IO540
18th Dec 2006, 07:44
I flew a G1000-equipped Diamond DA42 at the w/e. My views, not in any order of importance:
Pluses:
Looks like something out of outer space; the bird pulling potential must come close to an Italian twin turbine heli and that will sell a lot of planes in today's WW2-scrapyard GA scene.
Much lower noise level than a TB20, which itself is the same (as far as I can tell) as every piston single I have ever been in. At 60% power or less, and at any kind of holding power setting, one could fly it without headsets and just using a handheld mike. However, in probable typical cruise (80%)
the noise level is high enough to require headsets, although still clearly lower than a TB.
Very smooth. Almost no vibration in the cockpit.
Easy to fly, quite similar to a TB20. No more slippery IMO.
G1000 is a very nice user interface, with the best sunlight visibility I have ever seen on any LCD. The data presentation is amazingly good, with the nav screen showing airport runways with runway numbers.
In a total electronical failure case, can be flown perfectly well on the backup instruments (speedo, horizon, altimeter) and a handheld GPS. Not sure about the AI battery endurance though - 30 mins?
Very good all around visibility.
Great range, probably similar to a TB20 (say 1200nm to zero fuel) if flying the diesels at 70% power which is about 140kt IAS. Southern UK to Corfu is feasible (obviously unwise). In fact the speed, at likely owner-pilot operating power settings, is close to a TB20. I am sure the range is in fact a lot better at say FL200; probably 1500nm.
The separate KAP150 (?) autopilot works as one would expect in NAV mode, intercepting the GPS track in an intelligent manner, whereas pressing NAV on the KLN94/KFC225 setup I have makes a complete hash of any intercept (and makes radar controllers wonder if you are being
hijacked) unless the HSI deviation is > 3 divs to start with.
Build quality looks very good, especially in the cockpit interior and
the panel. Much better than it used to be a few years ago when I was
looking at the DA40 and the Cirrus SR20. The instrument panel build and layout is a marvel of design and just as it should be.
Has a large door air vent on both doors - very nice; the TB20GT doesn't have these.
Minuses:
A big aeroplane - the wingspan is something to watch if used to a TB or another typical 10m-span plane like a PA28.
When taxiing, much more affected by crosswind than a TB; needs a fair
bit of braking (in addition to serious pedal pressure) to keep straight, even in a 10kt x/w.
G1000 buttons are small and are likely to be a challenge to press in turbulence. I find the much bigger GTX330 buttons which I have hard enough to home in on.
G1000 doesn't have a very usable GPS actual-track indication; the best you get is a short little line with an arrow, just long enough to align with the flight planned route (the magenta line). This is a massively stupid omission on Garmin's part, IMHO. The track line should be the full length of the display, so that one can track all the way to any waypoint displayed on the screen. The KMD550 I have is a marvel in comparison.
Sea level climb rate is between 50% and 70% of a TB20, which suprised
me. The DA40 is known to be poor but the DA42 has two of the same
engines (260HP total). Obviously higher up, say 10,000ft, the turbo will win over a TB20.
Not, I suspect, all that easy to get into unless one is flexible. The TB isn't that easy either for many elderly people but the DA42 seems to have more potential for losing balance when stepping on the wing. Also, clumsy people will immediately stick their boots into the lower portion of the instrument panel (the circuit breaker panel), which is quite close to the front edge of the seat. The seats do not move; you adjust the pedals instead.
Fuel levels (this was an extended tank version) are not physically verifiable unless tanks are full. Twin owners will smile at this of course but I think this is unforgivable unless you are the sole pilot and thus know exactly what went on before.
No sun visors. This is a key omission and seriously affects forward visibility when flying "south". Some kind of movable/adjustable suction-pad device will be essential.
Operations in the rain will be a problem; the inside will get soaked if getting in/out during rain.
I guess that it will get exceptionally hot if parked in hot places. Lightweight reflective cockpit cover essential.
Not quite as stable as a TB20, and I think will get chucked around more in turbulence. Probably due to lower wing loading.
To retrieve something from the back seat, without knocking the stick, requires good flexibility, but this is partly a consequence of the very good rear legroom. To climb between front (RHS hopefully :) ) and the back would require even better flexibility.
Verdict:
Hard to say based on a short exposure, of course. Like the TB20, due to internal space this is a great plane for 1 or 2 people going places, and occassional 3/4 usage. I would still keep the TB20 though at this point in time; it goes more accurately where you point it, I prefer a yoke (use a larger kneeboard with various bits of paper attached to it), and the fuel price saving is likely to vanish.
If comparing TKS for TKS, the two have almost identical mission capability for both VFR and IFR (European airways).
My estimate is 10hrs of ground school and 10-20hrs of flying to get used to the G1000, over conventional HSI/RMI type instruments. This is based on my view that a pilot should FULLY understand the kit. Even setting the transponder code is totally opaque unless demonstrated.
There are clouds on the horizon on the avtur front. In the UK, it is likely to go up in price to avgas levels in 2007, wiping out most of the operating cost advantage of a diesel (for people that don't hold an AOC). However, even then, avtur will be much preferred for serious touring around and outside Europe, because the further south you get the harder it is to find airports with both customs and avgas, or any avgas at all.
Pluses:
Looks like something out of outer space; the bird pulling potential must come close to an Italian twin turbine heli and that will sell a lot of planes in today's WW2-scrapyard GA scene.
Much lower noise level than a TB20, which itself is the same (as far as I can tell) as every piston single I have ever been in. At 60% power or less, and at any kind of holding power setting, one could fly it without headsets and just using a handheld mike. However, in probable typical cruise (80%)
the noise level is high enough to require headsets, although still clearly lower than a TB.
Very smooth. Almost no vibration in the cockpit.
Easy to fly, quite similar to a TB20. No more slippery IMO.
G1000 is a very nice user interface, with the best sunlight visibility I have ever seen on any LCD. The data presentation is amazingly good, with the nav screen showing airport runways with runway numbers.
In a total electronical failure case, can be flown perfectly well on the backup instruments (speedo, horizon, altimeter) and a handheld GPS. Not sure about the AI battery endurance though - 30 mins?
Very good all around visibility.
Great range, probably similar to a TB20 (say 1200nm to zero fuel) if flying the diesels at 70% power which is about 140kt IAS. Southern UK to Corfu is feasible (obviously unwise). In fact the speed, at likely owner-pilot operating power settings, is close to a TB20. I am sure the range is in fact a lot better at say FL200; probably 1500nm.
The separate KAP150 (?) autopilot works as one would expect in NAV mode, intercepting the GPS track in an intelligent manner, whereas pressing NAV on the KLN94/KFC225 setup I have makes a complete hash of any intercept (and makes radar controllers wonder if you are being
hijacked) unless the HSI deviation is > 3 divs to start with.
Build quality looks very good, especially in the cockpit interior and
the panel. Much better than it used to be a few years ago when I was
looking at the DA40 and the Cirrus SR20. The instrument panel build and layout is a marvel of design and just as it should be.
Has a large door air vent on both doors - very nice; the TB20GT doesn't have these.
Minuses:
A big aeroplane - the wingspan is something to watch if used to a TB or another typical 10m-span plane like a PA28.
When taxiing, much more affected by crosswind than a TB; needs a fair
bit of braking (in addition to serious pedal pressure) to keep straight, even in a 10kt x/w.
G1000 buttons are small and are likely to be a challenge to press in turbulence. I find the much bigger GTX330 buttons which I have hard enough to home in on.
G1000 doesn't have a very usable GPS actual-track indication; the best you get is a short little line with an arrow, just long enough to align with the flight planned route (the magenta line). This is a massively stupid omission on Garmin's part, IMHO. The track line should be the full length of the display, so that one can track all the way to any waypoint displayed on the screen. The KMD550 I have is a marvel in comparison.
Sea level climb rate is between 50% and 70% of a TB20, which suprised
me. The DA40 is known to be poor but the DA42 has two of the same
engines (260HP total). Obviously higher up, say 10,000ft, the turbo will win over a TB20.
Not, I suspect, all that easy to get into unless one is flexible. The TB isn't that easy either for many elderly people but the DA42 seems to have more potential for losing balance when stepping on the wing. Also, clumsy people will immediately stick their boots into the lower portion of the instrument panel (the circuit breaker panel), which is quite close to the front edge of the seat. The seats do not move; you adjust the pedals instead.
Fuel levels (this was an extended tank version) are not physically verifiable unless tanks are full. Twin owners will smile at this of course but I think this is unforgivable unless you are the sole pilot and thus know exactly what went on before.
No sun visors. This is a key omission and seriously affects forward visibility when flying "south". Some kind of movable/adjustable suction-pad device will be essential.
Operations in the rain will be a problem; the inside will get soaked if getting in/out during rain.
I guess that it will get exceptionally hot if parked in hot places. Lightweight reflective cockpit cover essential.
Not quite as stable as a TB20, and I think will get chucked around more in turbulence. Probably due to lower wing loading.
To retrieve something from the back seat, without knocking the stick, requires good flexibility, but this is partly a consequence of the very good rear legroom. To climb between front (RHS hopefully :) ) and the back would require even better flexibility.
Verdict:
Hard to say based on a short exposure, of course. Like the TB20, due to internal space this is a great plane for 1 or 2 people going places, and occassional 3/4 usage. I would still keep the TB20 though at this point in time; it goes more accurately where you point it, I prefer a yoke (use a larger kneeboard with various bits of paper attached to it), and the fuel price saving is likely to vanish.
If comparing TKS for TKS, the two have almost identical mission capability for both VFR and IFR (European airways).
My estimate is 10hrs of ground school and 10-20hrs of flying to get used to the G1000, over conventional HSI/RMI type instruments. This is based on my view that a pilot should FULLY understand the kit. Even setting the transponder code is totally opaque unless demonstrated.
There are clouds on the horizon on the avtur front. In the UK, it is likely to go up in price to avgas levels in 2007, wiping out most of the operating cost advantage of a diesel (for people that don't hold an AOC). However, even then, avtur will be much preferred for serious touring around and outside Europe, because the further south you get the harder it is to find airports with both customs and avgas, or any avgas at all.