Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Any DA62 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Star57
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:15 pm
First Name: Frank
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: C-FRZA 40.509
Airports: CYBW
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by Star57 »

I was at the NBAA in Vegas on Wednesday, went there because I wanted to see for myself what the DA62 was about, sat in the front and rear seats, very roomy .
This airplane is what the DA42 should have been, at 1.3 million US dollars, it's in my opinion 350K too high.
It's not my intent to bash it or create controversy about it, but not having a place for baggage is a disappointment.
I went there hoping to meet either the President of Diamond Canada or the owner of the company and ask why there is no inventory of moving surface parts anywhere in the world.We had to wait 4 weeks for a flap to be manufactured, very shameful!!! But let me stick to the 62, reasonably roomy! The seats still are butt low, just like a DA40...that keeps Oregon Aero in business.
We have heard how Diamond has cleaned the DA42, well that is not the case in the 62, the octagon keyed fasteners stick out of the surface of the paint over 1 mm, that will add to parasite drag and disturb the airflow over the surface of the fuselage and engine cowlings, I was shocked and pointed it out to the nice Premiere Sales rep.
I suggest that Diamond engineers pay a visit to the Lancair IV P that ED Small in Calgary has been building, the clear in the paint is indistinguishable to the surface of the octagon fasteners for the cowling, not even a C4 that cost 8 mill has that quality in finish.
So, here is the 1.3 million dollar question, would a prospective buyer select it over a Seneca V, similarly equipped for about the same money, looking at recent experience in getting parts from Diamond Canada, I probably would be hard pressed to pick the DA62, I would pay for the extra 10 gallons per hour for the similar performance in speed.
With the Seneca I would have better Service and better legroom for the rear passengers, if you take 4 full size passengers you'll need the rear seats folded for golf clubs and bags of lady shoes, there goes 1000 pounds plus 4.5 hours of fuel is close to MTGW

I
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by CFIDave »

The Camloc "keyed fasteners" you refer to on the DA62 are identical to those on our DA42-VI since the DA62 shares the same engine cowlings and Austro engines (with slightly different software for more turbo boost at lower altitudes). It's hard to fault the fit and finish on either aircraft.

IMHO the Piper Seneca is an example of "your father's airplane" i.e., an antique design. It doesn't have anywhere close to the same useful load with full fuel, improved aerodynamics, or the FADEC simplicity/smoothness/fuel economy of modern diesel engines. Few turbocharged Continental engines make it to TBO without at least one major top-end overhaul.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
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: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by Tommy »

This is my take Dave:
Dave, without getting into details, there is no question in my mind, Diamond aircraft are the most beautifully designed aircraft when compared to similar make and models. When it comes to the 42 and 62, they are also some of the slowest. They are just plain dead ass slow. I have studied both 42 and 62 POH's.
Sure, I'll burn 30-32 gal. an hour, (Aerostar 600A normally aspirated) I'll also be traveling at 195-205 tas all day at just about every flight level. Both the 42 and 62 will barely get to 195 tas at 95% (just shy of 20 gal. hr.) at (14,000 msl) only one flight level. Most people don't fly at only one flight level. The 62 POH recommends 75% cruise. At 75% the 62 will travel on average 165-170 tas. In order for me to get to 170-178 tas, (I can't get to 165-170 tas, I've never been there in cruise) I have to slow down to a 45% power setting that burns less than 10 gal. hr. a side. At 45% with standard tanks that gives me better than 8 hrs of fuel burn with no reserve. If you add the 45 gal aux. tank (which I have) that gives me better than 10 1/2 hrs. of fuel burn (@ 45%) with no reserve. After full fuel (std. tanks) I have an 800 lbs. useful load. You can extrapolate the rest.
The performance nos. in and of themselves is a deal killer for me. Single engine climb performance is just as anemic. Also, keep in mind, I'm comparing a normally aspirated Aerostar to a turbocharged Diamond. A turbocharged Aerostar will cruise in the 245-260 tas range, it will also burn 45 gal. hr. Speed is never free, not even for a diesel.
A normally aspirated IO-540 will easily exceed 2,000 hr. tbo. It's a proven engine.
One of the hall marks of Diamond that make them such fun to fly (specifically the 20 and40) is the view you get from the bubble canopy, that's does not exist in the 42 or 62 because of engine placement. However, because the engines on an Aerostar sit well aft of the pilot co-pilot seats along with the overhead windows, I still enjoy the same views that I had in my DA40. There are many other reasons I could sight regarding my choice, (like price, etc.) but it would take way to much time. The above are the highlights.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2043
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
First Name: Antoine
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N121AG
Airports: LSGG
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by Antoine »

Hi Tommy nice to see you around a thanks for the implicit Pirep about the Aerostar.
Maybe you should make a more formal one as I am sure there will be people interested.

I believe people willing to shell out between $ 1 and 2 million should take a hard look at the following:
Cirrus Jet SF50 (there are deals to be made buying positions before end of 2015)
Extra EA500.
I am also in the process of leaving the family too. Will report in due time.
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: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by Tommy »

Good to here from you also Antoine. Hope all is well.
I actually have two Aerostars. One I'm flying while while the other is going through a complete refurbishment similar to what Nextant Aerospace does with their aircraft. Hopefully I should have the completely refurbished Aerostar Spring of 2016. Zero time engines, all glass with completely new interior at half the cost of a new DA42 VI. Sounds like a good deal to me. Plus 200 kts. all day.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2043
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
First Name: Antoine
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N121AG
Airports: LSGG
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by Antoine »

Yes thanks all is well. We'll wait for the final Aerostar then. blue skies /A
User avatar
DavidS
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:28 pm
First Name: David
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports: KHEF
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by DavidS »

The Aerostar is a beautiful plane. It's also in a completely different ownership category than anything that Diamond offers.

Then there's our favorite talking point: safety. The Diamond line is very forgiving... from everything I've read, the Aerostar does exactly what you tell it to do. :)

Are you able to discuss your experiences of Aerostar ownership in terms of training / concurrency requirements, as well as mx and upkeep? My understanding is that the airframes are cheap, but the MX can eat you alive.

I'd be curious in seeing fixed / variable cost comparison between these different airframes. I think that the low capital cost of a refurbished Aerostar could get eaten up pretty quickly.
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: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by Tommy »

Yes, the airframes are cheap, however, like everything in life, nothing is free. Pay me now or pay me later.
Keep in mind, most Aerostars are anywhere from 1969 (like the one I am currently flying) to 1982. There are more models and variations than I can post or even attempt to explain. Normally aspirated non-pressurized, non-pressurized turbo-normalized, non-pressurized turbo-charged, pressurized turbo-normalized, pressurized turbo-charged and variations in between.
Depending on model and variation selected operating cost will vary. Ball park figures, normally aspirated non-pressurized $400.00 an hour, pressurized turbocharged $600.00 an hour and everything in between. http://www.aerostaraircraft.com/Super%2 ... rating.pdf
http://aerostar-owners.com/Documents/ModelChart.pdf
http://aerostar-owners.com/WhatsYourMission.php
580 to 700 horse power.
I will post more on my personal experience later. I have to get ready to fly to Fort Meyers tomorrow.
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by CFIDave »

Tommy wrote:Zero time engines, all glass with completely new interior at half the cost of a new DA42 VI. Sounds like a good deal to me. Plus 200 kts. all day.
Tommy, glad to hear you're enjoying your Aerostar(s). But the Aerostar is in a totally different aircraft category compared to a Diamond.

Take a look at the latest Conklin and Decker aircraft variable cost table: https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/ACCostSummary.aspx

$153/hr. Diamond DA40
$247/hr. Diamond DA42
vs.
$572/hr. Aerostar

The operating costs aren't even close, and neither are the aircraft safety records.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
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: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by Tommy »

Yes Dave, you correct. The Aerostar is a totally different type of aircraft when compared to a Diamond.
As far as costs go, there is no single operating cost due to the variations in aircraft. Like I said, $400.00 to $600.00 is a rough gauge. It costs a lot of money to go fast. Conklin & Decker is probably pricing a Superstar 700 or a 702P. A Superstar 700 is a 260 kt. airplane. Lots of things to make an Aerostar real expensive, pressurization, turbocharging (four of them).
The safety record is pretty much driven by naivety. Once you are trained properly the plane is extremely safe.
Don't get me wrong, you can get slow real quick in this plane and it will cost you. However, you get ample warning when you're doing something wrong. Many models don't even have a stall horn. You don't need one. Well prior to stalling the yoke starts to shake like a stick shaker. It's pretty hard to miss. The cardinal rule of flying an Aerostar is don't get slow in the pattern. 120 kts. on short final is the norm. Cross the numbers at 100, touch down at 90. It's really a piece of cake once you understand the plane.
All controls are push rods and torque tubes including the rudder. The rudder is spring attached to the aileron's and is self assisted in a turn when the ailerons are deflected. Any Diamond pilot can fly one when trained properly. It's a fast airplane. Things happen fast and one can get behind fast. Training and proficiency is everything. The Aerostar is vastly different than the Diamond, but it is an alternative when one understands what the Aerostar has to offer.
Post Reply