Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Some info on the DA42

This Q came up on another thread here.

A while ago, this text came from Diamond, who have today cleared it for distribution, while pointing out that the prices may be a bit out of date:

There are 3 different versions of the DA42 on the market, all with turbo diesel engines and powered by JET A1 fuel:

1) DA42 with Thielert 1.7 135hp engine. This was the first released engine from Thielert and there were some teething problems and unreliability associated with these engines, but it has mostly been sorted out and with proper maintenance we now have good reliability. The engine has a life of 1000 hours, but most only make it to 900 hours before it is more economically viable to replace the engines with either of the two options listed below. Conversion to the Centurion 2.0 can be done by Diamond UK and certain other service centers, but the AUSTRO conversion can only be carried out at the Diamond factory in Austria. We offer fixed prices for the scheduled maintenance costs for the DA42 and the basic cost are the same for all 3 versions, except that the Thielert/Centurion LEP (Life Extension Parts) cost has to be added. Bear in mind that you get the core cost back, and most customers use the inspected instead of new LEP parts. We cannot see any difference in reliability between new and inspected parts.

2) DA42 with Thielert Centurion 2.0 135hp engine. With this engine we have very good reliability, but higher maintenance costs than point 3 below, due to the requirement to overhaul certain parts (called LEP parts for Life Extension Parts). These so called LEP parts can only be obtained from Centurion engines either as new or inspected parts. We have not seen any difference in reliability between the new and inspected parts, and most owners go for the inspected parts. The 2.0 engine has a life of 1500 hours and a new engine cost about £30,000 + VAT each installed. Upgrade from 1.7 to 2.0 cost approximately £72,000+VAT

3) DA42NG with Austro AE300 168hp engine. This engine has now been installed in the DA42NG in production since the summer of 2009 and in several converted older DA42’s. A very reliable engine, heavier and more powerful than the Thielert/Centurion engines. This engine has no costed LEP parts and can be overhauled. At the moment EASA require overhaul every 1200 hours and this is expected to be increased in steps as from spring 2013 first to 1500 hours and then to 2000 hours. Cost of overhaul at 1200 hours is EURO 15,000+VAT. There are no used DA42NG’s on the market at the moment with the exception of the odd ex demonstration aircraft. Lead time for a new aircraft is at the moment 5 months.

Here are some typical questions and answers:

Ownership costs new v second hand

Your financial costs (depreciation and finance costs) will be higher for a new aircraft than for a used one. There are cheap DA42’s with the older 1.7 engines available on the market, but the market value is reflecting the cost of upgrading the engines. On a new aircraft you get 2 years warranty/1000 hours whichever comes first, so there are only the scheduled maintenance and wear items like tyres and brakes to pay during the first 2 years of operation.

Fuel burn/range

The fuel burn at 75% power is 20 liters per engine per hour for the DA42 (150KTAS @FL100) and 23 liters per engine per hour for the DA42NG 161KTAS @FL100). There is a standard fuel tank with 190 liters usable and an optional auxiliary tank with further 99 liters available so typical endurance for the DA42 at that power setting is 4:45 to dry tanks with standard tanks and 7:10 with aux tanks. For the DA42NG it is 4 hours and 6 hours respectively, however the NG is faster, and if you throttle back to the same speed as the DA42 you get slightly better endurance/range out of the DA42NG. The official range for the DA42NG is 614NM and 950NM respectively at 75% without reserve.

Maintenance program and Check costs

Diamond UK offer fixed prices for scheduled inspections and our price list is attached. Wear items like tyres and brakes not included. There is no 50 hour inspection on the DA42/DA42NG. I do not know what other service centers charge.

Engine and prop TBO and costs

For engine TBO and TBR and costs, see above. Propeller TBO is 2000 hours or 6 years and cost is depending on condition, but typically EURO 5,000

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Hi all, have been lurking for a while on this site, and was impressed by the meaningful contributions. Being a DA42 owner just wanted to confirm that above post contains accurate information. Note that it is a bit out of date in that Diamond has meanwhile launched its DA42 VI. That is essentially a DA42NG with quite a few aerodynamic improvements plus a new prop. Speeds (at FL180 and at MCP, 92%) 190 knots or so. So I am stuck with a 2.0 litre Thielert.. Ah well, can't have it all.. Seriously, quite happy with the airplane, as I personally do not see speed as the most important characteristic of a plane.

Private field, Mallorca, Spain

I have always been "looking" at a DA42, but even now consider the engines unproven long-term.

Diamond had an opportunity to revolutionise the twin market, but Mr Thielert's stupid antics and the resulting pressure on Diamond to shift airframes to stop themselves going bust as well set everything back a decade.

Otherwise, the DA42 is a nice plane. I've flown in one a few times. It flies very similarly to a TB20, curiously burning exactly the same fuel flow at the same IAS (11 USG/hr at 140kt) but of course the fuel is cheaper (well, not in the UK unless it is a "training" flight.... not sure how private users work that in reality) and much more available. It suffers more from turbulence though - a lower wing loading. It would be a very good machine for long trips around Europe and beyond because the biggest issue is the Customs+Avgas matrix which in many places is very sparse.

Because of the continuing Diamond issues I never did multi engine paperwork.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It suffers more from turbulence though - a lower wing loading.

That was also my impression after few hours in DA42 and comparing it to TB20 it looks like "more flying" is needed. E.g. when I trim TB20 (climb, cruise, descent) I can literaly leave the yoke and the aircraft flies like autopilot is on. In turbulence only slight prediction work is needed to prevent it from banking.

In DA42 I had a feeling that it was more "bumpy" and more I had to do to prevent this - although it can be attributed to inexperience with actual aircraft and the fact that I've not been flying center-stick for years. Also, I noticed higher level of noise in the cabin comparing it to TB20. However, I didn't have any troubles flying it, feathering one engine in different stages of flight, stalling it, descending very fast (AFAIK no limit on gear extension and full flaps) and at the end landing it very smoothly.

On the other side, climb and cruise performance were superb. I tried both 2.0 and NG and the latest one was impressive, especially in climb - 1300-1500 fpm to FL100 with 4 adults and 100-110 KIAS isn't something you see every day in a piston plane.

I keep an eye on it and I'm still looking for unbiased opinion on engine reliablity and real TCO (yearly maintenace, insurance, cost per hour etc.). And of course, the price has it's own role in decision making process - it seems that the old one can be purchased for approx. 200k€ and converted to NG for additional 160k€ which gives 360k€ in total. With all its fuel efficiency and better performance I still hardly can justify purchasing it when I compare it to my TB20 (new engine, full TKS). Obviously, I need somebody to convince me.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

I have always been "looking" at a DA42, but even now consider the engines unproven long-term.

I have just read an article about Tom Wolfe, a US author, who just recently gave up his Adler typewriter because spare parts became too hard to source. Given the lack of other proven technology, he wrote his last book by hand.

Sorry, couldn't resist

Nice one, Achima

Peter, you missed one - there's also a Lyco IO360 version. (w/counter rotating props) However, with the limited range, that one is really only suited for training fleets.

Living in my part of the World, with frequent long trips across the open ocean, the DA42 fits my mission perfectly w/Jet A & twin engine.

Personally I'm fine with taking some risk on "unproven" tech. A friend of mine had to do an emergency landing in his factory new SR22 G3, after about 110 hr on the Hobbs, one of the sparkplugs cracked, with the engine suffering uncontrollable vibrations. I've also myself tried a forced landing in a 5 year old gyrocopter after its Rotax 912 blew a cylinder. So much for the "old".

Polemics aside, we do have to acknowledge that there's a lot of unknowns about the auto-diesels. Choosing one over the old Lycomings/Continentals is really of question old vs new, and your risk attitude. I think it's mostly a personal choice. (at least when it comes to private ownership - other considerations affect large fleet acquisitions)

Another nice (unpublished) thing about the DA42-VI: They've recently added on-board wx radar; Garmin GWX 68, 10" radome; fits right in the nose section & integrates directly into the G1000. No big deal for the US market (they've got Nexrad, xm wx etc), but a very nice feature for other parts of the World.

I have just read an article about Tom Wolfe, a US author, who just recently gave up his Adler typewriter because spare parts became too hard to source. Given the lack of other proven technology, he wrote his last book by hand.

Not a valid comparison, by several decades

there's also a Lyco IO360 version. (w/counter rotating props) However, with the limited range, that one is really only suited for training fleets.

I think PilotDAR will know more about this, but I didn't know the avgas DA42 existed in a certified version you could actually buy. I have heard it is really quick though.

I agree about the Lyco etc being far from perfect but, to quote somebody else, you should never bet against known odds. The old motors have known issues but they are ones of gradual wear. Everybody knows IO540 camshafts and tappets get trashed, unless flown frequently, before TBO. There are loads of operational issues e.g. thermal management is, ahem, non-trivial... but they very rarely just go "bang". Most causes of silence up front are caused by excessive air in the fuel tanks

I don't want to criticise the DA42, because I do like it and also like the whole concept's suitability for European touring. And I kicked off this thread with a positive posting on it. I just think that in this business one needs to allow more time for stuff to get shaken out.

Why?

One reason is that the volumes are not all that great. If VW make 100k Sciroccos with a certain component, and just 1% fail, you will get 1000 failures, which is a huge disaster. And VW will have 1000 cases to examine. In a GA fleet of say 100 airframes, that will be 1 failure... 1 means nothing, unless it is something totally catastrophic and clear.

Another is this: in the Scirocco case, there are several English-language Scirocco forums that I know of (no kidding) and it will be posted all over these, because car owners don't care about dealer support (they can easily enforce it via consumer laws). The postings will be mostly illiterate but they will be sufficient So the news will come out. But in GA, owners will not wash their dirty laundry in public, because they want it resolved within warranty, and that won't happen unless you keep your mouth shut. And I learnt this to my cost when I got cut out from support on various things like the KFC225. Also aircraft value preservation is a big motivation to say nothing. The bottom line is that stuff takes a lot longer to come out - unless you know somebody who works for an aircraft dealer or a service centre (as in fact I do) or you know somebody in an FTO which has a fleet of them.

A friend of mine had to do an emergency landing in his factory new SR22 G3, after about 110 hr on the Hobbs, one of the sparkplugs cracked, with the engine suffering uncontrollable vibrations

That's quite a big one. Champion fine wire plugs. Champion are having huge problems with these - (a) the longer reach plugs are cracking in TIO550s and (b) the internal resistor goes gradually open-circuit (all Champion fine wire plugs, it seems). I have gone to Tempest ones. But you can change plugs yourself....

Garmin GWX 68, 10" radome; fits right in the nose section & integrates directly into the G1000

That should be a huge mission capability improver. With full TKS of course

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It flies very similarly to a TB20, curiously burning exactly the same fuel flow at the same IAS (11 USG/hr at 140kt) but of course the fuel is cheaper (well, not in the UK unless it is a "training" flight....

The fuel flow might be the same, but you'll get the benefit of a second engine! That would be the main reason for me to start flying a twin.

I've had an engine failure last year with a DA40, and got very reserved about flying over open water, night flying, etc, because I know how it feels to fly with a stationary prop... With the DA42 you'll have a lot more options when an engine dies; instead of crashing it in a field or trees, you'll have a good chance to put it down on the runway in one piece.

As for the Engine failure I got: It happened after takeoff, and was caused by the "turbocharger hose inner layer separated from the outer layer, causing the engine to "suck vacuum" and consequently led to in-flight shutdown...". See picture below...

I must say that Diamond took really good care of the issue: An Airworthiness Directive was issued within a week to have all turbo hoses replaced.

I fly with the Diamond Flyers, a Dutch foundation that has 6 Diamond Aircraft in shared ownership. We are trying to get enough people participating to buy a DA42, however currently (due to the economical situation?) that is quite tough. If the DA42 get's there, I will be the first one joining !

I am suprised they are using such "heating duct grade" hoses in a safety critical position.

I have a number of those in the TB20 and they basically fall apart after some years - sooner if subjected to monkey maintenance practices. All it needs is for the "spring" inside the hose to become distorted; it slips and the hose internal cross-section collapses. I have exactly that on one of my air duct hoses right now.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I am suprised they are using such "heating duct grade" hoses in a safety critical position.

Wow, that is really scary! I would never have imagined a construction like this could pass certification. In my installation, the turbocharger uses steel tubes for everything. A cheapo flexible hose like that is certainly not the right thing for such a critical component.

298 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top