DA42 v Baron
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- psk
- 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
Robert that's impressive. I always had a stiff back after long flights in the DA40... although I did manage to from Cannes to London and back a few times, those were some long days.
- Tgleeson
- 2 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:45 pm
- First Name: Tim
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: C-GYMT
- Airports: CYKZ
Re: DA42 v Baron
Re the 400. I learned to fly in a DA40 and think its the best all around GA aircraft you could own. From 2008 on with the GFC700, the extra speed, WAAS ,TCAS , its a winner. And the safety record stats speak for themselves. I also think the seat ergonomics are very good and found it very comfortable. I owned 3 different 40s and love the airplane. I would say its shortcomings are noticeable when considering longer cross country flying. I have flown the 40 from Toronto to Alberta and back and wanted more speed and comfort for that trip which is why I got the 400. With turbo and inadvertent de-ice its a better long distance IFR plane. And the AC and cabin make for a better comfort level. I also think the sum of those plus the extra 40 + knots makes for more safety on long days flying. One thing I miss is a trim wheel. I hope I'm quick enough to react to a runaway trim if I ever face that situation. I also think for me it was the best choice for a trade up in terms of $. A Bonanza or a DA42 would have set me back a lot more money. And I think the 400 is possibly a safer plane than a Cirrus.
- Henrik
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:08 pm
- First Name: Henrik
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: NONE
- Airports:
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: DA42 v Baron
I think Tim makes a great point regarding why most of us started with a DA40 in the first place & how the upgrade path is less than obvious.
For me, the upgrade path went to a DA42 & it was motivated by this:
1) Jet A - a *major* mission enabler for Asia & World flying in general. Avgas is just a no-go, or at least a major hassle in many locations around the World. I'm continuously flying to destinations w/no avgas but plenty of (cheap!) Jet A. Probably much less important if you live in the US or Northern Europe.
2) Twin engine. I fly across the open ocean or inhospitable terrain a lot of the time. A Cirrus chute would be of some benefit if landing on water, but not really a deal breaker. Superior gliding range in a PA46 from FL250 wouldn't be of much use either, as airports are sparse and ocean crossings too wide to yield any favourable landing scenarios. Besides, I just simply enjoy flying a twin & wouldn't want to go back to a single - I like the challenge, training & added discipline required, and the nice, heavy & stable feeling.
3) I fly solo 50% of the time & have no need for anything > 4 seats, nor do I carry heavy luggage. Anything larger would just be a waste of space & fuel.
4) Flying enjoyment - the DA42 is just a pleasure to hand fly. And the superior view out the canopy is a big selling point.
5) Panel. The G1000 & GFC700 is just too powerful for me to go back to steam gauges. And I really like the neat, streamlined layout.
6) Modern design. I find the DA42's design inspiring & cool, and have zero affinity for the old spam cans.
7) Performance - the DA40 is fine for cruising, but comes up a bit short on longer trips. The DA42 has much better range. And cruising at 185 kts in the DA42-VI gets me there a lot faster. TKS FIKI is great as well. Finally, don't underestimate the value of flying with turbocharged engines.
I haven't regretted my choice for a second.
Other people will have a completely different set of priorities.
Patrick, the key is for you to set YOURS.
For me, the upgrade path went to a DA42 & it was motivated by this:
1) Jet A - a *major* mission enabler for Asia & World flying in general. Avgas is just a no-go, or at least a major hassle in many locations around the World. I'm continuously flying to destinations w/no avgas but plenty of (cheap!) Jet A. Probably much less important if you live in the US or Northern Europe.
2) Twin engine. I fly across the open ocean or inhospitable terrain a lot of the time. A Cirrus chute would be of some benefit if landing on water, but not really a deal breaker. Superior gliding range in a PA46 from FL250 wouldn't be of much use either, as airports are sparse and ocean crossings too wide to yield any favourable landing scenarios. Besides, I just simply enjoy flying a twin & wouldn't want to go back to a single - I like the challenge, training & added discipline required, and the nice, heavy & stable feeling.
3) I fly solo 50% of the time & have no need for anything > 4 seats, nor do I carry heavy luggage. Anything larger would just be a waste of space & fuel.
4) Flying enjoyment - the DA42 is just a pleasure to hand fly. And the superior view out the canopy is a big selling point.
5) Panel. The G1000 & GFC700 is just too powerful for me to go back to steam gauges. And I really like the neat, streamlined layout.
6) Modern design. I find the DA42's design inspiring & cool, and have zero affinity for the old spam cans.
7) Performance - the DA40 is fine for cruising, but comes up a bit short on longer trips. The DA42 has much better range. And cruising at 185 kts in the DA42-VI gets me there a lot faster. TKS FIKI is great as well. Finally, don't underestimate the value of flying with turbocharged engines.
I haven't regretted my choice for a second.
Other people will have a completely different set of priorities.
Patrick, the key is for you to set YOURS.
- Gasser
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:22 pm
- First Name: Jeff
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N415AM
- Airports: KADH
- Has thanked: 16 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
Re: DA42 v Baron
If I could afford it, I'd buy a DA42 -VI in a second. It would also be a perfect plane for me. Just out of reach for me financially. Hell, even an older 42 is twice too much for me. That's why I went Cirrus. g2s are very affordable very capable quick modes of transport for my family. I don't mind flying it at night or over modest terrain because of the chute. It's awesome in higher DA airports even as an NA. Useful load was enough better than my Diamond that it made cross countries much easier. Plus having AC is very nice here in the south. My kids do bitch more about the back seats of the cirrus than they did in my Diamond. Not sure if it's because there older or if they are that much more uncomfortable. The biggest complaint from the back is the angle of the back rest. They want more recline. The new G5s do recline so they are better. However for that money, I'd buy the -VI.
Maybe someday I'll be back in a diamond but for now I'll just have to stick to a powerful single piston.
Maybe someday I'll be back in a diamond but for now I'll just have to stick to a powerful single piston.
Jeff
PRIVATE PILOT, IFR
2005 DA40 SOLD
2006 SR22, A/C, TKS, AVIDYINE PFD/MFD, IFD 540/440, AXP322 remote ADS-B TRANSPONDER, AMX240 AUDIO PANEL, MLB100 ADS B in.
168 KTAS 9,000' msl @ 13.6 gph LOP. 1005 pound useful load.
PRIVATE PILOT, IFR
2005 DA40 SOLD
2006 SR22, A/C, TKS, AVIDYINE PFD/MFD, IFD 540/440, AXP322 remote ADS-B TRANSPONDER, AMX240 AUDIO PANEL, MLB100 ADS B in.
168 KTAS 9,000' msl @ 13.6 gph LOP. 1005 pound useful load.
- psk
- 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
I really loved and miss my DA40 but have ended up moving in a completely different direction with the follow up plane, have a nice 1982 Baron 58 under contract. It's going to be a big change after flying the DA40 and then doing my multi add on rating in a DA42. I had some magical flights around the Southern Alps in that little DA40, I certainly miss it but I need greater load carrying and I've grown fond of having two engines.
- psk
- 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
Update, now a little over a year later, I went turbine.
The Baron is going on the market and I bought a Turbo Commander 690A... Pressurization, turbines, more space, 280kts for about what I was originally looking to pay for a used DA42.
I still have a special place in my heart for DA40s
The Baron is going on the market and I bought a Turbo Commander 690A... Pressurization, turbines, more space, 280kts for about what I was originally looking to pay for a used DA42.
I still have a special place in my heart for DA40s
- ememic99
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
- First Name: Emir
- Aircraft Type: DA42
- Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
- Airports: LDZA LDVA
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 390 times
Re: DA42 v Baron
Is there a lot of work in refurbishing it or it's in good shape? What kind of avionics do you have, can you share some panel pictures?
- psk
- 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
Emir, it has dual G600s, GTN 750 and 650, avidyne EX500, radar altimeter, dual transponders and lots of other stuff I'm forgetting. It is in very good shape, so not a refurbishment project. It has mid time engines, so something like 3000 hours left before overhaul. They are the less desirable of the two engine possibilities, the -5 rather than the upgraded -10 engines.
Even though it has been very well maintained, I am seeing the oft mentioned truth that turbine maintenance costs are an order of magnitude different from piston figures. Purchase price is only a small portion of long term ownership costs. Good news is jet fuel is so cheap, I'm paying under $3.00/gallon on average, which includes some expensive fuel stops before I got the fuel cards figured out.
But the aircraft performance is also not even vaguely comparable - I'm climbing out at 3000 fpm, I'm "slowing down" to 165 kts indicated for my approach (from higher figures, which are giving me 280kts true in the low 20s), my range is comfortable in excess of 1000nm, I can climb over ~1400 fpm single engine.
Even though it has been very well maintained, I am seeing the oft mentioned truth that turbine maintenance costs are an order of magnitude different from piston figures. Purchase price is only a small portion of long term ownership costs. Good news is jet fuel is so cheap, I'm paying under $3.00/gallon on average, which includes some expensive fuel stops before I got the fuel cards figured out.
But the aircraft performance is also not even vaguely comparable - I'm climbing out at 3000 fpm, I'm "slowing down" to 165 kts indicated for my approach (from higher figures, which are giving me 280kts true in the low 20s), my range is comfortable in excess of 1000nm, I can climb over ~1400 fpm single engine.
- rwtucker
- 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
I like the Turbo Commanders a lot. There are a few in this area in backcountry use. Very versatile aircraft. I haven't flown one but I am told that it is stable and predictable. How is the single engine handling?
- psk
- 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
Single engine and zero thrust or feathered on the other, it's quite benign. You have so much thrust available with the 717hp/side, the big wing, big rudder, that it just flies fine. If you have an engine failure after takeoff, it is keep flying, climb out and come back and land, not the land straight ahead like you would in a piston twin. It climbs better on one than most piston twins do on two. This is much of why I went with the Turbo Commander, plus the economy of the Garrett engines and the lack of costly time based inspection and maintenance schedules (like you get on the King Airs). I'm going much faster, more cheaply, than the KA C90s with the -21 engines and the MX is cheaper. The plane flies really well and is a pleasure to hand fly. Taxying is pretty tricky, though, at first.