DA42 v Baron
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- 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
Nice Congrats on your new toy
I guess that owning one in Europe would be a challenge because of maintenance and putting in on EASA registry.
I guess that owning one in Europe would be a challenge because of maintenance and putting in on EASA registry.
- 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
Not so sure. Keeping it on N-Reg wouldn't be so complicated for me today and there are at least two well regarded maintenance shops. There were several of them based and being serviced at my old field outside London, EGTF, Fairoaks, where I used to be based. Believe the other shop is in Germany. I may be moving back to Europe and was also considering bringing it over for the summer as I will probably be living with in France for the summer.
- 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
Keeping N-reg in Europe will be more and more complicated. And there's issue of maintaining FAA and EASA licenses.
- robert63
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:53 am
- First Name: Robert
- Aircraft Type: DA42NG
- Aircraft Registration: OE-FAR
- Airports: LOWL
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: DA42 v Baron
If you have a FAA license and live in Europe then you can fly until April 2017. There have been several prolongations already and it is not likely that this will be extended beyond April next year.
Luckily you don't need to follow Non-Commercial Complex Aircraft (OPS-NCC) regulations which will be applied to all aircraft with one or more jet engines, and all others with a MTOW of more than 5.700 kg, 19 passengers or more than one pilot starting from August 2016.
Luckily you don't need to follow Non-Commercial Complex Aircraft (OPS-NCC) regulations which will be applied to all aircraft with one or more jet engines, and all others with a MTOW of more than 5.700 kg, 19 passengers or more than one pilot starting from August 2016.
- robert63
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:53 am
- First Name: Robert
- Aircraft Type: DA42NG
- Aircraft Registration: OE-FAR
- Airports: LOWL
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: DA42 v Baron
You can never be sure with anything from EASA, but AOPA Germany says this => https://aopa.de/aktuell/die-eu-befreit- ... s-ncc.html
The biggest problem is probably to get the typerating for this aircraft.
The biggest problem is probably to get the typerating for this aircraft.
- ultraturtle
- 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
DA42-VI v Baron G58
I was originally going to post this in the "Horsepower debate (was DA40NG) " thread, but realized it is a comparison between two very specific airframe/engine combinations, and there is already a thread for it. What has been missing is an updated comparison based on the improvements of the DA42-VI over previous versions of the TwinStar.
An important metric of comparison for any aircraft buyer is cruise speed, another would be hauling capacity. Comparing the turbo-normalized DA42-VI to the normally aspirated Baron G58 at 6,000' is just as silly as comparing the two at 16,000'. We can, however, take the fastest speeds (at ISA) from both aircrafts' AFMs and compare the two over the course of a 390 nm trip with 45 minutes reserve. Weights and specs are right out of the AFMs, and fuel cost is today's spot price from my FBO. Just for fun we'll throw in the DA62:
I obviously chose 390 nm for a reason. For any less distance, the Baron can haul more people and stuff. For any greater distance, the DA42-VI can haul more. For a 390 nm (no wind) trip, they haul the same. The only advantages I can note for the Baron is that is gets folks there 7 minutes (~6%) quicker, fits in a smaller hangar, and has engines that most mechanics are familiar with.
The list of DA42-VI advantages are many:
Aerodynamics plays a part of the DA42-VI's massive efficiency advantage over the Baron accomplishing the same mission, but the engine technology difference is not to be discounted.
Consider Continental Aircraft Engines, manufacturer of thousands of engines per year with but a single realistic competitor for most of its history. Little surprise that today's IO-550 is pretty much the same engine as the one that started shipping 35 years ago. So little R&D money to be gained from the sale of so few engines combined with lack of competition in the marketplace gave little impetus for improvement.
Contrast this with Mercedes Benz, manufacturer of millions of engines per year with dozens of fierce competitors. It improves constantly or dies in the marketplace. Massive resources get poured into continued refinement just to survive. The OM 640 diesel (guts of both the Continental and Austro diesel engines), first produced in 2004, benefits from generations of advancements, and its performance shows.
I threw the DA62 in because of frequent comparisons between it and the Baron, but the DA62's greater hauling capacity at any distance and far more spacious cabin outclass the Baron by a pretty wide margin. That its fuel cost per mile are less than half that of the Baron is but icing on the cake.
An important metric of comparison for any aircraft buyer is cruise speed, another would be hauling capacity. Comparing the turbo-normalized DA42-VI to the normally aspirated Baron G58 at 6,000' is just as silly as comparing the two at 16,000'. We can, however, take the fastest speeds (at ISA) from both aircrafts' AFMs and compare the two over the course of a 390 nm trip with 45 minutes reserve. Weights and specs are right out of the AFMs, and fuel cost is today's spot price from my FBO. Just for fun we'll throw in the DA62:
I obviously chose 390 nm for a reason. For any less distance, the Baron can haul more people and stuff. For any greater distance, the DA42-VI can haul more. For a 390 nm (no wind) trip, they haul the same. The only advantages I can note for the Baron is that is gets folks there 7 minutes (~6%) quicker, fits in a smaller hangar, and has engines that most mechanics are familiar with.
The list of DA42-VI advantages are many:
- 45% of the fuel cost
Jet-like simplicity of single lever power control
No mags or spark plugs
3" wider cockpit
Higher altitude means generally less traffic and greater options for smoother ride and weather avoidance
Quieter
Panoramic view unrestricted by pillars
Less expensive engine overhaul
Aerodynamics plays a part of the DA42-VI's massive efficiency advantage over the Baron accomplishing the same mission, but the engine technology difference is not to be discounted.
Consider Continental Aircraft Engines, manufacturer of thousands of engines per year with but a single realistic competitor for most of its history. Little surprise that today's IO-550 is pretty much the same engine as the one that started shipping 35 years ago. So little R&D money to be gained from the sale of so few engines combined with lack of competition in the marketplace gave little impetus for improvement.
Contrast this with Mercedes Benz, manufacturer of millions of engines per year with dozens of fierce competitors. It improves constantly or dies in the marketplace. Massive resources get poured into continued refinement just to survive. The OM 640 diesel (guts of both the Continental and Austro diesel engines), first produced in 2004, benefits from generations of advancements, and its performance shows.
I threw the DA62 in because of frequent comparisons between it and the Baron, but the DA62's greater hauling capacity at any distance and far more spacious cabin outclass the Baron by a pretty wide margin. That its fuel cost per mile are less than half that of the Baron is but icing on the cake.
-
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:16 pm
- First Name: John
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: N2691Y
- Airports: KPTK KDTW
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 143 times
Re: DA42 v Baron
Thanks for taking the time to make this comparison Rob!!
Looking!
1980 414A - N2691Y (sold)
DA62 - N100DA 62.078 (sold)
DA42TDi - N742SA 42.AC112 (sold)
1980 414A - N2691Y (sold)
DA62 - N100DA 62.078 (sold)
DA42TDi - N742SA 42.AC112 (sold)
- TimS
- 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
It was fun to read this thread, having owned a 2004 Cirrus SR20 G2 and an Aerostar 602P upgraded to a 700. I have about a dozen hours in a Baron G58 and couple in 55 (B model I think).
And the final comparison is perfect. My most common flight is 404nm direct! Just about perfect for Rob's sample flight....
Tim
And the final comparison is perfect. My most common flight is 404nm direct! Just about perfect for Rob's sample flight....
Tim
- 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
Nice comparison which shows that original DA42 with CD-135 engines is underpowered and aerodynamically less efficient than -VI.