well, those are not lies per se, it is just that some marketing folks put the highest speed, the lowest fuel burn, max range and max payload into one line..nowhere does it say that the bird can do all at the same time..nothing to rage about IMHO…most of the companies do that…I'd agree though, it is not elegant...

but not all OEMs put their POH / AFM on their web-site for a free download for everybody interested…

Diamond does:


check it out…and find out the numbers….

http://support.diamond-air.at/da62_afm_bas+M52087573ab0.html

That is a good question…can you nowadays in todays market really make an apple-to-apple comparison?

I doubt it, because we are talking very different technology generations here..

or let us say, take cabin space…some may say that a Baron 58 interior with the club seating is their reference…others may say, well, do not need club seating if the seats are bigger and more comfortable in that Diamond 62 configuration..

it is a matter of what one likes better…

or let us say…it is difficult to compare "new" with "used" given the fact that new airplane prices are so much higher than all the older birds on the used market…

so I think "halfway" apples to apples only three piston twins that are available new today could be compared…

and those would be:

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/da62/

http://beechcraft.txtav.com/en/baron-g58

http://www.piper.com/aircraft/trainer-class/seneca-v/

and maybe in addition the 4 ( 5) seaters..

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/da42/

http://www.piper.com/aircraft/trainer-class/seminole/

My machine that cost me 1/10th the cost of a DA62 flew me home from Sydney today at 17,000 doing 203KTAS on 128 lph, in pressurised, air conditioned comfort. I think I'll stick with what I've got and spend the spare $1.1m on AVGAS.

Martin,

I suspect you'll have to fly around the world a few times to spend that kind of Avgas money!

And I'm sure I can find cheaper than your machine, but that's not a fair comparison, this is a new plane, and for a completely different mission!

But you're not the marketing target of Diamond. To me it is very clear.
Look at Europe, they are booming there, because avgas is quite more expensive and more difficult, if not just impossible sometimes, to find.

They are doing great with flight schools because they are cheap to operate, with a proper documentation and avionics very close to the airlines so the trainees are familiar with that SOP aspect early on. It's a very easy step-up from the DA40, with the obvious and undeniable advantage of a well-known environment for the trainees, the instructors, the mechanics.
And the plane performs better than a tired seminole or tecnam, especially in warm environment. Where many people train, in Europe.

You do survey, observation, reco, target, any type of aerial work? You're facing major issues with AVGAS, and you now have a choice, a TP like the A-viator, or a KA, or a DA-42MPP. No question about it, you get the Diamond. It's not even a debate.

Hopefully they come up with a 62MPP, that will be the ideal platform to carry two sensors.

Same for private. There are a few companies running a nice profit flying around with those planes (DA-42), on relatively short hops (2 hrs). Save a ton of money on landing fees, land where you can't land a jet or barely land a TP.
It looks very modern, the interior is spacious enough and of great quality, it's pretty quiet. Clients are more enclined to step into one than a 30 yr old seneca. It might not be reasonable to you, but perception is not negligible.

It's not the perfect plane for some missions, and not for some pilots. To compare it to your plane is like comparing a C206 to a Cirrus (with all due respect, I mean, I fly a 30 yr old Cessna too). Different clientele, different approach, different era.

The flight school I'm doing my instrument (to MEI) at has DA-20's (9) with G500's and a DA-42 with the G1000 setup. Pretty sweet really. The DA-20 is kind of a dog but not too bad considering the equipment list, $149/hr (CTI at KNQA). Their 100LL price is pretty good too $3.20 Self Serve.

Gerhard, now you are getting back to my original question or problem to solve.

You and everyone else might be focussing on the blue spots highlighting the best possible specification, all of which cannot be achieved at once. We accept that.

The key here is the attempt to do an apple for apple comparison in the graph. It is blatant. look at the blue and orange lines.

And yes the Beech Baron is another classic. Some marketing guys in a board room in Kansas had two Aussies turn up, cash in pocket for a G36 and a G58.....that which was declared true was not. We know it happens elsewhere, but it does not make it right. And besides, buyer beware. Sure point out the best you can do in any one aspect, no problem, but to claim a typical piston twin vs the DA62 is going to have results as per the graph..........I just cannot make the numbers work. Not even comparing from a Twin Comanche to a Chieftain.

Don't get me wrong, nice plane, but publishing a graph with a mythical plane that carries only a few people, goes slow and burns 150LPH, that does not exist. Just makes me ask simple questions on how is it possible?

And I'm sure I can find cheaper than your machine, but that's not a fair comparison, this is a new plane, and for a completely different mission!

But you're not the marketing target of Diamond. To me it is very clear.
Look at Europe, they are booming there, because avgas is quite more expensive and more difficult, if not just impossible sometimes, to find.

They are doing great with flight schools because they are cheap to operate, with a proper documentation and avionics very close to the airlines so the trainees are familiar with that SOP aspect early on. It's a very easy step-up from the DA40, with the obvious and undeniable advantage of a well-known environment for the trainees, the instructors, the mechanics.
And the plane performs better than a tired seminole or tecnam, especially in warm environment. Where many people train, in Europe.

You do survey, observation, reco, target, any type of aerial work? You're facing major issues with AVGAS, and you now have a choice, a TP like the A-viator, or a KA, or a DA-42MPP. No question about it, you get the Diamond. It's not even a debate.

Hopefully they come up with a 62MPP, that will be the ideal platform to carry two sensors.

Same for private. There are a few companies running a nice profit flying around with those planes (DA-42), on relatively short hops (2 hrs). Save a ton of money on landing fees, land where you can't land a jet or barely land a TP.
It looks very modern, the interior is spacious enough and of great quality, it's pretty quiet. Clients are more enclined to step into one than a 30 yr old seneca. It might not be reasonable to you, but perception is not negligible.

It's not the perfect plane for some missions, and not for some pilots. To compare it to your plane is like comparing a C206 to a Cirrus (with all due respect, I mean, I fly a 30 yr old Cessna too). Different clientele, different approach, different era.

David, I know what you're getting at, I'm not arguing that marketing is not being a bit, well, imaginative.

I would compare it to what they do when you look at fuel mileage on a car.

I also tried to zoom in on the asterisk on your picture.

Of course as Gerd says, and you too, the blue points are always a best case scenario. You can't fly that range, with that pax onboard. Go to Cessna's website, look at the Mustang, and think full fuel.
Apparently the contention is about the graph. My interpretation is simple.

The initial cost of purchasing the airplane is nowadays integrated over a form of leasing. They don't remove it, simply include it. So that's a constant, and the Da-62 is not cheaper or more expensive than the competition.
Maintenance is considered cheaper for the DA.

But they did not include it. They only included the cost of fuel, which also explains the look of the graph.
They say, at typical cruise setting, considering avgas at 4.97 and jeta1 at 1.40, flying 500 hrs a yr, you would get those figures.

It is not a fair comparison, it's only a comparison. You take the da-62 and fly it 500hrs, at 65% burning 45L/h of very cheap jetA1. You take whatever else and burn an average of 150 for 500hrs. In the end you save that much. Super simple linear function.

Now yes it's unfair, but it also raises an interesting logic. The same that Airbus and Boeing are trying to highlight nowadays, especially in Europe with LoCo and Cost Index of 0.
The da62 flies slower at 45L/hr. But for longer. A LOT longer. Think LRC compared to MMO. That's what they are trying to highlight. CI=0.
You can fly it LRC, and even if you fly LRC and LOP with a Seneca (which is a pain to set up, compared to just putting 65% on the g1000 and that's it), you would save a lot of money.
Not TIME. Just Money.

Now I haven't read the afm yet, I have no doubt that at similar power settings and loads, the da62 may be slightly slower than a Baron. The da-62 will still be cheaper to operate.

For everything else, we talked about it already.

David, agreed…such things do happen…they also are said to have happened with 65 Mio USD bizjets…hell, there have been airlines who had bought airplanes that were not right for their missions..

what I ask myself though in such cases, take the folks with cash in the pocket to buy a new G36 and a new G58? If someone has that kind of cash and afterwards complains that he bought the wrong airplane, i.e. has not checked the numbers carefully with due dilligence…he should not complain afterwards but apply for a legal guardian..because in that case he may also not be capable to read streetsigns, right? And I would not like to sit
with such a person in the same cockpit, 'cause he may be a danger to mankind..

no, with new airplanes there are no excuses for buyers..

airplanes are excellently documented per AFM in regards to performance…have to be, it's certified..so anyone worth his or her private pilots license should be able to check what an airplane can or cannot do before committing..you can calculate the projected fuel burn down to milliliters per hour based on projected powersettings..and you will know what kind of field performance to expect..

but, yes, it still happens..even with very expensive birds..

and, well, airplane salesmen or women..? nowadays..have no clue..so whatever they usually "brabble" you cant take seriously, because most of them dont even know how to get into or out of the airplane…have seen that too..the industry has not gotten better in that regard….

I happen to know some very wealthy individuals who own great airplanes..they do not let those salespeople into their offices anymore..if they want to buy an airplane they call the CEO of the manufacturer..and say "send me a contract" and they know every detail of that bird before they sign a check…how do they know that, in case they are not pilots themselves?…well they hire folks like me for instance to check it out for them…

and well with that AVGAS / Jetfuel comparison…for Europe it is absolutely true..it is so true that it makes more sense for someone wanting a new Baron here, that he may be far better off to buy a used King Air C90 instead…(but here again, how do you compare that…?)

Well I have applied at Textron and Diamond for the job of pilot/salesman but they don't seem to be interested. Have they read my post on BT and concluded I would be too honest?

On a more serious note, I'm surprised by that. I've seen it happen at VW, but my approach was always complete, direct honesty. It may make us lose a sale, but the clients would return later or call me to get a straight answer.

well, read that here…

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2016-08-30/haas-takes-over-gulfstreams-global-marketing-efforts

those are the kind of people big US manufacturers hire for sales & marketing..until the bubble finally will burst big-time...

true aviation professionals have no chance no more…with these outfits…

I agree with you, if you are honest, knowledgable and professional you will create a happy customer, and you will create a repeat customer…and ensure thereby the long term profitability of your company...

but the new generation of big blah- blah marketing folks cannot do either..they sell washing machines one day, toilet paper the next, and then they try to sell airplanes and associated stuff..

only airplane manufacturers that are still intact in that way, are the ones where the founder or members of the founding family still have the say…there still are some…

but the moment you let "suits" into your company as a manufacturer, that's it…your done in the long term..

I think you two guys have strayed far off track (I am good at it too) and you are exactly right!

I have to ask, besides Europe, which is not the biggest GA market, but it is the DA home ground, where do you find fuel prices like that?

Average Jet A prices here are something like AUD$1.75/litre and Avgas about AUD$1.95/litre. Or in USD/gallon $4.96 and $5.53 respectively. The USA will be paying a lot less for both. And of course airlines buy JetA at eye watering discounts. But you and I do not.

Now when that banner is behind a VH registered plane at a Queensland Airshow......you kind of expect the numbers to reflect AUD and prices. There is nothing saying this is USD, NZD, AUD or EURO's converted or even based on pump rices in France. Nothing.

Fabien


Maintenance is considered cheaper? I can assure you, my APS partner Andrew Denyer has years of accounts for DA's diesel fleet that proves the exact opposite and by a long margin, so the DA62 will have to be a stunner in terms of maintenance compared to a Baron or similar. We do have the data.

Just so I can keep up here what currency are you quoting the fuel prices in. If that is Euro's that would be like us paying $7.76 a litre We do not pay that for drum fuel in the most isolated parts of the outback.

If the planets align and you can confirm currency and so on, I will run some back of a beer coaster numbers on several planes tonight or over the weekend.

What airplane company doesn't show highest payload, max speed, max range and minimal fuel burn in the same brochure? Diamond is last in the long line of manufacturers to do this since the 1930s. I really don't understand the problem. At least they actually produced an airplane that flies instead of a paper airplane that seems to be the norm these days.
Kevin

Kevin, if you read the posts carefully it is the graph showing a massive saving of over $400k in 5 years and very unqualified that is my beef.

The others might be facts in isolation, but the graph I cannot get my head around.

Beech and others can stretch their range figures, but $400K fuel burn saving over 5 years? Really?

If I use local fuel prices, and did 500 hours a year for 5 years in the DA62 (155KTAS) as per the 45LPH claim that would be AUD$196,875.

Lets look at a BE58, say we hang the fuel and go at it using WOTLOPSOP with TAS of around 185 Knots. The fuel burn in AUD$401,560. That is $205K more.

If anyone wants to run the numbers properly for say a Baron at 155 KTAS, LOP, that would be interesting but my guesstimate is around 72-75LPH (mental maths and assumption number) that would cost AUD$363,750. Saving $166,875. That is over 2.5 times on the graph.