And cost as much as an SF50.

Completely agree. I realize people do, in fact do it (but then again people do actually jump off bridges too), but it absolutely befuddles me why anyone would pay a million on an unpressurized airplane.

What does this thing cost anyway?

I'm pretty sure DA62 is about $1.4MM

SR22 $1MM or so

SF50 $2MM or so

How much is a new, top line Mooney?

A loaded M350 is 1.4 mil, pressurized sea level cabin to 12.5K, 213 KTAS, 1394 nm range at LRC. I did fly mine almost exclusively in the flight levels. I have about 700 hours in piston PA46's. You essentially get 90% of the turbine capability on a piston budget. I filed FL220-250 on any flight over a couple hundred nm, but living in the Rockies, flying high has many advantages. It is by far the most weather capable of any of the currently available piston aircraft. Real onboard radar, heated wind-screen, pitot, AOA. Boots that you don't have to worry about limited TKS, full envelope protection, automatic descent for a non-responsive pilot, 4 separate glass panels with 4 redundant power sources, 51 inch wide cabin, 6 seats, fore and aft luggage compartments, air-stair for pets and, old people, standard AC and ground heating. That is what I would get if I wanted to spend over a mil on a new piston.

Another important advantage of a clean sheet design: the 62 is much much more comfortable (seats and ergonomics) than any other currently produced piston (new Cirri are close.)

here's the chart for my 180hp beech twin showing effect of weight. I'd love to see this same chart for the diamond. The turbos will make it a lot better, but is it 1000LB better? It would be interesting to see.

Here it is.
Edit, to large to upload. Page 324

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... bqbejSuj-K

DA-62 spotting in the wild today at hobby. A first for me. Even managed a few photos of the strange creature before it scurried away.

Strangely beautiful in that exotic way. A door for each seat I must say is pretty slick

I'm supposed to be getting in a 62 this fall/winter for some extensive left-seat time, I will put up a PIREP once I get enough time in it to be thorough. I can say having been in one, it is a marked improvement over even the 42-VI in many ways.

My primary love for it is that with the useful load bump, and the fact that our typical mission is maybe 400-700 lbs of people and stuff for 300-600 nm legs, it gives a big safety factor in being under gross all the time, which is good being out west since we have some MEAs where on a hot summer day, things could get dicey even in a turbo twin if one stops turning near gross weight in the middle of nowhere.

All of that said, I think there is a good chance that I might be going to a old Malibu with the 550 conversion in the near future, because we have a 6 month old now and oxygen just isn't going to cut it for some of the mountain flying missions, so if I can get reasonable insurance I might be back in a single piston and won't be doing any night flying anymore (until I jump to a Turbine single!).

My concern with the DA62 is obsolescence, and a general overreliance on electronics. I checked one out at AirVenture and generally like the idea of it, but didn’t get any satisfying answers about failure modes and obsolescence plans for the multiple redundant electronic boxes which control the propellers and engines and power forms and such. Add in the same concern for the glass cockpit, and I have to wonder what we’ll say of these planes in 20 years. Recall the hassle of upgrading early glass-panel Cessnas for ADS-B, what a nuisance. If Textron didn’t ultimately bring a solution, those planes would have been frozen out of ADS-B airspace after 2020.

A brand new 58P would bring the same worry wrt the avionics, but not so for the engines and props. A used Baron, originally certificated with steam gages, can be upgraded to glass (G600 & GTN750/650) with relatively little hassle. Not so the integrated flight deck aircraft, and Diamond seems to have gone deeper than most into the electronics with their very fancy electronic engine controls. Realistically, only the manufacturer can source the replacement boxes; what if they cease doing so, or cease support altogether (as in, e.g., bankruptcy)?

I suppose the same could be said for early TBMs (700-series) versus the current models.

Anyway, nifty design, amazingly fuel efficient, if a bit underpowered. Good on ‘em! But it’s not for me. I’m close enough to their target sales demographic that they offered a test flight; I declined.

One of the biggest challenges in designing redundant systems is avoiding common-mode failures.

My $0.02

Mark

[quote="Tom Drew"]Price has to be over $1MM.

I can fly circles around this thing and have over $900k in the bank. If it had a chute I might have some interest.[/quote


You nailed it !!!!

I don't disagree Mark.

BTW hello from someone who logged a lot of passenger seat time (I didn't get to fly it much as I was too young) in our family's T210M, lots of fond memories of the old Turbo Centurion!

I can tell you there were issues in the some of the early G1000 Diamonds (due to software version) with getting ADS-B sorted out as Garmin didn't hold the STC, Diamond did, what a cluster, so the problem went far/wide between brands.

Anyway yes the G1000 + diesel planes are flying computers, the integration and ease of operation is quite good, and they are efficient (the 42-NG cruises at 165 KTAS on 15gph combined, and that's cheap JET-A, the 62 does 185 KTAS on 16-16.5 gph all day), but it is a case of in Diamond do you trust (and they haven't always provided good case to do just that, as in the example of the Thielert debacle).

I think the 42/62 is probably the only modern twin that makes any sense from an efficiency standpoint vs. a SR22, I think the SR22 killed the legacy light twin market.

The more integrated and proprietary things get, the more you are betting on the OEM (and their supply chain!) to keep your residual values up. This is a problem throughout modern certified aviation to some degree. As long as 100LL doesn't become a scarcity/pricing issue, I think the older birds built in large enough numbers to get support for modern avionics like Garmin etc are a reasonable hedge.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Diamond is one ugly sister.

Yep Some might think it’s a sows ear but I like the look, useful, 185kts, roomy, two turning, new avionics and burning ~15GPH if I remember right.

Sweet but at that price I’d go SETP, pressurization and more speed for the $.