DA42 or PA44

[nimblenoodles]

Hi !

I am starting my Multi-engine commercial course soon and I can't decide whether I should fly the DA42 or PA44.

Some say PA44 is great to learn the hard stuff.

Some say DA42 is more advanced so why go backwards.

I have also heard about restrictions with a DA42 but I am still trying to figure those out...


Thank you !

[pattern_is_full]

I've only flown the SE cousins to those two - found both/either to be nice planes. Stick vs. Yoke is personal preference. "Pop-top" entry and wrap-around window vs. single-door and split "B-17" windscreen (and cabin width) favors the Diamonds. Those big ol' "down by the knees - handful of throttles" in the DA will generate good "muscle memory" if you're planning to go all the way to jets.

I am intrigued that you got advice that the PA44 was "great to learn the hard stuff" - since it has counter-rotating props, which removes the chance to explore/experience the issues of a "critical engine."

That's for training - if I were buying one I'd get the Piper.

[Banana Joe]

Maybe the advice considered the need for setting prop pitch and mixture, but you don't do that on turboprops either. Once you set the condition lever you don't touch it until short final.

[parkfell]

If you want to learn basic skills then a PA44 is a better option. In the long term you will be a better skilled pilot as you will have to learn to trim correctly. The glass cockpit stuff is done on the 737-800 APS/MCC [EASA]

If you are however a marginal student who wants a soft option choose the DA42. My old granny could pass her IR on it.
Unfortunately success on the DA42 does not necessarily mean success going forwards.

PA44 anytime.

[Daveler]

I would also pick the PA44, great and solid airplane. Multi-engine commercial is all about getting the basics down and the PA44 is the plane to do it.
While the DA42 offers more in avionics I think there is plenty of time for that later on while getting the MCC.
For the initial, I would stick to basics and learn it right without distractions

[340drvr]

I'd vote for the PA44. With the Diamond's single power lever FADEC engine control, your initial multi-training would miss out on the critical "mixtures-props-throttles" routine during (simulated) engine failure. The FADEC greatly simplifies this step, and, yes, that's how jets do it, but, you're most likely to start out your career in a piston twin with six engine control knobs, not just two (Baron, Seneca, twin Cessna, Navajo).
That said, ultimately, you'd have required initial/transition training for any new make and model, so it might not matter that much in the long run. Other factors such as overall cost, convenience and proximity to your home, scheduling, etc. probably weigh more in the decision. If you're talking FAA, there is no restriction between the DA42 vs. Piper that I know of (unlike a center-line thrust only limitation if one learns multi- in a Cessna Skymaster, or some military fighter jets).

[A and C]

PA 44 !

It has to be the PA44 to get the basic instrument flying skills and self generated situational awareness, these skills are sadly lacking in the new breed of pilots and such is the problem with this that the airline I work for has started using a double FMC failure in the sim to teach these skills.

[27/09]

I'd plump for the PA44. There's a flying school not too far from here that uses the DA42. From what I've heard there are issues around engine failure procedures. The only way to simulate an engine failure is to close the throttle unlike on the likes of the PA44 where this would be accomplished by a mixture cut.

When the throttle is closed the gear warning is triggered on the DA42. The student gets to equate the gear warning horn with an engine failure and any genuine engine failures aren't always immediately or correctly recognised. The student starts to become immune to what the gear warning is actually for and there is a real risk the warning will be ignored when attempting to land with the gear up.

Also with a mixture cut simulated failure, all engine indications are the same as for a genuine failure, (with the possible exception of the fuel flow) whereas closing the throttle to simulate the failure results in engine instrument indications that are contra to real life.

For me the DA42 introduces too many negative transfer opportunities for a student

[27/09]

Originally Posted by pattern_is_full

I've only flown the SE cousins to those two - found both/either to be nice planes. Stick vs. Yoke is personal preference. "Pop-top" entry and wrap-around window vs. single-door and split "B-17" windscreen (and cabin width) favors the Diamonds. Those big ol' "down by the knees - handful of throttles" in the DA will generate good "muscle memory" if you're planning to go all the way to jets.

I am intrigued that you got advice that the PA44 was "great to learn the hard stuff" - since it has counter-rotating props, which removes the chance to explore/experience the issues of a "critical engine."

That's for training - if I were buying one I'd get the Piper.

Could you elaborate on why you think the critical engine issues are important. I think you are overstating or over thinking this.

An engine can be critical for several reasons, i.e. only one engine is equipped with an alternator, or for aircraft with hydraulic systems only one engine has a hydraulic pump. You have referred to engines which counter rotate so I must assume you are talking about the difference in Vmca afforded by a CR engined aircraft.

From a training point of view there is absolutely no difference in how a CR and non CR aircraft are handled when it comes to Vmca. They will both experience Vmca (assuming Vmca occurs above Vs) and the recovery process is exactly the same for both aircraft. So I say your statement about not exploring/experiencing the issues of a "critical engine' is baseless in this case.

I'd also seriously question the benefits you proclaim for the throttle lever positions. They are so far different from a jet to be of no relevance at all.

[nimblenoodles]

Wow this is interesting !

I talked to a bunch of people from school and most of them are rooting for the DA42. However here it's mostly PA44. A lot of insights.

Maybe I should just go for the PA44 then....... since I have a POH of it already LOL.

Thank you so much !

[flyinkiwi]

I would temper what is being said here with what your ultimate goal in aviation is. If you want to end up at the pointy end of a turboprop or jet, then the DA42 platform offers similar systems management to what you'd find in an airliner. If you want a career in GA or fly your own plane I'd go for the Piper for all the reasons stated above.

[27/09]

Originally Posted by flyinkiwi

I would temper what is being said here with what your ultimate goal in aviation is. If you want to end up at the pointy end of a turboprop or jet, then the DA42 platform offers similar systems management to what you'd find in an airliner. If you want a career in GA or fly your own plane I'd go for the Piper for all the reasons stated above.

Really? Have you put that theory to the test or is this something you were told?

You learn the systems and procedures of the aircraft, whether it be turbo prop or jet when you come to learn to fly it. From experience I'd very much suggest it makes no difference when it comes to leaning to fly an airliner whether you learned in a DA42 or a PA44.

[eckhard]

I did my ME/IR on a PA-34 in 1978 and then instructed on that and the PA-44 for about 6 years. Ended up with about 1000hrs on both.

Next types were: PA-23, PA-31 for which the previous experience was very useful; and Turbo-Commander 690 and Dove for which it was not!

Then came Citation and first EFIS with the 737-300/400.

I think that the basic IF scan patterns and the need to develop ones own SA ‘picture’ (as previously mentioned) have been very useful, particularly as I still fly basic SEP. If your goal is to fly the latest equipment and never go back to something older, then the DA-42 is a good choice. If you might want to continue to fly something with round dials, especially in IMC, then the PA-44 is the way to go.

I ended up on B744, Airbus and 787 and never knew what a DA-42 looked like until I tried a simulator about 5 years ago. The panel was a bit alien to start with but my excellent host soon explained the basics. I guess my basic PA-44 skills didn’t hold me back on any of my type conversion courses.

So, in summary, it depends on your desired career-path.

[avionimc]

The [newer] Piper Seminole have Garmin G1000NXi avionics, before they were equipped with the G1000, some retrofits have G500, older ones have regular six-pack instruments. ATP Flight School uses them successfully. https://atpflightschool.com/equipment/seminole.html

The Diamond Twin Star has the Garmin G1000NXi, not sure what the older models had. https://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/da42/

All in all both are really good airplanes, but the DA42 is a newer generation airplane, it is better built and with center control sticks (vs. conventional control yokes on the PA-44). Having flown both, my choice is the DA42, without hesitation. Good luck!