What do we think of the DA62

Not to thread hijack so early on... What do you think of the DA40 Tundra?



I like diamond's lineup of aircraft. Though ive never though of any of them as bush planes, makes sense with their huge wing though.
 
Last edited:
I really do like these diesel twins. Maybe if I'm still flying 20 years from now there will be one in the used market I could conceivably afford.
 
I want one. Ballpark of #1500 useful load. Seats up to 7. Cruises in the 180's. Only burns like 10 GPH while doing it. That just seems like a win all around to me.
 
What are the chances of a Diesel Beech Baron or Diesel Piper Seneca in the future? Jet A is quite a bit cheaper at my airport.
 
Weren't there some issues with the Diesel engines on the 42? Maybe just internet tumors... Idk. I really like the da20 but have not had a chance to fly in any of the others. The fuel economy of those diesels is really nice though.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Weren't there some issues with the Diesel engines on the 42? Maybe just internet tumors... Idk. I really like the da20 but have not had a chance to fly in any of the others. The fuel economy of those diesels is really nice though.
Click to expand...

The original Thielert's had a crazy low replacement time on the gearboxes, that was compounded by them going out of business and charging mega$$$ to replace them.
 
Somedudeintn said:
Weren't there some issues with the Diesel engines on the 42? Maybe just internet tumors... Idk. I really like the da20 but have not had a chance to fly in any of the others. The fuel economy of those diesels is really nice though.
Click to expand...


From what I understand there were some issue with the early planes, but they have been more or less resolved. A pilot at the field I train at owns a DA42 with the 1.7 L engines in it. Very nice looking little plane. He loves it and says he can lean down to like 5 gph in economy cruise.
 
drotto said:
From what I understand there were some issue with the early planes, but they have been more or less resolved. A pilot at the field I train at owns a DA42 with the 1.7 L engines in it. Very nice looking little plane. He loves it and says he can lean down to like 5 gph in economy cruise.
Click to expand...

5gph per engine?
 
Perhaps, never been a early adopter, I'll see how they fair as 10yr + old planes before I form an opinion.
 
Appropriately armed I think it would make an excellent platform to Gun down terrorists. Therefore you cannot like it Jay.
 
With the new motors ,looks like a great option,if you have a few bucks. Can't beat the fuel burn,respectable gross weight,and good speed.
 
drotto said:
From what I understand there were some issue with the early planes, but they have been more or less resolved. A pilot at the field I train at owns a DA42 with the 1.7 L engines in it. Very nice looking little plane. He loves it and says he can lean down to like 5 gph in economy cruise.
Click to expand...

Having flown a -42, there is no leaning those engines. They are single lever FADEC.

Perhaps he just pulls power back pretty far. Running 75% I would see 5 gal/hr/engine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
drotto said:
Both engines. He claims he can get it as low as 2 to 3 GPH per side.
Click to expand...

The specs on the current DA42 is 3.2 US gph PER ENGINE at max endurance. 7 gph per side at max continuous power (92%).

The older Thielert engines were both rated at nominal 135 hp vs the current 170 hp engine. Got a friend with one out here, but the main knock on the DA42 is the low useful load.

The DA62 looks like an interesting airplane, but at 1600 lbs useful load it's 400 lbs less than my Aztec, at 1000 hr TBO that is less than half the TBO of my Lycomings, and at $1+ million it costs many, many, many multiples of the Aztec. I can buy a lot of avgas and glass avionics for the difference. And I expect my insurance is a fraction of what it would cost me to cover that lovely plastic airframe.

On the plus side it cruises considerably faster on less hp, the turbodiesels will produce more hp at altitude than my IO-540s, and I love the FADEC - that's just gotta be a better set up for single engine work if nothing else.

Personally if the passengers could get in and out without having to climb on the wing (e.g. more of a cabin class entry like the Seneca or Baron 58) it might have more appeal.

Edit added: If they had made that carbon fibre plastic fantastic hull pressurized I would be completely sold!
 
Last edited:
I hope to buy a DA42 for global touring and a RTW flight. I love the availability of jet fuel!
 
Jaybird180 said:
The video touted a 1800 TBO
Click to expand...

The AE300 engine in the DA42 now has an 1800 hr TBO. EASA stepped it up to 1500 hrs and then to 1800 hrs as they got more operational hours on more engines in service.

The AE330 gets its extra hp over the AE300 with a higher boost pressure and EASA is making Austro go through the same process of starting with a low 1000 hr TBO and working up. I haven't seen any announcement from Austro that the AE330 has yet been approved beyond 1000 hrs at this point, but it will come in due course.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Not to thread hijack so early on... What do you think of the DA40 Tundra?



I like diamond's lineup of aircraft. Though ive never though of any of them as bush planes, makes sense with their huge wing though.
Click to expand...

No way a plastic airplane would hold up long term (10+ years) of landing on gravel and getting the **** beat out of it all the time. Also not nearly as easy to repair as a metal bird.
 
I really like the Diamond twins! I wish someone would design a light experimental twin utilizing two O-200's or 2 VW or Corvair engines. Better yet develop a reliable gear box for a VW TDI twin.
 
Personally, I'm okay with burning 40gph to fly something that isn't butt ugly......but that is just me. I think I've killed too many brain cells by breathing AVGAS.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Personally, I'm okay with burning 40gph to fly something that isn't butt ugly......but that is just me. I think I've killed too many brain cells by breathing AVGAS.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think this thing is exceptionally sleek and sexy...

Super_DA62_3000_1325.jpg
 
I'm excited to see one in the flesh.
 
Remember, gentlemen, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The 62 looks kind of like a twin Cirrus ... or a dolphin out of water. To me, it looks nice and sleek. But that is just my opinion, y'all are entitled to yours.

Now what is the starting price? How many million EUs?
 
BigBadLou said:
Remember, gentlemen, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The 62 looks kind of like a twin Cirrus ... or a dolphin out of water. To me, it looks nice and sleek. But that is just my opinion, y'all are entitled to yours.

Now what is the starting price? How many million EUs?
Click to expand...


Little over a mil, from here.

2016 Diamond DA62
Standard price $1.08 million
Price as tested $1.24 million
Engine Austro Engines AE330 (2 x 180 hp)
Props MT 3-blade (2 x 76 inches)

1.1 MM EUs as tested..
 
Caramon13 said:
Little over a mil, from here.

2016 Diamond DA62
Standard price $1.08 million
Price as tested $1.24 million
Engine Austro Engines AE330 (2 x 180 hp)
Props MT 3-blade (2 x 76 inches)

1.1 MM EUs as tested..
Click to expand...
How beautiful is that 5gph now?

I'm sure that it might appeal to some, but for the amount of money I would need to raise to buy a DA-62, I would never be able to fly my Twin Beech enough to burn that much fuel or even offset the maintenance cost.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
How beautiful is that 5gph now?

I'm sure that it might appeal to some, but for the amount of money I would need to raise to buy a DA-62, I would never be able to fly my Twin Beech enough to burn that much fuel or even offset the maintenance cost.
Click to expand...

Remember that a lot of the people buying them are going to just write off the depreciation against their tax bill.
 
Maciej said:
Remember that a lot of the people buying them are going to just write off the depreciation against their tax bill.
Click to expand...
True, and that will give them some market share, but I doubt they sell many more of these things than new Bonanzas or Barons.

And the reason that Beech sells so few of those per year is because they are competing with the used turbo prop market, which the DA-62 is going to be competing with as well at that price point.
 
Fearless Tower said:
True, and that will give them some market share, but I doubt they sell many more of these things than new Bonanzas or Barons.

And the reason that Beech sells so few of those per year is because they are competing with the used turbo prop market, which the DA-62 is going to be competing with as well at that price point.
Click to expand...
That's the exact reason they went with a modular production model. They say they project to build and sell 50 per year with >50% going to the U.S. but they believe they can remain sustainable building just 1 per year.
 
Jaybird180 said:
That's the exact reason they went with a modular production model. They say they project to build and sell 50 per year with >50% going to the U.S. but they believe they can remain sustainable building just 1 per year.
Click to expand...

I'd honestly be very surprised if they sold 25 per year.
 
I don't see them selling too many either. They are in Seneca and Baron territory and those seem like much more airplane for the money. Let's face it, someone who can afford a 1M airplane isn't going to scoff at the gas it eats. The Twin Star makes a much more appealing argument as its more closely priced with the Seneca. Let's be honest, the only people buying new twins are flight schools and they do care about operating cost. The price difference between a Seneca and the Twin star will more than pay for it's self after 1000 hours.

I'm really surprised there aren't more Tecnam's at flight schools as twin trainers.
 
The most intelligent and insightful comparisons do not take place between decades old airplanes and brand new ones. Me, I think it looks lovely, but one engine is more than enough to get me to the crash site.
 
Grum.Man said:
I don't see them selling too many either. They are in Seneca and Baron territory and those seem like much more airplane for the money. Let's face it, someone who can afford a 1M airplane isn't going to scoff at the gas it eats. The Twin Star makes a much more appealing argument as its more closely priced with the Seneca. Let's be honest, the only people buying new twins are flight schools and they do care about operating cost. The price difference between a Seneca and the Twin star will more than pay for it's self after 1000 hours.

I'm really surprised there aren't more Tecnam's at flight schools as twin trainers.
Click to expand...

In Europe however, fuel is substantially more expensive, and I wouldn't doubt if there are some sort of tax/registration benefits that'd make it a more logical choice.
 
Love both the DA42 (with the new Austro engines) and the DA62. The idea of flying a new airplane with a reinforced cabin, 27g seats, incredible glide ratio, auto-feathering props is very appealing.

Anyone see the crash-test between a late-model Chevy Malibu and a 59 Bel Air? https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U The cabin in the Malibu was virtually undamaged, the Bel Air was crushed, the entire steering column came up thru the crash dummy's face. Same with our spam cans. Our old Cessnas and Pipers were not built to handle a crash so even a low speed accident often results in a fatality often with gruesome results.

The crash-worthyness and safety features of new airframes is what appeals to me. If I had the money to buy a nice new G58 or a DA62, I'm going with the Diamond every time. Even the deadly scenario where you lose an engine on take-off you pull back on the control lever for the dead engine and the FADEC + auto feathering takes care of the rest. I understand this is one of the reasons why the Austo engines do not have counter-rotating props.
 
Last edited:
Art VanDelay said:
Appropriately armed I think it would make an excellent platform to Gun down terrorists. Therefore you cannot like it Jay.
Click to expand...


There ya go. You found it a job. A few mods by Sierra Nevada Corp and a juicy contract and it'll be wasting taxpayer money patrolling TFRs in no time! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top