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
Yes, that's my understanding as well. You can get even lower price if you go for engines close to TBO and if you add some 160k€ you can get nearly new airframe with new engines (Austro) and all other alterations to support new engines and 1900 MTOW.
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.
I think (based on discussions with some certification engineers), that other than take off roll issues, the landing weight is the biggest limitation ie MTOW of X really means we don't want you landing with more than X. Interesting that a DA-42NG has started differentiating between takeoff and landing weights.
I am less concerned with taking off a bit over MTOW (assuming I have plenty of runway etc) than landing over it.
Over the years I've come across numerous people who have looked at the equations of buying various-status DA42s.
Especially when the prices hit rock bottom following Thielert's bankrupcy. I recall seeing one which was going for £80k - presumably with, ahem, not quite working engines and no engine warranty. I suspect a smart buyer, at the right time, would have done very well.
Now, with the situation clarified, there isn't going to be an obvious bargain, because every specimen for sale will be priced just-right.
I would assume that the DA42 used prices will further decline when the DA42-VII hits the market. The new model is a real breakthrough for the DA42 program. It delivers most of what was initially promised.
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 ?
Incorrect. The Thielert 1.7 gearbox & clutch still needs factory overhaul every 300 hrs.
In general I'd definitely advise people against the 1.7's. We're talking a 1st gen engine, with a lot of teething issues & high recurring maintenance costs. A fairly underpowered engine as well. Also Centurion stopped 1.7 production years ago, so when you reach TBR you'll be forced to buy a 2.0 anyway.
Other considerations are at play as well - with a 1.7 you're looking at a very costly upgrade path if you ever want WAAS/EGNOS support or the (very) nice GFC700 autopilot. Diamond have also been dragging their heels on G1000 software updates for all their Thielert aircrafts.
However, the Austro engine upgrade on a rock bottom priced DA42 w/clapped out 1.7 engines can be a pretty good deal. They really overhaul the entire aircraft during the upgrade - looks like a brand new DA42NG afterwards.
I have seen some DA40/42s where the paint "bubbled up" over most of the wing upper surface. The wing(s) had to be scrapped. Is this a common issue, perhaps from a specific era?
Peter
I doubt if the wings should have been written off just because of the paint bubbling up, there must have been other issues, these could have been structural but it is far more likely that the maintenance company were clueless about repair of composite structures.
The UK GA maintenance business is metalcentric and largely incapable of all but the most basic composite work, if you have any doubts about composite structure and want a company to look at it you need to talk directly to Daimond who will point you in the right direction.
The Thielert 1.7 gearbox & clutch still needs factory overhaul every 300 hrs.
Given that and the endurance of a UAV mission, a guy could form an opinion of where Thielert cash flow is coming from these days.
I was under the impression that the gearbox overhaul had now gone to 600 hours but I deal with so few 1.7 engines that I might be wrong. However it is not a big job to change the gearbox.
I would assume that the DA42 used prices will further decline when the DA42-VII hits the market.
Actually, it's DA52-VII. I saw it two months ago when landed at LDVA - it was there in hangar for few days and I had the opportunity to look around. First impression - it's much bigger and spacier than DA42, it has gull-wing doors, designed to carry 4 people at least and looks like more than 1900 MTOW aircraft. I saw the experimental specimen with more or less stripped off everything that's not needed, so I can't judge how it will look inside. However, I understand it uses same Austro engines as DA42-VI and I'm not sure how it will handle increased (it's my assumption) weight at declared performance.
