Diamond DA62

@Dave,
do you know how big the power loss is with the aircon running? Does the DA-62 manual say something about that?

A link to the manuals. http://support.diamond-air.at/da62_afm_supp+M52087573ab0.html

Air-con – Performance in general terms is reduced by 6% (the AFM gives more detail). We don’t think speed loss in the cruise is as bad as the 10kts quoted.

Interesting, thank you for the link.

Good link, David, and very honourable of Diamond to put all that online.

However, where would one find the aircon parts? I went to what looks like the DA62 IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalogue) in the standard tradition of looking for parts but can’t make it work…

Would one use aircon in the cruise much? Maybe in your work (navaid calibration), low level, you will.

From here

I really enjoyed this write up.

Flyingfish wrote:

Another interesting comparison is a fully refurbished and upgraded Extra 400 vs a new Diamond DA62.
The pressurized Extra will cost half the investment and beat the Diamond in every category except for the autopilot where the Extra really is outclassed.

I can think of a few more points for the DA62 :)

• Fuel burn: The DA62 will do 185 kts burning 17 gallons / hr of Jet A1. If you slow things down to 160kts fuel burn drops to just 12 gallons!
• The Jet A1 thing is great for fuel availability outside of Europe / America
• Take off / landing distance: I’ve comfortably operated out of 600m with full tanks and passengers
• The safety of two engines when flying over the sea / mountains
• Storage in the noise (up to 60kg)
• Insanely good useful load
• And then of course maintenance and manufacturer support (which you mentioned). There have already been 80+ DA62 built and it shares a engine type with the DA42 and DA40 of which there are hundreds.
• Avionics: autopilot (as above), ESP, radar, etc, etc

The DA62 will do 185 kts burning 17 gallons / hr of Jet A1

Real world numbers? At which altitude is this?

Take off / landing distance: I’ve comfortably operated out of 600m with full tanks and passengers

Impressive. With how much margin?
How does it do on grass? How big are the tyres?

Insanely good useful load

Only if you go above 2000kgs, which, if done legally, costs quite some money in terms of landing fees, airway fees and possibly insurance.

boscomantico wrote:

Real world numbers? At which altitude is this?

Here are some pics I took over the Med. FL145 doing 177kts burning only 14.4 (7.2 per side).

boscomantico wrote:

How does it do on grass? How big are the tyres?

Very well. The gear is very a sturdy trailing link design and the tires are pretty big, 6.00–6. boscomantico wrote:

Impressive. With how much margin?

A lot of margin on the ground roll but if you’re clearing obstacles you’ll need some more space… 800 metres is very comfortable with plenty of margin and obstacle clearance.

Thanks.

But citing cruise performance at oxygen levels in an unpressrized aircraft is a bit tendential. Nobody likes cannulas/masks.
FL100 is a decent altitude to compare speeds at. I guess the speed would be 170ish at FL100 at the same fuel flow. Still not bad. The SR22, when doing 170 knots, burns 13 GPH (of more more expensive and less available) avgas at FL100.

I don’t think 6.00/6 is “big enough” for a 2-ton/2.3 ton aircraft.

What I still don’t understand is how a 2/2.3 ton aircraft with 2×180 hp can be a good performer in the takeoff and climb department. I mean, a Piper Seminole also has 2×180 hp and weighs 1.7 tons at MTOW and is not an exceptional performer… a Seneca, which has the same MTOW has 2×220hp….

What is the max range of this thing?

I understand the weight would have been prohibitive, but it would have been a real game changer if they’d made it pressurized. Wouldn’t even have to be by that much, maybe just 3-4psi diff. Would have made it a 20000ft plane tourer, which is a nice altitude to be at. Too bad, but perhaps in the future.

Range – I’ve flown one direct from Faro to Bournemouth and could have continued to Birmingham, still landing with 45 mins reserve. In reality, you’ve got about 5:30 flight time before you need to worry about eating into reserves. That said, I’ve done 8:10 on one sortie, albeit hanging back at 42-45% power.

Speed – realistically a TAS of about 175 at non-O2 levels.

Altitude – we regularly cruise in the FL160-180 territory. The O2 system is good as long as you don’t mind a tube up your nose.

Take-off – no problems at all. Unlike the 42 you takeoff with flap. The U/C is very forgiving on grass but we feel that the main doors are a bit close to the ground.

Single-engine – nope, it’s not brilliant but are many MEPs? In ISA conditions you’ll be OK but I did one (training) with an OAT of 45 Celsius at 1500ft AMSL and it required significant concentration. Blue line seems a bit slow with an unusual wallowing sensation. We tend to add 5kts and it feels much better with little penalty.

I’m actually typing this on my way to LOAN to collect our fourth airframe; lookout for G-MDME on Wednesday/Thursday.