at 1232 useful load means 3 full size people, and bags. 50 gallons at 9 GPH (marketing number) is 5.5 hours in the air to dry tanks, that is 2+ hours longer than I can go without stopping. They claim 750 NM with VFR reserve, at 9 gph that pencils out to approximately 150 KTAS. I can only assume Diamond is looking at the useful load being more desirable than time in the air. Does anyone know if most of the diamonds are sold outside the US? Maybe it has something to do with certification in Europe? I noticed the max takeoff weight was 1999 KG, is there some cost differential with charges for services with 2000 kg and over in Europe?

I think there will be a long range tank option. There should be a good slug of room in the inboard wing area with two engines missing from the 42/62 models.

It's a really, really large cabin (the 62 has crazy headroom) but I hope the rear seats recline. That seemed like an oversight on the 62. Sucks to enjoy a big spacious cabin while being completely erect (not the viagra way).

181 knots at 16,000' at (likely) max continuous power is probably around 14-15 gph if BSFC is around .35-.38. Just a WAG. Hopefully that's at max weight too

Also means that cruising speed at breathable altitudes is likely around 165-170 knots. Not terrible given the size, but that's flooring it. At least diesels do it LOP. And right now 14 gph of jet A will cost you nothing

Hopefully the FAA/US version gets a higher gross weight like the DA62. Won't help speed, but further carves out the major loadhauler niche.

Like at maybe 1150 hours (1200 TBR on the engine)?

Is there any other aircraft that has a TBR and not a TBO?

Dan

I really like this plane. The Cirrus is a little faster, and maybe shouldn’t but can fly higher. Has a little more range as well. The M350 is 30+ knots faster, has almost twice the range and can safely fly at 25,000 feet in pressurized safety. Does have a good full fuel useful load, but so do the Cirrus and the M350 if you restrict the fuel to 750 nm. Jetfuel is nice though, especially for non US markets. I like it.

180kts true at 16,000' is around 130kts indicated. If you're trip is too short pay back the penalty of going that high, it's not really gonna get you there too fast. So if you're not going 500 miles it's Cessna speeds.
Assuming speeds are the same indicated down low.
I wonder if the 8,000' speed is actually 130kts indicated as well.

I'm just going to put a here to keep up with the chatter.
Still a lot to learn about this but the avtur and that fuel burn are temping as long as that TBR isn't a sting in the tail. Oh and the price.

It's pretty sad that a 50 year newer design can't out perform a 1975 A36TN. 50 gallon tanks and 156 kts? I think that they must be going after the air taxi segment. A passenger or two would much rather stretch out in the back of this compared to a Cirrus for those 300-400 mile trips...FADEC will make them "professional pilot" proof as well...I cringe every time I hear that in an ad for a used plane...All that means was that the plane was run hot and hard...30 ROP all the time lol

I couldn't agree more. This is my issue with Cirrus, too. I still can't believe that the turbo'd SR22 can only do 180 kts.

The power plant can do so much more. A similar powerplant in the M350 can do 210 kts, in pressurized cabin class air conditioned comfort. And that's with a pretty old airframe design. Where's the innovation in the new planes?

I don’t know what percentage of the time piston aircraft cruise at FL250, (Or even above 12,500’) as a matter of practicality, but I suspect the number is very very small.. less than 10% is my guess)...

I would say the above 12,500 speed specs for non pressurized piston aircraft are more about marketing than actual usage

I spend a lot of cruise time in the upper teens.

I've flown in the flight levels, but the need for a full mask in lieu of a pressurized cabin and the increasing danger of hypoxia cause me not to choose it.

The Columbia 400 does very well at altitude.

Pressurized piston aircraft cruise in the teens all the time. So why isn't the DA50 pressurized? The powerplant presumably could support this. I just don't see why the new aircraft designs are less capable than much older designs with similar powerplants.

It's almost like demand for capability - FIKI, pressurization, TC, RADAR, etc. - has dropped in favor of less capable planes with parachutes and iPhone connectivity, and that's scary to me. At some point, the old designs are going to be too old, and there won't be anything to replace them.

I do wish Diamond offered a more capable version of this plane, with proper speeds in the 200s, pressurization, and FIKI. Instead of fancy avionics at the tune of $100,000s.

Pressurized piston aircraft cruise in the teens all the time. So why isn't the DA50 pressurized? The powerplant presumably could support this. I just don't see why the new aircraft designs are less capable than much older designs with similar powerplants.

It's almost like demand for capability - FIKI, pressurization, TC, RADAR, etc. - has dropped in favor of less capable planes with parachutes and iPhone connectivity, and that's scary to me. At some point, the old designs are going to be too old, and there won't be anything to replace them.

I do wish Diamond offered a more capable version of this plane, with proper speeds in the 200s, pressurization, and FIKI. Instead of fancy avionics at the tune of $100,000s.

pressurized piston singles are unicorns...Pa-46, P210, Lancair ivp.. can’t think of others off the top of my head. and I agree.... it makes no sense to me why diamond da50 and the SR22T are not pressurized..

What makes even less sense to me is how much someone would pay for an unpressurized plane Whos engine is optimized for above 14,000 flight.[/quote]
Yes.....................finally someone said it.

That's easy: It's a "get out of Dodge" ticket for alot of inclement weather situations. So whilst many turbo owners don't regularly fly in the FLs, they know they can if needed .