gallois wrote:
DA42 all inclusive fuel, TKS fluid, IFR European database €420 per hour…
Here a CD155 DA42 is €510 per hour, AE powered DA42 almost €600 per hour.
gallois wrote:
I believe Socata bought the rights/licence in order to make a twin TB so that the range went TB9,10,20, twin. Sadly, they never got round to it and instead rationalised by phasing out the manufacture of the TB range.
Here it is, or rather, what’s left of the idea
A spin off to this thread would be what really killed (multi) engine pistons? Did OEMs come to realize that they cannot perform for what they would be bought for (personal “airline style” transportation)?
@Snoopy I take it you mean the end of piston twins for non training in Europe. There still seems to be quite a few in private hands in the USA. I can only put that down to perhaps 2 factors. Firstly the cost of Avgas and secondly the fact that owners are allowed to get much more involved with the maintenance of their aircraft in the USA and by doing so, lower the costs. It doesn’t help that many of the better travelling family machines are over 2tonnes and incur Eurocontrol charges on this side of the pond when flown IFR which is really what they were intended for.
Yes, all valid points. It’s rather recent however legally MEPs are NCO and <2730kg can be maintained acc. ML by the owner (not in an AOC environment obviously).
So the OEMs simply didn’t get enough market demand? Even in the US, yearly MEP deliveries are negligible.
Did Socata and Co. foresee this? Is the cost delta of SET vs MEP too small considering capabilities?
I’m not sure it is widely known (perhaps within the business) why Socata effectively swerved the way they did. To many of us not closely involved with Socata it came as a surprise when they suddenly decided that TBs would only be made to order. And even that I am not sure ever really happened, other than to finish off existing orders.
Maybe they suddenly saw that orders for TBM filled their workshops and were extremely profitable, especially with the military ordering them as well. Getting into production was pretty quick, virtually pre tested design (Mooney) and bolting on a tried and tested engine.
One day we might get the full story.
I was buying my TB20 at the very time the above was happening. What seemed clear was this:
The little Tecnam shouldn’t be that expensive to rent. Any prices on that?
There was one at Damyns Hall that I asked to rent, turns out the hourly rate was 50% more expensive than DA42 but they can go in/out of 600m grass strips…
I guess they are exotic and people won’t clock that many hours on them to make the cheap running costs from 2*Rotax worth it?
AdamFrisch wrote:
The little Tecnam shouldn’t be that expensive to rent. Any prices on that?
Yes. $ 285 wet at KRAL. I did my MECIR in that one. However, there are very few in the US and AFAIK only a handful available for rental. They are either used as school planes, some private ops and spotter planes by fire departments. Oregon Fire (the people dealing with forest fires) are operating the largest fleet in the US. What seems to be selling well here is the bigger variant, the P2012 with twin Lycos. Ideal island-hopper. So far have not flown one of these.
In general I think the decline of the piston twin has – like many things in private GA – to do with demographics. For the Boomer generation the typical path was PPL > IR > MEP. Nowadays many of these folks have left aviation and you can buy really nice MEPs for less than half of a well kept 172! I am actually considering buying one, although I currently have unlimited access to a Baron (BE55), so for now don’t really need to shell out the money. Today, most people who do their ME rating are career pilots who have no interest in flying an MEP unless it’s for work. In that role (cargo, airtaxi), however, the SETs have eating the MEPs lunch, excepting niche roles like the P2012 mentioned above.
Yes, the SET and Cirrus changed the footing for twins. I still, personally, feel a twin eases some of the fears over nasty terrain, but it’s mainly irrational mind stuff.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Yes, the SET and Cirrus changed the footing for twins. I still, personally, feel a twin eases some of the fears over nasty terrain, but it’s mainly irrational mind stuff.
Cirrus certainly did. SET, I am not so sure, particularly as their accident rates are still worrisome.
But a lot of people who used to fly twins for safety in IMC and night time have switched to Cirrus for the shute, that much is sure. Add to it that the Cirrus fleet is “non complex”.
Add to that the exploding costs of both maintenance, insurance and fuel…. it’s really difficult to justify a twin for many.
