I just found my ALL-TIME favorite VFR/IFR aircraft!

[tttocs 301]

 

 

She can do 192 knots...under best conditions.

 

Not sure where you're finding that number Mitch.  I suppose at max power in a dive, but... :smile: 

 

This is realistically a 150-155 KT plane when cruised at optimal altitude with typical power settings.  From an AOPA writeup, some numbers:

 

@ 80% power, 10,000 ft 156 KTAS/3.2 hr (43 pph/6.3 gph)
@ 60% power, 10,000 ft 138 KTAS/4.9 hr (30 pph/4.4 gph)
@ 50% power, 10,000 ft 127 KTAS/6.1 hr (24.6 pph/3.6 gph)

 

However, note the incredible efficiency here.  There's a reason that the standard fuel capacity is only 50 gallons usable.  This is one miserly fuel-sipper.  For a twin to advertise 6.3 gph at 80% power is simply amazing.  As, of course, is the fact that you can reasonably cruise all day long at 80%.

 

BTW, in most parts of the world what you'll actually be burning is Jet A - a somewhat more refined type of diesel fuel.  Or virtual Jet A in the sim! :wink:

 

Scott
 

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Not sure where you're finding that number Mitch.  I suppose at max power in a dive, but... :smile:

 

This is realistically a 150-155 KT plane when cruised at optimal altitude with typical power settings.  From an AOPA writeup, some numbers:

 

@ 80% power, 10,000 ft 156 KTAS/3.2 hr (43 pph/6.3 gph)

@ 60% power, 10,000 ft 138 KTAS/4.9 hr (30 pph/4.4 gph)

@ 50% power, 10,000 ft 127 KTAS/6.1 hr (24.6 pph/3.6 gph)

 

However, note the incredible efficiency here.  There's a reason that the standard fuel capacity is only 50 gallons usable.  This is one miserly fuel-sipper.  For a twin to advertise 6.3 gph at 80% power is simply amazing.  As, of course, is the fact that you can reasonably cruise all day long at 80%.

 

BTW, in most parts of the world what you'll actually be burning is Jet A - a somewhat more refined type of diesel fuel.  Or virtual Jet A in the sim! :wink:

 

Scott

 

I was reading on a real-world site...and saw that max figure. I'll have to try and find it again...b

 

I also read that these engines can digest Bio-Fuel....

 

Post Edit: Ok...here ya go...found quite a bit...

 

FL100, 92% power: DA42-VI = 179 KTAS (NG: 172 KTAS)

FL100, 75% power: DA42-VI = 164 KTAS (NG: 160 KTAS)

FL100, 60% power: DA42-VI = 149 KTAS (NG: 147 KTAS)

FL100, 45% power: DA42-VI = 122 KTAS (NG: 130 KTAS) <- ?

 

FL160, 92% power: DA42-VI = 191 KTAS (NG: 175 KTAS)

FL160, 75% power: DA42-VI = 174 KTAS (NG: 166 KTAS)

FL160, 60% power: DA42-VI = 157 KTAS (NG: 152 KTAS)

FL160, 50% power: DA42-VI = 137 KTAS (NG: 141 KTAS) <

 

 

 

A quote from the Net:

 

Real-World DA42 owners:

 

"While the nunbers are nowhere near the 200 knots we recently heard again from Diamond, it seems you'll be able to pick your speed in the 150-170KTAS range at non-oxygen altitudes and burn 10-13 GPH in the process.

 

If you can justify flying a twin, these are decent numbers. (and by all means, "sexy" IS a justification!)."

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Comfort is always in the eye of the beholder. I flew an SR22G2 while waiting for my DA42 to be built (nearly 2 years). Flying x-countries in the SR22 always gave me back and neck pains, even more so than when flying my C310. I have well over 500 hours in my DA42 and have NEVER had a back or neck problem. I have flown several 5+ hour x-countries in the DA42 and the only discomfort I get is in my legs (keeping my feet on the rudders gets tiring).

The bottom line: if you are at all concerned about comfort, it is critical that you take a LONG x-country in the plane of interest and don't rely on the comments of others (especially of the manufacturer)."

 

 

Cary

[JAT 185]

Great shots.

 

nebojsa

[sascha 314]

It's a lovely plane. I always drool over it at airshows, the sleek lines and spacious interior are something else!

 

I regularly use the old Eaglesoft DA42 for short flights, it's a very nice looker and flyer.

 

This plane ROCKS!

 

I use the Logitech Extreme 3D Pro (stick)

 

Here's some more...Lamar..and yes..it handles like a dream...

 

...and away my friend and I go....out of  someplace in Oz.....

 

Wondeful! Your set-up is really approaching the perfect sweet spot. I like this look better than the more dark one you favored recently.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Jim Young
Removed excessive images that were in the quote as there were not needed and it makes it easier for those who do not have high speed connections to view topics and posts

[tttocs 301]

Hey Mitch,

 

Scratch those numbers I put out there - they were for an earlier model with smaller engines.  D'oh! 

 

That said, the 190 figure is still a marketing number.  You CAN do it, but you wouldn't.  Climbing to 16,000' (service ceiling is 18,000') will take a lot of time and fuel, will require O2, and the fuel burn at 92% power (almost 17 gph) diminishes a major advantage of the plane - its efficiency - in exchange for a few extra knots.  So allow me to remove the egg from my face and say that realistically this is a solid 160-170 KTAS plane for longer trips where you'll take the time to climb to 10,000.  For example, on a standard day, 10,000', 80% power, 169 KTAS, 14 gph fuel burn.

 

Very respectable numbers in any case, and definitely a VERY kewl plane.

 

Scott

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Folks,

 

I'm intrigued - question on the G1000 though - will it fly a correct "Direct To" when flying a flight plan - or does it do the default GPS thing of an intercept midway between two waypoints ??? Also - can you fly WAAS/RNAV/GPS/LPV/LNAVVNAV approaches utilizing the glide slope ??? I've never used the Carenado G1000...

 

Thanks...

 

Regards,

Scott

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Hey Mitch,

 

Scratch those numbers I put out there - they were for an earlier model with smaller engines.  D'oh! 

 

That said, the 190 figure is still a marketing number.  You CAN do it, but you wouldn't.  Climbing to 16,000' (service ceiling is 18,000') will take a lot of time and fuel, will require O2, and the fuel burn at 92% power (almost 17 gph) diminishes a major advantage of the plane - its efficiency - in exchange for a few extra knots.  So allow me to remove the egg from my face and say that realistically this is a solid 160-170 KTAS plane for longer trips where you'll take the time to climb to 10,000.  For example, on a standard day, 10,000', 80% power, 169 KTAS, 14 gph fuel burn.

 

Very respectable numbers in any case, and definitely a VERY kewl plane.

 

Scott

No problem, Scott...for I knew that I had seen those numbers before these eyes, lol!   Actually, I settle in around 145-55 and have tried to red-line it, with the FADEC.  Had a blast watching the FADEC manage the rpms...and keep them a fraction below red-line.  It truly works and is modeled!

 

 

Cheers,

 

DA42 Mitch

Hi Folks,

 

I'm intrigued - question on the G1000 though - will it fly a correct "Direct To" when flying a flight plan - or does it do the default GPS thing of an intercept midway between two waypoints ??? Also - can you fly WAAS/RNAV/GPS/LPV/LNAVVNAV approaches utilizing the glide slope ??? I've never used the Carenado G1000...

 

Thanks...

 

Regards,

Scott

I honestly can't answer that, Scott, at this time....for I am a learning G1000 newbie.  I do know that you must set your airport as the FIRST way-point entry of your flight plan. So, I would believe that it will for you....that you set your airport identifier as the first way-point entry...might suggest that.

It's a lovely plane. I always drool over it at airshows, the sleek lines and spacious interior are something else!

 

I regularly use the old Eaglesoft DA42 for short flights, it's a very nice looker and flyer.

Hi Sascha...yes...still playing with the lighter/darker renditiondepth of P3D v3.2.3...and have basically left it now, where you see these grabs of the DA42.  I have grown used to the darker 'night life'...and yes, I agree with everyone...a tad more realistic than what I had preferred before it.  Night...I guess..MEANS night, now in P3D v3.2.3!!!

 

Mitch

[tttocs 301]

Scratch those numbers I put out there - they were for an earlier model with smaller engines.

 

After further review...

 

Can anyone confirm which model Alabeo has built.  Before anyone responds, I know this is Alabeo's 2.0 with improvements over their initial model, but which DA42 is this?  The original (in which case my original numbers were correct), or a DA42 V1 which features significantly more powerful engines (170 hp, vs 135 hp) and subsequently faster speeds.  Looking at the Alabeo website, this would appear to be the original.

 

Scott