I’m trying to use my aircraft (TB20) for business trips. Mostly within the UK, typically 100-300nm flights. With prop de-ice my despatch rate is maybe 70% but, to become really useful for business I reckon it should be more like 90%.
Have you logged the reasons for cancelling the 30%? A data-driven approach would see appropriate here. Different sorts of trip need different mitigation.
I find that, with met forecasting improving all the time, making sure there is flexibility in the timing at both ends is very helpful. Of course that's not always compatible with business, but it tends to increase the dispatch rate, if a departure brought forward or pushed back by 2-3 hours is assessed as a success.
The good thing about a TB20 is that there is no obvious mission capability upgrade (in terms of buying another plane) unless you are going to spend serious money.
Actually reflecting on this I think a Cirrus and a PA46 are both obvious next steps from a TB20. The Cirrus would add some performance, more modern avionics and more complete icing capabilities, a piston PA-46 benefits from better deicing again (IMHO) and pressurisation. PA46 avionics depend on model year and whether the aircraft has had an upgrade - many have.
I am sure the TB20 is great, but at whatever level we are at there are always planes to step up to.
And Jan would I am sure view a TB20 as positively thirsty for local flights!
I don't see how a straight SR22 would improve despatch rate over a straight TB20.
It's equipment for equipment.
If you have a radar (as a PA46 has, as has almost everything above it) then you can fairly confidently fly in IMC if CBs are forecast. If you are going to do that with a stormscope, you are going to get caught out. I know of pilots who were flying in such conditions with a WX500 and one moment the scope was clean and the next it was like an xmas tree all around them - with the accompanying "interesting" effects on the aircraft (severe turbulence, for a start).
The next stage is de-ice and TKS is a good option for that. Usually (SR22 and TB20) it is the only retrofit option anyway. You can get that on both planes.
The next stage is a turbo, which means you will spend less time in the 0C to -15C layer and can outclimb most non-CB frontal weather. You can get that on both planes.
The next stage (radar) you can't get on these two types.
That's all unless Plan B is the chute in which case the SR22 wins. But I think that is ridiculous.
A DA42-VI is not bad, actually. FIKI TKS, weather radar, twin turbocharged engines etc.
One thing that's worth mentioning - if > FL200 is a key parameter in fighting bad wx, you really need pressurisation to do this on any kind of regular basis. (ie. a PA46 & upwards)
Taking a SR22T, TB21 etc up to FL250 with everyone wearing a mask is not entirely realistic, I think. Any snafu with your oxygen supply at those levels & you've got a very serious safety issue on your hands...
I agree with the above. Oxygen is great but you have to really watch it with passengers if flying at levels where loss of consciousness would be fairly rapid e.g. FL200+.
I used to think that one would rarely need to fly at FL200-250 for any length of time but this changed my mind.
You can get real weather radar on a DA42? How much is it? The Honeywell one is normally about €50k.
For 28k that's very good.
Why is it not retrofittable, I wonder... On a twin, it should be easy. All twins I have seen have practically nothing right up in the nose cone. Maybe they want to use it as a lever to shift new aircraft.
How much was your DA42 with all that kit?
The radar nose cone section is a different material than the main fuselage - I gather it's not straightforward to simply cut the nose section composite off an existing DA42 & attach a new one.
Right around EUR600k all-in.
(a TBM850 was EUR2.8m, so I think I made a bargain 
)
(a TBM850 was EUR2.8m, so I think I made a bargain )
A DA-42 with a GWX-68 is hardly comparable to a TBM-850......
(firstly your annuals will be far too low)
But compare your plane to a piston PA-46 which is cheaper, faster and pressurised. Just saying....
...which is cheaper, faster and pressurised.
Avgas. It's a debilitating limitation out here. The only realistic step-up is a turbine & factory new would be at least 2-3 times the cost...
