I looked up "invidious"
Well, my English is certainly nothing to write home about 
I thought invidious meant regrettable, not good.
IMO An engine failure while enroute is not a big event and not difficult to deal with. It is when you are low and slow it really stinks to loose an engine.
I don't see how I could ever come to that level of training to have a safety advantage with a twin. I don't fly enough and I hate flying for the sake of training. If I take out my plane, I go somewhere with a clear idea why and what to do there.
Agreed. For the same reason I have thought about letting it go. However, given that I live where I live (NOrthern Norway) I still think it is worth all the hassle.
122 posts - say what you will about the DA42, it certainly catches people's attention. 
One of my "local" routes is a 300nm stretch across the open ocean. (South China Sea)
I've done it a few times in a DA40, but it's one of those routes I'm extra cautious doing in a single. Especially considering the limited SAR resources in the region. In a twin, it's standard procedure.
Also things like night IMC - having a weather radar (embedded CB's are rife in the ITCZ) & twin engine just gives me a fighting chance, which I'd never have in a single.
Twin vs single is a comfort thing. Also there's the "fun" factor. I'm sure everyone flying a twin would agree, that there's a special feeling involved. I also quite enjoy the extra challenge, systems knowledge and discipline required.
Re. getting a C210 Silver Eagle/Mirage/Jetprop vs. a DA42-VI, it's a lifestyle choice. The Silver Eagle is a slow 215 kts turboprop, noisy & the airframe is +30 years old; range isn't that fantastic either.
The Mirage is nice (pressurisation, weather radar), but single engine, and I don't think there's much future in buying an avgas aircraft (new) in the 21st century.
If I was looking for a turboprop, I'd do it right & get a TBM. But I'm not, so I don't.
I've done it a few times in a DA40, but it's one of those routes I'm extra cautious doing in a single. Especially considering the limited SAR resources in the region. In a twin, it's standard procedure.
I accept that for regular long ocean crossings. However really doing that sort of distance regularly in that part of the world I would want a turbine.
Also things like night IMC - having a weather radar (embedded CB's are rife in the ITCZ) & twin engine just gives me a fighting chance, which I'd never have in a single.
I think radar, ceiling and performance are more important than twins on this point.
The Mirage is nice (pressurisation, weather radar), but single engine, and I don't think there's much future in buying an avgas aircraft (new) in the 21st century.
For 300nm over water, I think I would prefer to do it at FL250 and 215kts in a Mirage than 150kts at a lower level in a DA-42. But then I would say that. But of course I didn't buy new either.
If I was looking for a turboprop, I'd do it right & get a TBM. But I'm not, so I don't.
I wouldn't actually. Lovely aircraft but factory support apparently can be quite challenging. Would be a (used) Meridian for me.
The Mirage is nice (pressurisation, weather radar), but single engine, and I don't think there's much future in buying an avgas aircraft (new) in the 21st century.
The Jetprop has a PT6 engine - the most reliable propeller engine ever made.
The operating cost of a Jetprop is of the order of 3x that of a TB20, and probably more than a DA42 depending on any "suprises" on that one.
The TBM is another 2x more than a Jetprop (orders of magnitude figures, as much depends).
The TBM pays IFR route charges, which are significant. The 1999kg Jetprop doesn't. But the Meridian does, though I hear there is a 1999kg STC for it (not accepted to EASA) although a "1999kg" Meridian which is actually loaded as per the STC is, ahem, a single seater
The other thing is that once you go to bigger planes, you pay through the nose on landing, handling, parking, hangarage. So just going anywhere costs a lot more.
Hangarage on a TBM is €20k-30k/year (€7k on a TB20 in identical circumstances). Insurance will be ~ €10k-15k versus €3k.
But a TBM is really nice
factory support apparently can be quite challenging
Factory support from Socata (on the TBM) is top class. It just costs a lot of money...
It's a really interesting question whether one can bring down TBM maintenance costs, which are generally reported as around €40k/year (if not flying it at all). I can't see why it could not be maintained under full Part 91, freelance A&P/IA, etc. If you fly yours down to Tarbes for everything, of course you will get fleeced. As an example, the MM calls for all four autopilot servos to be pulled out every year and the slipping clutch torque checked. This is stupid, and costs ~2k in labour, and needs a few k's worth of Honeywell kit. On a TB20, you do that check on every preflight, by overpowering the AP on the ground. The Socata MM is the culprit, calling up all kinds of crap. The TBM is a simple plane... I see them, cowlings all off, every time I go to my hangar.
It doesn't cost that much more to buy than a Jetprop, and does a lot more in payload terms while retaining 500m runway capability.
MTOW is 1900 kg, so around 208 kg left for pax & luggage.
Update: Plans are for a 100 kg MTOW increase (well, 99 kg ) on the DA42-VI later this year - a nice boost in payload.
Update: Plans are for a 100 kg MTOW increase (well, 99 kg ) on the DA42-VI later this year - a nice boost in payload.
Any idea how they plan to achieve this?
Perhaps by an increase in Vs to 65kt, obtained by fitting 4-point harnesses and possibly stronger seats, which is basically what Socata did on the TBM700.
The resulting payload increase is massive, partly because it's so difficult to retain sufficient elevator authority at 59kt with the aircraft loaded at the two ends of the envelope.
Another way might be to narrow down the loading envelope, and emulate some popular 1950s types, but that would be cheating
I cannot see any other way, without making the wings and the elevator etc bigger, which nobody wants to do because it slows the plane down.
They have reduced drag in the DA42-VI which might be enough to allow for an MTOW increase. Control surfaces remain effective at lower speeds if you reduce drag.
Control surfaces remain effective at lower speeds if you reduce drag.
How does that work?
Any idea how they plan to achieve this?
Basically by strengthening the gear...(same way they increased from 1735 to 1900kg on the DA42NG)
