SR22T vs DA42-VI vs DA62 for regular European business flying

We have several great threads here on the topic of flying on business. I suggest using the Search box.

I’ve done a certain amount of it.

Much depends on whether you are visiting customers or suppliers. The former (formal customer visits) is far more critical/complicated than the latter. In Europe, things are rather more “socialist” and one generally needs to conceal this method of travel from customers. In the US, or in Europe if visiting high net worth individuals, it is acceptable. Deliveries to a customer’s Good Inwards door (where you got a taxi to his factory) are fine too.

Anything with a turbine. Old Jetprop or TBM.

Peter wrote:

In Europe, one generally needs to conceal this method of travel from customers.

…unless your business is in the aviation field, or in anything involving emergency interventions. And when it’s emergency interventions on aircraft, this method of travel is actually needed.

Going back to the original question, I’d say a 30-year-old PC-12 may be better for this kind of missions than a brand new SR22T.

9A_Flyer wrote:

That limitation is part of the decision. The price of choosing the simpler aircraft is not accepting greater operational risk; it is accepting a significantly lower dispatch rate.

I don’t think that’s a realistic view. Safety is all about margins. A more capable aircraft will create larger margins. You never know when you actually need those margins, which is essentially why you need them. In essence you have already accepted smaller margins for lesser operational cost, period. We all do this, because we fly for fun (most of us). We fly the planes we fly because we accept the risk. That risk is way beyond anything found in commercial aviation.

Besides, low dispatch rate grows old very quick, just a warning Anyway, having said all that, just go for it. It looks like the only realistic alternative is a DA42 or perhaps 62. Regarding dispatch rate and regularity, the only way to truly find out is to try anyway. Better to try and be wrong, than to not try and regret it ever after. It’s a cool opportunity, take it before anyone changes their minds

10 year old Piper Meridian with G1000

Should fit within the budget. Not that expensive to maintain. Easy to fly. Fuel capacity/weights suitable for relatively short missions.
Pressurised, so you can go to FL100+ without putting your business colleagues on oxygen cannulas.

Thanks for your reply @9A_Flyer. This is a different ballgame then.

So disregarding the pilot question, I would think there are several things to muse about regarding the airplane type.

The SR22 has the distinct advantage of the shute, which will not help when flown into mountains (CFIT) but it will for just about anything else. But if you are thinking about an SR22, then you might also have a look at the possibility of one of the 1st generation Vision Jets, they are now also coming down quite a bit in price and they offer a lot more capability just about for distances as the ones you will want to do and they are also pressurized, which imho is a big bonus. They also feature the shute.

Other than those, I agree with some posters here that an older turbine such as a TBM700, PC12, Jetprop or similar might be possible.

Light twins on the other hand in my opinion have nothing to do on such an operation into places like Ohrid in anything but VMC. The same goes for SEP’s without a shute. SET’s may be considered a managable risk as their failure rate is low, but again, in such territory and if alpine crossings are regularly required, my comfort level starts at a Piper Cheyenne or Cessna Conquest or best a jet.

I am well aware of operating costs, but in the end, safety is more important. IMHO anything below this level should be seen as a nice hobby but NOT as anything professional. I have a friend who operates a Cessna Citation 1 SP out of a Swiss airport to do exactly what you intend to do, visiting his 3 production sites in Italy on a regular basis. Those planes can be found for very few money these days, in great condition and have eveything a serious business operation requires: 2 engines, adequate FIKI protection, plenty of performance and decent speed. They are also quite ideal of giving you very valuable right seat experience for your future and can, with a qualified pilot, also be flown single pilot.

Something like this for instance within your budget and very nicely upgraded:

https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=63281

However, I’ve also seen such planes for sale in reasonable operating conditions down to 3-400k Euros, actually there was one in Slovenia for a while which has now disappeared.

This is one in Germany which is classic, imho 2 pilot airplane even though legally allowed to fly with one, which may help in your situation.

https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=62932

With this asking price you remain with a lot of money for operating from your original budget.

I would really consider upscaling this operation for safety. Your company would not be the first decapitated by an operation like this where inadequate airplanes were used in ways they were not intended for.

A few questions also worth considering is whether, outside of company business travel, you will want to do things like air taxi or anything that will qualify as commercial air transport? If so know that in Europe single engine non-turbine IFR in IMC (maybe also in VMC?) is verboten. You need either a twin or a turbine. For business travel this doesn’t apply though if no passengers or cargo are carried in exchange for remuneration. However contracts like eg “If you buy this service for us in exchange we will fly you to our office whenever needed” could potentially be seen as commercial air transport and could get the company in hot water if not an AOC (in which case a twin would be better as you can go IFR).

I agree with those who said that you probably don’t need a turbo. Turbos are IMO a reliability risk and not worth it unless you need it. If going for the Cirrus I would probably do a SR22 (without the T).

Otherwise I would say:

• Reliability: More can go wrong on a twin with a gearbox, two engines, lots of sophisticated systems etc, so you may be more likely to be grounded with a DA62 than a Cirrus
• Safety: If an engine were to fail and you are in IMC, would you rather have a second engine or CAPS? If you can’t see where you’re going to go down and you’re over mountains maybe a second engine would be better, provided you keep up the skill. DA42 and 62 are AFAIK known to be fairly forgiving in single engine operations
• DA62 can carry more people than either SR22 or DA42, how many are you going to carry?
• You’ll probably have more options for maintenance with a Cirrus than a Diamond

TLDR: I think SR22 is more probably reliable in terms of dispatch rate but Diamonds are probably safer if things were to go wrong in mountainous IFR or night flying

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I am well aware of operating costs, but in the end, safety is more important.

What usually happens is starting in marginal but OK conditions. Things deteriorate at some point, and the plane barely makes it to land at some arbitrary airport while everyone on board (passengers) are scared to death during many many minutes. That’s the true face of poor dispatch rate Some people like this kind of things, but they are usually not in the passenger group. Most passengers will say never again.

I read some time ago about Widerøe and their experience in flying in all kinds of weather here. They use dash 8, several variants, but in particular the -100 series for short fields along the coast. These -100 machines are getting old, and they were looking for alternatives. This appears to be sorted out now because De Havilland can refurbish some of them and are most probably starting to build new ones. Anyway, according to them there are two things necessary for safe flight, and that is a turbine and pressurized fuselage. The pressurized fuselage is more important than the second engine. The Dash 8 has 2 engines of course, and if everything go according to plan, there will be Dash 8 -100 series flying here for the foreseeable future It’s already 40 years old, and will fly for at least the next 40 years.

At the risk of being unhelpful – re-run the thought exercise without yourself in the picture to remove any confirmation bias.

If you weren’t the pilot in this situation… would you accept being flown in an aircraft operated by your non-AOC employer, in winter IMC, being single piloted by a someone with <200 hours, who finished their ATPL and IR a month prior?

Have you enquired about insurance yet? They will likely hold the cards on what you are allowed to operate.