DA42 v Baron

Any DA42 related topics.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Tommy »

Yes, it's a great comparison if one flies at 6,000' all of the time, or, if one flies at 16,000' all of the time.
It's all about your mission. What is your mission? If you are based at 1,000'msl and 90% of your trips never cross 5,000'msl, then your needs are different than if you are based at 5 or 8,000'msl and 90% of your flights are over 12-14,000' terrain. Or, if you are based at 1,000'msl and just like to always fly at 16,000'msl while always sucking on oxygen and dealing with the headaches that follow, then your airplane is without question the 42.

Compare the two airplanes over a complete range of altitudes (which is in the poh) including time to climb to altitude which I don't believe is in the above example and you will come up with a little different picture. There is definitely a penchant here on this forum to cherry pick while comparing airplanes. All I'm asking one to do is look at the whole range of performance and then decide what your leanings are based on mission need including the obvious non-performance factors like esthetics, comfort, distance, fuel flow, avgas vs. diesel etc.

If you really want an apples to apples comparison regarding strictly turbocharging, look at the performance tables for a Baron 58P or an AEST 700P vs. the DA42 VI. I know there are other monumental differences that separate these aircraft. However, strictly for comparison purposes it is interesting. The focus on pretty much all discussions on this board has been normally aspirated anything vs. a turbocharged 42.
Last edited by Tommy on Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Tommy »

Power setting & performance.pdf
(397.39 KiB) Downloaded 192 times
Just for the fun of it. :D
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by TimS »

ememic99 wrote:Nice comparison which shows that original DA42 with CD-135 engines is underpowered and aerodynamically less efficient than -VI.
How did you come to those conclusions?

Tim
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by CFIDave »

Tommy wrote:What is your mission? If you are based at 1,000'msl and 90% of your trips never cross 5,000'msl, then your needs are different than if you are based at 5 or 8,000'msl and 90% of your flights are over 12-14,000' terrain.
Yes, it's all about the mission, which is typically to fly from Point A to Point B, which in turn dictates your altitude. The altitude you fly will be a combination of specific aircraft performance, weather and winds aloft.

But the aircraft you fly will strongly influence your mission's altitude preference (all else being equal). If I owned a Baron I'd prefer to fly below 8000 feet, whereas if I owned a DA42-VI or DA62 I'd prefer to fly between 10,000-12,000 feet (let's assume I don't want to wear an O2 rubber hose up my nose). It's no different with jets or turboprops that MUST cruise above 20,000 feet (preferably above 30,000 feet) because turbine aircraft are so fuel inefficient down low.

The climb performance of newer turbocharged Diamond twins (over 1000 fpm all the way to cruise altitude) is such that it takes very little time to climb -- I'll generally be at cruise altitude in less than 10 minutes in my DA62. And I won't be burning prodigious amounts of fuel for the climb, unlike with avgas engine planes (turbo or not) that climb with enriched fuel mixtures. This means that except for very short trips (or where I'm faced with headwinds that are much worse up high), I will climb up to at least 10,000 feet -- even when flying between sea-level airports where I live on the US east coast.

My rule of thumb is that up to 16,000 feet, turbocharged Austro-engined Diamonds pick up speed at a rate of 3 knots of additional TAS for every 2000 feet of additional altitude. With headwinds, if the winds aloft headwind component increases at a higher rate than that, I'll fly lower, otherwise higher is better. With a tailwind component, flying higher is almost always better because you get a higher TAS combined with stronger tailwinds the higher you fly.

The good news is that both Foreflight and Garmin Pilot now let you create more sophisticated aircraft performance models (with TAS varying by altitude) that will calculate all of this for you to show the best altitude for a given flight.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
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

Post by ememic99 »

TimS wrote:
ememic99 wrote:Nice comparison which shows that original DA42 with CD-135 engines is underpowered and aerodynamically less efficient than -VI.
How did you come to those conclusions?

Tim
Underpowered: according to POH data, OEI at ISA and MTOW (gear retracted, flaps retracted, dead engine feathered, climb at 82 KIAS) gives 150 ft/min (although from my personal experience one can get a bit better results). I'm aware that this satisfies certification requirements but I would be happier with a bit more. It's not easy to meet all these conditions at real EFATO event so a bit more power would be very useful. Next month I'm upgrading my DA42 to CD-155 engines and Scimitar props which should result with increased performance.

Aerodynamics: Comparing DA42NG (old DA42 with AE300 instead of CD-135) and DA42-VI (same AE300 engines) you can easily conclude that difference in performance between these two (and it's huge) comes solely from aerodynamic differences.
http://www.greatlakesdiamond.com/how-fast-is-a-da42/
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by TimS »

Emir,

I copied to much. I knew the aerodynamics. My questions was focused on the under powered.
Start a thread on the CD-155 and props when done. I am curious how it turns out.

Tim
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
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

Post by ememic99 »

TimS wrote:Emir,
Start a thread on the CD-155 and props when done. I am curious how it turns out.
Tim
You can expect it end of April.
User avatar
carym
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:00 pm
First Name: cary
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N336TS
Airports: KTYQ
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by carym »

ememic99 wrote:Nice comparison which shows that original DA42 with CD-135 engines is underpowered ...
Underpowered is really in the eye of the beholder. Sure, I would love to have 2 P&W turbines on my DA42 to give me even more power. However, when I was having an ECU problem and the right engine could only maintain about 20-30% power at 14K feet going west, and 13K feet going east, I was able to maintain those altitudes to get me safely to my destination in my "underpowered" DA42 with 1.7 engines. If I were in a single engine airplane that was only able to generate 20% power I would not be able to continue to fly at 14K feet.
Cary
DA42.AC036 (returned)
S35 (1964 V-tail Bonanza)
Alaska adventure: http://mariashflying.tumblr.com
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by Colin »

When I was looking at my (eventually) $450k DA42, I also looked at a *gorgeous* $250k Baron. Six seats instead of four. The gorgeous barn door system. A sort of miniature airliner. I had trouble with the fuel burn (and relying on the 110LL), and a friend (who has a Twin Bonanza) said, "That's $200k of fuel money in the bank."

Two things killed some of my enthusiasm.

1. The annuals apparently induce heart attacks.

2. I am a member of Beechtalk and have read a lot of discussions about engine-out events. If you don't do the right things quickly enough, you are upside down and soon spinning. I decided that wasn't a good first twin.

Maybe they will re-engine it with some diesels.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
User avatar
dselder1962
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 1:23 am
First Name: David
Aircraft Type: DA42-VI
Aircraft Registration: VHYDZ
Airports: YMMB
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: DA42 v Baron

Post by dselder1962 »

Tommy wrote:Yes, it's a great comparison if one flies at 6,000' all of the time, or, if one flies at 16,000' all of the time.
It's all about your mission. What is your mission? If you are based at 1,000'msl and 90% of your trips never cross 5,000'msl, then your needs are different than if you are based at 5 or 8,000'msl and 90% of your flights are over 12-14,000' terrain. Or, if you are based at 1,000'msl and just like to always fly at 16,000'msl while always sucking on oxygen and dealing with the headaches that follow, then your airplane is without question the 42.
Okay it is obvious you don't like the 42, but to make blanket statements in your own post about not making blanket statements is ironic don't you think.
I have moved from the Cirrus 22T to the 42-VI and it is magnificent. My fuel bills are about 1/2 as will my maintenance bills be.
And I fly at 6000 (for example today YMMB YBDG) but on Friday YMMB YMIA I will fly at FL160 with a cannula on my Precise Flight X3 on demand reg and don't even notice the cannula. I will not have any sort of headache.

Enjoy your flying, cos I certainly enjoy mine.

All the best
David
David
Based in Moorabbin, Australia. 8-)
Past Cirrus 20
Past Cirrus 22T
Present Diamond 42-VI
Post Reply