![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, but does your Comanche sip 7 gph while doing 165 kts?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
new plane owner wanting to reduce costs right away... | [email protected] | Owning | 6 | May 19th 06 11:46 PM |
new plane owner wanting to reduce costs right away... | BigGuy | Piloting | 14 | May 18th 06 08:51 PM |
new owner questions | kmuller909 | Owning | 24 | March 31st 05 01:03 PM |
I am an aircraft owner | Nathan D. Olmscheid | Owning | 4 | August 4th 04 10:33 AM |
signing off <51% owner built plane | Bob | Home Built | 1 | September 22nd 03 07:10 PM |