It was a very rough ride in light chop.
Isnt it so. I know from the experience of my head meeting the canopy.
I think the 42 is a fine aircraft. It stands apart from other twins and if you want a new twin that SHOULD have low operating costs then its just about the only game in town. The 40 on the other hand has a lot of competition and I am not sure the fuel savings are sufficient.
Even with regards the 42 if you consider the whole financial package (which I suspect people often don't) you can get a fine twin with updated avionics and in a condition that should result in not too many surprises for perhaps half of the cost of a used 42. The savings on maintenance (and the 42 could well prove more costly to maintain) buys a lot of Avgas and that is if you disregard the depreciation.
Of course I suspect the cost is not the only factor otherwise otherwise no one would ever buy a new 42. The overall package is a world apart from other designs of at least 20 or more years ago and if that float your boat - well you have little choice.
For me the 42 is too slow; I think if you are in the market for an honest twin cruiser you want in excess of 170 knots. I also think you might want something a little more robust, roomy and comfy, but it is a good aircraft and I would be very pleased to own one. On the other hand I have no aspirations to own a 40.