Timothy wrote:
I would have thought that if you want a 3-4 seat Diamond twin under 2T you buy a DA42, and if you want a 6 seater you buy a DA62 and pay the charges…
…
Either fly a real sub 2T aircraft and suck up the limitations, or fly a capable twin and suck up the charges
…
or is that too simplistic?
I think it is. Compare for example a 182 and 172. If you have the money, you’d buy a 182 anyday even though it only carries 4 pax as the 172. But it comes with the room and the comfort.
For the same reason I think a DA62 even with only five seats and 1,999 kg limit would be very comfortable and a better mode of transport/fun than a cramped DA42 at MTOW. And for what it’s worth more comfortable than having all 7 seats filled in the USA 2,300 kg version!
Also the 2,300 kg version will likely have much worse performance charts, that might put some limits on places to get into/out of.
Someone posted here a long time ago that most of the Senecas used for charter AOC work are operating under a 1999kg STC which is accepted by EASA.
So it seems to me that the DA62, in Europe, will simply be registered at 1999kg but can still be loaded (arguably not legally) to 2300kg if necessary.
Last news i’ve got is that on the 1999kg version you can only have the 5 seats…
2300kg you get the two rear seats…
Romain
Not suprising. 1999 kg makes absolutely no sense with the 3rd row of seats.
The 1999kg version makes less sense than the 2300kg. Our two aircraft have an empty mass of about 1700kg (there’s a few extra bits that add to the ‘book’ basic mass but you’ll get my point). A 300kg useful load isn’t that great, especially since you could choose to make 260kg of this fuel. However, double that load to 600kg and you actually have something rather good.
Performance – The extra 300kg adds about 100m to ground run and 200m to 50ft on an ISA day. Cruise speeds are in the region of 3-5kts less for the same power/fuel burn.
I find it amazing how the arbitrary weight limits created by regulation distort the market. At the lower end, it is the Microlight – LSA – ELA – whatever distinction, and the higher end the 2000kg “limit”. We would all be better off if we could focus on doing the right thing and getting what we need and is safe, rather than trying to shoehorn twins below 2t.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Our two aircraft have an empty mass of about 1700kg (there’s a few extra bits that add to the ‘book’ basic mass but you’ll get my point). A 300kg useful load isn’t that great, especially since you could choose to make 260kg of this fuel.
Ouch!!!! The 1,999 kg doesn’t make much sense indeed. But I take it it’s better than a DA-42? A LOT more expensive however.
Archie wrote:
Ouch!!!! The 1,999 kg doesn’t make much sense indeed. But I take it it’s better than a DA-42? A LOT more expensive however.
To the contrary. My (very well equipped) DA42: empty 1358, MTOM 1785 so payload 427 kg.
Diamond claims that the latest version of the DA42 (-VI) has a payload of 589 kg, but that is probably not a “fully loaded” aircraft.
A 1358kg DA42? We have one of those as well, somewhat stripped-out with only one back seat and no headlining/carpets etc. That one weighs 1411kg.
