I sat in the Diamond DA62 at NBAA. There is plenty of space for a long-legged pilot, even in the “very back” seats that are designed for children (not enough headroom back there, however, for a 6′ tall person). The twin diesel engines sip fuel and are supposedly remarkably quiet. The plane can climb to 20,000′ and cruise at nearly 200 knots. It can be de-iced and air-conditioned. It should share the wonderful handling characteristics of other Diamond products.
The bad news is that the airplane, fully pimped out, costs $1.3 million. There apparently isn’t a large enough market for piston aircraft anymore to spread out engineering and other fixed costs. At $700,000 this would be a formidable competitor to the Cirrus SR22. But at $1.3 million one is forced to ask “Why not a ragged-out Piper Meridian with a PT6 engine that will never quit? Then we can climb to 30,000′ in pressurized comfort. We can buy an older Meridian for $700,000 and have $600,000 left over to pay for the higher operating costs compared to the Diamond.” If you wanted to spend all $1.3 million on an airplane, that buys a 12-15-year-old TBM 700, larger and longer-range than the Meridian.
In a shrinking market with crazy high regulatory compliance costs it is hard to see how any new design can compete with the legacy aircraft.
I am not sure how you compare a seven seat twin engine to a four seat single engine plane, but $1.3m is pimped out so you should at least compare it to an SR22T pimped out, which is more like $850k.
I’d like to see a ten year spreadsheet of two hundred hours a year between the aircraft. I agree that a TBM would be really nice and $700 + $150k refurbished seems like a deal, but isn’t a hot-section inspection pricey?
I sat in it here in Long Beach. I asked about transition from a DA42, which I am rated and comfortable in. I was told it was a single flight. That’s surely not true for a TBM.
If you wish to compare the DA62 against an aircraft with similarly modern avionics, how about the Piper M350?
Sure. The cabin and seats of the DA62 are rated to 16G (is that right, Philip?). How does the M350 compare?
Stupid question from an aviation layman…
What prevents designers from adding a whole-plane parachute to these small planes? Is it a problem of space or weight? Is it just physics? Or maybe just that most accidents don’t happen at cruising altitudes anyway?
@GermanL
Nothing: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=whole+plane+parachute+system
@Mitch – thanks a lot for the tutorial on how to Google. 🙂 But can anyone tell me why BRS is not standard equipment? Is it too expensive? Unlikely to be used?
GermanL,
You should look at a document called the Nall Report from AOPA. It breaks down the fatal accidents in general aviation. The vast majority are VFR pilots flying into clouds, where they are not legally meant to be, becoming disoriented and losing control of the plane.
The parachute system doesn’t actually cover most of the fatalities. It doesn’t help at all with the category called CFIT, which is Controlled Flight Into Terrain (often at night or in the clouds). The pilot is lost or disoriented and although the plane is under control it collides with an obstacle.
Yes, the parachute system is expensive. Yes, it takes up some payload (probably a whole passenger in the case of the DA42). Using the system destroys the plane, so I believe there is some reluctance to pull the triggering mechanism in some cases. But the real truth is that the system doesn’t apply often enough and doesn’t guarantee safety. When you pull the chute in a Cirrus SR22 you descend at 1400fpm. If I pull the stick all the way back in my DA40 the wings stall (stop producing lift) and the airplane descends at 700fpm. As long as I have a little bit of flat ground to lose the forward momentum, I am probably at least as safe.
It is a non-pilot’s fantasy: Something goes wrong, we float safely back to earth. I believe a large number of Cirrus planes are sold exactly on that fantasy (which is fine, it will never come to pass for most of them). In almost all of the cases where the chute was pulled and successful, the DA62 would just fly to the nearest airport on a single engine and land.
if you didn’t care about the longer range, you could buy a nice used Silver Eagle and operate the thing @200 hours per year for 10 years and the total cost even with 2x the fuel consumption would be less than the sticker price on the DA62.
If you look at the website of Ballistic Recovery, they list their supposed lives saved (several hundred). Maybe 1/2 are pilot error type things (though I’m not sure they deserved to die just because they made an error ) but the other 1/2 are mechanical failures – stuck rudders, wings snapping off, etc. You would think that these things don’t happen much but when they do, you are s.o.l. without that parachute.
A bunch of their saves are from aircraft that I would definitely want a chute on. A trike? An ultralight? I have a friend who flies a lot of hang glider craft and he has a ballistic chute strapped to his chest. He can self-eject, pull a cord and float safely to the ground. I think that’s a great idea for the things he flies, which are known to fold up in a strong wind or after owner-performed maintenance (see also: John Walton).
Now, an SR-22 that just says “loss of control,” I have to assume that’s a pilot that could use some more training. I think it’s great that he and Mr. Day’s passengers are alive. I also hope that he has some more training planned. And I don’t think he’s the guy that’s going to be flying a DA62.
There was a save in an SR-22 where the pilot said he blacked out and when he came to he pulled the chute (landing in water, injuring his back). He did not black out again on the way down, which probably took almost as long as it would have taken to just land the plane. Is it better to have the chute in that case? I don’t know.
I think if you went through that list exhaustively you would eliminate a LOT of them as not being applicable to the DA62. “Loss of Control, Pilot Distraction.” It’s probably spending most of it’s time on autopilot and if the pilot was distracted that much they aren’t going to be able to pull the chute either. A lot of ultra-light components and controls failing. I don’t see those things happen with any regularity in a certified aircraft. I mean, things fail, but you tend to catch them on the pre-flight inspection.
Loss of control after intentional spins or spin training. That’s not happening in a DA62.
Colin: Regarding cabin and seat safety, it seems safe to say that both the DA62 and the Piper 6-seaters meet the FAR23 requirements as of the date of certification (so since the DA62 is newer it would probably be a little more crashworthy). The main safety benefit of the Piper is the ability to climb out of the weather without depending on oxygen tanks, etc.
Izzie, GermanL: The ballistic parachute hasn’t done a whole lot for the Cirrus in terms of safety relative to similar airplanes. That said, I find it psychologically comforting especially as the engine gets older! (And one big disadvantage of the parachute is weight; a heavily loaded airplane is more likely to crash for a variety of reasons.)
Colin: Why compare the DA62 to the SR22 despite the difference in seating? (Cirrus is now up to five seats, by the way.) Cirrus is what people are actually buying today for a family airplane. If they could get two extra seats and one extra engine for about the same price, that would be exciting.