DA42 v Baron

Any DA42 related topics.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Post Reply
User avatar
Chris B
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:52 am
First Name: Chris
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N171CB
Airports: KRHV
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Chris B »

Tgleeson wrote:
Chris B wrote:...ignorant comments about the Cessna 400 useful load...
Just a pet peeve here. I have read in numerous places that the Cessna 400 is weak on payload. I don't 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.
Hi Tim -

Thanks for setting the record straight!

FYI, in my case I interpreted comments I've read about the Cessna 400 being suited mainly for two adults as a useful load issue. Obviously this is not correct.

What's the story with the gear and landing weight?

Chris
User avatar
psk
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:37 pm
First Name: patrick
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N690PK
Airports: LFMD EGTF
Has thanked: 9 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by psk »

Chris, is the Cessna 400 POH available online? I've seen the marketing docs which use speeds and ranges using some silly altitude like 25,000 feet...
I'm interested in the figures for real world flight planning.
User avatar
Chris
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:34 am
First Name: Chris
Aircraft Type: DA42NG
Aircraft Registration: N449TS
Airports: KHIO
Has thanked: 1050 times
Been thanked: 481 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Chris »

psk wrote:Chris, is the Cessna 400 POH available online?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cessna+400+poh

Or for a more direct link:
http://www.x-aviation.com/downloads/C400_POH.pdf
Chris
N449TS / DA42-NG / 42.AC049
KHIO
User avatar
psk
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:37 pm
First Name: patrick
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N690PK
Airports: LFMD EGTF
Has thanked: 9 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by psk »

I had googled the POH and found the link you posted... it is for X-plane, flight simulator. I wasn't comfortable relying on it as factual due to it being for a simulator. Do the flight sim POHs typically have identical info to the manufacturers' POHs?
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by rwtucker »

I flew the "C400" when "C" stood for Columbia. It is a solid 175-180 kt. aircraft, about POH. Fuel consumption is a little higher than POH 17-21 GPH. The one I flew ran LOP smoothly at 65% or below. Overall, I love the aircraft. Very good engineering and construction. I assume it is just as good or better under Cessna?
Last edited by rwtucker on Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Chris
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:34 am
First Name: Chris
Aircraft Type: DA42NG
Aircraft Registration: N449TS
Airports: KHIO
Has thanked: 1050 times
Been thanked: 481 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Chris »

psk wrote:Do the flight sim POHs typically have identical info to the manufacturers' POHs?
At least the cruise performance charts look to match upon a cursory inspection. Here's a link to a different online version that looks more official:

http://colpedia.wikispaces.com/file/vie ... %20POH.pdf
Chris
N449TS / DA42-NG / 42.AC049
KHIO
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by ihfanjv »

Although there are many reasons to chose one airplane over the other I see very little reason to chose the Cessna 350/400 over the SR22. The only potential reason I could see is if you want a G1000/GFC700 equipped plane but don't want to pay the price of a 2008+ SR22 - if that is the consideration then you can get a pre-2008 350/400 with the G1000/GFC700 for less than a 2008+ G1000/Perspective equipped SR22. Otherwise, the airplanes are equipped with virtually identical engines, the all-around performance is within a few percentage points of each other, and the added safety of the parachute in the Cirrus just makes sense. Yes, the 350/400 is a better flying aircraft. But, you can train in the SR22 to learn how to do your best to avoid its bad habits. No amount of training can magically make a parachute appear in the 350/400 when you are in IMC at night with an engine failure and can't reach a runway, or some other disaster where a parachute might be your only way out. Many people poo-poo the parachute as something for pilots that don't know how to fly an airplane, but the bottom line is that it provides an option.

All that said, given the budget of the person originally asking the question in this thread, the choice is between the 2006 350 with the G1000 (non-WAAS) vs the late 2006 SR22 with the Avidyne (there were some design changes in the SR22 in the middle of 2006) - these are priced within the same ballpark at between $220k-$275k for decent times and condition. The Cessna flies better and has a way more reliable panel and the incredible GFC700 autopilot. The Cirrus does not fly as naturally, has an iffy panel, but has the parachute. The buyer has to chose what he/she thinks is most important.

All things being equal, the market seems to favor the parachute equipped plane - which might be marketing more than anything, or maybe not. But of course, the overall fatal rate of the SR22 is no better than the 350/400. But, if you are serious about flying and not dying while doing so, then you can study why the SR22 accident rate is so bad and specifically train in those areas of accident avoidance, which for you should make the SR22 a safe airplane. When you do that training you will learn that you will never maneuver below 100 knots below 2,000 feet in your SR22, and you fly the pattern while paying strict attention to your airspeed. No doubt about it, the 350/400 flies better than the SR22.
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by rwtucker »

ihfanjv wrote:. . . I see very little reason to chose the Cessna 350/400 over the SR22.
I think the C400 carried over the utility class rating of the Columbia 400. I was around the Cirrus folks when they were going for certification. At that time, they gave up on any chance of getting utility. Are the newer SR22s rated Utility now?
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by ihfanjv »

rwtucker wrote:
ihfanjv wrote:. . . I see very little reason to chose the Cessna 350/400 over the SR22.
I think the C400 carried over the utility class rating of the Columbia 400. I was around the Cirrus folks when they were going for certification. At that time, they gave up on any chance of getting utility. Are the newer SR22s rated Utility now?
No, they are not - the SR22 is certified in the "normal" category. I am only aware of one in-flight breakup of a SR22, which I believe was in severe convective activity resulting in loss of control and high-speed dive, etc.

I think the utility vs normal argument is just marketing hype because in flight breakups are not the problem in the SR22 - the problems are disorientation during IMC, the lack of feel in the spring-loaded side yoke, pilot's unfamiliarity with the top-hat style trim, people stalling them into the ground on base and final, and people landing too fast resulting in bad landings or botched go-arounds. Landing too fast in the SR22 is caused by the fact that pilots are trained to fly the SR22 quickly in the pattern, but they just can't figure out how to slow the plane down to the low 70s on short and final when they are in the 90s on final. The SR22 in ground effect at 80+ floats forever and eats up runway quickly. By the time the pilot gets 3/4 of the way down the runway they are on the low 70s, they firewall the throttle, forget to step on the right peddle and retract the full flaps, and you know how the rest of the story goes...

The SR22 does have a history of post crash fires (which is one more reason to pull the parachute instead of trying to force a landing in hostile terrain). The post crash fires are allegedly due to the composite wet wings' tendency to shatter on impact, atomizing fuel, that then finds a source of ignition resulting in a fireball. There's even video of this happening so it is more than urban legend - this unfortunate poor soul probably would not have survived the crash anyway, although he might have if he had used the parachute: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=589_1297 ... comments=1). I am not sure whether the Columbia/Cessna 350/400 has a similar post-crash fire history.

I don't think there are any examples post-crash fires on the DA40 or DA42 (not many crashes, period, in these two planes - probably the safest planes ever built). Clearly, putting aluminum tanks between two beefy carbon spars has proved to be a lot better than a composite wet wing.
Last edited by ihfanjv on Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by rwtucker »

ihfanjv,

Understood. Yet, a Utility rating means something significant and it is a reason why someone might seek it out in an aircraft purchase.

Your comments prompt me to take another look inside the last Nall and the latest data. The last time I looked, the Cirrus and the Columbia/Cessna were not comparable. In spite (or perhaps because) of the BRS, the Cirrus had more serious accidents and fatalities.
Post Reply