DA42 v Baron

Any DA42 related topics.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Post Reply
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by ihfanjv »

rwtucker wrote:ihfanjv,

Your comments prompt me to take another look inside the last Nall and the latest data. The last time I looked, the Cirrus and the Columbia/Cessna were not comparable. In spite (or perhaps because) of the BRS, the Cirrus had more serious accidents and fatalities.
I think you are right. I think the Columbia/Cessna 350/400 might have a marginally better accident/fatality rate than the SR22. As I noted above, I think that is driven by the fact the 350/400 flies better and more intuitively than the SR22.

The BRS parachute does not cause accidents. There is one documented case an attempted parachute deployment that failed to deploy and the pilot then proceeded to land safely. I believe there were one or more attempted chute pulls that were "beyond the design limits" of the parachute that then resulted in fatalities. I think there are no examples of the parachute deploying resulting in a fatality.

Said another way, the ideal would be the 350/400 with a BRS, with the 350/400s handling characteristics, and with the SR22s useful load (or more). But, that plane does not (yet) exist.
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by ihfanjv »

rwtucker wrote:ihfanjv,

Understood. Yet, a Utility rating means something significant and it is a reason why someone might seek it out in an aircraft purchase.
I don't think the utility rating means anything if there is no empirical evidence that the utility rating imparts any benefit to the owner other than the fact that the placard says "utility" rather than "normal".
User avatar
Tgleeson
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:45 pm
First Name: Tim
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: C-GYMT
Airports: CYKZ

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Tgleeson »

Second attempt at a reply! I decided the build strength/utility category was an important safety element for me in buying a 400 since RLOC accidents are a noticeable % of GA accidents. Strength of build and crashworthiness as well as fuel system would be important considerations in those scenarios. Handling under circuit altitude is also important in those scenarios and in missed approaches where there are also a lot of accidents. Obviously if you want a parachute there is only one choice and in certain scenarios it is uniquely useful.
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by ihfanjv »

Tgleeson wrote:I decided the build strength/utility category was an important safety element for me in buying a 400 since RLOC accidents are a noticeable % of GA accidents. Strength of build and crashworthiness as well as fuel system would be important considerations in those scenarios. Handling under circuit altitude is also important in those scenarios and in missed approaches where there are also a lot of accidents.
These are fair points. But, I think both Utility and Normal certification requirements have identical 26G crashworthiness limits.
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by rwtucker »

Tim,

Agreed on your reasons for Utility. Also, I think 'ihfanjv' would not dismiss Utility as insignificant if he (or she) flew backcountry as some of us do. It is a discussion for another day but I can relate how little of the spar was required for the Columbia to earn Utility and how close the Cirrus is (or was) to the line in making just Normal. Then there is flight control redundancy. In those early days, there was a serious divergence in design philosophy. I do not know if that philosophy has changed now that Cirrus is owned by China Aviation Industry General Aircraft which is owned by Aviation Industry Corporation of China which is wholly owned by the Government of the People's Republic of China. It could be better, worse, or the same. Time will tell but ownership does make a difference and the Cessna tradition is not insignificant.
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by ihfanjv »

rwtucker wrote:Tim,
I do not know if that philosophy has changed now that Cirrus is owned by China Aviation Industry General Aircraft which is owned by Aviation Industry Corporation of China which is wholly owned by the Government of the People's Republic of China. It could be better, worse, or the same. Time will tell but ownership does make a difference and the Cessna tradition is not insignificant.
Continental is now owned by the same Chinese group. Since they are allegedly well capitalized now, hopefully quality will improve, or at least not get worse.
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by ihfanjv »

rwtucker wrote:Tim,

It is a discussion for another day but I can relate how little of the spar was required for the Columbia to earn Utility and how close the Cirrus is (or was) to the line in making just Normal.
I wonder how the Cirrus SR22 G5 would do under a re-test. The G5 spar is now carbon fiber, supposedly to accommodate the 200 lb. increase in useful load.
Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Tommy »

Regarding BRS systems, I don't care what plane they are on;
once you deploy the chute you have given up flying the airplane.
Once you deploy the chute you are at the mercy of the winds to blow you into whatever may be
encountered on decent like a mountain, farm field, house, a mother pushing a stroller down the street with a baby in it, volcano, etc.
No matter how you cut it, once you deploy the chute you have given up flying the airplane and you can't get it back. All you can do is hope and pray nothing bad happens because you have given up any control you may have had.
Also, they are not cheap to repack when mandatory replacement comes around.
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by rwtucker »

This is complicated because there are outcomes to support all possible configurations but I agree with Tommy in thinking that the small GA BRS has not lived up to the expectations I think we all had for it.

I can add a few points to Tommy's list. These points compare a BLS descent the DA40 technique we have discussed here for floating the DA40 down if disoriented, caught in IMC, engine failure, etc. (In brief: engine to idle, trim full aft, maintain level wings, until you are in a position to fly the aircraft, arrest horizontal motion just before impact if not.)

- Vertical descent is faster with the Cirrus BLS than with the DA40 descent. It is true that you also have a fairly small horizontal component with this technique but it can be mitigated at the last second if the ground is your best option.

- If you employ the DA40 descent, you still have options to fly the aircraft when you break out of the clouds, regain orientation, manage to restart the aircraft, etc. Not so with the BLS.

- The aircraft is generally totaled with the BRS deployment. I guess we don't know for certain with the DA40 descent but it is more likely that you will walk away with MLG repairs, etc.

- If you elect not to fly the aircraft when you get close to the ground, you can still maneuver to the best of your bad options.

- If this seems like Cirrus bashing or DA40 hubris, take a look at the safety data and the insurance actuarial rates. The company that insures my DA40 now told me they stopped writing policies on the Cirrus and will take all the Diamonds they can get (unless the pilot has a bad record). Commonsized rates are 50% or more higher.

What I can say for certain is how my own thinking has evolved since the BLS first hit the market. Initially, I wanted one. Now, in the DA40 at least, it seems an unnecessary expense under the most likely adverse events and a 50/50 toss-up under the least likely adverse events. If Diamond were to add BLS as an option, I would not be a buyer.
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by rwtucker »

ihfanjv wrote:I wonder how the Cirrus SR22 G5 would do under a re-test. The G5 spar is now carbon fiber, supposedly to accommodate the 200 lb. increase in useful load.
Good question. If is a new spar, do they have to re-certify for the increased load? Did they go for Utility or the lower G force rating?
Post Reply