Expensive but you get new technology in terms of a composite airframe, Mercedes-based engines that run on (much cheaper) jet-A fuel with simple FADEC controls, & the latest Garmin glass avionics. Designed, I think, primarily for the European mkt where fuel prices for 110 Avgas is absurdly high...and frequently not available. Wonder how maintenance costs will compare...esp in US where many A&Ps are not familiar with this model. Time will tell.
Would be nice to have a DA42 with a range that can take you from NYC to Miami nonstop, this is what they should concentrate on. Keep the panoramic views, keep the vertical winglets as well. By removing the panoramic canopy they have ruined the DA twins DNA.
Any smart solution to having to drain the nasty fuel from the bottom of the tanks? Viewing glass, sensor with auto bypass/filter? Always hated getting the fuel on my hands, or having to walk around the ramp to find a place to dump the dirty fuel (small amounts of water on bottom of tank was normal with the airplane sitting outside in rain).
sweet aircraft but if you really have 1.3-1.5 million to spend why wouldn't you get a baron 58P or a different multi. You can get a very nice low time/cycle 58p for a third the cost of the da62. Fly several thousand feet higher and 35-50 kts faster all while not worrying about having to wear cannula or mask. You can also install ESP (gfc 600) in them for added safety. Efficiency is irrelevant at that point because you can put away 4-500k for fuel and operating costs and still save 5-600k.
@@ABC-rh7zc how ??? "Used " in the aviatiom market is not the same as anything else.. Have you seen a nice low time Baron 58P? You can get touchscreen g500txi..... just as structural as well. Double wing spars and it uses king air bolts for the wings. There is no disadvantage to a top notch maintained older aircraft vs new ....... especially one that outperforms it for much much less and is low time. That new plane has nothing going for it compared to an old Baron that will outperform it. Most rational people will see that.
@@patriotsfan1236 It's not quite so black and white though. The DA62 is a safer design, it's better looking, more comfortable and uses around half the fuel. If you are running a charter plane for 1,000 hours a year, that saves you around 20,000 gallons or $90,000 per year. Not to mention the carbon footprint. I'm not saying it's wrong to prefer one over the other but the purchase price is certainly not the only relevant factor.
you can buy a cessna c-550 jet for less than this. A jet guys thats flys at 400kts at 41,000 with a 1 pilot vert. why would you buy this clunker a piston twin???
Looks great but I would go for DA42, better visibility, would be nice if they could make one exactly like DA42, just more speed range and elbow room. Who cares about easy egress when you forgo visibility. Keep the DA42 cockpit layout as well, the 3 steam backups are essential.
It’s a beautiful well built high tech plane but with a $1.3 million price tag and questionable performance I don’t see this as a big seller. If your going to buy a aircraft in this price range there are much better values in the used market. It’s a real pity because Diamonds composite construction technology is second to none.
im sure i could. i dont really feel like doing research right now though. besides i was thinking more the other way. show me a much much better plane for 1.3mil.
Oh ok, If that is your way or arguing I found something even better: www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18154599/1968-cessna-172-180-conversion or maybe consider www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201703133213866?make=NISSAN&model=MICRA&logcode=p Jesus...
wait, youre comparing a private jet to a 3k dollar car? you asked me to find something better than a 1.3 mil 5 seater, and it is a 5 seater unless everyone you know is a child, for 400k and i find a small 10 seater jet. if im a billionaire i buy the jet every time. the diamond is sweet it would be awesome to fly but 1.3 mil is beyond insane. they wont sell more than 10. id take a cirrus sr22 over that every time. 1.3 million dollars for a super upgraded aztek! do you not know what money is?
192kts @ 17gph @ 14k? Not as good as the SR22T They are $400k more than an SR22T also. Twin with retractable are hyper expensive to insure. Plain Jane G1000 raw. No thanks.
GBigs Angle Two aircraft competing for 2 different markets. The DA-62 can haul 7 vs. 4, more cargo, a further range (≈ 20%) and the assurance that comes with two engines. They wouldn't have built it if there wasn't a market.
Not quite. The DA62 is slower 200 kias v 215 kias and has a lower ceiling 20k v 28k. The DA62 is a five seater, the other two jump seats are not useable by an adult. It is appealing given it can burn Jet-A, but two engines consume 50% more fuel and the price is substantially higher at $1.3m. And that's before you pay for the ferry flight to get one.
No it can't. The Cirrus can carry five, but not five adults. The middle of the rear seat has an extra seat belt but it's for a kid. The two jump seats in the back of the DA62 will not seat an adult unless the adult is a midget.
i own a Da42.. ive looked at the 62. have sat in it..have sat in the aft seats. i am 6'1 and had no issues sitting back there. it isn't much different than sitting in the back seat of a sedan
Bah! $1.3 Million! C'mon...let's get smart about twin-engine (twice the headache) aircraft buying: DON'T spend $1.3 Million on one! I got mine for $670,000 cash & I flew it home to Ludowici!
