Twins aren't dead yet.

Now if I could only remember where I put that extra $600,000 I had... ;)

Looks like a great new twin option, though.
 
Nope. The piston twin will never completely die. They need them for pilot training and that is what this airplane was designed to do. Piper ought to chuck a couple of diesels in the ol' Seminole cut the price $100,000 lower than the DA-42 and give them a run for the money!:D

Neavagunnahabbin.
 
Last edited:
I really really like the DA42-VI. It, and the Aerostar (specifically the 702P), are the top two things on my list that I'm tracking for down the road when I'm ready to buy.

The things I like about it:


  • Jet-A instead of 100LL
  • FADEC
  • Low fuel burn
  • OEI characteristics (at least based on other videos I saw)
  • New (compared to the Aerostar's older design)

The things I don't like about it:


  • Speed. Maybe this won't be as big a deal as I think it will, but comparing the Diamond's ~ 197 kts to the Aerostar's ~ 260 kts (both numbers pulled from the net, so hopefully they're accurate) just seems like a big gap.
  • Unpressurized
  • Service and support. If I have a breakdown in the middle of Wyoming or Montana, how easy is it going to be to get a DA42 repaired? I guess the same could be said of an Aerostar. Both seem "niche" airplanes and I wonder how hard it is to find competent people to work on them in most areas of the country.
There are certainly other twins out there, but so far these two are the tops on my list, but they sure seem like worlds apart when I look at some of these types of characteristics.

Oh well, food for thought for down the road I guess.
 
LoneAspen said:
I really really like the DA42-VI. It, and the Aerostar (specifically the 702P), are the top two things on my list that I'm tracking for down the road when I'm ready to buy.

The things I like about it:


  • Jet-A instead of 100LL
  • FADEC
  • Low fuel burn
  • OEI characteristics (at least based on other videos I saw)
  • New (compared to the Aerostar's older design)

The things I don't like about it:


  • Speed. Maybe this won't be as big a deal as I think it will, but comparing the Diamond's ~ 197 kts to the Aerostar's ~ 260 kts (both numbers pulled from the net, so hopefully they're accurate) just seems like a big gap.
  • Unpressurized
  • Service and support. If I have a breakdown in the middle of Wyoming or Montana, how easy is it going to be to get a DA42 repaired? I guess the same could be said of an Aerostar. Both seem "niche" airplanes and I wonder how hard it is to find competent people to work on them in most areas of the country.
There are certainly other twins out there, but so far these two are the tops on my list, but they sure seem like worlds apart when I look at some of these types of characteristics.

Oh well, food for thought for down the road I guess.
Click to expand...

The article I cited puts DA-42 VI cruise as
Cruise speed/endurance w/45-min rsv, std fuel
(fuel consumption, ea engine)
@ 75% power | 168 kt/3.1 hr
12,000 ft | (43.5 pph/6.5 gph)
@ 65% power | 157 kt/3.8 hr
12,000 ft | (36.8 pph/5.5 gph)
@ 55% power | 144 kt/4.5 hr
12,000 ft | (31.8 pph/4.75 gph)
Click to expand...

That's a stretch of a comparison. Diesel/JetA v. 100LL (eliminates the 100LL supply risk); 4 seats v. 6 also puts the Aerostar in a different class, as does the Aerostar having twice the HP (350x2 v. 168x2).
 
Everyone go buy one so I can buy it on the used market for 1/4 the price in a few years...
 
Actually, the Twin Cessna market seems to be growing...
 
I like that. What are some other twins with modest fuel burn rates?
 
The P2006T is probably the easiest to fly piston twin I've flown to date. So simple, very few things to actually do. Even single engine, it flew predictably, without much effort.
 
I thought LSAs topped out at 120?
 
CTLSi said:
I get 130KTS with 4gph burn single engine. In an LSA.
Click to expand...

funny-picture-car-laid-prius.jpg
 
For that 900 big ones I can afford to fly Fat Albert at 18 gallons an hour for a long, loong, looooong time.
 
Twins aren't dead yet.

thought you might have been talking about the Olsen twins. wonder what those chicks are up to these days.
 
eman1200 said:
Twins aren't dead yet.

thought you might have been talking about the Olsen twins. wonder what those chicks are up to these days.
Click to expand...

I think they are dead, at least their careers are dead! :D
 
N747JB said:
Certain models are doing better in the market. They do provide a lot of bang for the buck! :D
Click to expand...

The 310Rs I am definitely seeing doing well, and good 340As/414As/421Cs are going fast, too. The Pre-R 310s and earlier 340/414/421s I don't see improving much yet, but I think that may change. While the later models do offer some real advantages, the earlier ones are still great planes and will fit many missions well.
 
I would like to see this engine or a least a variant of it in the da20/da40


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
I'd like to see the DA42 with CD-330s and a pressurized cabin and wings clipped to optimize speed at FL 240.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top