Next step up from a Warrior?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DA42 is a lovely aeroplane to fly and very easy unlike some of them. I've yet to fly the NG version but me and a flying buddy normally go to the USA a couple of times a year and rent a Twin Star. The last one we rented had the 2.0 litre engines, would do 163kts TAS at 75% power at 8500' and had active traffic system as well as XM - we could tune into Radio 1 while flying over Arizona 
They are a steal at the moment due to the reliability issues which have scared people off. Currently every 300 hrs the gearbox needs an inspection which costs $20,000. However that means that you can buy one close to inspection time for around $275,000 for a several year old airframe. You can then either have the inspection done and fly for 300 more hours or buy the NG upgrade kit from Diamond for $200,000. However you get $50,000 rebate for the old engines. This means that you can pick up a DA42NG (pretty much) for $425,000 - or £255,000. Considering the price of a new NG this actually looks like a viable investment. If I had the cash, this is what I'd do for sure. I'd keep it on the N reg and fly it back across the Atlantic...
Thanks, hopefully everything goes to plan re the Commander!
They are a steal at the moment due to the reliability issues which have scared people off. Currently every 300 hrs the gearbox needs an inspection which costs $20,000. However that means that you can buy one close to inspection time for around $275,000 for a several year old airframe. You can then either have the inspection done and fly for 300 more hours or buy the NG upgrade kit from Diamond for $200,000. However you get $50,000 rebate for the old engines. This means that you can pick up a DA42NG (pretty much) for $425,000 - or £255,000. Considering the price of a new NG this actually looks like a viable investment. If I had the cash, this is what I'd do for sure. I'd keep it on the N reg and fly it back across the Atlantic...
Thanks, hopefully everything goes to plan re the Commander!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC on top
I ruled out the Bonanza & Saratoga on cost grounds, the Beech will cost you a fortune on maintenance while the Saratoga is not so fast and will burn a lot of fuel per Mile. The Beech is a quality aircraft, a joy to fly but only makes sense if it is working for a living.
THe DA42 is nice to fly but the engines are less reliable than a second hand lawnmower (lets hope the Astro is better).............nuf said.
It looks like we are narrowed down to the TB20 or R114 for your mission , the costs and performance are more or less the same so you would have fly them both to see which one you like the most, I would go for the R114 but that is down to personal taste. But for pure flying plesure the DR400 tops them all.
You seem to be wedded to your big airport and outside parking, try kicking around the costs of a Robin in a shed on a farm strip, you can get a lot of flying for not a lot of money that way.
THe DA42 is nice to fly but the engines are less reliable than a second hand lawnmower (lets hope the Astro is better).............nuf said.
It looks like we are narrowed down to the TB20 or R114 for your mission , the costs and performance are more or less the same so you would have fly them both to see which one you like the most, I would go for the R114 but that is down to personal taste. But for pure flying plesure the DR400 tops them all.
You seem to be wedded to your big airport and outside parking, try kicking around the costs of a Robin in a shed on a farm strip, you can get a lot of flying for not a lot of money that way.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi:
I've instructed in cherokees, warriors, saratoga, lance...t tail and low tail, turbo and non turbocharged.
arros, archer and the lot of them (though never the dakota/pathfinder).
I would stick with piper. Retractable gear is nice, but more expensive and comes with constant speed prop ...just more mx (that's maintenance to you brits)
Look at the Archer...20 more hp...a bit more useful load but very similiar to the warrior...bigger cowling so a bit different view but ok.
The saratoga is a very nice plane and if you can afford it, I would easily go for a non turbocharged saratoga with retractable gear...fly over the alps and get a turbocharged one.
very docile and capable plane.
I hate the Cessna 210...I've flown it and it sucks
The mooney is a nice plane but really too small to be comfortable ( I am six foot two inches) fast but not really for me.
Bonanza is nice, but not really worth the money.
I would stay way far away from the T tail lance or arrow...a bit harder to handle and not worth it...though they are cheaper because they aren't as gentle .
fly safe...
I've instructed in cherokees, warriors, saratoga, lance...t tail and low tail, turbo and non turbocharged.
arros, archer and the lot of them (though never the dakota/pathfinder).
I would stick with piper. Retractable gear is nice, but more expensive and comes with constant speed prop ...just more mx (that's maintenance to you brits)
Look at the Archer...20 more hp...a bit more useful load but very similiar to the warrior...bigger cowling so a bit different view but ok.
The saratoga is a very nice plane and if you can afford it, I would easily go for a non turbocharged saratoga with retractable gear...fly over the alps and get a turbocharged one.
very docile and capable plane.
I hate the Cessna 210...I've flown it and it sucks
The mooney is a nice plane but really too small to be comfortable ( I am six foot two inches) fast but not really for me.
Bonanza is nice, but not really worth the money.
I would stay way far away from the T tail lance or arrow...a bit harder to handle and not worth it...though they are cheaper because they aren't as gentle .
fly safe...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all - A and C - you are right, its either going to be a TB20 or R114 but I will give a Saratoga a go too, just becuase its a Piper and I am still relatively low hours.
englishal - thanks - would you really recommend TS as the next step up from a Warrior (bearing in mind I'm just over 100 hours total) - And i thought it was a piston engine, not a turbo prop?
englishal - thanks - would you really recommend TS as the next step up from a Warrior (bearing in mind I'm just over 100 hours total) - And i thought it was a piston engine, not a turbo prop?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vigo-Spain
Age: 40
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC,
DA42 (TS) is piston, diesel, so it uses JET-A fuel (it can use diesel-fuel also)
I don't know what others might think, but given your conditions you should be ok to step onto a DA42. I say this bearing in mind you have to get training anyway to get the ME rating.
In terms of speed and anticipation needed I would say a TB20 and a DA42 aren't much different.
In terms of comfort and cabin space... the TB20 is a much nicer a/c, and kinda sexy with the seagull doors.
Why not a Cirrus?
(Never flew one, but I'd love to)
Cheers / Pablo
DA42 (TS) is piston, diesel, so it uses JET-A fuel (it can use diesel-fuel also)
I don't know what others might think, but given your conditions you should be ok to step onto a DA42. I say this bearing in mind you have to get training anyway to get the ME rating.
In terms of speed and anticipation needed I would say a TB20 and a DA42 aren't much different.
In terms of comfort and cabin space... the TB20 is a much nicer a/c, and kinda sexy with the seagull doors.
Why not a Cirrus?
(Never flew one, but I'd love to)
Cheers / Pablo
Moderator
Don't overlook the Lycoming powered Diamond DA42. Tried and true engine, and delightful performer. The diesel is fun, but the DA42 L360 is a rocket by comparison. Great single engine performance too. I was fortunate enough to fly one for 20 hours last year. Not quite the economy of the diesel, but with the power 'way back, probably better than most twins.
And, if you need, Diamond will sell you parts... Piper, not so much! (see earlier post) Careful with the R114 for repair parts too, Nice plane, but I've heard bad things about parts availability recently.
Another delightful plane is the Bellanca Viking. It's probaby the raciest of all types in this class, but again, repairs are becoming specialized work, and proper care and hangering is vital to sustain its life.
I love older planes, but some recent bad experiences with lack of repair parts for some types, has left me VERY glad I own a Cessna! Some aircraft sit grounded right now, hoping for parts to become available. Until they do, no flying! A client told me this morning that he just will not recommend an older Piper to his clients anymore, as he just does not want the responsibility of recommending an aircraft with poor factory support, and no other options.
Buyer beware!
And, if you need, Diamond will sell you parts... Piper, not so much! (see earlier post) Careful with the R114 for repair parts too, Nice plane, but I've heard bad things about parts availability recently.
Another delightful plane is the Bellanca Viking. It's probaby the raciest of all types in this class, but again, repairs are becoming specialized work, and proper care and hangering is vital to sustain its life.
I love older planes, but some recent bad experiences with lack of repair parts for some types, has left me VERY glad I own a Cessna! Some aircraft sit grounded right now, hoping for parts to become available. Until they do, no flying! A client told me this morning that he just will not recommend an older Piper to his clients anymore, as he just does not want the responsibility of recommending an aircraft with poor factory support, and no other options.
Buyer beware!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few comments on the above
T tail Pipers
Moving the tail upwards was a cosmetic change, Piper said it was to move the tail out of the propeller slipstream for a smoother ride. The usual comments about the way the thing flys or rather lands are down to the fact that it is easy to fly the aircraft with the C of G forward of the Forward limit if lightly loaded (very easy to do on the PA32 & PA34). If you load the aircraft near to the centre or towards aft of the limits the aircraft fly & land well.
Piper parts
No problems with the PA28 & 32 but the PA38 is a problem, as for the Comanchie I cant comment but the very active owners club in the USA seems to indicate that Piper no longer have a good stock of parts.
Cessna 210
"it sucks" is a hard to quantify! Having flown the Cessna I could not think it is anything other than a workmanlike traveling machine, it flys safely without vices. I cant get excited about is but it will do what is says on the tin!
Moving the tail upwards was a cosmetic change, Piper said it was to move the tail out of the propeller slipstream for a smoother ride. The usual comments about the way the thing flys or rather lands are down to the fact that it is easy to fly the aircraft with the C of G forward of the Forward limit if lightly loaded (very easy to do on the PA32 & PA34). If you load the aircraft near to the centre or towards aft of the limits the aircraft fly & land well.
Piper parts
No problems with the PA28 & 32 but the PA38 is a problem, as for the Comanchie I cant comment but the very active owners club in the USA seems to indicate that Piper no longer have a good stock of parts.
Cessna 210
"it sucks" is a hard to quantify! Having flown the Cessna I could not think it is anything other than a workmanlike traveling machine, it flys safely without vices. I cant get excited about is but it will do what is says on the tin!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 52N
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SF260
Have a look at a Siai Marchetti SF260, I have had one for 25 years and can't think of anything else that ticks so many boxes. 170kts cruise at 50 litres per hour, low wing, a sturdy O-540 six cylinder up front, 4 seats, aerobatic handling like a swept wing jet and at 1102kgs max weight cheap(er) landing fees. OK, the 250 lbs weight limit on the rear seat means the two kids in the back will have to be off loaded once they grow too big, but by then they won't want to come on holidays with you and the wife in any case. It's different, looks great and always draws a crowd; parts are easy as they still make them after a 43 year production run with nearly 1000 units sold to date.
The only problem is finding one as no one who owns one can find anything better! Be carefull, the ex-military ones can't get a full CofA, and they aren't suited to short strips at anything near max weight. I'm 6ft and have plenty of room, and visibility is superb with the large canopy.
The only problem is finding one as no one who owns one can find anything better! Be carefull, the ex-military ones can't get a full CofA, and they aren't suited to short strips at anything near max weight. I'm 6ft and have plenty of room, and visibility is superb with the large canopy.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four in an SF260? You're joking, right? It's a great 2 seat tourer with room for baggage but a lot of money for a family ship.
Bigger Cessnas are good value for money in the class you are looking at. Don't be put off by what you think you like now - you'll be surprised how quickly you can get used to things like wings in the "wrong place", lack of a "proper" throttle quadrant or toe brakes.
Maybe a 2 person share would be a better idea - get you more aircraft for your budget without overstretching yourself.
Bigger Cessnas are good value for money in the class you are looking at. Don't be put off by what you think you like now - you'll be surprised how quickly you can get used to things like wings in the "wrong place", lack of a "proper" throttle quadrant or toe brakes.
Maybe a 2 person share would be a better idea - get you more aircraft for your budget without overstretching yourself.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did no one mention Rockwell Commanders? Ticks all the boxes apart from aerobatics, I believe. Nice looking, fast, complex, proper cruiser. Not too expensive.
But as with a car, the choice is always about your personality. E.g. I can't imagine me in a cessna, even if I am very desperate.
But as with a car, the choice is always about your personality. E.g. I can't imagine me in a cessna, even if I am very desperate.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The avgas DA42 could well be an interesting option, but ...
In European touring, and especially flying out of the UK, the biggest flight planning hassle is the matrix of Customs / Avgas.
Even if one ignores the supposedly uncertain avgas future (which I don't believe; far too many planes around the world burning avgas) I would not spend serious money on a new avgas burner. Being able to burn avtur multiplies the destination options several times, especially in more southern Europe and arguably especially in the most attractive and rewarding bits to fly around (Greece).
I know of some people trying to offload their DA42s, having got sick of regular downtime, regular hassles, and being fed bu**sh*t by Diamond at every turn, but there are no takers except at absolutely give-away prices, and I am not suprised. Most people with money and especially with an IR are not stupid.
After the way they have treated their customers (the Thielert business was only a part of the situation) Diamond will need to win trust, and they will need to prove their product. Looking at some recent DA42 sales figures (down from 85 in 2008 to 38 in 2009) they will also need to convince people that they are not going to go bust while people are sitting on the fence waiting to see how long the Austro engine (on which Diamond's survival IMHO hangs, bearing in mind that this time round the hull maker will be liable for the whole package including the motor) is going to last.
Like a knackered 1984 TB20 for 40k euros, a DA42 is a viable "project airplane" but not for a novice.
There is no issue going to a turboprop from a PA28; it just takes a lot more hours And it must not be underestimated that more complicated planes do need a higher level of technical understanding. Any monkey can fly a PA28 and understand it - well to the extent of knowing which knobs to pull out if the engine stops But this approach cannot be translated higher up.
In European touring, and especially flying out of the UK, the biggest flight planning hassle is the matrix of Customs / Avgas.
Even if one ignores the supposedly uncertain avgas future (which I don't believe; far too many planes around the world burning avgas) I would not spend serious money on a new avgas burner. Being able to burn avtur multiplies the destination options several times, especially in more southern Europe and arguably especially in the most attractive and rewarding bits to fly around (Greece).
I know of some people trying to offload their DA42s, having got sick of regular downtime, regular hassles, and being fed bu**sh*t by Diamond at every turn, but there are no takers except at absolutely give-away prices, and I am not suprised. Most people with money and especially with an IR are not stupid.
After the way they have treated their customers (the Thielert business was only a part of the situation) Diamond will need to win trust, and they will need to prove their product. Looking at some recent DA42 sales figures (down from 85 in 2008 to 38 in 2009) they will also need to convince people that they are not going to go bust while people are sitting on the fence waiting to see how long the Austro engine (on which Diamond's survival IMHO hangs, bearing in mind that this time round the hull maker will be liable for the whole package including the motor) is going to last.
Like a knackered 1984 TB20 for 40k euros, a DA42 is a viable "project airplane" but not for a novice.
There is no issue going to a turboprop from a PA28; it just takes a lot more hours
And it must not be underestimated that more complicated planes do need a higher level of technical understanding. Any monkey can fly a PA28 and understand it - well to the extent of knowing which knobs to pull out if the engine stops But this approach cannot be translated higher up.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, a very long way to go on that one.
It should sell very well because it will address a market niche which has been poorly served for many years - basically four fat adults plus luggage. Today, you have to buy a 6-seater to get that, and nobody is making an even remotely modern piston 6-seater.
It should sell very well because it will address a market niche which has been poorly served for many years - basically four fat adults plus luggage. Today, you have to buy a 6-seater to get that, and nobody is making an even remotely modern piston 6-seater.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are no takers except at absolutely give-away prices
I do a lot of flying at a Diamond factory training centre in the USA, and although they have had some downtime, mainly due to the geabox inspection requirement, it has not been horrific by any means. My mate runs it (and hence not trying to rip anyone off) and his advice is the above.
