Do we seriously consider DA62?

Any DA62 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
VickersPilot
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:41 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N00TBC
Airports:
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Do we seriously consider DA62?

Post by VickersPilot »

I have been flying with the O2D2 and oxyarm for years. In my previous aircraft, I also plugged the audio output into an unswitched port on the audio panel so I would receive alerts if either I or the passenger wasn't breathing in the O2. Is there a way to neatly mount the O2D2 and regulator valve?
User avatar
ultraturtle
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:46 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N62KZ
Airports: KAAF
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 180 times

Re: Do we seriously consider DA62?

Post by ultraturtle »

ememic99 wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:58 pm Using O2D2 will deliver oxygen in pulses, so it will be mixed with ambient air. Anyhow, breathing through cannula doesn’t deliver 100% O2 because it always mixes with ambient air.
I was comparing the Diamond mask system to Military/Commercial mask systems.

The O2D2 driving a cannula is comparable to the Military mask system in that (by increasing the pulse) it increases the oxygen/ambient air ratio as altitude increases.

By the way, the O2D2 is a must-have regulator for anyone who spends much time in the teens, where diesel engines optimize both speed and economy. It basically cuts oxygen consumption to 1/3 that of the Diamond supplied cannulas at any given altitude, provides constant feedback that you are getting oxygen, sounds an alarm when you are not, and is completely unobtrusive. The cannula is so comfortable that I sometimes forget it is there on descent, don't remove it, and look like an idiot pulling into the chocks...
User avatar
Boatguy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
First Name: Russ
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N962M
Airports: KSTS
Has thanked: 1327 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: Do we seriously consider DA62?

Post by Boatguy »

I understand that neither mask or using a cannula imply breathing pure O2. My assumption was that a military mask with a tight fit provides a well controlled mixture and that the mixture is the product of considerable research.

Using a cannula the mixture is not well defined as it depends on the cannula style, fit, specific controller, etc. My Mtn. High system offers a variety of choices for the amount of O2 in each pulse in addition to the adjustments the regulator makes for altitude. I change the settings on my system based on my measured O2 saturation.

But the overarching point was that turboprops are much more efficient in the flight levels and in the flight levels pressurization is a much better solution than a cannula. High climb and descent rates, another feature of turboprops and jets are also much easier for the passengers in a pressurized environment.
User avatar
ultraturtle
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:46 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N62KZ
Airports: KAAF
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 180 times

Re: Do we seriously consider DA62?

Post by ultraturtle »

Boatguy wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:23 pm...But the overarching point was that turboprops are much more efficient in the flight levels...
Your point is absolutely valid if you mean that turboprops themselves are more efficient in the flight levels than the same turboprops at lower altitudes. Same is true for pretty much any aircraft.

The argument fails somewhat when comparing turboprops to Austro engined diesel aircraft. For example, the Piper M600 carrying virtually the same payload as a DA62 fully loaded manages its best efficiency at 184 knots and 39 gph (4.7 mpg) (see https://www.flyingmag.com/we-fly-piper-m600/), whereas the DA62 pulls off 2.6 times that efficiency (12.4 mpg) at that same 184 kt speed.

As an aside, the DA62 has a massively better engine-out climb rate than the M600.
User avatar
MackAttack
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:20 pm
First Name: Joel
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N251JM
Airports: KIWS
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 160 times

Re: Do we seriously consider DA62?

Post by MackAttack »

Can’t argue with the poor engine out climb rate of the M600! But the M600 number you note above is not quite reflective of how these planes are flown in the real world. In ISA conditions, at FL300, the M600 at normal cruise book speed is 253 TAS, at 36.1 gph, or 7.0 nm/hour. And at that fuel consumption, the 600 will fly for close to 6.5-7 hours and go a long ways. The 62 still beats it on efficiency of course!!

184 knots is Piper’s published “long range cruise” speed. The numbers above are the POH book numbers reflected in the free “Torque” app on the iTunes Store (which I use to set and monitor power and FF on every flight). The app has charts for all 3 Piper turbines. Almost nobody flies their turboprops at LRC cruise speed for any distance, however, unless it’s on a short hop through the terminal area, just as I doubt many people fly their Diamond twins for a long distance at 55% power as noted by the max range numbers on Diamond’s website. However, if you do choose to fly at low power cruise at FL300, you get 186 TAS and 8.4 nm/gal. I just don’t know why you would given the already long 1600+ mile range of the 600. The fuel cost is really the smallest element of the operating cost, unless you only buy JetA from Signature at large airports! 8-)

For anyone considering a Piper turbine, I recommend both the Torque app and the Piper ProFlite app (for weight/balance scenarios). Both are free and POH-based. The ProFlite person also makes similar free apps for Cirrus (pistons and Vision), and the TBMs. Very useful for comparing aircraft.

Having said that, the power/efficiency of both the 62 and 42 are really amazing. It’s just hard to compare a turboprop to a piston twin from a mission perspective. Really different animals. Even though the purchase price of a used 62 is comparable to a Meridian, the total cost of ownership for the Diamonds is amazingly low in my opinion. Purchase price of any airplane is just the starting point for the “what will it cost me” question. Turboprops as a class are more expensive than pistons to operate, twin-engine turboprops more so and turbofans even more so. You pay for that extra speed, and it’s not a linear thing.

The 62 does an amazingly good job balancing total cost of ownership, efficiency, mission length, cabin space and passenger comfort and even style, etc. That’s why I am considering it (or a 42-VI) as a possible addition in 2021.

Steveo1Kinevo posted a nice DA62 flight video today also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-nPwtHq0U
Post Reply