RobertL18C wrote:
While the DA42 seems well engineered, the G1000 instrumentation has its quirks. Apparently a fuel indicator malfunction might require major surgery on the wing.
Fuji agree the G1000 is probably not the fault but the sender unit(?), and as Aviathor suggests it may require wing removal to fix. As you have fuel imbalance limits on the DA42 and no MEL this may not be a deferred item?
Major surgery? Are you sure?
I once visited the maintenance facility of a ATO which operates DA42s. They told me they repeatedly had leaks in the DA42 tanks, so they had some spare tanks. They would pull out the pierced tank and replace it with a good one. Then they would repair the pierced tank and use it as spare. Did not sound like too much of a problem, although it is significantly more than just opening an inspection hole to gain access. But yes, the wing must come off. On the other hand they do come off for each major inspection including annual, don’t they?
On the other hand I am impressed with the precision of the fuel gauges on DA40 and DA42, and also the fuel totalisers.
I doubt that is anything to do with the G1000 really.
While the DA42 seems well engineered, the G1000 instrumentation has its quirks. Apparently a fuel indicator malfunction might require major surgery on the wing.
Bart wrote:
air conditioning would be nice
Air conditioning is an option even in the DA40. 
I have just gone through the third annual with DA42 (2.0 engines). So far nothing surprising, schedule items and some minor tweaks. Minor to the point that when thinking about the largest of them – it is the key lock mechanism, have replaced two such already, this is indeed some crap design.
Of course it would be nice to fly faster and in pressurized cabin and maybe also to have a small toilet fitted, and also air conditioning would be nice , but then we are talking about some other category of planes… In it’s class – great plane.
I would not listen to instructors on this, because most of them never fly anywhere and all of them have a massive business interest in discouraging ownership because they get a lot of income from self fly hire. Been there, got the t-shirt, well and truly.
As to cost, I don’t think there is a more economical light twin, unless you have access to extremely cheap Avgas.
As to mission profile, which really varies between pilots of course, the aircraft fits mine perfectly. But it does not fit the mission profile of someone who regularly wishes to haul a family of 4 plus bags for 800 miles non-stop, although the -VI does that..
But it is basically senseless to react to such generic criticism, Piotr. Like Fuji-abound says, please be specific on what your instructor and the CAMO said and we can have a sensible discussion here.
The DA42s when re engined with Austros seem to deliver in a tough environment (IR instruction). They also are found on some missions in some remote, extreme operational conditions where some legacy piston twins might struggle.
I wouldn’t fly them into an active CB/TS but am sure the lightning protection mesh works, but then you need to want the Darwin Award to take light GA into heavy convective conditions.
