If I had the money I think I would consider getting the DA42 for private travel. It would have to be a later version, perhaps the -VI to get all the enhancements but even with less funds I would buy an earlier model over a single piston. It's a very capable aircraft with most of the gadgets I would want/require for year round IFR. TKS, big screens, dual systems etc. What could possibly be better?
the SR22 is a good package, with its powerful engine. I recall when there was an informal poll in the TB owners' group about what people would like to see in a new version of the TB20/21, a lot of people asked for 300HP.
Indeed, the SR22 is a great aircraft.
Interestingly, when people on the (excellent) Cirrus owner website discuss what they'd really like to see as an option in a future SR22, one of the top options are always "diesel engine".
In fact, the "missing" model number "SR21" was originally supposed to be Cirrus' diesel powered version. But it never went into production due to lack of a suitable powerplant.
I am sure most DA42s sold thus far in Europe have gone to FTOs for ME training.
What I do know is, that a sizable number of private DA42 owners are island-based and/or located in regions surrounded by inhospitable terrain/few alternate airports.
I've only flown one once, and it was a bumpy ride with that big wing. I also am not personally very keen on the stick, but that's just my preference. I do like the rest of it though - the panel is great and so is the visibility.
But what I do remember impressing me was how it flew non stop from St John's in Canada to Porto in Portugal at 45% power on its way back from Oshkosh. 12hrs aloft. I'm assuming it had a ferry tank, but it's not impossible it could be done with the aux extra big tanks and some clever planning. That's where a slower plane always wins - if it has great range. One of the upgrades I'm doing myself soon is to add an aux fuel tank to the Aerostar. It goes in the baggage compartment and adds another 44gal. That will take the total up to about 210gals, which is good for almost 1700nm at 200kts, or up to 1900nm at 180kts. That means anywhere in the continental US with a maximum of 1 stop. Or if one ever wanted to fly to Europe, one could bypass Greenland or Iceland entirely, if one wasn't afraid of big expanses of water. I like the idea of this, even though I might never use it.
Adam, the DA42 with the optional aux tanks (most aircraft has this fitted) gives 76USG of useable fuel. At 60% and 10 000ft you will get 137KTAS with a fuel burn just shy of 9USG/hr – let’s say 8hrs endurance. 45% would reduce fuel burn to 6.5USG, about 120KTAS and 12hrs endurance.
I have circa 150 hrs behind a 2.0 Thielert DA42, from my ME IR training.
I enjoyed flying it, and SE performance was good. Once you got he rudder trim in, landing OEI was pretty benign.
I did not like the canopy. When it rains you really are screwed either before or after the flight, but it is very strong. We had one recently crash here in Bangkok due to fuel starvation, and it flipped over onto its back after a forced landing in a rice paddy. Both occupants walked away, and the cockpit integrity was intact.
My Tecnam is joystick as well, so I found transitioning to the DA42 a non event, as is switching between a yoke and joystick. Given sufficient hours and familiarity, it becomes second nature.
Surprisingly I found the G1000 clumsy to operate (no keyboard) compared to the GNS series. The deep menu set up on the G1000 is not intuitive IMHO, or that was certainly the case with the version I was using.
I also found it limiting that after market mods on the DA42 are very difficult especially any involving holes to the airframe. Basically if you do not order it new, it s very difficult to do any retro fitting.
I think this will limit the longevity of this generation of airframe, and it is not in Diamonds interest to help extend the life of their products either, when they need to rely on new sales.
How many legacy airframes have been given new life with avionics or engine upgrades?
I almost bought one after my training, but I am very happy now that I did not. I think my mission requirements would have out grown it in a short period of time.
E
The new version DA42-VI really has an impressive performance. If I see the advertized figure of 174 KTAS/10.4GPH/1215 NM range w 45 mins reserve @60% power, then I’d have to say this is extremely attractive for a diesel driven twin. Basically the consumption of a Mooney M20J (which of course uses Avgas) at similar speeds and range. But for a Twin. Add to that the very impressive Single Engine Service Ceiling of 18000 ft and I’d have to say they sold me on a lot of factors. Negative points would be the full fuel payload of around 250 kg and the stick controls.
The DA42NG figures were not that good, let alone the early Thielert DA42. 140 kts was the realistic speed on the early ones, 150 for the NG, albeit at very respectable consumptions. These figures made the early aircraft perfect trainers, the VI really now has the potential of a good traveller.
I find the comparison to the Cirrus interesting. Yes, probably you need about the same inital funds to buy a new one. And I’d have to search my soul to wonder what would I do if I had the funds to buy a €600k airplane AND had decided it should be a new one. (As with 600 k, I’d be hard pushed to buy an equally interesting used plane and use the remaining funds flying it :) )
So I’d get a twin with 1200 NM range and 170 kts which can basically operate all over the world with Jet A1. Or I’d get an Avgas Single with a parashute, which is slightly faster.
I have never flown any Diamond product, but from the figures, I’d be hard pressed not to go for the DA42-VI. For me the lure of finally putting the Avgas problem behind me AND having a twin redundance as well would be the overpowering reasoning.
Having said that, would I go for an older DA42, the answer would be maybe with the NG, hardly with the original. The NG delivers pretty much the performance my old M20C has with equal fuel flow (of course again with Jet A1) and has around 1100 NM range.
I know two private operators of the DA42 (both originals) and they love their airplanes. Both of them went to the DA42 from singles and say the operating costs were approximately equal, but with Twin redundancy. One of them told me he had been looking at the PA30 originally to get the twin he wanted and the range, but had to say that with the DA42 he got almost the same but with a new and contemporary plane which also had considerably better ramp appeal to his passengers.
Ramp appeal: I drive past two of them every day almost and next to them are a Mooney and some SR22’s parked. From a passenger point of view, the DA42 overpowers the singles easily. It is big, looks futuristic and new. Passengers love big, for them size is confidence. Many travel on GA planes reluctantly and with some fear. And in such a case, what would give you in their place more confidence? A security briefing on a parashute (Oh my God they EXPECT these things to crash?) or the explanation upon request that the DA42 can continue up to it’s maximum operating height with one engine out?
Again, for myself this will never be an issue as I will never have the cash to buy neither a Cirrus nor a DA42, but from where I am sitting, if I did, the twin would win anytime.
On the subject of the salses argument the parashute has, one has to watch in a different direction. When the Cirrus came out with this feature, it basically was competing against the Columbia and the Mooney Ovation/Acclaim. I dare say that if especcially Columbia would have offered a CAPS system, they would probably have done equally well as Cirrus. For Mooney it would have been difficult to do so but again, the psychological factor of that shute is overpowering for most buyers. Be it because all of us have a residual fear of the consequences of that single engine stopping, be it that this fear is VERY real with most significant others and other passengers, who are supposed to fly with you. I have seen this reaction with many people. Oh, it has a parashute? Great, go for it. I’d say, with that decision, Cirrus has basically won over the single engine market to a very large extent and has made it next to impossible to sell any other make not offering this feature.
Interesting points of view!
I will (probably) never have the 600 K to buy a new airplane like that, and if I do I will probably spend it on something else – but: I bought my SR22 (800 h TT, all options inc. A/C, EGPSW, Skywatch, Stormscope, O2, DFC90 autopilot, charts, leather, … really everything they offer) for 215 K (Euro)
That’s 100 K less than 1/3 of what it costs now.
If I had wanted to spend 500 or 600 or even 700 K – then I would have bought 1/2 of a Meridian or JetProp, but not a DA42.
By the way: I really don’t like the DA42 much, but what I like BEST is the Stick! To me that’s the only real way to control an airplane. All the yokes were only invented to make flying popular among drivers back then. But once you’re used to a stick, you never want to go back. I admit it seems a little bit “odd” in a hightech plane though :-)
And, yes, the endurance and range are great. Especially if you like to go to places like Greece…
Sorry to interrupt this topic, but check the ad on the homepage of Diamond Aircraft [here](http://www.diamond-air.at/)
> I know two private operators of the DA42 (both originals) and they love their airplanes.
Sure, I love mine as well.
A few things I’ve come to realise about aircraft ownership…
- New vs used
- Glass vs steam
- Integrated glass vs individual glass
- Twin vs single
- Modern design vs spamcan
- 2 seats vs 6 seats
- Oxygen vs pressure cabin
- Yoke vs stick
- Range vs speed
- TKS vs boots vs no-deice
- Turbo vs NA
- Chute vs hail Mary
- Piston vs turbine vs glider
- Diesel vs avgas vs mogas
- Kit vs certified
It’s all just personal opinions, really. We’re incredibly subjective about our own aircraft.
People have very individual taste, mission & budgets. There’s no such thing as the “best” airplane or “value”, or the “right” decision.
Fortunately most people end up with the aircraft they like & suits them best.
Personally, I picked a plane that fulfills my mission and, well,…inspires me to fly it.
Reading about Adam’s excellent Aerostar adventures, I suspect he picked his Aerostar for exactly the same reasons.
So all these objective comparisons are a bit silly, really. 
Officer, we’ve discussed the Diamond ad already.
(If I were Cirrus I’d ask them if they trust their design so much that they need a second engine)
“Some engines are so reliable you better install a second one” ;-)
){kind=link}