Comparison between SR22T and DA42 VI - Check my numbers

Someone offers you a 2016 SR22T or DA42 VI for $1, which do you take?

  • SR22T

    Votes: 37 51.4%

  • DA42 VI

    Votes: 30 41.7%

  • Neither because I only fly 185s on floats, or who would fly a certified aircraft, etc...

    Votes: 5 6.9%
  • Total voters
    72
mulligan said:
Please start this thread over, except rename it to "Someone offers you a 2016 SR22T or DA62 for $1, which do you take?"
Click to expand...

I voted 42, but the 62 is a big improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
So I'm looking at buying a da42-vi right now, and I have to say, acquisition costs aside, it is a heck of an airplane. They are also fairly quick for the fuel burn (for a twin).

Comfort is improved with the reclining seat option. Overall a good plane for a western US pilot who wants to build multi retract technically advanced time, with known ice and turbos.

Edit: site won't let me attach photos yet but the image reads 143 kts indicated, 169 true, at 10,000 feet, with a 63 kt headwind for a horrible gs of 106kts. OAT was +1c.

Attached is a photo from "just" a NG version coming back from Vegas Friday (what a ride, some of the worst turb I've ever experienced, plus icing and moutains and atc holding me low oh my!).

That was at 82% power burning around 13.x GPH. Note the headwind (and thus the mechanical turbulence from hell earlier in the flight coming out of HND). Basically NA SR22 numbers but it climbs way better at altitude than a NA 550 powered plane. A dash 6 will be another 12 to 15 knots faster with even better climb and OEI performance.

The plane's dubious performance and operating expense reputation are relics of the tdi version and the -VI is just a completely different proposition in every respect.

Just a great plane as far as I'm concerned (not so much the early da42 tdi and Lycoming 360 versions though).
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
mulligan said:
Please start this thread over, except rename it to "Someone offers you a 2016 SR22T or DA62 for $1, which do you take?"
Click to expand...

He just wants more affirmation on his decision to buy the SR22 :D

I'd go for the cirri. I got my multi-commercial in a DA-42 a while back and while the joystick is fantastic and very response in its push/pull rod that's about all I liked about that airplane. The time I've spent in it is enough for me. So between the DA42 or an SR22T, it's not even a question, toss me that Cirrus!

Also don't forget those DA-42 wings are lengthy! If you are paying for your parking/hangar space on a square footage footprint, it would take up more and thus cost more there too
 
Posted for ocflyer:

31608848431_0066d4ea45_z.jpg
 
Thanks Eddie for posting up the photo.

I agree with the comment on the wingspan, it is a serious wingspan (over 44 feet), and just when I thought the DA40 wingspan was big!

I like the SR22/22TN (no thanks on the 22T) in G3 and G5 guise. I'm not as big of a fan of the control feel vs. the diamonds (or Mooneys, or TTx) or the lack of a manual elevator trim, but I agree it is a comfortable airplane and a really good piston single traveling machine. It seems like there are a lot of stall/spin incidents in the plane, which I'm sure is primarily a training issue, but it does seem to indicate there is some scenario in which the plane suddenly bares some teeth in low/slow/certain configuration(s). It also seems like the forced induction 550s in particular have some longevity, tuning, and general bank account eating issues that could miraculously lead to a higher real cost of operation than running two FADEC turbo diesels...

If I don't end up in a 42-VI, I'll probably take a hard second look at a 22TN with Perspective/GFC700. First world problems...
 
Full fuel payload matters, especially if you always "top off", which a lot of pilots do.

If you airplane has a way to accurately measure fuel quantity while refueling then full fuel should leave you 350-400 pounds of useful load. Why not have the longest possible range available for one or two people?

Few privately owned airplanes fly around with all seats full on a routine basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
JimNtexas said:
Full fuel payload matters, especially if you always "top off", which a lot of pilots do.

If you airplane has a way to accurately measure fuel quantity while refueling then full fuel should leave you 350-400 pounds of useful load. Why not have the longest possible range available for one or two people?

Few privately owned airplanes fly around with all seats full on a routine basis.
Click to expand...

I'm crunching the numbers for a scenario where it's a family airplane. Two adults and two teenage children. Either way, both planes would come close to satisfying this even with full tanks.
 
If only the -VI and the -62 were pressurized
 
DA-62 for one reason: a chute won't do you much good over mountainous terrain during this time of year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
Zhunter said:
If only the -VI and the -62 were pressurized
Click to expand...

There is speculation (and as far as I'm concerned at this time that is all it is), that there will be a pressurized version of the -62, and that this is one of the reasons the 62's front canopy is different than the 42. The basic design would likely allow the incorporation of a pressure vessel.

The 62 is a big girl. Perfect family SUV plane, I would spec it as a 5 seater (not the 7 seater option). I wish they would offer the AE330 reflash to the 42-VI (the AE330 on the -62 has 180 hp a side whereas the AE300 has 168 a side). I'm fairly certain the only difference between the AE300 and AE330 is an ECU remap to run more boost/fuel.
 
How much Moore expensive would a pressurized version be?

The -VI would be awesome with the 330 engines.... And pressurized ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: YKA
For what it's worth I would take the SR22T. Unless you are flying over water I don't see much of a safety advantage with the twin vs parachute. The T has a much higher ceiling to get over weather if you need it. Its probably faster too.

Now if we are talking about the DA-62 I would take that over an SR22T. But it is a different class of airplane and more expensive.
 
Let me add that the pilots of LSA's, which can range from quite basic to mini-Cirrus', need to carefully balance fuel carried against passengers and baggage carried.

With a hard limit of 1,320 lbs, and empty weights approaching 900 lbs in some extreme cases, you can see the useful load with full fuel can be severely limited.

My Sky Arrow weighs about 860 lbs empty, and even with its 18 gal capacity I need to calculate fuel load carefully with heavier passengers. See Note 3.

Note 1: I realize that with floats the LSA limit is higher.

Note 2: I don't doubt that it's possible to load up an LSA with option that would put it over 900 lbs empty.

Note 3: Lower portion is the "cheat sheet" I use:

23159144630_b341f732fc_z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top