Yes, of course I know that. But, as a friend who flies P-51s, 767s and T-38s in Texas once said: "Two engines only means that an engine failure is two times more likely to occur". There's others who say that the second engine only gets you to the crashsite faster.
All very provocative, but there is some truth to that, especially when you know that engine failures in Twins are more likely to kill (me) or any other amateur pilot.
All this is, of course, more true for a Seneca I at MTOM or some other older twins. And it led me to giving up my Multiengine Rating. I just did not see how i could ever get good enough for it.
I had done the rating with a very experienced Piper demo pilot, in a Seneca V, and we did emergency landings with one engine OFF ("that's the only way you will know what it's really like") ... but I knew that I would never get better than the day I passed the checkride.
With a single engine all you have to practice in case of engine failure is BEST GLIDE and FIND PLACE TO LAND ... while wih the twin you have several deadly scenarios that better never occur like engine failure after lift-off with falps and gear still hanging outside...
I am not trying to give a lecture to the professionals among you, only explaining why I bought a fast SINGLE engine plane. I personally think that for amateurs they are always safer than twins (how many people are killed in Singles because of engine failure? See what i mean?)
What? With 11 GPH I can easily fly 160, no problem. Quieter thah SR22, yes, but: BOSE A 20
The SR does have a yoke, even if still 95 percent of al pilots don't get it. It is the left half of a norma yoke, it is NO SIDE STICK!,only the axis is positioned on the left. Since only beginners fly with two hads I don't see this problem :-))
11GPH 160IAS at say 2000ft?
I think today almost nobody bothers to maintain the ME IR (or ME-anything) in Euroland unless they own a twin. I gather that 20-30 years ago ME used to be a normal progression route for PPLs who hung around post-PPL (the few % of those who got a PPL) but it's such an expensive hassle now (annual PPL revalidations) and if you don't own one you won't be current enough. And they make the most expensive hangar queens. I see loads of rusted up twins where I am based... A 421C which flew 4hrs/year, for example. Sometimes no hours, between annuals. 20k/year for no hours.
However, I hear from one engineer, the metalwork in the DA42 engine bay still rusts happily between annual replacements. I suppose they can't cadmium-plate in Europe, but cadmium is not the only option.
Well, I really never fly at 2000 feet because my home base is at 1300 .... but I think in 4000 feet it's easily possible. (what do you think Boscomantico?)
Honestly, I don't understand why Peter continues to refer to IAS when talking about cruise performance.
That said, in an average non-turbo SR22, in order to get 160KTAS out of 11GPH, one would have to climb to roughly FL100.
Copied from my last trip report:
.
Here, I needed 11.5 GPH in order to get 160KTAS at FL100, but the airplane had accumulated a bit of dirt during the trip (bugs make a noticable difference in Cirrus cruise performance). So yes, in normal circumstances, 160KTAS/11GPH/FL100 is just about achievable, at least in summer. Anyway, the same principle (i.e. the need to fly relatively high in order to achieve good NMPG) applies to all aircraft, also the DA42. I am sure you would need a lot of power to archieve 160 knots true at 2000 feet.
However, I don't deny that the new DA42 model produces some very impressive NMPG numbers. How much does a new DA42 (with options, tax paid, etc.) cost in 2013? 800.000 Euros?
IAS at a low level is a good direct measure of drag, and it's easy to get because you just need to pop up for a quick local.
Yes the salesmen hate IAS 
They like to quote TAS, at oxygen-impractical levels if possible...
The problem with using TAS is that you have to then include temperature and altitude, which people usually don't have noted, and that is one reason we keep seeing figures posted (not just here) which others then question. My plane always does 138-140kt IAS at 11.3 USG/hr, at 2000-3000ft, but at altitude I never see the same TAS figure twice.
IAS is a great - if unpleasant, having just paid $0.75M for it - leveller. Guess what speed the Cessna 400 does at 11.5 USG/hr, low level, peak EGT or LOP? 138kt IAS. Cobalt will confirm it - a long time ago, I was with him in it...
The Plane & Pilot writeup says $758k. Using xe.com and putting 20% VAT on it gives €661k. No idea what equipment config this gives you.
In general, if buying a new pricey plane with very variable equipment options, one would buy it in the USA in the most basic config, get the bill of sale done, get all the goodies added there, and fly it back here...
True Airspeed is the performance of the aircraft, what else do i have to know? Much better for comparison than IAS.
In the Cirrus it's easy, because we see TAS directly. That's probably why you hate it :-))
The fuel flows i clearly remember at the moment were 11.5 GPA at 168 in FL110 and 12.3 GPH at 171 KTAS in FL110
140 True Airspeed at 11 GP @ 3000 feet can be easily done in the SR22, I am quite sure
I checked some fotos: I only found one with 11.7 GPH and 150 KTAS at 6000 feet.
IAS can be used to compare aircraft's performances among each other, that's true.
At the same time, obviously, it's TAS what really counts, in absolute terms. And as manufacturers don't publish IAS for cruise speeds in a standardized manner, we need to compare their TAS numbers. But yes, the Mooney 252s "max cruise speed" of 252 MPH (yet another of those marketing tricks) needs to be put into perspective, obviously. I guess the CHTs are well beyond reasonable numbers when flying it full bore in FL280. Plus, the oxygen usafe will be huge.
I found another one:
Level flight:
4400 ft, 13° OAT 2480 rpm 147 KTAS @ 11.3 GPH (135 KIAS)
