DA42 v Baron

[Tommy]

A totally rebuilt Aerostar is approx. 1/3 to 1/2 the overall cost of a VI. It is essentially a brand new airplane in every respect except airframe. If you research the airframe you will find that it has been tested in a controlled dive up to 500 kts. with no flutter or failure of any type. It was originally designed to eventually have jet engines installed on it, currently does and is in testing. I believe they are well over 400 kts. at this time.There are airframes with as many as 20,000 hrs. on them and they are still flying.
If you do a little research, study the design and its history, you will be dumbfounded. The money you save on the initial investment against the purchase of a new VI will more than likely never exceed the full operating costs experienced over yours or many of our life times. It is one hell of an airplane.

Check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nVTzlDsmME

[Steve D]

I believe Ted Smith's Aerostar is an incredible design. As I recall, the vertical and horizontal tail feathers are identical to save on manufacturing costs. Also it is one of the few airframes that has an unlimited hours rating.

If I remember correctly the 702P has a max speed of 285kts and a fearsome fuel burn of around 44gals/hr.

What is the reason the club seating configuration is nearly always 5? Is it because of limited access to the rear seats?

Kai - Sorry for the thread drift

[Tommy]

A sixth seat can be installed, you just have to deal with it.
Four seats allows you to lay down and take a nap.

Change the thread title to include the Aerostar.
"DA42 vs Baron vs Aerostar"

[Henrik]

"DA42 vs Other Aircraft We Like" is probably more like it...

[Tgleeson]

Just tuned in on this but noticed the discussion on BeechT also. I also had a 400k budget coming out of my 3rd DA40. DA42 is not available at that price equipped the way I wanted…GFC700 and current engines. Its also quite slow. G1000 Baron also not available at that price. Cirrus G3 or Cessna 400 can be found for that budget. I chose the 400 over the Cirrus for handling, safety and ergonomics. I have a 2008….turbo, AC, de-ice, 102 gallons capacity and 987 useful load. I can fly fill it with 2 people easily if I want. I like that the design is so similar to the Diamond. I'm flying it LOP at 16-17gph. You could look at a nice older twin with after market glass for that budget. Op costs the issue there of course.

[psk]

How do you like the Cessna 400? I'm not so interested in the Cirrus due to the lack of feel on hand flying and have heard good things about the feel of the Cessna. There seem to not be many of them out there, for whatever reason (passenger comfort?).

[Tgleeson]

It's a very solid IFR cross country airplane. Ingress/egress for px might be more difficult than the Cirrus as would rear seats overhead.Inconsequential issues for me as I've never had anyone in back. If I wanted room for px and the budget was a lot bigger the Bonanza is my choice but I don't like the idea if flying it at 4000lbs

[ememic99]

Comparing Cessna 400 with DA42 is complete miss - single vs twin, 100LL vs Jet A1, 17 gph vs 10 gph, payload, space, price, range ... Is there any category where it makes sense to compare them?

[Chris B]

Comparing Cessna 400 with DA42 is complete miss - single vs twin, 100LL vs Jet A1, 17 gph vs 10 gph, payload, space, price, range ... Is there any category where it makes sense to compare them?

Hi Emir -

The purpose of Patrick's query is finding an appropriate upgrade from the DA40 on his (probable) path to a turbine. Suggestions have included an SR22, Aerostar & Bonanza, in addition to the original comparison between the DA42 and Baron. So the Cessna 400 certainly fits into the equation from the OP's perspective, although it clearly doesn't fit with the title of this thread.

FWIW, while I have no direct experience with the 400, it seems like the best fit. Payload (its main weakness) is not an issue, by all accounts it is a sweet handling aircraft and has relevant additional complexity (especially blazing speed). The main missing thing (for a transition aircraft) is retractable gear, but otherwise the Cessna 400 may be an excellent alternative. For Patrick.

Chris

[Tgleeson]

Just a pet peeve here. I have read in numerous places that the Cessna 400 is weak on payload. I dont know why that idea persists. I pointed out that mine has a useful load of 987 lbs which includes the weight of a turbo, air conditioning and a de-ice system. If you adjust for those factors it compares quite favourably with the other singles you could choose from. The stock Bo has a useful load of 1033 which does not have a turbo or de-ice equipment of any kind. The after market cost of those is very high and now you are flying a 4000 lb aircraft on 3600 lb wings. I would say the Cessna 400's weakness are landing gear....a lower landing weight, lack of FIKI de-ice, and rear seat comfort. If the budget is 400k for recent vintage G1000 aircraft , the 400 is a strong choice....but of course not a twin.