That’s because I don’t think it’s going to be a great deal different in terms of aircraft than it is now. Aircraft are not ‘the world’ 
We operate three DA42s. For sure, maintenance costs are high but these are more than offset by fuel cost savings. A DA42 in ‘training mode’ will burn about 36 litres of Jet an hour – £19.68 at today’s bulk purchase price. A Seneca in the same role will burn about 75 litres of AVGAS per hour – £96.86 (for ease I’ve excluded VAT and company fuel sales margin as this is wooden money). Consequently, we can afford an additional £75/hr maintenance cost and still break even. The reality is that the extra maintenance costs are nowhere near £75/hr.
Tax avoidance is never a bad thing 
Dave, this is very good data. How many hours a year do you operate those DA42s? Are they with Thielert or Austro engines and would you compare unplanned downtime to Senecas? Obviously the Seneca is bigger but that more a minus in the FTO business.
I would also like to know what the DA42 operating costs are compared to a higher spec single.
Obviously for a MEP rating you need a second engine, and the second engine is considered to be a safety advantage to some, but other than that it doesn’t look to me like the DA42 offers any more mission capability than a higher spec single
it doesn’t look to me like the DA42 offers any more mission capability than a higher spec single
That’s very much the case, which is why almost nobody makes piston twins anymore, and “advanced” SEP sales have taken over.
But you can’t get radar in most SEPs and I would argue that without radar you have no hope of achieving a 95% + despatch rate (which means attempting to fly through practically all weather).
And the DA42 gives you the spare engine, for about half the fuel cost per mile of a SEP of the same speed. The one I flew burnt 11 USG/hr for 140kt; exactly the same as my TB20, but the fuel is half the price (except in the UK, with the new tax on privately used avtur).
Are you coming to the Corsica fly-in to show it to us?
Yes
DA42 offers any more mission capability than a higher spec single
No, it doesn’t. Speed-wise you can count on 150-160 KTAS with 5.5-6 gal/h/engine (so total 11-12 US gal/h) which gives you some 6 hours plus reserve, so 1000 NM shouldn’t be a problem if you can stand it and that’s with Thielert 2.0. With AE300 you get some more speed with some more consupmtion rate and probably slightly shorter range. Thielert 2.0s should be probably close to AE300.
Thielert 2.0s should be probably close to AE300.
The 2.0s are basically the same engine as the 2.0 but you can get 155hp for a limited amount of time instead of the 135hp of the 2.0. This means they should give the DA42 much better takeoff and climb performance (this is where it lacks). I would not expect you to run it at higher power settings in cruise and thus not get a higher speed nor higher consumption.
Only the DA42 VI has major airframe improvements which make it faster.
Obviously much depends on usage. There are calendar-based and flight-hour based maintenance actions involved, and the Thielerts I fly have a few nasty calendar-based ones (like spending around 6k€ on pipes and hoses every 5 years..). Also the cost of labour and fuel may vary quite a bit depending on where you live.
What I use for my DA42 TDI, after 6 years of experience, flying 100 hrs a year, around 60 euro/hr cost of aircraft mechanics (all numbers exclude VAT):
Annual costs: 15k€ (insurance, annual, G1000 nav data, CAMO, various expenses, reserves for calendar items like props, FADECs, piping, hoses)
Flight hour costs: 175 k€ (fuel 11 gal/hr at € 1,50. 100 hrs maintenance checks to coincide with annual, oil, TKS, engine reserve, some unforeseen).
SR22 owners on the field pay some € 2.57/ liter for Avgas. So in fuel alone would that be € 150-170/hr? But of course the SR22 is faster. A better comparison would be the DA42 VI. Fuel burn around 4 gals/hr more than the TDI to get to SR22 speeds, so add say 25€ to the TDI operating cost. But the Austros have less maintenance/reserve cost and the -VI airframe is cheaper in maintenance too, so you are then probably down to the TDI operating costs, give or take.
So, like Silvaire said, the plane is pretty inexpensive per flight hour, but just don’t let it just sit there.. Darned, I just reminded myself to fly more. Ah well, I’ll probably lose my way to Calvi
Thanks, Aart, for this information which is basically what I was looking for. It does give me a rough idea. And the comparison to an SR22 (or a P210) is interesting.
