PDA

View Full Version : P68-C vs DA62


barbouze
17th May 2016, 10:17
Hello everyone,

I operate a BE58 in a small mountainous tropical island. I currently do mainly aerial survey and private flights.

With my partners, we are looking to develop our business with Public transport by focusing on scenic flights.

The flight profile is: climbing to 10 000ft, 30mn of cruise during which the passengers need to have the best visual experience, fast descent back to the airport.

We are facing a tough but thrilling choice which is picking the right aircraft for this.
One of my partners is convinced we should pick the DA62: very simple to fly, sips less than 12GPH of JET and engine overhaul is very cheap compared to it's competitors.

While I agree it is the best in its category for travel purposes, I have many concerns regarding our actual operations:
-in the 7-seater configuration, the last row offers limited height and room and the window is so small!
-it has low wings which means less visibility and we are talking about scenic flights
-wingspan is 14,5m which means higher hangar cost.
-TBO of AE330 is currently 1000 hours which nullifies the interest of the cheap overhaul. I'm aware that Diamond aims to extend it to 2400hrs in the future but it took the AE300 5 years and 500 000hours of use (with 1000 models produced) to reach 1800hrs TBO so I have concerns about how long it will take to reach that goal.
-Diamond tries to have a simple, automotive-like maintenance on its products. However we are in a remote area and our airport is on the sea. I'm sceptic about the reliability of all the electronic systems in a corrosive atmosphere (marine air). I don't want to have the aircraft grounded every two week due to a problem tricky to diagnostize .
-And last I'm concerned about its actual single engine performance at 2300kg MTOM.

All these reasons make me choose the P68-C.: high wings, simple maintenance, good performances.
The main cons are:
-it burns AVGAS (but we import it ourselves and have low taxes on it so the price gap with JET is not that important)
-Engine overhaul is quite expansive and TBO is only 1600hrs for the turbocompressed version.
-Less efficient for other kind of operations which could include commuting to nearby islands in the future.

Price consideration is not the matter here as we would be going for a brand new plane and they are in the same price range.

Thanks in advance to anyone would could give me a experienced feedback on those aircrafts or even any 2 cents opinion as long it is motivated.:ok:

barit1
21st May 2016, 01:23
I should think the TC engine is overkill for this mission. The P68 is not a super high performance machine, nor does it need to be for a sightseeing flight.

Is there a simpler, normally aspirated engine available on the P68? That should make it less expensive per hour.

Tinstaafl
21st May 2016, 06:40
BN2 Islander, perhaps? Or an Aerocommander? Does it have to be a twin? If not, Cessna Caravan?

hph304
21st May 2016, 20:36
I used to fly a DA40 with G1000 and the Thielert diesel engine with FADEC. Airport was situated on an peninsula, sea to the west, north and east. Runway threshold 06 was about 400 metres from the water. We had no trouble with the electronic systems because of maritime air. The AC was in a hangar overnight.

Dash Balus
22nd May 2016, 11:35
The P68 is an old aircraft...and from my memories of flying it so many years ago, it was even old then, it was stinking HOT (admittedly Nth AUS), and the passengers hated it due to the fact they were squashed in (and in our operation we had removed one seat!!).

Also when the engines were hot, they were a bugger to start.

IMHO, tourism deserves at the very least deserves a high wing Turbo Prop aircraft, like the Caravan.

My 2 cents.

Good luck with your venture.

barbouze
24th May 2016, 06:19
Thank you guys for your feedback.

The reason behind the TC engine is because the circuit are done at 10 000ft, in ISA+10 to ISA+20 conditions so we need the extra performance.

Twin engine is best due the montainous environment and it allows us to have no pre defined circuit hence we can adjust the flight to the meteo.

I know the P68 can get very hot in the cockpit so the A/C is a must have.

Thank for the advice regarding marine air, I think too that A/C in the hangar is needed to reduce humidity and corrosion.

Ozlander1
28th May 2016, 01:10
The Caravan makes a good sight-seeing aircraft. Very reliable engine.
I won't sight-see in anything else.

krohmie
2nd Jun 2016, 00:19
Caravan or Quest Kodiak

Geosync
10th Jun 2016, 22:03
Yep. High wing single turboprop, Caravan or Kodiak. Caravan has more maintenance support, and a proven airframe. Many used ones on the market for the price of a new DA62. Why bother with a cranky old twin, or a prissy danty new twin, when there are workhorses out there that basically fly the mission profile you do every day all over the world(Caravans in skydiving ops)? Remember the timeless acronym- K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Chronus
12th Jun 2016, 19:12
barbouze, my choice would have been the Frati designed Vulcanair SF600 Canguro. Some years ago I paid a visit to the Vulcanair works at Naples and saw a couple on their production line. I was really impressed with its performance and rugged build. They were expensive to manufacture, so few were produced. If you can find one around it may be worth considering.