I was at an airshow on the weekend and the Hawker Pacific sales folk had a DA62 on site. First one down under.

Interesting machine and this banner is interesting too. The graph just does not make sense. It is like comparing a Prius with a motor home in terms of "vehicle".

I am struggling with the claim of 45LPH of JetA1 compared with "typical twin" at 150LPH.

At 180HP should we compare with a Seneca? Duchess?

The Marketing data is very lacking in detailed data which makes me smell a rat.

Anyone have any insight into these "fairy tales" ?

I think you're right David. They're kind of selective in their facts. Their 44L/hr is at 60% but they don't show the actual speed and at which altitude. Similar with the rest of their facts stated.
It still is less expensive (consumption wise) to run then a conventional avgas burner.

I used to maintain a DA-42 with the TAE125 engines and was always amazed how little those engines burned. The down side was a lot of very expensive engine parts that have to be changed because they are called out in Airworthiness Limitations kinda washed out the savings.

Does the 62 use Austro Engines? Do they have the same requirements?

Jeff

Having flown all the Diamonds except the DA62, they are nothing short of amazing. I am sure that the DA62 will do everything Diamond claims. I would love to have one, but the Meridian would get jealous. The airframe and engines are very efficient.

There's a lot of qualifications that comes with Diamond's claim.
At 45 L/hour you can expect less than 160 kts tas. At well less than 150 L/hour I'm over 200 kts tas (Aerostar) with more capacity. No matter how you cut it, if you want to go fast or carry a lot you're going to burn a lot of fuel, jet A or avgas. If you want to go fast and carry a lot at the same time you're going to burn a whole ton of fuel. There's no getting around it.
When you sift through the details (DA 62, DA42 performance specs) you will see the light.

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/da62/
http://support.diamond-air.at/fileadmin ... mplete.pdf

The recommended cruise power setting per the POH for the 62 is 75% and I believe it is also 75% for the 42.

Can't find the advertised 201kt at 14000, not even close. The POH at 14000 gives a max of 191 at 95% power.
In a 1.x mil plane I would expect cabin class and not passengers entering the plane over the wings. Maybe adjustable seats too.
It should be a new and modern design, but The glider roots are still undeniable.

It's basically a twin engined motor-glider and I think they're banking on that. The miserly fuelburn and low weight will make it a big succes in Europe. In the USA, with low fuel prices and no worries about ATC fees based on aircraft weight, it may be a harder sell.

What bothers me is they never double stack facts. For example they recommend a power setting, but do not give a fuel flow or speed.They give a maximum speed but at what flow?

I am not a buyer, but I cannot for the life of me get past the lies in the marketing material. Besides Vans Aircraft performance numbers which are always spot on, we expect the manufacturers to cherry pick a bit, this is taking cherry picking and comparing to a whole new level of deceit.

Keep the comments coming. It is an interesting thought experiment. 58 Baron anyone? I know which I would prefer. Hey even a god Duke

Yes,

if one takes a look at the sales numbers the Diamond Twins, i.e. the 42, and now also the 62, seem to be the only piston twins that sold in considerable numbers in the last 10 years..and obviously continue to sell well..

they also are the only "new technology" twin piston aircraft..due to their engines..

as long as the major OEMs in the US will not put "new technology" piston engines on their twin designs..they will not sell anymore..

so it seems the Diamond twins as of today are the only game in town in regards to new piston multi engine aircraft sales..

never understood why Beechcraft or Cessna or Piper for that matter have not done anything new…

looks as if they have given up on piston twins…

let us just leave the single versus twin argument aside…

just to train all the new airline pilots needed in the near future to multi standards will need a considerable fleet of twin training aircraft..we are talking about huge numbers of needed aircraft…just the new version of the 42, I think they sold more than 1000 in the last 10 years…

seems the US OEMs have given up on that market

As always, Gerd is spot on!

Every flight school is buying one of these at the moment, or the very crappy and criminally underpowered Tecnam.
Whilst I've had my share of troubles with the da-42 initally during my conversion (I used to call it Zirconium...), they've really improved with the Austro engines.

I very much like the stick, fadec, super easy start. I still can't believe all the trouble I have to go through starting my engines, when I can just turn on the glow, then a key.
One thing that seems to be common talking with my FI friend with 1000hrs on the da42, the lack of proper visual reference during steep turns, that sucks. But I'll blame my skills for that.

There's a logic to their line as well. You train on a da40, then 42. You get hired flying survey with a 42 MPP.
Get tired of flying lines, no problem, get some experience flying biz with the 62.
Minimal cockpit layout difference, excellent manuals (their doc is really top notch, airline quality).

nice priep here from May this year..

and they seem to be delivering the birds in good numbers…at least by the high serial number of a new 62 here in Salzburg that was recently picked up from the factory..

I think they have ramped up production to one airplane a week already, and are targeting a 62 production of 60 - 70 airplanes a year from 2017 on…if one adds the 42s they are building, lots of new twins..there is a message there..

[youtube]https://youtu.be/h4DD-Lk_Q7U[/youtube]

Good thing Diamond sells such a good product that speaks for itself, because their sales force in the US is really weak. I always thought they could do a lot better with sales.

I like the DA62, but then I would probably have to say that compared to the unpressurized Matrix or Pressurized Mirage, it still comes up short in almost every aspect. I guess the DA62 does have one more seat, and twins are cool, but the PA46's smoke it in speed, altitude, range, and weather capability.

Thanks to you guys who do fly them for jumping in.....and yes it seems like a lovely plane and all, but I cannot get my head around the marketing lies. And I am calling them lies because there is no way you can carry 7 bum's on seats at 210 knots burning 11.8GPH with 1565Lbs of gear/people over 1283NM.

Nor can the two lines on the graph make sense. Not unless you pay for avgas in equivalent mass of gold or something.

Conventional twin at 150 LPH they stated. Let's look at say a Chieftain at a cruise power of 220-225HP with a low compression (less efficient) engine. This burns 120-124LPH. From dyno data at GAMI so I know it is real.

How about a Baron, with IO550's at say a slow and economical 60% power up at 9000' that would be around 90-92 LPH.

So if we assume a Baron is similar in terms of payload, and probably a bit faster (but I can't easily compare due lack of DA data) it starts to narrow the gap quite a lot.

Nobody talks about the service costs. I do have the unfair advantage of one of the APS guys being Andrew Denyer in Adelaide who is the factory approved engine guy down under and the costs of gearboxes clutches and timing chains etc make TCM cylinder issues seem minor.

Still struggling to do a apples for apples comparison and get the graph to work for me.

Any ideas?

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

Also, I would not call the far back seats suitable for adults. About the same as the 5th and 6th in a B55.

Carlos