TBR of the 2.0S is 1200hrs
That’s the major problem with 2.0S and whole upgrade package. TBR of 1500hrs would make it much more interesting. As per info I got from Mr. Crosby, Continental works on it.
I think the DA42 with Thielert 2.0 (1.7 have basically disappeared) is severely underpowered on takeoff. That is the biggest issue of the aircraft so the 2.0S is the right fix for this aircraft. If you look at a twin as a safer platform (it can’t be speed because there the DA42 isn’t great considering HP/cabin size), then the single engine climb performance makes it a joke. Hence the DA42’s fate as a trainer mostly.
You are a little too negative on the DA42 2.0 single-engine performance, Achim.
True, it is not stellar, like most (all?) MEPs. But it has been certified, so it must meet the minimum requirements.
At MTOM, you’ll get a 200 ft/min climb under typical circumstances. It will scare the Vicar, but will be enough to miss his church tower and return to the field. Plus it is pretty docile on one engine given the relatively short distance between the engine thrust line and the aircraft centreline. And feathering is nothing more than throwing a switch.
I think the risk of an engine failure in a twin is overblown. Obviously, any twin pilot who takes flying seriously is spring-loaded and well trained for such a failure, particularly when it matters most: just after rotation while the gear is still down. This window of danger just lasts 5 seconds or so, and even less if you rotate at a somewhat higher speed, retract the gear quickly and deliberately keep the nose a little low to build up some speed margin.
It will scare the Vicar, but will be enough to miss his church tower and return to the field.
It doesn’t seem to be so easy as you make it appear. The DA42 owned by someone I know crashed with fatalities when one engine failed sometime after takeoff (not him in the plane)…
Of course that accident can happen but obviously it happens to occasional twin flyers more often than to regular ones. During my twin training (Seneca) we did a lot of OEI scenarios including on runway and immediately after takeoff and I find DA42 much easier to handle.
I fly both the DA42 and PA31-350. I would prefer an engine failure in the DA42.
Class B aircraft only have to demonstrate OEI positive climb gradient after an EFATO above 400 feet. Typically the gear retraction cycle is over 10 seconds, and in some types with only one hydraulic pump, could be much longer, after engine failure.
The USA requirement for satisfying ASDA limitations strikes me as a sensible policy, not sure why it is only an airmanship point in the EU. While I have come across some take off briefs in EU which incorporate a decision speed concept for multi pistons, in the USA typical briefs focus on using remaining runway to re land and shut down, even if it implies an over run – unless you are comfortably at blue line (Vyse), gear retracted and well above fence height. Because of the requirement to satisfy accelerate stop, in the USA you should have a decent amount of remaining runway.
The NTOFP (net take off flight path) calculation for IFR also implies the option to manoeuvre to a forced landing with second segment (OEI) positive climb requirement only occurring upon entering the cloud base.
In short, outside of some MEP Acme flying schools that might create an impression that your twin engined puddle jumper is a Class A aircraft with a V1 decision speed, the period from achieving Vmc on the take off run, to say 400 feet AGL, gear retracted and climbing comfortably at Vy (some MEP have quite low Vx) is one of the more dangerous phases of flight in general aviation.
Just read the Flying review of the DA62. Looks like a nice modern twin. With good range, efficient engines and and useful load. 200knots on 19gph and possible 7 (ie prob 5+2) seats.
I saw the DA62 serval times. It’s looks like a great aircraft but:
I’m going to try it with a friend in a few month, well see…
Romain
Other than the lyco- and contisauruses, the Diesels reasonably cruise at such high power settings. I don’t know what it does to maintenance costs, but the severe fuel flow penalties and thermal problems of the air-cooled gasoline engines do not apply here.
But I agree – the Diamond airframes are still let down a bit by engines that are too small and have poor altitude performance. The old AE300 would definitely not make 92% at FL180 (critical altitude is around FL100, IIRC), so the AE330 seems to be an improvement in this regard.
Can I have these engines packaged in a DA42 instead, please?
