New Plane Owner

[Cary]

It has been a while since I posted and viewed the rec.aviation groups.
I sold my 1958 C310 nearly 3 years ago and have been waiting for my
new plane to arrive. I am now the "proud" owner of a DA42 (Diamond
Twin Star) and I have a total of 6 hours in this plane. While I am
still learning what the Garmin G1000 can do, I have found that the
plane is a dream to fly (but maybe I am prejudiced). After I have more
time in it I will be happy to post my experience. So far I can say the
plane is too easy to land. The trailing link gear seems to absorb
miscalculations better than my C310 and far better than the SR22 I
have been flying the last year.

Cary

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 14, 1:13 pm, "Cary" > wrote:
> It has been a while since I posted and viewed the rec.aviation groups.
> I sold my 1958 C310 nearly 3 years ago and have been waiting for my
> new plane to arrive. I am now the "proud" owner of a DA42 (Diamond
> Twin Star) and I have a total of 6 hours in this plane. While I am
> still learning what the Garmin G1000 can do, I have found that the
> plane is a dream to fly (but maybe I am prejudiced). After I have more
> time in it I will be happy to post my experience. So far I can say the
> plane is too easy to land. The trailing link gear seems to absorb
> miscalculations better than my C310 and far better than the SR22 I
> have been flying the last year.
>
> Cary

You'll like the G1000. Its a nice system to fly and really not much
different than having a 430 after you get used to it. I have seen some
bugs, but Garmin puts out patches.

-Robert

[kontiki]

Cary wrote:
> It has been a while since I posted and viewed the rec.aviation groups.
> I sold my 1958 C310 nearly 3 years ago and have been waiting for my
> new plane to arrive. I am now the "proud" owner of a DA42 (Diamond
> Twin Star) and I have a total of 6 hours in this plane. While I am
> still learning what the Garmin G1000 can do, I have found that the
> plane is a dream to fly (but maybe I am prejudiced). After I have more
> time in it I will be happy to post my experience. So far I can say the
> plane is too easy to land. The trailing link gear seems to absorb
> miscalculations better than my C310 and far better than the SR22 I
> have been flying the last year.
>
> Cary
>
The Twin Star is nice but but seems like an expensive way fly at 165Kts.
I think I'll stick to my Comanche. :^o

[john smith]

Yes, but does your Comanche sip 7 gph while doing 165 kts?

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:43:53 -0400, john smith > wrote:

>Yes, but does your Comanche sip 7 gph while doing 165 kts?

I think the TwinStar is a cool plane, and a great introduction of new
technology to GA, but the fuel flow vs cruise numbers have been wildly
exaggerated in the press.

I found the DA42 flight manual online. http://tinyurl.com/2htuhp

If I am interpreting the cruise speed diagram correctly (pg 224 of the
pdf), the DA42 can barely reach 165kts TAS... Only at 14000 feet
pressure altitude, ISA + 30deg, and 80% power.

The fuel flow (pg 204 of the pdf) at 80% power is 6.25 US Gallons per
hour per engine, for a total of 12.5 gph.

The twinstar can do 130kts @ 7gph @ 12k feet.

Very impressive numbers for a twin, but not nearly the amazing numbers
that have been thrown about in various magazine articles.

-Nathan

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

> Yes, but does your Comanche sip 7 gph while doing 165 kts?

Yes, but ... there are many other ways to compare. It sips fuel
compared to other twins - but what is the payback period for the
difference in fuel consumption versus the airplane price? OTOH it has
a warranty and parts should be easier to find than an old GA bird.
OTOH ... and so on and so on.

In any case, it's nice to enlarge the fleet.

- FChE

[Cary]

On Mar 15, 12:05 pm, (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:
> > Yes, but does your Comanche sip 7 gph while doing 165 kts?
>
> Yes, but ... there are many other ways to compare. It sips fuel
> compared to other twins - but what is the payback period for the
> difference in fuel consumption versus the airplane price? OTOH it has
> a warranty and parts should be easier to find than an old GA bird.
> OTOH ... and so on and so on.
>
> In any case, it's nice to enlarge the fleet.
>
> - FChE

Frank, I agree. I ws putting in $15K to 20K in annuals with my 310
every year, and parts were more and more difficult to get. Also,
insurance was very diffiult to get (only 1 or 2 companies would
insure). While buying a new plane is expensive there are the other
advantages. Also, this plane cost me $100,000 less than the current
retail price.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> The twinstar can do 130kts @ 7gph @ 12k feet.

Holy $hit Batman! That IS amazing for a twin.

For comparison, a 172K will only do 107 kts @ 7.4 gph @ 5000 ft. and...
a 152 would do 100 kts @ 5.0gph @ 12,000 (if
you had the patience to actually climb that high)