Few questions for DA42 owners/flyers

Emir,

Some more inputs that could play a role in your trade-off between the -TDI and the -NG. When talking engines, I occasionally use ‘Austro’ when talking about the -NG and ‘Technify’ when talking about the TDI. I own a TDI but have some 25 hours in an -NG, and 10 in a -VI.

1. The NG has more power than the TDI and you will note it in its acceleration. But the take-off roll is longer because Vr is higher. If you have not already done so, compare the AFMs. As to possible future upgrade plans, the Technify 2.0S will obviously improve on the 2.0 in terms of take-off roll. But an upgrade of an -NG to a -VI would really shorten it, to the extent that it would beat the TDI, and maybe even the 2.0S.

3. The useful load will vary, but probably not too much. Ask for the actual weights of both aircraft to be sure and compare that to the MTOW of 1785 and 1900 kg respectively. However, there is a bit of a snag as to balance on the NG. Because of the heavier engines, the CoG is more forward. If you want to be within limits while flying with 2 up front, you need some dead weight in the bag compartment. A few dead cats will do (see another thread )

4. Talking about payload… Apparently, new -VI’s now have an increase of 100 kg (well, 99 kg, to keep them below the magic 2.000 kg mark in Europe). I don’t see any technical reason why the -NG, or -VI upgraded from -NG would also not benefit from this, or maybe an increase a bit less than 100 kg. But don’t underestimate the possibility of a strategic marketing decision by Diamond to prevent this..

5. The cost of maintaining the Austro will be lower than the Technify but this is a moving target. Technify is not sitting still and obviously aims at increasing the TBR of the core engine and its components. Isn’t competition a wonderful thing?

6. The NG feels heavier because of the increased engine mass. Some like that more solid feel, others don’t.

7. Cowlings of the -NG are substantially bigger. According to some, it degrades the sleek lines. Others like the muscular looks!

8. The Austro starts up and closes down a lot smoother than the Technify. Also, the idle RPM is lower so less noise and more comfortable. As to noise in flight, no real difference between the engine types if you ask me.

9. It takes a while longer for the cast-iron engine block of the Austro engine to warm up, but in Croatia that is probably not a factor..

10. The engine check of the Austro involves a run-up (automatically) to higher rpm’s, so that poses a risk to the props on stoney fields. Technify stays at idle until take-off power is applied.

11. Austro has aux fuel pumps to manage during take-off and landing. An extra task, but obviously not a major one.

It is now to late to come up with item 12. Maybe tomorrow morning.
Hope I did not complicate your decision-making with this info

8. The Austro starts up and closes down a lot smoother than the Technify.

With the new gearbox/clutch, this is not a factor anymore. The DA40 I fly just had its Centurion engine replaced, with the updated gearbox/clutch.
The engine start/shutdown is really smooth. A big difference in compare to the old 2.0 Centurion engine…

Ha, I had the same question about a TB20 I flew last week!

Emir, did you test the OEI :) ? … increased rudder forces are pretty normal in that case :)

No kidding, I have no such experience, neither with the NG, nor with the -vi.

Yes, the pedal forces of the DA42 are relatively high. A design issue, nothing to do with the particular aircraft you flew. Similar on the -TDI and the -NG. Actually, you may have noticed that the stick forces are relatively high too. During take-off, you’ll need to set rudder trim ‘to the right’ and that will alleviate/fully compensate the required force.
Add the gym costs in your decision making matrix. I actually like this ‘firm feel’. Hey, you can finally pretend to be a B-52 pilot!