Useable seats are almost always 2 fewer than fitted. By useable I mean with full fuel. If you want to carry 4 over any distance you really need a 6 seater.
Well, let's check. TR182 MTOW 1406kg, empty weight 890kg = 516kg useful load. 333l AVGAS (7 hours) = 240kg = 276kg for 4 passengers and bags. That is 4 adults with little luggage or 4 adults and quite some luggage but only 3-4 hours of endurance. Never been close to MTOW but adults have to be ISO standard and not super size me of course.
The issue of built-in oxygen is more blurred to me - what are the disadvantages of built-in oxygen?
I very much preferred the bultin system and even though it's from 1979 it's great combined with a Mountain High O2D2. The bottle is in the tailcone which is great for weight and balance.
And the last one - why not to have ADF? AFAIK it's legaly needed for IFR unless you're located in USA rather than Europe.
Only if you wish to perform NDB approaches which are very rare in most countries. Crotia is probably still an exception with loads of NDB approaches for which there is no alternative. IIRC Iceland requires an ADF for aircraft in its airspace.
The issue of built-in oxygen is more blurred to me - what are the disadvantages of built-in oxygen?
I didn't like the DA42's built-in solution.
You can't (easily) remove the cylinder from the built-in setup. You'll need to fill up at the aircraft, through the filler valve located in the nose section.
Only the supplied Aerox cannulas are approved for usage. So no O2D2 regulator or Oxyarms.
Well, let's check. TR182 MTOW 1406kg, empty weight 890kg = 516kg useful load. 333l AVGAS (7 hours) = 240kg = 276kg for 4 passengers and bags. That is 4 adults with little luggage or 4 adults and quite some luggage but only 3-4 hours of endurance. Never been close to MTOW but adults have to be ISO standard and not super size me of course.
Well, on those numbers with full fuel and four passengers you must be close to MTOW. Average adult of 70kg is pretty normal. Obviously landing weight more of an issue than take off weight anyway but still.
Why landing weight? You will always land lighter, usually much lighter, due to fuel burn.
Well, on those numbers with full fuel and four passengers you must be close to MTOW. Average adult of 70kg is pretty normal. Obviously landing weight more of an issue than take off weight anyway but still.
Actually 1406kg is the maximum landing weight as well as takeoff weight. The maximum ramp weight is a bit higher (taxi + runup fuel). The biggest advantage for me is not that I can carry so many heavy people but that I can always fill my tanks and never have to leave fuel behind due to M&B. This is usually error-prone in GA aircraft.
I've just come across a Diamond price list for some DA42 (Centurion) parts, and seen this
Alternator 28V (New) €1,926.64
which seems about 10x too high.
Is that normal for DA42 parts? If that translates substantially to other areas, it would make ownership very expensive.
The DA42NG states in the manual:
Maximum take-off mass 1900 kg / 4189 lb Maximum landing mass (see NOTE below) 1805 kg/ 3979 lb
NOTE A landing with a mass between 1805 kg (3979 lb) and 1900 kg (4189 lb) is admissible. It constitutes an abnormal operating procedure. A "Hard Landing Check" is only required after a hard landing, regardless of the actual landing mass.
Why did they make the landing weight lower?
On a single, one might guess it was done to keep Vs below 60kt, but a twin is not thus restricted.
I don't know, they don't specify why. Just:
CAUTION Damage of the landing gear can result from a hard landing with a flight mass above the maximum landing mass.
So perhaps the landing gear is not that strong for landings above that value. They do provide landing distances in the manual for landings at 1900 kg.
I have a friend who is looking at a DA 42 with the original 1.7 engines but fresh gearbox's and up to date inspections. As I understand it he is now basically looking at 600 hrs before the next round of major work which will be 6 to 7 years at his current annual flying rate. Is this correct ?
Also I have heard that the 1.7 powered aircraft are poor climbers which is a consideration as most flying will be done on and around Canada/US West Coast. Finally how does it do in ice ? The one he is looking at has the full TKS system.
The bottom line from his viewpoint is with recent pricing you seem to be getting a nearly new airframe for less than 1/3 the price of a new DA 42 NG
