Do we seriously consider DA62?

[CFIDave]

and of course you can now get the DA42 painted in colors other than white.

Interesting point. What is it about the DA40 vs 42/62 that requires the 40 to be white, and 42/62 can have colors? The DA40 is fiberglass while the 42/62 are carbon fiber. Is that the difference or something else?

The composite resin formulation is different, so it's not just the difference between fiberglass vs. carbon fiber that permits Diamond DA42/50/62 to be painted colors (i.e., the composite is more resistant to higher temperatures when out in the sun).

[MackAttack]

I have owned and flown a 2007 Cirrus SR22TN, currently fly a Piper turbine and am looking hard at a Diamond twin (not to replace the turbine but as an additional mission flex airplane). Happy to discuss my views and thought processes but a couple initial things: 1) don't underestimate the value of pressurization, 2) the Lycoming in the Mirage/M350 is pretty reliable but even the Piper sales reps don't recommend you flying it routinely much about FL200 or 210, and 3) don't underestimate the safety of flying as high as possible to avoid weather/ice etc, and when you do fly high, it's much more comfortable being pressurized than being on a cannula. You didn't tell us your budget but if you are seriously considering the 62, then you've got a wallet with somewhere between 1.0-1.4 mm in it.

For that budget, I would look seriously at a SETP, specifically the Meridian/M500 or even an M600 (which I fly). An Avidyne Meridian can be had for well under $1 mm (last I looked, they were in the 800k+ range). A used G1000 or NXi Meridian can be had in the 1.2-1.4 range, and early serials (1-85) of the M600 (with the G3000) are now trading in the 1.7-1.9 range. A great instructor (who wrote an excellent review of the 62 in Twin and Turbine recently) says that from a safety and reliability perspective: METP>SETP>twin piston>single piston. I think the diesel Diamonds are more reliable and less prone to failure than a twin with Contis or Lycomings personally ... but not as reliable as a single engine PT6. Of course, operating costs on a turbine are higher than on the Diamond twins.

But I'd encourage you to fly them all and see what you think. Flying 5 hours in any unpressurized airplane in the high teens on a cannula was beating the crap out of me, to be honest ... shorter missions, no big deal. But the long ones were tough. I was very close to pulling the trigger on a new M350 (about the same price as a new 62) because I like pressurization, when I had the chance to partner on a used M600 and went that direction.

These are all very first-world problems of course! All are great planes but it's really (as always) driven by your mission and budget. I just would not rule out a used turbine if you are in the new 62 budget ballpark ... They are very easy to fly - much easier than the Cirrus for example. Happy to chat further if you like.

Cheers and good luck!

[VickersPilot]

Joel correctly pointed out that pressurisation significantly reduces fatigue. But the benefits of pressurisation are proportional to the pressure differential of the respective model.

As a reference ("max book values", not real values)

King Air 90: 5.0psi
Piper PA 46: 5.6psi
Daher TBM850: 6.2psi
Citation Mustang 8.3
Gulfstream G5: 10.48

Adjusting for max altitude available for a comfortable 8,000ft cabin altitude:

As a reference ("max book values", not real values)

King Air 90: 22,000ft
Piper PA 46: 25,000ft
Daher TBM850: 29,000ft
Citation Mustang >41,000ft

*I scaled the altitudes off a differential pressure vs cabin pressure chart (attached), perhaps someone has more accurate data.

The point above is that pressurisation opens an additional vertical envelope into which one can fly, but it doesn't typically offer benefits right upto the service ceiling/published RVSM altitudes until you get to the Citation Mustang (also in your "purchase price" range). If the fatigue window of between cabin altitude 8,000ft to 10,000 were the consideration, the PA46 would have a fatigue ceiling of FL250.

[salmcfi]

I have owned and flown a 2007 Cirrus SR22TN, currently fly a Piper turbine and am looking hard at a Diamond twin (not to replace the turbine but as an additional mission flex airplane). Happy to discuss my views and thought processes but a couple initial things: 1) don't underestimate the value of pressurization, 2) the Lycoming in the Mirage/M350 is pretty reliable but even the Piper sales reps don't recommend you flying it routinely much about FL200 or 210, and 3) don't underestimate the safety of flying as high as possible to avoid weather/ice etc, and when you do fly high, it's much more comfortable being pressurized than being on a cannula. You didn't tell us your budget but if you are seriously considering the 62, then you've got a wallet with somewhere between 1.0-1.4 mm in it.

For that budget, I would look seriously at a SETP, specifically the Meridian/M500 or even an M600 (which I fly). An Avidyne Meridian can be had for well under $1 mm (last I looked, they were in the 800k+ range). A used G1000 or NXi Meridian can be had in the 1.2-1.4 range, and early serials (1-85) of the M600 (with the G3000) are now trading in the 1.7-1.9 range. A great instructor (who wrote an excellent review of the 62 in Twin and Turbine recently) says that from a safety and reliability perspective: METP>SETP>twin piston>single piston. I think the diesel Diamonds are more reliable and less prone to failure than a twin with Contis or Lycomings personally ... but not as reliable as a single engine PT6. Of course, operating costs on a turbine are higher than on the Diamond twins.

But I'd encourage you to fly them all and see what you think. Flying 5 hours in any unpressurized airplane in the high teens on a cannula was beating the crap out of me, to be honest ... shorter missions, no big deal. But the long ones were tough. I was very close to pulling the trigger on a new M350 (about the same price as a new 62) because I like pressurization, when I had the chance to partner on a used M600 and went that direction.

These are all very first-world problems of course! All are great planes but it's really (as always) driven by your mission and budget. I just would not rule out a used turbine if you are in the new 62 budget ballpark ... They are very easy to fly - much easier than the Cirrus for example. Happy to chat further if you like.

Cheers and good luck!

We agree and have been looking at a SETP as an option. I'm very risk adverse so NEW give me some protection from maintenance cost and other "issues" for the first few years. The issue is in the M500 just doesn't haul a lot.

[MackAttack]

Great! Our M600 is still under warranty so I certainly can't argue with all that! And the more systems in any aircraft - such as pressurized turboprops vs twin pistons of any stripe - will result in more MX (whether under warranty or otherwise). Also agree on the Citation Mustang points ... that's one the planes I've been eyeing for some time too. The M600 carries a bit more UL than the Meridian; I have roughly 600 lbs UL with full fuel. But with the long legs of a 600, if you are only going 1000 nm, you can carry a LOT more - you can fill the seats and the baggage area for 800-1000 nm trips, for example. However, the Meridian is both range- and useful-load-limited, I agree with that. The TBMs go a wee bit farther than the M600, and can carry more UL but they come at a commensurately higher price tag and with jet-like scheduled MX that averages $40k/year over 5 years (for a TBM 850, according to cost estimates I found from a dealer when I was looking at them).

Fatigue and altitude is very personal ... personally, I'm fine up to about 11k in altitude - beyond that, even with O2, I get more tired. In my 600, that allows us to go all the way to 300, which I've done recently on some long trips (28/29/300). But YMMV ...

If the main factors are low hourly operating cost and useful load, the 62 really shines. On speed, lack of pressurization, not so much but its really hard to compare pressurized aircraft to non-pressurized aircraft generally. Really designed for different missions. You have to pick the items that are most important to you.

There's nothing more fun that airplane shopping when you have a sizeable budget - enjoy and please keep us posted!!

[CFIDave]

Not sure I agree about fatigue when flying up high.

Today we flew our DA62 from Albuquerque, NM non-stop to St. Louis at 17,000 feet, requiring 4 hours, 20 minutes (throttled back to 75% power but with minimal headwinds). We used a Mountain High O2D2 pulse-demand system plugged into the plane's built-in O2 system, combined with boom cannulas that you hardly knew you were wearing. We maintained % oxygen saturations rates in the 90s. A very comfortable flight without pressurization...

[ultraturtle]

Not sure how fatigue correlates with unpressurized flying. Can anyone point me to a source?

I routinely flew tons of flights, most of which included high G aerobatics and spins unpressurized up to FL250 for 1,600+ hours in the military on a mask, have logged over 300 hours at FL180/17,000' on a cannula in the DA42-VI and DA62, and have never experienced fatigue beyond that I experience sitting for 8 hours a whack at 8,000' pressure altitude in my day job.

[Boatguy]

1) The MEP vs SETP about mission and preference. From a safety perspective they should be pretty much the same, the PT6 being super reliable, and the MEP being willing to fly on one engine.

If it's all about getting there, then higher and faster is the name of the game. The turbines, whether TP or jet isn't happy if it's not flying high which goes hand in hand with pressurization. If it's about seeing the view along the way then the METP is the better choice to fly lower, slower and on O2.

2) I suspect the mask that @ultraturtle wore delivered a lot more O2 than the typical GA bottle and cannula. And there are other physiological impacts at altitude than just O2 saturation. I suspect we are also all a bit older than @ultraturtle was when he was flying for the military. Aging gracefully of course, but still aging.

3) The Diamond product line seems to be muddied by the DA50RG. The DA42/50/62 speeds are in the same ballpark. The DA42 and DA50 are $300K less than the DA62. The DA50 has the 62 cabin, but it's only a single. The DA42 is the narrower DA40 cabin, but with two engines. Some interesting tradeoffs there.

[ultraturtle]

...I suspect the mask that @ultraturtle wore delivered a lot more O2 than the typical GA bottle and cannula...

Actually, as far as mask systems go it is the opposite - a lot less O2. The Diamond mask system only delivers 100% oxygen at all altitudes. Military and commercial systems mix oxygen with ambient air at a ratio that increases with altitude. For these systems, 100% is considered an emergency setting.

[ememic99]

Using O2D2 will deliver oxygen in pulses, so it will be mixed with ambient air. Anyhow, breathing through cannula doesn’t deliver 100% O2 because it always mixes with ambient air.