I just wanted to add a note to anyone who flies the DA-42. Recently, it has been discovered that a bracket on the landing gear doors has a very bad weld on it which leads to a very short lifespan (5-10 hours). If this bracket were to break in flight it could potentially prevent the landing gear from coming down. Be sure to be extra vigilant in your pre-flights. Fly safe!
Need Some Help On Picking a "Twin"
- Thread starter L-39 Driver
- Start date
Tram
Well-Known Member
I'll get on this bandwagon.. The suck.. We don't own our DA-40 anymore...
Tram
Well-Known Member
Wait til' your pax door comes flying off in the middle of cruise, you may change your mind..
Diamond Rep told me and my dad (while ours was in the shop - having the door replaced) they were losing around a door a week......
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
I think the DA 42 is a nice airplane, but there should be a aircraft limitation that you must have size 9.5 size shoe or lower or learn to fly barefooted. You must learn to jam you foot on the tiny bit of the bar, to the side of the toepads or you will land with the brakes on. At that point you are digging the edge of your feet into the control cables, and i dont like that at all. I think that Diamond is working on getting better pedals, and they really should. Since it is a high aspect wing, really a glider, and a has two standard turning engines, it is a really rudder intensive airplane.
I would fly the DA 42 and see if you like it. The operating costs, are in-line with a cirrus sr 20. I think some of the maintenance issues, posted earlier may vary with who is maintaining it. It is a very different breed of airplane, and I would want to decide if I had a shop capable of doing it right.
I would fly the DA 42 and see if you like it. The operating costs, are in-line with a cirrus sr 20. I think some of the maintenance issues, posted earlier may vary with who is maintaining it. It is a very different breed of airplane, and I would want to decide if I had a shop capable of doing it right.
bdhill1979
Gone West
The older ones seemed to be much better constructed and using better source parts.
The newer ones exactly the opposite.
Seems to me like the company decided to cut costs sometime around 2003-2004 and everything since has had problems.
One of the ones I have flown a lot, a 2001 model year DA20-C1, has had practically zero problems, while a 2005 and 2007 have had nothing but problems.
The 2003 has had constant electrical problems and last summer had the oil temp sensor replaced 12 times if I remember correctly.
The 2007 crashed due to a design problem with the ridiculous aneroid fuel pump, after having problems from the day it showed up on the ramp. I called that one "The Gremlin". I refused to fly it just days before it crashed, no injuries thankfully.
2005 DA40: constant electrical problems, that thing ate an alternator about every three weeks over the summer. How many times I heard the circuit breakers pop in that plane I have no idea. A friend of mine was flying that one a few weeks ago and the PFD and MFD go black, the radios stopped working. He said six breakers popped. Fortunately he was VFR so it wasn't an issue to land.
2007 DA42: The above mentioned glue problems which caused a gear failure on landing, constant engine problems, the GDL 69 datalink was installed wrong, so no XM weather or music, and last I heard it sucked a turbo. That plane doesn't even have 400 hours out from the factory.
I can't wait to see what the D-Jet does.
flyboywbl
3rd regional in 1 year
I'm doing my Twin rating in a DA-42 and i love the plane. Those turbo diesel's are an awesome achievement in engineering. My only gripe is that the plane breaks a lot. That could be because it's flown by students. the latest case of stupidity some on killed the engine with the fuel selector witch is a big nono with a pressurized complex fuel system. Another draw back is that if you lose electrical power you lose your engines. In a conventional avgas engine with magnetos if you lose electrical power your engines will still run. With the ECU's though the plane is so simple. It has just two power levers instead of two throttles, two pitch leavers and two mixture leavers. Plus i love the G1000! TAS, XM radio. the plane has deicing but you can't fly into known icing conditions yet. The one i fly has the older autopilot in it. You can't set your minimums in the one i fly and the plane will not fly the holding pattern for you. I think the newer one can now. any way i hope this helps.
-Matt
-Matt
roundout
VNAV monitor
not quite true. try turning the electric master off on the ground after a flight some time. the engines continue to run quite normally. you have to have a total electrical failure - both main busses, battery bus, and dual alternator failure to lose engines. even then, if your ADs are up to date, even with all the above-listed failures, the engines will continue to run for 30 minutes on backup batteries powering the ECUs.
Duck_Twacy
Well-Known Member
I'll second the Cheyenne as another option. There are a fair number of mid-time I's and II's on the market.
750 is a long ride at 190kts...
750 is a long ride at 190kts...
flyboywbl
3rd regional in 1 year
Sorry i guess i should of been more clear. In comparing a magneto system to an ECU system if you lose your power in the 42 you should be alot more worried than in a conventional recip engine with a magneto. But yet you do have 30 minutes if you have a complete electrical failure. then about an hour of flood light, and artificial horizon while you are in your glider. Oh another fun thing about the 42. You can drop the gear at any air speed below Vne. You just can't bring up the gear above i think 156kts because it's hard on the actuators. There is an emergency decent procedure you do in case of an engine fire. You bring both throttles to idle, drop the gear, and then pitch down 30 degrees! I think we got up to -9000 FPM decent rate. another thing to think about is there is a two minute warm up time on the turbo's while at idle before take off and a four minute cool down time on the turbos after landing. If you are in a hurry a lot this can be somewhat annoying. What i usually do is get the atis and such while they are warming up. When i land and get cleared to parking i gain some speed and bring the power levers to idle and start the cool down time while taxing back to park. hope this helps -Matt
38bat
New Member
I think I would pick a Cirrus SR-22 turbo over the diamond. Seems like it would fit your profile for less money.
Takeoff1028 ft313 mTakeoff Over 50 ft Object1594 ft486 mClimb Rate1400 ft/min426 m/minMax Operating AltitudeFL250 (25,000 ft)7,620 mStall Speed with Flaps60 KCAS60 KCASMax Cruise Speed219 KTAS219 KTASCruise Range w/Reserve (75% pwr)925 nm1713 kmMaximum Range w/Reserve (55% pwr)1000 nm1852 kmLanding Ground Roll1141 ft348 mLanding Over 50 ft Object2344 ft714 m
Engine ManufacturerContinentalModelIO-550-NTurbo-normalizing SystemTornado AlleyHorsepower310
Takeoff1028 ft313 mTakeoff Over 50 ft Object1594 ft486 mClimb Rate1400 ft/min426 m/minMax Operating AltitudeFL250 (25,000 ft)7,620 mStall Speed with Flaps60 KCAS60 KCASMax Cruise Speed219 KTAS219 KTASCruise Range w/Reserve (75% pwr)925 nm1713 kmMaximum Range w/Reserve (55% pwr)1000 nm1852 kmLanding Ground Roll1141 ft348 mLanding Over 50 ft Object2344 ft714 m
Engine ManufacturerContinentalModelIO-550-NTurbo-normalizing SystemTornado AlleyHorsepower310
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat:
Heck, in the light twin market, even a good 500S Commander would be good.
750nm is doable in the 500, but you are pushing VFR reserve. Even if you do fly in all in one leg that is a long ride at 170 kts. Commanders are very docile and easy to fly (even on one engine), just takes a little bit to get used to how it handles on the ground.
L-39 Driver
New Member
Everyone!
The comments were very much appreciated, firstly. Instead of trying to quote-in-reply to everyone, I’ll attempt to cluster my replies into groupings for better understanding for everyone.
Mission Requirements:
Plan: Full IFR/IMC capable
Cruise: Trying to get substantially better than 200 kts (if at all possible)
Climb: Under 15 minutes to assigned/planned cruise altitude
Range: Up to 750 nm including climb/descent profiles (all west coast flights)
Loads: 590 lbs not including fuel (bags, pilot and Wife - only)
Levels: FL200 or higher (need to get on top of most weather)
(All weather capable. Certified Anti-Icing Equip.)
Cabin:
Pressurization
Auto-Climate Control
Leather Seating
Avionics:
Full EFIS with traditional pito/static/elect/vac primary back-ups (ALT, HDG, VVI, TC, etc.)
Full axis Auto-Pilot with GPS coupling and AH capability
(I’ll most likely have to design, configure and build the avionics suite/layout that works best for me.)
Hopefully, that clears up what my needs are just a bit.
Now, regarding your replies. It looks like the DA-42 won’t cut mustard in the eyes of most in this thread with one or two exceptions from people that seem to like the aircraft. But, even for those that like the aircraft in this thread, they all admit that there are persistent problems with the DA-42 that should not exist. I find that very interesting and it goes to show how important it is to always do your pre-purchase homework.
I would have thought (just off the top of my head) the Diamond had its act together on its “flag ship” twin product (not counting the D-Jet). But, apparently, some you that have flown the aircraft for several hundred hours thus far see things differently. This does not bode well for the DA-42 at first glance. Major airframe components “falling off” while sitting out on the ramp, “glue” holding together aircraft subcomponents (should be a certified epoxy designed for composite materials) coming apart, engines that “fry” frequently and the overall “high maintenance” that I’m hearing you guys talk about, all points me AWAY from the DA-42 at first glance.
At the same time, I did not hear many complaints about the Baron, which could mean that my initial research on that aircraft (before coming here) was good. Most of you seem to like that particular Beechcraft airframe – point noted. A couple of you seem to operate the Baron in business (either your own or as a company pilot) and I did not hear any of you complain too much about the airframe – you seem to like it very much based on the silence about any negatives. However, what I really want to hear about ARE the “negatives”. Not merely for the sake of being negative, but just to get an idea of what you would like to see more or less of in the Baron? In other words, did Beechcraft nail it perfectly, or in your eyes, did they make some mistakes on the airframe, engines, that you would like to have seen corrected?
Pressurized Baron/King Air 90:
Yes, I know – on the surface this seem like a silly comparison as both aircraft are in different “classifications”. However, it is possible for the same mission to be covered by aircraft from multiple classifications – and that’s the key here. I need a twin with a “can do” attitude and the performance to match a wide range of differing mission profiles under 750 nm, not “always” at 750 nm miles. The radius of the mission could be as little as 230 nm giving a total mission range of 460 nm. Everything will depend on the mission requirements.
The idea here (at least for me) is to get the most safety and performance out of the airframe as possible, without too much overkill in terms of aircraft size, weight, fuel consumption and performance capabilities. I little overkill is not bad, just not too much, that’s all. Here are two typical scenarios that will come up in the future for the twin. Keep in mind also that mission profiles of various kinds will make up the remainder of flight time in the twin.
Example Mission Profile 1:
Flights of this nature – Somewhat Often (1-2 times per month)
Northern California airport to KPSP with light rain and moderate to heavy overcast at departure point with regional tops reported in the area above 10,300 ft and getting clearer en-route to KPSP (to the south east). However, weather is fixed and extending south down towards Los Angles along the coast. So, if a coastal route is flown below 10,300, it will be in the clouds – thus the plan filed will be IFR with a cruise altitude above the soup. Anything east of the grapevine is crystal clear all the way to Palm Springs. (A funky weather system, I know – but it is just for illustrative purposes only.) Bottom line, I’m IFR (only) for at least half the trip which is about 363 nm away with unlimited visibility upon arrival.
The load is two small bags at 35 lbs total, one set of golf clubs and Class-“A” survival pack (about 20 lbs - I can explain later), for a total of 75 lbs total personal load. A pretty simple no-hassle type mission – a little palm, a little spring a little golf and then back home with an expected IFR instrument approach to near minimums at an airport I’m very familiar with. (been there – done that)
Example Mission Profile 2:
Flights of this nature – Occasionally to Infrequently (1-4 times per year)
It is mid July and weather visibility looks awesome on both ends of a mission form NoCal into KASE. This time, we need to carry a baggage load of 140 lbs (including my clubs) and a Class-C survival load of 60 lbs (again, ask me later), for a total personal load of 200 lbs. The rest is fuel, oil, additives, etc. That Saturday morning, we depart NoCal IFR for KASE which is about 726 nm east. Departing near sea level in NoCal and arriving at 7679.8 ft with a 2% gradient in KASE mid afternoon in July for a 1-2 week stay.
No doubt, a pure mountain approach regardless of the approach direction. This particular scenario is during mid July for purposes of illustration but this flight could take place anytime of the year. Regardless, density altitude performance will also be an issue here (that’s why I picked this airport and this mission).
Getting To a Consensus:
Total time should be between 400 to 650 PCI hours flown between all three aircraft per year on the higher end 250 to 475 on the lower end of the spectrum – all hours spread out fairly evenly from year to year with no huge gaps in flight time.
The absolute total PIC hourly break-down should be close to:
35% SJ30-2
30% L-39ZO
35% “Twin”
So, you’ve got one fairly simple mission with strict IFR departure weather to content with (including the same weather upon arrival back at base) and another challenging mission with some real high density altitude performance issues to deal with including a steeper than normal descent on approach to the destination, but smooth sailing on the approach back home. One requires a solid IFR platform to depart and then return home, while the other mission requires very good density altitude performance where the possibility of an unusually steep descent to landing could very well be required.
Which aircraft is best suited for missions with these kinds of consistent variable departure and arrival conditions (mission variety is the key here): Pressurized Baron or King Air 90xx?
It seems like the DA-42 is simply not yet ready for prime time, in the eyes of most here. I want to purchase brand new from the factory in either case, unless I can find a combination of low time and easily changed avionics to match my needs – but I doubt that will happen the way I need it to. So, I would definitely be looking at placing a new aircraft order.
Having said that however, I don’t see a “pressurized” version of the Baron on the Beechcraft website, so I’m not quite sure if that means they are no longer in production (help, if you know). If that is the case, that would be one strike against the Baron and one more man on base for the 90. I called Beechcraft today and got nothing but voicemail – I thought that was a bit odd after the fact. Shouldn’t a company like Raytheon/Beechcraft be able to answer the phone? Anyway…I digress.
In my mind, I see the twin being used very much the same way you would use a Mid-Size SUV. You can get a lot of utility/purpose out of a good mid-size SUV. There is no single mission profile type for this twin. It needs to be able to get down to southern San Diego, up to Vancouver British Columbia, and over to Colorado at times, with the bulk of its missions running in the 300-500 nm range (radius or single leg).
I could make the SJ30 fit any of these missions, but I think that would be overkill most of the time. There will be those instances where time is of the essence and the speed of the SJ30 will be needed more than anything else (even faster than the L-39ZO). But, most of the time, the runways will be shorter at some of the fields we plan to use.
So, this is not going to be a twin that I can squeeze into a template flight profile – this twin has to be good at everything:
Short field work
High density altitudes
Below VFR mins and strict IFR/IMC
Good climber
Night ops (lots of night/dusk ops on return trips back home)
Relatively low maintenance
Reliable machine, sturdy, strong, does not complain too much
Good handling qualities and characteristics, no gotchas, bizarre surprises or goofy behavior
An aircraft that “likes to fly straight & true”, not a “trim queen”, intuitive flight controls
Good visibility over the nose on approach
Stall speed 100 kts or less (all of them)
Good Vxse and Vyse – especially on high density altitude departures – a must have.
Geee, the more I think about this, the more the 90 comes into better focus. That’s odd, because I thought it would be outside the scope. But, the more I think about it, the more I see the 90 as being more viable given my performance/safety concerns.
One thing is for certain, I really do think I am at least in the right ball park with the Baron and the King Air 90, given the kind of mission profiles that will be flown.
To answer some of the other questions:
a) Any business flying will be in a company that I own and operate independently.
b) The personal flying will be most with Wife and an occasional friend or two, but rarely.
c) I see each aircraft as being uniquely fit and qualified for its specific role (mission).
d) If I really had an outstanding year I could put up 800 hrs/yr between all three aircraft.
e) The reason for turbo/super charging the Baron is mostly for increased climb and cruise.
I agree with most of what you all of said regarding time-en-route. If 200 kts is all I can get out of the Baron, then those 750 nm radius trips would take quite some time in coming to fruition. That’s why I need to know what super/turbo charging the I/O 550 (currently being used, I think) would net me in terms of increased SHP, decreased take-off distances, faster climb and faster cruise speeds.
Lastly, all of the other normally aspirated twins mentioned here come up short of the Baron’s performance. So, that might be taking a step backwards. The smaller twins would work for those missions under 300 nm, but that’s why I need an all around “team player” of a twin that can range up to 750 nm when needed and do so fairly speedily and in a pressurized environment. That cuts out almost every other light twin on the market.
Now, if the safety of a twin engine were not at issue here, the choice would be fairly easy because I’d go get a new Piper Meridian or TBM 850 and forget about it! Those two are very nice aircraft. However, the TBM seems to beat the Meridian in max cruise speed by a whopping 30-40 kts! But, of course, safety is my first concern especially when carrying family members and the “real” as well as “perceived” safety of a twin engine aircraft, outweighs the single every single time.
The problem with all of this is that by the time you finish “justifying” the cost of a Meridian or TBM fitted the way I would need it, you end up not too far away from one half the cost of a new SJ30-2 and that simply defeats the purpose, for me personally. I’m trying to “cheat” here just a little bit, but getting the “twin” to be significantly less than half the cost of the SJ30-2, but with “almost” half the performance. Doing all of that cost savings with brand new factory fresh airframes, is going to be a real challenge – I know.
Please keep the feedback coming if you can – it does at least give me a sounding board of sorts to work with as I move through this phase of discovery.
Thanks!
The comments were very much appreciated, firstly. Instead of trying to quote-in-reply to everyone, I’ll attempt to cluster my replies into groupings for better understanding for everyone.
Mission Requirements:
Plan: Full IFR/IMC capable
Cruise: Trying to get substantially better than 200 kts (if at all possible)
Climb: Under 15 minutes to assigned/planned cruise altitude
Range: Up to 750 nm including climb/descent profiles (all west coast flights)
Loads: 590 lbs not including fuel (bags, pilot and Wife - only)
Levels: FL200 or higher (need to get on top of most weather)
(All weather capable. Certified Anti-Icing Equip.)
Cabin:
Pressurization
Auto-Climate Control
Leather Seating
Avionics:
Full EFIS with traditional pito/static/elect/vac primary back-ups (ALT, HDG, VVI, TC, etc.)
Full axis Auto-Pilot with GPS coupling and AH capability
(I’ll most likely have to design, configure and build the avionics suite/layout that works best for me.)
Hopefully, that clears up what my needs are just a bit.
Now, regarding your replies. It looks like the DA-42 won’t cut mustard in the eyes of most in this thread with one or two exceptions from people that seem to like the aircraft. But, even for those that like the aircraft in this thread, they all admit that there are persistent problems with the DA-42 that should not exist. I find that very interesting and it goes to show how important it is to always do your pre-purchase homework.
I would have thought (just off the top of my head) the Diamond had its act together on its “flag ship” twin product (not counting the D-Jet). But, apparently, some you that have flown the aircraft for several hundred hours thus far see things differently. This does not bode well for the DA-42 at first glance. Major airframe components “falling off” while sitting out on the ramp, “glue” holding together aircraft subcomponents (should be a certified epoxy designed for composite materials) coming apart, engines that “fry” frequently and the overall “high maintenance” that I’m hearing you guys talk about, all points me AWAY from the DA-42 at first glance.
At the same time, I did not hear many complaints about the Baron, which could mean that my initial research on that aircraft (before coming here) was good. Most of you seem to like that particular Beechcraft airframe – point noted. A couple of you seem to operate the Baron in business (either your own or as a company pilot) and I did not hear any of you complain too much about the airframe – you seem to like it very much based on the silence about any negatives. However, what I really want to hear about ARE the “negatives”. Not merely for the sake of being negative, but just to get an idea of what you would like to see more or less of in the Baron? In other words, did Beechcraft nail it perfectly, or in your eyes, did they make some mistakes on the airframe, engines, that you would like to have seen corrected?
Pressurized Baron/King Air 90:
Yes, I know – on the surface this seem like a silly comparison as both aircraft are in different “classifications”. However, it is possible for the same mission to be covered by aircraft from multiple classifications – and that’s the key here. I need a twin with a “can do” attitude and the performance to match a wide range of differing mission profiles under 750 nm, not “always” at 750 nm miles. The radius of the mission could be as little as 230 nm giving a total mission range of 460 nm. Everything will depend on the mission requirements.
The idea here (at least for me) is to get the most safety and performance out of the airframe as possible, without too much overkill in terms of aircraft size, weight, fuel consumption and performance capabilities. I little overkill is not bad, just not too much, that’s all. Here are two typical scenarios that will come up in the future for the twin. Keep in mind also that mission profiles of various kinds will make up the remainder of flight time in the twin.
Example Mission Profile 1:
Flights of this nature – Somewhat Often (1-2 times per month)
Northern California airport to KPSP with light rain and moderate to heavy overcast at departure point with regional tops reported in the area above 10,300 ft and getting clearer en-route to KPSP (to the south east). However, weather is fixed and extending south down towards Los Angles along the coast. So, if a coastal route is flown below 10,300, it will be in the clouds – thus the plan filed will be IFR with a cruise altitude above the soup. Anything east of the grapevine is crystal clear all the way to Palm Springs. (A funky weather system, I know – but it is just for illustrative purposes only.) Bottom line, I’m IFR (only) for at least half the trip which is about 363 nm away with unlimited visibility upon arrival.
The load is two small bags at 35 lbs total, one set of golf clubs and Class-“A” survival pack (about 20 lbs - I can explain later), for a total of 75 lbs total personal load. A pretty simple no-hassle type mission – a little palm, a little spring a little golf and then back home with an expected IFR instrument approach to near minimums at an airport I’m very familiar with. (been there – done that)
Example Mission Profile 2:
Flights of this nature – Occasionally to Infrequently (1-4 times per year)
It is mid July and weather visibility looks awesome on both ends of a mission form NoCal into KASE. This time, we need to carry a baggage load of 140 lbs (including my clubs) and a Class-C survival load of 60 lbs (again, ask me later), for a total personal load of 200 lbs. The rest is fuel, oil, additives, etc. That Saturday morning, we depart NoCal IFR for KASE which is about 726 nm east. Departing near sea level in NoCal and arriving at 7679.8 ft with a 2% gradient in KASE mid afternoon in July for a 1-2 week stay.
No doubt, a pure mountain approach regardless of the approach direction. This particular scenario is during mid July for purposes of illustration but this flight could take place anytime of the year. Regardless, density altitude performance will also be an issue here (that’s why I picked this airport and this mission).
Getting To a Consensus:
Total time should be between 400 to 650 PCI hours flown between all three aircraft per year on the higher end 250 to 475 on the lower end of the spectrum – all hours spread out fairly evenly from year to year with no huge gaps in flight time.
The absolute total PIC hourly break-down should be close to:
35% SJ30-2
30% L-39ZO
35% “Twin”
So, you’ve got one fairly simple mission with strict IFR departure weather to content with (including the same weather upon arrival back at base) and another challenging mission with some real high density altitude performance issues to deal with including a steeper than normal descent on approach to the destination, but smooth sailing on the approach back home. One requires a solid IFR platform to depart and then return home, while the other mission requires very good density altitude performance where the possibility of an unusually steep descent to landing could very well be required.
Which aircraft is best suited for missions with these kinds of consistent variable departure and arrival conditions (mission variety is the key here): Pressurized Baron or King Air 90xx?
It seems like the DA-42 is simply not yet ready for prime time, in the eyes of most here. I want to purchase brand new from the factory in either case, unless I can find a combination of low time and easily changed avionics to match my needs – but I doubt that will happen the way I need it to. So, I would definitely be looking at placing a new aircraft order.
Having said that however, I don’t see a “pressurized” version of the Baron on the Beechcraft website, so I’m not quite sure if that means they are no longer in production (help, if you know). If that is the case, that would be one strike against the Baron and one more man on base for the 90. I called Beechcraft today and got nothing but voicemail – I thought that was a bit odd after the fact. Shouldn’t a company like Raytheon/Beechcraft be able to answer the phone? Anyway…I digress.
In my mind, I see the twin being used very much the same way you would use a Mid-Size SUV. You can get a lot of utility/purpose out of a good mid-size SUV. There is no single mission profile type for this twin. It needs to be able to get down to southern San Diego, up to Vancouver British Columbia, and over to Colorado at times, with the bulk of its missions running in the 300-500 nm range (radius or single leg).
I could make the SJ30 fit any of these missions, but I think that would be overkill most of the time. There will be those instances where time is of the essence and the speed of the SJ30 will be needed more than anything else (even faster than the L-39ZO). But, most of the time, the runways will be shorter at some of the fields we plan to use.
So, this is not going to be a twin that I can squeeze into a template flight profile – this twin has to be good at everything:
Short field work
High density altitudes
Below VFR mins and strict IFR/IMC
Good climber
Night ops (lots of night/dusk ops on return trips back home)
Relatively low maintenance
Reliable machine, sturdy, strong, does not complain too much
Good handling qualities and characteristics, no gotchas, bizarre surprises or goofy behavior
An aircraft that “likes to fly straight & true”, not a “trim queen”, intuitive flight controls
Good visibility over the nose on approach
Stall speed 100 kts or less (all of them)
Good Vxse and Vyse – especially on high density altitude departures – a must have.
Geee, the more I think about this, the more the 90 comes into better focus. That’s odd, because I thought it would be outside the scope. But, the more I think about it, the more I see the 90 as being more viable given my performance/safety concerns.
One thing is for certain, I really do think I am at least in the right ball park with the Baron and the King Air 90, given the kind of mission profiles that will be flown.
To answer some of the other questions:
a) Any business flying will be in a company that I own and operate independently.
b) The personal flying will be most with Wife and an occasional friend or two, but rarely.
c) I see each aircraft as being uniquely fit and qualified for its specific role (mission).
d) If I really had an outstanding year I could put up 800 hrs/yr between all three aircraft.
e) The reason for turbo/super charging the Baron is mostly for increased climb and cruise.
I agree with most of what you all of said regarding time-en-route. If 200 kts is all I can get out of the Baron, then those 750 nm radius trips would take quite some time in coming to fruition. That’s why I need to know what super/turbo charging the I/O 550 (currently being used, I think) would net me in terms of increased SHP, decreased take-off distances, faster climb and faster cruise speeds.
Lastly, all of the other normally aspirated twins mentioned here come up short of the Baron’s performance. So, that might be taking a step backwards. The smaller twins would work for those missions under 300 nm, but that’s why I need an all around “team player” of a twin that can range up to 750 nm when needed and do so fairly speedily and in a pressurized environment. That cuts out almost every other light twin on the market.
Now, if the safety of a twin engine were not at issue here, the choice would be fairly easy because I’d go get a new Piper Meridian or TBM 850 and forget about it! Those two are very nice aircraft. However, the TBM seems to beat the Meridian in max cruise speed by a whopping 30-40 kts! But, of course, safety is my first concern especially when carrying family members and the “real” as well as “perceived” safety of a twin engine aircraft, outweighs the single every single time.
The problem with all of this is that by the time you finish “justifying” the cost of a Meridian or TBM fitted the way I would need it, you end up not too far away from one half the cost of a new SJ30-2 and that simply defeats the purpose, for me personally. I’m trying to “cheat” here just a little bit, but getting the “twin” to be significantly less than half the cost of the SJ30-2, but with “almost” half the performance. Doing all of that cost savings with brand new factory fresh airframes, is going to be a real challenge – I know.
Please keep the feedback coming if you can – it does at least give me a sounding board of sorts to work with as I move through this phase of discovery.
Thanks!
desertdog71
Girthy Member
High density altitudes leads me straight to the King Air.
OldTownPilot
Well-Known Member
They made pressurized Barons a while back, they are no longer in production.
You are not going to want to do that ASE trip in a Baron. 200 lbs of stuff, on top of topped off tanks, and some people in the back in july is asking to be flown into a mountain.
Can you even get two sets of clubs in the nose of the baron?
Get an old king air if you need a second er, third airplane. Otherwise fly all the trips in the jet.
You are not going to want to do that ASE trip in a Baron. 200 lbs of stuff, on top of topped off tanks, and some people in the back in july is asking to be flown into a mountain.
Can you even get two sets of clubs in the nose of the baron?
Get an old king air if you need a second er, third airplane. Otherwise fly all the trips in the jet.
flyboywbl
3rd regional in 1 year
one of my instructors flies the 42 from Bozeman MT to Phoenix AZ in a little over 4 hours. not sure how many miles that trip is but it gives you a good idea of what you are talking in terms of time. thats also with one person with no or very little in baggage. any way if you've done your research, which clearly you have, you'll make the right choice. The only thing that would probably would benifit you is if you could test fly them all to compare. not sure how possible that is because i know buying a plane is not exactly like buying a car. any way good luck! -Matt