BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Feb 2020, 19:52

DA62 sure is nice but I’ve never seen one in real life.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Feb 2020, 20:09

Username Protected wrote:

Turbines have definitely replaced the piston twin market. I've always contended that the Mustang was the modern-day replacement of the 421 from yesteryear.

Man I wish.
A good friend has a Mustang and I love it. It does so many things better...except space.
With four kids under 12 I don't think we could get everything packed in.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Feb 2020, 22:15

Username Protected wrote:

57 cubic feet holds a bunch of stuff. Four kids will have more than enough room inside. The two baggage compartments combine for 630lbs. You hauling more than 100lbs/person?

The Mustang cabin is definitely adequate for the people, it's more of a baggage volume issue for us.

With the 8th seat out, the 421 has about 50cf behind the door inside the cabin for light stuff.
The nose holds 35cf or so (about what fits in a short bed F150) and it's good for 600 lbs.
The wing lockers take what's left.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2020, 06:06

I transitioned from a C421C to a C510. The 421C had one wing locker and the avionics bay was used for avionics. My 421C with the 8th seat removed had 61 cu.ft. of baggage space spreaded over 4 bays, the Mustang holds 57 cu.ft. in 2 large places, allowing for even larger pieces (skis) and not including the baggage are over the toilet (which is only a net, though, but the only pressurized space).

Loading heavy suitcases in the rear baggage bays of the 421C, via the top of seats #5 and #6 is not that convenient.

Hands down, the baggage space of the Mustang is superior. But the C421 offers much more pressurized baggage space and, if the C421 was on diet, a slightly better payload at full fuel. The Mustang has 800 lbs (including pilot) at full fuel (385 GAL = 2,580 lbs), which results in 1,150 NM range (NBAA, IFR, 100 NM alternate). That‘s about the same range I got on the C421 with full fuel (234 GAL), which left 900 lbs of payload. However, my 421C had a BEM of 5,111 lbs, most 421Cs are 200 lbs heavier (or more).

For missions of up to 600 NMs, the Mustangs payload is the same or better than the one of the C421, if you should ever need 1400 lbs... Max. ZFM comes in effect.

Topping of, but not overfilling, when departing right after filling up, you get an additional 140 lbs in the Mustang (2,720 lbs at least, vs. 2,580 lbs per book, indicated on the very accurate gauges), giving the Mustang a slightly better range than a 421C with one wing locker (total of 234 GAL). The 421C has an advantage in adverse winds, when you can stay lower. The Mustangs service ceiling of FL410, though, can sometimes overfly jet stream cores and makes for less route changes due to convective weather.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2020, 07:58

Username Protected wrote:

The nose holds 35cf or so (about what fits in a short bed F150) and it's good for 600 lbs.

A short bed F150 is 52.8 cubic feet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2020, 08:47

Username Protected wrote:

I fly a SETP for travel but agree with Tim; both Diamond twins have very long ranges and cruise at close to 200 knots so I would characterize them as travel planes. I like both of those aircraft and would consider them very seriously at some point during retirement if cost and/or medical issues force me to give up my SETP and/or abandon the flight levels.

The Piper Seminole is definitely a training plane; the Seneca could be a travel plane like a Baron but neither Piper nor Textron sell too many of those.

Tecnam actually makes 2 piston twins; the P2006T, which is a training and survey plane although by all accounts its a great plane to fly - with two Rotax 912 engines. They just certified and started delivery of the P2012, which is an unpressurized, fixed-gear commuter aircraft (delivered to Cape Air first) with two Lycoming IE2 engines. Very interesting aircraft but not something anyone here is likely to buy for personal GA travel. The Tecnam P2010 is a single engine, high-wing 4-place piston roughly comparable to and in-between the Cessna 172 and 182.

I did see a Vulcanair P68 twin in Tampa back in January - looks a lot like the Tecnam P2006 with an extra window but I'm not even sure that they are selling those in North America anymore. The one I saw was 1990s vintage I believe. Tecnam and Vulcanair essentially carved up the old Partenavia airframes back in the day, or something like that.

Cessna 421 is definitely at the next level.

Neither the 42 or 62 are close to 200 knot airplanes especially the 42. You can get close on in the 62, however, even that is at 90 percent power and very specific altitudes where you are going to burn a whole heck of a lot more fuel which in turn reduces your range. The 42 has literally no useful load. The 62 is better, however, that goes away real quick when you start loading it up with options that everyone wants on a cruiser.
You are not going to get both speed and range in the Diamond family of aircraft. You will only get one or the other. That being said and understood, Diamond does make an absolutely beautiful airplane. I am just not a fan of the diesel and it’s limitations. You cannot beat the avionics suite that Diamond’s provide. In my opinion, it’s the avionics that make the 42 and 62 even worth considering.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2020, 09:11

Username Protected wrote:

The nose holds 35cf or so (about what fits in a short bed F150) and it's good for 600 lbs.

A short bed F150 is 52.8 cubic feet.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2020, 09:30

Username Protected wrote:

I transitioned from a C421C to a C510. The 421C had one wing locker and the avionics bay was used for avionics. My 421C with the 8th seat removed had 61 cu.ft. of baggage space spreaded over 4 bays, the Mustang holds 57 cu.ft. in 2 large places, allowing for even larger pieces (skis) and not including the baggage are over the toilet (which is only a net, though, but the only pressurized space).

Loading heavy suitcases in the rear baggage bays of the 421C, via the top of seats #5 and #6 is not that convenient.

I guess we've had different experiences. Our avionics bay is open and we have 2 wing lockers.

The 5th & 6th seats should be in front of the door when you load the rear of the cabin, why would you lift anything over those seats? Everything behind those 2 seats, from the door back, becomes luggage space.

Skis fit just fine in the nose with other baggage.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Feb 2020, 13:26

Username Protected wrote:

A short bed F150 is 52.8 cubic feet.

The usable space in mine is 60x48x20. Yours must be bigger.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2020, 20:50

Username Protected wrote:

Neither the 42 or 62 are close to 200 knot airplanes especially the 42. You can get close on in the 62, however, even that is at 90 percent power and very specific altitudes where you are going to burn a whole heck of a lot more fuel which in turn reduces your range. The 42 has literally no useful load. The 62 is better, however, that goes away real quick when you start loading it up with options that everyone wants on a cruiser.
You are not going to get both speed and range in the Diamond family of aircraft. You will only get one or the other. That being said and understood, Diamond does make an absolutely beautiful airplane. I am just not a fan of the diesel and it’s limitations. You cannot beat the avionics suite that Diamond’s provide. In my opinion, it’s the avionics that make the 42 and 62 even worth considering.

Actually the DA-42 IV and the DA-62 are consistently 190 KTAS planes based on reviews/comments on https://www.diamondaviators.net/
Also, if you join there, you will find a lot of comments/complaints about the avionics.
The avionics situation was actually one of the main reasons I ended up back in a Cirrus.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2020, 21:40

Username Protected wrote:

Neither the 42 or 62 are close to 200 knot airplanes especially the 42. You can get close on in the 62, however, even that is at 90 percent power and very specific altitudes where you are going to burn a whole heck of a lot more fuel which in turn reduces your range. The 42 has literally no useful load. The 62 is better, however, that goes away real quick when you start loading it up with options that everyone wants on a cruiser.
You are not going to get both speed and range in the Diamond family of aircraft. You will only get one or the other. That being said and understood, Diamond does make an absolutely beautiful airplane. I am just not a fan of the diesel and it’s limitations. You cannot beat the avionics suite that Diamond’s provide. In my opinion, it’s the avionics that make the 42 and 62 even worth considering.

Actually the DA-42 IV and the DA-62 are consistently 190 KTAS planes based on reviews/comments on https://www.diamondaviators.net/
Also, if you join there, you will find a lot of comments/complaints about the avionics.
The avionics situation was actually one of the main reasons I ended up back in a Cirrus.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2020, 22:03

I consider Diamonds some of the best planes built. They’re design in just about every respect is outstanding. Safety, ergonomics, avionics, fun, you can’t beat the airplane. I am just not a fan of the diesel. To slow, to heavy, limited support. Maybe elsewhere my opinion would be different, but, not here in the states. I see no advantage to the diesel here.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 01 Mar 2020, 22:53

Tom,

https://www.diamondaircraft.com/en/priv ... /overview/

For the 42, I said the -IV version. Otherwise, the older 42 varied between 155 and 170 KTAS depending on the engine.

In terms of the avionics, the issue is ongoing support and upgrades. Pretty much all G1000 planes have this issue, but I think Diamond is slightly worse off than most other brands based on comments about the number of variations and very low volume Diamond has.

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2020, 16:58

So I click on page 31 to see what’s going on with the Cirrus Jet and not one post about the Cirrus. I’m not surprised - it’s a BT thing.

Carry on,
Don

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Mar 2020, 21:16

Username Protected wrote:

So I click on page 31 to see what’s going on with the Cirrus Jet and not one post about the Cirrus. I’m not surprised - it’s a BT thing.

Carry on,
Don

I saw one today, does that count?