to our mission as well.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Freakin' awesome planes IMO. I'm not a big fan of their other products, but I love the twin. Then again, as someone else said, that kind of money could get you a really nice used twin, and many buckets of petrol. I'll likely never have that kind of cheddar, but I think I'd have a very hard time purchasing one of those when I know I could go pick out a cherry used C310 or Baron, slap in all the glass and goodies I could stand, and still have over half a mil left over for gas.

 

[denverpilot]

What do I think about the DA62?

I don't.

Hey you asked. Hehehe.

 

[FloridaPilot]

I took a demo flight in it a few months ago. I liked it and it would be great if I had a family but it is pretty expensive considering what you can get used at that price point (I know used vs. comparison isn't really fair but you can't buy a used DA62). I I really liked the engine start, runup and overall management. Very easy to fly and good handling characteristics. Not a huge fan of the center stick but I guess one could get used to it. Similarly, it takes real leg muscle to taxi it around - again would get used to that. I also think it's more of a ~180KT cruise speed airplane in typical use (just like my SR22TN can do 220kts but in reality it's more of an honest 200kts airplane unless you like wearing masks and being very careful up at FL250).

When you think about it, The Cirrus brand had those same objections when they first started? The DA62 is around the same price as a new Cirrus SR22 and it seats seven. It's also a TRUE twin. Here is a you tube video of a flight simulated engine failure. With one engine it STILL climbs at 400 feet per minute:

(6:00 into the video)

I think I could even get a used King Air for what it costs !

Everyone is different, but if I had a choice I would go new over used any day.

That is absolutely an impressive airplane. I wish I could afford one. But if I could, I would probably buy something cheaper, used.

I believe Diesel is the definitely the future of GA, the engines are considerably more efficient than pretty much anything else available that can power an aircraft, and can burn Jet A. 100LL is a relatively small/unimportant market to oil/gas suppliers. If it were made illegal, I doubt if the the energy industry would fight the effort. Reliable/good quality supplies of 100LL are not available in many remote areas of the world where aviation is essential and this is getting worse instead of better. 100LL is considered a "dirty" fuel, because of its considerable lead content. Several groups including the U.S. E.P.A. are pushing to change it or eliminate it. At some point in the future, it will surely be gone.

That said, 100LL is integral to GA and probably will remain so for decades.

Especially due to the fact that you can find Diesel even outside of the airport if the FBO doesn't have it and Jet A is everywhere.

Other than the cost, which is shockingly high, I think it's a fantastic aircraft with very impressive performance. I'd love to own and fly one, and it would be perfectly suited to our mission as well.

I was always a single engine kind of guy because I didn't see the value in Twins because some of them can't fly on a single engine so that kind of defeats the purpose of having a twin...no? But this DA62 is VERY impressive. My flight school is going to get one in a few months and I can't wait to fly it.

What do I think about the DA62?

I don't.

Hey you asked. Hehehe.

You should think about it, this new addition could change GA forever!

 

[denverpilot]

You should think about it, this new addition could change GA forever!

An expensive light twin? Doubt it. They're a niche market.

Something that would change aviation forever needs to appeal to the masses.

Not saying it's bad or anything but that airplane is chasing faster personal twins and less fussy training twins. It also doesn't carry enough to become a commerical workhorse.

Not sure what light twin market they were shooting for but they missed three of them.

 

[FloridaPilot]

An expensive light twin? Doubt it. They're a niche market.

Something that would change aviation forever needs to appeal to the masses.

Not saying it's bad or anything but that airplane is chasing faster personal twins and less fussy training twins. It also doesn't carry enough to become a commerical workhorse.

Not sure what light twin market they were shooting for but they missed three of them.

19 Gallons an Hour with both engines are in the single engine category, if you are constantly flying in inhospitable territory a twin engine airplane is the best option. You are right, currently, Twins are a niche market to a certain degree. If twins can perform like singles can, I don't see why they can't expand. a TRUE twin is much safer than a single.

 

[Acrodustertoo]

I logged just over an hour in a da-40 and thought they were great flying, great visibility, great panel, nice controls and good looks to boot.
Having that experience I would imagine that the 62 will be just fine. They sure are lookers.

Does it have a chute? If not then it is an unsafe and scary.

 

[Acrodustertoo]

Does anyone else think that they drew the plans for the 62 after they looked at a cri cri ?

 

[denverpilot]

19 Gallons an Hour with both engines are in the single engine category, if you are constantly flying in inhospitable territory a twin engine airplane is the best option. You are right, currently, Twins are a niche market to a certain degree. If twins can perform like singles can, I don't see why they can't expand. a TRUE twin is much safer than a single.

I haven't looked but I assume it's a typical light twin and won't hold altitude on one up here, since it's not over 6000 lbs.

There's a legal and real difference between light twins and the stuff between 6000 and the 12,500 for a type rating.

It "only" took 1800' of altitude loss for a restart today on the turbo Seminole here after feathering one... And it was 75F out at the surface. And that was with a turbo.

There's twins -- and then there's twins.

 

[deonb]

I haven't looked but I assume it's a typical light twin and won't hold altitude on one up here, since it's not over 6000 lbs.

There's a legal and real difference between light twins and the stuff between 6000 and the 12,500 for a type rating.

It "only" took 1800' of altitude loss for a restart today on the turbo Seminole here after feathering one... And it was 75F out at the surface. And that was with a turbo.

There's twins -- and then there's twins.

The DA62 is supposed to be able to climb OEI to 14'000ft at MTOM (It's rated at 288fpm but all the reviews I've seen shows 400fpm+). I'm not sure how quick the recovery is on the DA62, but on a DA42 it's about 50ft altitude loss on engine out during level flight, so it's probably similar on the DA62.

However, the DA62 isn't really any more capable than an SR22 - certainly not $500k worth, and I'm not sure it's really any safer, statistically speaking. Granted you can probably fly the DA62 over the Atlantic, which is a bit of a heroic effort on an SR22. But that's really it's only extra mission.

My biggest issue with it is, at $1.3m you get into the pressurized cabin price ranges. If you need something that burns Jet A1, you can get a nice Conquest I (or II) and fly it for 1000 hours before the costs even out - and that includes engine reserves. And the Conquest will fly you 70'000 nm further in that time.

 

[yakdriver]

That is one of the ugliest airplanes I have ever seen.

 

[FastEddieB]

That is one of the ugliest airplanes I have ever seen.

 

[GRG55]

An expensive light twin? Doubt it. They're a niche market.

Something that would change aviation forever needs to appeal to the masses.

Not saying it's bad or anything but that airplane is chasing faster personal twins and less fussy training twins. It also doesn't carry enough to become a commerical workhorse.

Not sure what light twin market they were shooting for but they missed three of them.

I am afraid I don't follow. The only other comparable new twins you can buy are the Baron and the Seneca - if you meant cruising speeds the DA-62 isn't "chasing" either of those; according to the book numbers it is ever so slightly slower than the Baron at max cruise, but it's using just a bit more than half the fuel as a Baron to do it.

The DA-62 certainly goes a long way to solving the useful load problem of the DA-42. It has 200 lbs more useful load than the Baron, but a larger and very respectable 1000+ lb full fuel payload since it uses so much less of the liquid stuff. That full fuel payload is comparable to the Aztecs still in commercial/charter service today.

As for "less fussy" training twins, can you name one that has a single lever engine/propeller management system? I would think Diamond is using the smaller DA-42 to target the twin training market in any case.

The DA-62 is a pretty impressive airplane, but the short engine TBO and lack of pressurisation in an airplane that costs well north of $1 million seem to be handicaps to widespread appeal. Then again Cessna/Beech no longer make a pressurised Baron, and they still seem to sell a few new ones every year.

 

[timwinters]

True...but I agree with him. I'm not a fan of any of the wasp tailed, flying sperm designs. Then add to that a t-tail...which I'm not a fan of either and you get this plane.

Truly ugly.

 

[GRG55]

True...but I agree with him. I'm not a fan of any of the wasp tailed, flying sperm designs. Then add to that a t-tail...which I'm not a fan of either and you get this plane.

Truly ugly.

Some of us like blondes, some of us like brunettes. And then there's those red-headed step children...

 

[farmerbrake]

The DA-62 is a pretty impressive airplane, but the short engine TBO and lack of pressurisation in an airplane that costs well north of $1 million seem to be handicaps to widespread appeal. Then again Cessna/Beech no longer make a pressurised Baron, and they still seem to sell a few new ones every year.

I wonder how hard it would be to add pressurization to the airframe? Maybe a future model?
And in regards to the TBO, isn't there the chance the TBO number will increase as more engines are put into service?

 

[CC268]

Wow I was gonna give you guys a free ride in my new DA62 but you guys are so mean!

 

[denverpilot]

Wow I was gonna give you guys a free ride in my new DA62 but you guys are so mean!

LOL. We all know you'd say, "Ass, gas, or grass... Nobody rides for free."

If you bought a million dollar airplane that is...

 

[GRG55]

I wonder how hard it would be to add pressurization to the airframe? Maybe a future model?
And in regards to the TBO, isn't there the chance the TBO number will increase as more engines are put into service?

Modifying an existing airframe to add pressurisation is not trivial. Cessna and Beech both tried it with piston airframes; the former with the 210 and 337 and the latter with the Baron twin. None of them were ever produced in very large numbers. The piston and turbine Piper Malibu seem to have the entry level pressurised market locked up at the moment. Unless one has the Benjis to spring for a TBM, PC-12, Epic, Eclipse or HondaJet.

What Ted is doing with his 414 looks like an interesting way to step up to a pressurised hull while spreading the entry cost over a number of years - but a project like that on an older Cessna twin is not for everyone.

 

[yakdriver]

The performance and handling is outstanding just like all the Diamond aircraft. Buy they are still ugly. Don

 

[James331]

Or you could get a Titian mustang

If you want to play in the FLs you could get a turbine one for less than that diesel.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

That is one of the ugliest airplanes I have ever seen.

That was my first thought too! The DA-20 I used in training was far better looking, but the DA62 is a low bar...

 

[denverpilot]

I am afraid I don't follow. The only other comparable new twins you can buy are the Baron and the Seneca - if you meant cruising speeds the DA-62 isn't "chasing" either of those; according to the book numbers it is ever so slightly slower than the Baron at max cruise, but it's using just a bit more than half the fuel as a Baron to do it.

Chasing the market. As in it costs a LOT more than stuff already in that space.

The DA-62 certainly goes a long way to solving the useful load problem of the DA-42. It has 200 lbs more useful load than the Baron, but a larger and very respectable 1000+ lb full fuel payload since it uses so much less of the liquid stuff. That full fuel payload is comparable to the Aztecs still in commercial/charter service today.

I haven't seen an Aztec carrying passengers in/out of APA in years. There's tons of other stuff in and out all day every day, but not AzTrucks. And certainly not twins that cost $1M in that size/weight range.

As for "less fussy" training twins, can you name one that has a single lever engine/propeller management system? I would think Diamond is using the smaller DA-42 to target the twin training market in any case.

Which was my point. It sucks as a trainer, too expensive and doesn't teach what needs to be taught. So... DOA in that market.

The DA-62 is a pretty impressive airplane, but the short engine TBO and lack of pressurisation in an airplane that costs well north of $1 million seem to be handicaps to widespread appeal. Then again Cessna/Beech no longer make a pressurised Baron, and they still seem to sell a few new ones every year.

It's really not that impressive. It's not going to be a commercial operation success and it'll be owned by a few folks who like the looks for personal travel. Not much else you can do with it.

 

[FloridaPilot]

Chasing the market. As in it costs a LOT more than stuff already in that space.



I haven't seen an Aztec carrying passengers in/out of APA in years. There's tons of other stuff in and out all day every day, but not AzTrucks. And certainly not twins that cost $1M in that size/weight range.



Which was my point. It sucks as a trainer, too expensive and doesn't teach what needs to be taught. So... DOA in that market.



It's really not that impressive. It's not going to be a commercial operation success and it'll be owned by a few folks who like the looks for personal travel. Not much else you can do with it.

Due to the fact you have a crystal ball, can you tell me what the next power ball numbers are? I will buy something nice...I promise.

 

[OkieAviator]

This thing doesn't even have a parachute... throw it in the trash!

 

[denverpilot]

Due to the fact you have a crystal ball, can you tell me what the next power ball numbers are? I will buy something nice...I promise.

I'm just looking at what people are willing to pay to move stuff around and how they want to travel. Only pilots want to be stuffed into a light twin these days. They're expensive to operate for what they haul.

But look around here and see how many folks are announcing that they're going to work for companies flying Aztecs if you don't believe it. A twin joining the market today isn't competing with other light twins.

The cargo and people hauling at the low end is done in turbine singles nowadays. And if it's a twin, it's a much much bigger twin and it's hauling much bigger payloads. Hell, the major UPS cargo feeder around here is flying retired Metroliners from airlines in the 90s. They have littered the ramp with dead ones to pull parts off of.

Its not a small trend that's hard to see. That's what I mean by "commerical success". To spend $1M on the thing to not haul humans in "style" (read: comfortable cabin) or a LOT of cargo, just isn't cost effective. They have to make the numbers work.

And you can still get a lot more airplane that'll haul a lot more stuff still, for $1M. Or a little over $1M with an engine or engines on board that nearly any shop can work on.

I just don't see it filling any of the niche markets for light twins more costs effectively per hour than the stuff currently a sip available and it doesn't haul enough to knock out bigger stuff. That's no crystal ball, that's just economic reality.

What niche do you see it filling and doing better at than what's already flying those routes?

 

[Datadriver]

What do you think? Is Diesel the wave of the future with GA

I would totally tap that if it wasn't for the cost.