DA42 v Baron

Any DA42 related topics.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

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 »

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.
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 »

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.
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 »

Keeping N-reg in Europe will be more and more complicated. And there's issue of maintaining FAA and EASA licenses.
User avatar
robert63
3 Diamonds Member
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

Post by robert63 »

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.
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 »

Are you sure it's not applicable to twin turboprop?
User avatar
robert63
3 Diamonds Member
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

Post by robert63 »

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.
User avatar
ultraturtle
4 Diamonds Member
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

Post by ultraturtle »

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:
Screen Shot 2018-02-20 at 3.49.46 AM.png
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
Speed difference is probably a bit less in reality. DA42-VI speeds are measured at max gross, the Baron speeds at 300 lb under gross. Diamond does not publish cruise speeds at less than max for the DA42-VI, but does for the DA62. They are similar enough aircraft that the DA42 probably picks up 1 knot of cruise speed for each 160 lb under gross, just like the DA62. That would make for a difference between the Baron and the TwinStar of only 5% carrying the same payload.

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.
jb642DA
4 Diamonds Member
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

Post by jb642DA »

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)
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 »

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
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 »

Nice comparison which shows that original DA42 with CD-135 engines is underpowered and aerodynamically less efficient than -VI.
Post Reply