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

Any DA62 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

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 »

Yea, the Conklin & de Decker numbers make a lot of assumptions that they clarify in the reports that you can purchase from them. I've found that their prices assume fuel and MX at class B airports, so if your travels don't wind up there reality can be lower. (And given the fuel burn, that would drop their number right smack where Tommy says it should be.)

The nice thing, though, is that they're consistent within themselves, and let us get order of magnitudes.

Code: Select all

Aircraft Name             Variable Cost
Aerostar 601P             $589
Daher-Socata TBM 700C2    $765
Pilatus PC 12             $937
Piper Meridian PA 46TP    $608
Piper Malibu PA46         $384

Code: Select all

Aircraft Name             Variable Cost
Cirrus SR20 G3 GTS        $163
Cirrus SR22 G5 GTS        $215
Cirrus SR22T G5 GTS       $247
Cirrus Vision SF50        $662

Code: Select all

Aircraft Name             Variable Cost
Diamond DA 40NG           $124
Diamond DA 40XLS          $159
Diamond DA 42 L360        $332
Diamond DA 42 Twinstar    $253
Diamond DA 42NG Twinstar  $244
Variable costs include fuel, airframe maintenance, labor and parts, engine restoration and miscellaneous costs. Fixed costs include crew salaries, training, hangar and insurance fees, refurbishing, and miscellaneous subscriptions for navigation, weather, and maintenance systems.

It's commonly said that one needs to fly the Aerostar like a jet. And that statement totally makes sense given that "both the Aerostar and the Learjet have NACA 64-series wing sections with only two
degrees of dihedral and one degree of incidence."

Beautiful plane, but from everything that I've read (both here and elsewhere) it's more like a cheap jet than an expensive piston twin.

Now, what is interesting, is the supposed variable costs of the the SF50 vs the Aerostar. Doesn't count cost of capital though. Given all of the planes in that operating category, the most interesting are the PA46-TP and the Aerostar, with the latter seemingly being the best value. (Tommy's refurb at 400 vs a pa46-tp with minimal avionics usually around 800k.)

Definitely looking forward to reading your personal experience with the Aerostar Tommy. I think a lot of us may be living vicariously through you on that one. :D

... and bringing it back in to the topic thread, I think it's pretty clear that the Aerostar is a huge step in capability as compared to the DA62.

As to things in and near what I believe to be it's class, The DA62 as compared to a (new) Seneca and a (new) Matrix seems like a stand-out to me. If you're going to make that kind of investment, might as well make it in modern technology.
User avatar
Lance Murray
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:25 pm
First Name: Lance
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 120 times

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

Post by Lance Murray »

Im sorry but for 1.3 Million USD you can buy a really nice King Air and have money left over for two years worth of fuel and maintenance.
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
First Name: Emir
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
Airports: LDZA LDVA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 393 times

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

Post by ememic99 »

Tommy wrote:The Aerostar is vastly different than the Diamond, but it is an alternative when one understands what the Aerostar has to offer.
The same goes for SET (e.g. Jetprop or Meridian) - it's vastly different than Diamond but for $1.3m one can buy almost new (2009) Meridian with G1000/GFC700, 260KTAS with 3100 hours to reach engine TBO or slightly older for around $800k with 2400 hours remaining. But it's comparing apples and oranges.
User avatar
airborne
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:15 pm
First Name: Joe
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports: KJYO
Been thanked: 2 times

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

Post by airborne »

Five years ago, I thought the 42 was the perfect plane for me. I bought a new 40XLS instead while the dust settled on the engine (and other) issues. I am based near DC and loved the DA40 for running up and down the coast and over to Oshkosh a couple of times. Great IFR aircraft.

A year ago I started looking at what the next bird would be - and the Diamond twin configuration just did not add up for me. Range was not a huge priority, but speed, comfort and safety were. G1000 was a solid requirement. I kept coming back to the Meridian (PA46T). Air stair entry, pressurization, air conditioning, FIKI, 260KTAS at FL280, PT-6 reliability.
Price was a function of model year. One flight in the cabin and my wife green-lighted the move up. Different class of airplane with different class of costs, but we are thrilled with it and would never look back. The Diamond twins, while very nice designs, simply do not offer enough of ANYTHING to justify the stiff price... not for me anyway.
Joe
DA40 XLS
KJYO Leesburg,VA
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 »

CFIDave wrote:
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.


Conklin's hourly costs for the Aerostar 601P that they are quoting are way out of line. (see below)
The safety records reflect pilot proficiency. Not everybody can or should fly an Aerostar.
It's not stupid proof. I don't want to get into which aircraft is better, they both have they're strong points.
I just want to point out facts and destroy myths so everyone on both side of the fence can make a more intelligent decision.

Dave, this link is the true and current
operating cost of a 45gph 260kt tas Super 700 Aerostar. Diamond doesen't even have anything in the same universe much less ball park. A 600 Aerostar is considerably less expensive. However, it's only a 30 gph 200kt airplane at just about all flight levels.
http://www.aerostaraircraft.com/Super%2 ... rating.pdf
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: Saw it, sat in it, and have my opinion...

Post by rwtucker »

Assuming you can get insured for it (I don't think I could), for $550-$650 TOC/hr, you can fly 370-380 KTAS, above Wx at 41,000 feet, burning less than 44 GPH in cruise. This chart is old and showcases Eclipse but has the all-in costs at less than $450/hr. http://www.skysales.us/economics-op%20cost.pdf. That can't be right in 2015 but the ratios are.

Price? Similar to a DA62 only you get spacious, quiet safety and luxury. No wedging yourself in a molded seat or hitting your head in moderate turbulence. In fact, generally no Wx other than for the ascent or descent. If you don't want to sit in a seat, you can throw a sleeping bag down and take a nap on the rear cabin floor.

In the end, doesn't the determination rest largely on the marginal value assigned to speed, comfort, and payload? When you move into the $1.5M range, Diamond takes second, third, or even 10th place to a lot of other options, some of which are cheaper, faster, safer, fly higher, and are even more fun to fly.

==========
Afterthought: I agree with you Tommy. It is not difficult to find a lot of marginal information on costs. I sometimes see criticisms of the Eclipse because, "It burns 80 gph". In what universe! Maybe if you fly it at low altitudes on nothing but short hops. For several hours spread across three legs and two days, I watched the E500 fly consistently at 370-380 ktas burning <150 pounds/hr/side. No speculation involved. The pilot averages 400 hours per year flying all of the company's three Eclipses. We had an extended discussion about fuel economy. His facts trump whatever unverified facts are circulating on the web. More often than we know, these facts are promulgated by biased sources.
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 »

Most of us at some point in time will outgrow our Diamonds and will be searching for something new to fulfill a new mission, mine started about two years ago. At the time I had just finished my ME rating in a 42 and was in the early stages of sorting out what my new mission and priorities would be. I was leaning twin and I was leaning heavily toward Diamond. I just love the Diamond aircraft. I had over 1,200 hrs. in my 40 and loved every second of it. In my opinion there is not an aircraft around of similar make and model that can give you what the G1000, SVT, WAAS DA40 provides. When it comes down to capability, cost and fun flying factor nothing comes remotely close.
That being said, I was trying to find those same attributes I loved in the 40, in the 42. It just wasn't there. What it came down to, I consistently wanted three things Diamond could not give me, speed, useful load and range. It just wasn't there. At the time the 42 was the only option Diamond had to offer and pretty much fell short in every category I was interested in. The 62 today still does not adequately address my current wants and needs.
In the background throughout this whole process was the Aerostar. I kept on hearing these wonderful things about this airplane through my instructor who has several thousands of hours in them. But, then again, did I really want to entertain owning a 40 year old airplane, as Dave would say, "it's my fathers airplane." I loved the G1000, SVT, WAAS etc. and all the new technology inherent in the Diamond aircraft in general. So why would I want to go what would appear to be backwards? Then I started to do a little research about the Aerostars, the designer (Ted Smith) and Aerostar Corporation owners Jim Christy and Steve Speers. This is just a little of what I found.http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... t/Aerostar The rest is pretty much history. Long story short, Ted Smith was a genius far ahead of his time even by todays standards.
The following is a short to the point synopsis of specific items of interest that some people may have interest in including items that drew me to the Aerostar:
1.) The 600A normally aspirated Aerostar is 200 knt. airplane from 2,000 msl (16 gph) to 10,000 msl (13 gph), 12,000 msl (198 tas 12 gph) 15,000 msl (194 tas 11.5 gph)
2.) The Aerostar Super 700 is a 205 kts. airplane @ 44 gph from 2,000 msl to 260 kts. @ 44 gph @ 29,000 msl.
No matter how you cut it, if you want to go fast, whether you're burning avgas or diesel, you're going to burn a lot of fuel. The Diamonds burn what appears to be very little diesel fuel. They are also very slow. Diamond cannot burn a lot of fuel because they cannot carry a lot of fuel. Hence the reason they are slow. They will never be faster unless they can burn more fuel. They will never be able to burn more fuel unless they can carry more fuel. You see where I'm going with this. It's my rationale. Aerodynamic improvements will only take you so far.
3.) I can look out the pilot and copilot window of my Aerostar and see what I used to see when I looked out my DA40 cockpit. The engines and wings are well behind the front seats.
4.) I took out the fifth and sixth seats. I don't need them. I left the rear bench seat in. A 6' 5" person can sit on the rear bench seat, stretch out their legs over duffle bags if available and literally have a make shift bed. It's that roomy. This doesn't include the 240 lbs. of luggage capacity behind the fuselage fuel tank that is still available for whatever.
5.) I can load up 165 gal. of fuel (5.5 hrs. no reserve.) and still have 800 lbs useful load left and able to travel at 200 kts. Not bad huh?
6.) A well maintained Aerostar or brought up to factory maintenance standards with a little glass (G500 GTX750) normally aspirated 600 will require an initial investment of about $200,000.00. After that, normal annuals ranging anywhere from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 is the norm. Keep in mind there are always exceptions. You are buying a 40 plus year old airplane. There is no warranty. Super 700s which are considerably faster are also considerably more expensive.
7.) The Aerostar flies like a Diamond, it really does. It's as responsive as all get out. It's all push rod and torque tube controls. All you have to do is think where you want the Aerostar to go and it goes there. Only pressure on the controls never push, pull. You push pull at 200 kts. and I guarantee you will end up plastered on the floor or ceiling, especially in the 600. The 600 is about 500 lbs. lighter than the pressurized Aerostars and responds accordingly.
8.) As far as safety is concerned, I know none of you on this forum know me, so for whatever it's worth, there is no way I would be flying this aircraft if i didn't believe for one second that I was not as safe or safer than flying in my old DA40. I am that confident in its safety when operated within poh. I have yet to see an accident that cannot be explained through blatant pilot error.
Just a few facts: There has never been a recorded in air breakup of an Aerostar. Aerostar's have already been tested in a shallow dive up to 500 kts. with no indication of flutter. Computer simulation of an Aerostar at 800 kts. began to show flutter. All of this is published on the web and can be found if you look hard enough. Im just not going to do it here.
Fuel tank issues were all pilot induced. Base to final stalls are just that, base to final stalls. An Aerostar is a 600 to 700 hp. rocket ship. You fly it like a 600 to 700 hp. rocket, not like a Piper Cub, or a DA20, or a DA40, or a DA42 for that matter. Downwind, 18" map, 150 kts., drop 20 degrees of flaps, abeam of the threshhold (1,200 agl) 130 kts., drop gear, full 45 degree flaps, turn towards the runway descending at 120-130 kts., turn towards the runway to align, props full forward, cross threshold at 90-95 kts. touch down at 75 80 kts. The first thing anyone and everyone who flies an Aerostar who comes in contact with a newbie is to convey you do not fly the Aerostar slow, you fly it fast. It didn't take me long to see that after a few lessons with my instructor. Trying to fly an Aerostar without any training, especially a twin of that caliper is nothing short of suicide. Once you see how fast an accelerated stall can occur you understand why. This is not your mothers DA40. Once you know of the accelerated stall, you know how not to get yourself in trouble.
9.) My initial insurance was a million smooth with a hull of $150,000.00. I was required to take ground school and flight training from an accredited Aerostar flight training center. Minimum requirement were complete ground school, 10 hrs. flight instruction, 10 hrs. solo and ifr proficiency check every year. Total cost first year was just under $4,000.00.

If I think of anything else I will add.
Again, I am not here to criticize Diamond. I wish they could have given me what I was looking for. Thank God I was able to stumble upon the Aerostar.




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

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

Post by Star57 »

Gentlemen, I initially wrote this post solely based on my initial impression of the DA62, never even thought about the Aerostar, my nearest competitor was the Seneca V, let's compare apples to Apples.

Let's stay on topic, I know that we tend to bet on our own horses, but comparing an Aerostar to a DA62 is really not a proper comparison .

The typical flight out of Austria is probably less than 600nm and that is where the 42 and 62 fit in . :roll:

My final observation is that all the these planes by Diamond are designed according to a vision of an European with limited understanding of the likes, needs, wants of this continent of 350 million people.

I have further thought on this but I need to get my issues with DAI dealt with, we are also selling ou 2005 DA40.
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 »

Just curious. Why is the Aerostar not a proper comparison to the 42 and 62?
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

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

Post by Star57 »

Tommy, be realistic?!...the only comparable aircraft is the Seneca v, the Aerostar is a cabin class twin, for one its available brand new, similar price range, similar HP, similar or techniclly the same avionics, just the A/P in itself makes it a desirable comparison, similar performance and stall speeds.
Better support and service network, but let's not get too far ahead on that service statement.

The Aerostar was a fine aircraft in the 70's and 80's but today's younger generation pilots want integrated avionics, digital A/P,s light carbon fiber bodies, Fadec engines, one could go on and on.....

Just compare Cessna182 and Bonanza sales to Cirrus. :P

Tommy, you can put a lot of lipstick on an old pig, but it will always be an old pig. :P

Take the fact that you can get checked out on it, in couple hours if you're current on a DA42, having said all that I'm the first one to say that it's too expensive, should have the Garmin G2000 and a bit more power.
The control stick on the right should be removable for the non flying right seater. :thumbsup:

To end my comparison statement I will say, that it's like comparing Raquel Welch today to Kate Upton, hope I shouldn't have to expand further.... :D

Enjoy your Aerostar ;)
Post Reply