Diamond Aircraft has been touring with its new luxe twin, the DA62. Avweb's Paul Bertorelli recently flew with the airplane and shot this flight trail video.
Maybe I misheard, but it sounds like he described 7.5 GPH as a lot of fuel. That’s 15 GPH from a twin at 170+ KTAS. There are a lot of singles that do that same burn rate at that speed.
Exactly my reaction. 15 Gal Jet A total combined my jaw dropped. I was saying to myself how can you complain about that. Cirrus SR22’s non turbo burn slightly less and Turbos are more. Try getting that amount in a Senaca, Baron or Seminole for that speed.
@Joe Boisselle many would, cause 1/3 of the cost of ownership of an airplane comes down to the cost of fuel and also it burns jet A which is much cheaper than 100LL it's competitors burn.
This type of propulsion system could revolutionize the lite single engine experimental category ! The flying cowboys are going to love this engine . thank you for the Video .
I think it's much too heavy for their use. They use tiny Rotax engines and gear the prop so they can run the engines at high RPM specifically because it keeps the weight and size down. Diesel would be going the wrong direction for them.
One of the biggest features of this airplane is shown in the location this video was shot: somewhere in the USA. This Austrian registered plane has flown across the Atlantic with a headwind but thanks to it's low fuel consumption has the range to fly the distance. This is truly a plane you can circumnavigate the world with. And as a contrary to Avgas you can buy JET-A everywhere! Tell me what other 1.3 million plane can do that?
Million dollar SUV with wings 🙂 Very good looking though, I like Diamonds. Seem very quiet too, another Diamond at the local airport flies over sometimes and it's a whisper.
Yes, planes that look that great are expensive.If I got one and I'd really love to have it, would have to get a pilot cause I can't fly any more. Miss it terribly too. Would really love some high quality air to air video of this aircraft. If you ever do, please post it. It would be appreciated greatly. Since it's diesel powered and being a retired over the road driver, doesn't the fuel freeze up at high altitudes? My KW & Petes sure did when it got to 0 & below.
You and me both. I'm on a round-the-world trip in "mine" (no ctrl-shift-f cheating, so routing gets interesting). If the performance of the improved mod is anything like the real one, it only makes me lust for one even more. 😁
The listed never exceed speed is 205 KCAS while the max speed in level flight is listed as 197 KTAS, which at 6000 feet corresponds to 179 KCAS. That is a small margin to avoid exceeding NE in a descent. What determines this limitation ? T tail flutter, which is determined by true airspeed is not uncommon in aircraft with high mounted tailplanes and could be a concern if tests at the max certified altitude have not been conducted, have such tests been attempted ?
Uses FADEC. Auto feather and auto mixture management. 360 is actually plenty in this case. The DA42 with the 135hp engines (Thielert) have a single engine ceiling of 10,000ft! Try doing that with a Seneca
Diesels always have lower HP but way more torque, meaning they operate and much higher load at the same rpm. You saw them make 500fpm climb on one "only 180hp" engine. Try that with a 180hp avgas engine.
That doesn't make any sense, 180 hp is 180 hp, gas or diesel. For example, at 2,700 rpm, 180 hp is 350 lb-ft of torque, period, no matter what engine is behind it.
It's hilarious how wrong people get diesels. Diesels actually produce less torque than gasoline engines of the same displacement unless they're turbocharged, and turbocharged gasoline engines often produce more torque than turbocharged diesel engines. Either way, an aircraft engine is going to be geared to run a prop at a certain rpm, and at any given rpm, torque is the same for any horsepower rating, there's no way around that without breaking the laws of physics. Modern diesels are also more complex than modern gasoline engines because of the complexity of their fuel system and the requirement for them to be turbocharged, they're heavier than gasoline engines, and the reduction in CO2 emissions that they provide is negligible.
I checked the operating handbook, in-flight restarts are prohibited after an engine has been shut down for 2 minutes. Not sure on the reason, possibly temperature related.
Dual side panel mounted control sticks, as found on the Cirrus line-up, would be awesome and/or a dual ram horn yoke option. Also, because of size/7-place and the power-plants, should offer an optional pressurized cabin. If any GA twin should have these options, it the Diamond DA-62 imho. Happy/Safe Flying!
Although this is a sweet aircraft, I believe the P2006t to be the future. 9 gallons max fuel burn of 91 unleaded gasoline with Rotax 912 S engines and a price of only $500,000. Half that of the DA-62.
I've never flown the P2006t so I might be wrong to bring up this point, but I had fellow pilots from my previous airport complain about the power and useful load on the P2006. Thoughts?
+MigOp21 It's definitely not the most powerful thing out there, especially in a high density altitude location. I currently fly a single-engine P2008 turbo and the power is ridiculous! I think the P2006t could really benefit from twin 115hp 914 turbo boosted engines.
@@brianlawliss1080 hey we can dream right ? I’d settle for a Cessna 310 turbo, can you imagine? Your family 400 mi away, hey I’ll see ya in an hour and 1/2 damn.
5:50 This airplane does not have autofeather. True autofeather systems sense a loss of engine power condition and initiate propeller feathering without any pilot intervention. In the DA62, selecting the engine master switch off initiates propeller feathering. That requires pilot action, so to call that “autofeather” is misleading.
When you turn off the engine master, it "auto feathers". A pilot that does not recognise that an engine has lost thrust and is causing drag, shouldn't really be in the sky. Autofeather as you describe it, belongs in commercial turbo props, not GA twins.
I'm always amused by the discussions about how "If I had a wife and kids this would be the perfect plane for my family." Like normal people spend over 1 million for stuff. I'm pretty sure if I had a family I wouldn't own any airplane! Nice plane either way though.
@@fadedflage Rich kids with money to burn just to go play. Meanwhile most commercial pilots are using old aircraft and some rich kid or old dentist is rocking out with a new DA62 for an entire 25-50 hrs flight time per year.
I personally feel like Diamond's Flight deck is a little weak compared to others. They're really still using 10" screens? The perfect plane .. ( DA62 with Cessna TTX flight deck including direct control side stick. ) Just my opinion : )
Diamond seems committed to the center sticks; I don't really get it myself. As a pilot I do prefer it over a side stick, but for the non-flying passenger it's just awkward.
@@hempelcx I know this starts getting into "religious wars" territory, but having flown Cirruses (Cirri? Cirres?), I actually was NOT fond of the side-stick. I'm probably in a minority here. Something about it's angle and position I found fatiguing when hand-flying through-out.
The landing lights are not LED, they are HID and superior in performance to any LED in a comparable form factor. The same HID as used in the DA42 Only the position and strobes are LED.
in europe fuel is an issue. in italy fuel is up to 4 euro ... per LITER of avgas (not gallon). so fuel does matter. this is why the austrians invested heavy in the engine part. you can get diesel everywhere. this is not true for avgas
If I paid $1.3M for this aircraft then I would want to keep it in a hanger. However, with that wingspan one will need to find a much larger (and more expensive) hanger.
Did I got it right that in case of an engine failure at take off the seven people onboard are flown on one 180 HP (the power of an average 172) engine pulling sideways? Sorry, I'm too young to fly planes like these ;)
I think having at least one engine pulling sideways is better than a engine failure on a single, because on twin you can more or less safely make a turn and land on a runway, instead of landing on a grass or trees.
This is the question - better or not. There is a well known pilot joke: "In case of an engine failure in a twin engine aircraft the second engine will take you all the way to the crash site." I asked the question because I highly doubt that 180 hp is enough to even maintain a horisontal flight with seven people onboard, let alone to climb away. This is the power of a Cessna 172 with 4 not very fat people MAX, and the inop engine creates serious extra drag even in a feathered state. And worse, a sideways drag. This was on the edge even in a smaller DA-42, and now they create a much larger aircraft with THE SAME engines. Looks like a joke. And if it's really unable to climb away in case of an EFATO - then the aircraft is just dangerous. Anyway I'm sure I'd be MILES safer in any used single TURBOPROP aircraft for the same price.
7 Person on Board with 180 HP seem's a bit weak. These A/C are certified CS23 and not CS25. But, i flew on his younger brother the DA42 135HB Each Engine, At the maximum take off mass, we still have a positive rate of climb in a wide range of conditions. Those engines a very efficients and the A/C is well designed. I would not be impressed if this aircraft keeps a positive rate at the max takeoff mass with one engine out.
cut abank you’d have to call diamond aircraft directly. I work at their London Ontario plant and we’ve built planes for Brazil, Bangladesh, Mexico. The prices are reasonable to have them shipped
There wouldn't be a definite answer... like which is better or worse. it's more of a designer's preference. I personally much prefer stick because it is less "jumpy" for fine control. Left hand control took much less time to get used to than expected.
Stick v. Yoke is really preference. The thing I'm not a fan of is the stick position. If you are going to do a stick, it should be a side stick, not something that limits your ability to write down IFR instructions and the like.
They already have certification passed designs for their joystick control system? If they designed something diffrent from scratch that's a lot more risks and or costs.
Sooo... A 1000 hour TBO on each engine and gearbox? That's an engine and gearbox overhaul every 500 hours. "The company hopes to increase TBO to as high as 2,400 hours eventually. Other required engine maintenance, meanwhile, includes inspection of the generators at 300 hours, and replacement of the high-pressure fuel pump and inspection of the two-mass flywheel at 600 hours." www.flyingmag.com/we-fly-diamond-da62
TBO of 1k hours - That is less than stellar, no arguing there. Basically those Austroengine engines are Mercedes Benz Diesel engines, reworked and fitted with a new ECU.
That's not indicative of the engine's reliability, but the regulatory bodies overseeing it. Design life of the engines is quite likely substantially in excess of that.
all new engines get rated at lower TBO and inspections because they are new as they gain more flight hours the TBO will be increased all those legacy engine have much higher TBO because they have been in service for nearly half a century.
@@superchargedpetrolhead not for diesels Edit: I mean yes, we can speculate about what will happen, but that's not the point. They have to be replaced every thousand hours until that change occurs. That's a pretty tough sell.
I agree... But these engines should have been a clean sheet design, intended from the start to be aero diesel engines. Because they are repurposed Daimler / Mercedes engines, they have Generator inspection at 300hrs, HPP full replacement at 600hrs, and a TBO of JUST 1000hrs, or essentially an engine overhaul every 500hrs. Sure, the time between oil changes and oil filter replacement is twice the industry standard, but it still is more expensive on any diesel engine, and it in no way offsets the other huge maintenance costs; though, low fuel consumption may help, but I'd assume not by much. Disclaimer; I am NOT saying that these engines are in any way bad, I just feel that they are an interim solution to pushing the Lycomings an Continental Teledynes if the world to actually Puch the envelope with engine design. I say this because everyone knows that duty cycles for a car and a plane are wildly different, and it's no surprise that an automotive engine will require such a maintenance cycle as seen with the AE330 to stay airworthy. I have to hand one thing to Lycosaur, they have reliable engines, and huge TBO ratings. And unfortunately, in the GA industry where reliability trumps fuel economy, it leaves no room (until now I suppose) for messing around with such alternative designs. I am excited for the future, and hope that Austro will eventually develop it's own cleansheet engine, - or even work with Mercedes / Daimler as a partner to develop a true aviation diesel engine. Can't wait to see what's in store.
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Think the TBO has been raised, as said before the engines are somewhat New. They are the same as the DA42-VI just mostly software upgrades. The engines are good they just pull off some of the accessories that are not needed for aviation. The engines on the DA42 are up to around 1800 hrs. Last I heard, they might even be up to 2000 now. It took these guys to get Continental off their ass and develop a jet A/ diesel engine. It's in the DA 42 NG and might be in the DA50.
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Hey Eric here's an update on the AE300 engines for the DA42 and DA40NG. Engines are now 1800 TBO and no inspection of the gearbox/reduction gear. This is from an article in Flying magazine from last year.
the rear two most seats are optional extras... for a cool $27,725.... Thats just stupid money. And air conditioning? Thats a cool $34,686 extra... That price is a joke.
Haha! Tell ya what, go to the hospital and tell'em you need an aspirin!! That's aviation, just like everything else that's regulated by the GOMINT. Yep it is indeed a joke!
Well, given nobody is wasting their money or time on those punishment back seats at least you can not buy them and have more room (not much) back there.
Damn. 200fpm on one engine? Not terrible. And the shutdown looked like a non-event. I wish I could get one for $10.88 and an old shoe, but.... Nice things cost real money. That's just how the world works.
On the face of it, a nice bird, however because it's heavy it has lower power to weight ratio than a typical LSA. It has half decent speed at around 300km/h presumably as a function of sleek shape. And at 1.1-1.3million dollars it's not even pressurized. Compare that to Lancair IV-P admittedly with only 4 seats and single engine but close to twice the speed and pressurized at a fraction of the price.
lancair is a kit airplane you have to build it yourself, This is a certified one. but i get it if you don't need all this space and you have the technical know how of how to build an airplane then lancair is a good option
@@superchargedpetrolhead they are no longer produced so you have to buy a used one, so no building. But it's true it's not certified, that's part of the failure of the GA world. It should have been certified and the kit world shouldn't exist. And certification should not be an excuse to 4x the price like it is being done.
@@DanFrederiksen yep, certification costs a lot of money and time and getting a composite airplane certified is even more a costly affair that is why the certified plane usually tend to be much higher priced as well. Because of how difficult the certification process is there are no new innovations in GA market, that is why we still see legacy airplanes with 50s technology and engines still being sold brand new.
@@superchargedpetrolhead that's the conventional 'wisdom'. I think that's both a lie and has to change further. One easy way to know it is a lie is that crap archaic engines designed in the 50s are still sold today like they were solid gold. Same with frankly crappy planes like cessnas. if the certification process was worth anything it would have refused the cessna on account of having really poor aerodynamics. It might also have caught the 737 max issues. Or Dreamliner issues. It's a bureaucracy without merit. I believe some thoughtful aircraft makers can come together with FAA to streamline the process so it's less bureaucracy if there is a problem there and more pouring over engineering decisions to make somewhat sure it's a good design. In my book, admittedly a modest genius, it should be quite possible to go over an initial 3D cad design with a stated total weight and material choices, to assess it for good engineering practices, like rounded corners in a stress area, sizing of elements, material choices in erosion areas, mixed metals issues, delamination stresses, wire chafing etc. That simply cannot cost a billion, 10 million, 1 million or even 1/10 of a million. In a time before computers I could imagine endless stacks of documentation and endless meetings among incompetent hoards. But a small GA plane design is something a single person can go over thoroughly several times for less than a single kit cost. Particularly a single body composite fuselage can be fast to get comfortable with.
@@DanFrederiksen it should be like the way you say, a small GA airplane should not have to jump through million hoops and go through insane cost over runs and dues to get through these certification process but that is what happens now. unless you are a big manufacturer with deep pockets getting certified is more difficult than designing and building the plane itself, take the epic 1000 a turboprop with carbon fibre body and it took close to a decade to just get certified and it was only certified in early 2020, they went to near bankruptcy many times and many cost overruns just because of how slow the legal process is...
The fact it allows you to fly. Everything in aviation costs an arm and a leg. How much do used cessna 172's go for, 60-120k? That's like 35-60 year old aviation technology, and they still fetch that price. If that old stuff is selling for that much, how can you expect newer tech to sell for anything but a ton more? Research and development cost a ton, and because companies spend so much on these developments and making sure they are fit for general aviation, it makes it so that the new technology costs what seems like an excessive amount to those who don't really get what goes in to their creation. If people are willing to spend 60-120k for technology that is over half a century old in some cases, it makes sense that the brand new technology costs 7 figures in many cases.
The TBO won't stay at that level, these are newly certified engines so they start out at very conservative TBO's. The AE 300's are at 1800 hours now and are expected to end up at over 2000. The AE 330 is the same engine with minor tweaks to turbo boost and fuel delivery.
I wouldn't worry about the TBO. I'd bet money that they TBO will be over 1000 hours by the time you actually get to 1000 hours. Diesels last forever, and a water cooled diesel (in theory) should be closer 10000 hours.
15 gallons per hour is not a lot of fuel, not sure what you're comparing to... the other guy looks like he wants to disagree but then nods like, "it's Paul Barterelli he must be right" Great stuff this airplane, you need to think of total cost of ownership, despite's the TBO which will get better folks, diamonds are soooo much cheaper to own than alternatives ... cirrus, Cessna ttx, and don't get me started on the comments about king air and Pilatus, I've owned and currently own diamonds and despite the poor cabin looks, the cost of ownership per mile and per year is always lower. I am tempted by that Baron though, need to do a little more homework on that one. Hopefully trump doesn't take away tax deductions for GA
I believe Paul's comment "that's a lot of fuel" is referring to the 86 gallons onboard. He's saying that 86 gallons is a lot compared to the 15 GPH rate of consumption, which of course means long range.
15 Gal/hr total of Jet A at 9,500 ft in a light twin is a lot of fuel for you....? I suggest you stay in singles then. A normally aspirated SR22 G2 burns around 11.5 to 13.5 at best economy, and 17-18 for power. Turbo charged singles burn more then that for around the same TAS.
i think he meant that interms of fuel capacity as it has a 85 gallons tank, he meant if it only burns 15 gph then having 85 gallons tank is a lot of fuel...
So can someone explain this to me? 200mph cruising speed and it burns through 15 gallons in an hour, that's 13.3mpg? That seems thirsty to me or am I wrong?
Acquisition costs aside-the speed is less that a comparable 310 or Baron. And those typically have higher useful load. You’d also expect a higher TBO on a diesel. Seems like it’s a spacey looking comparator to a Seneca.
with full fuel baron has a useful load of around 350lbs, this with a full fuel has a useful load of 1000lbs. TBO is low becuase it is a new engine over the time it gets increased infact the TBO is over 1800 hours now compared to 1000 hours when this video was filmed
Used PC12 at $1.3 million is usually one with high time and an overhaul in the near future. You can expect to drop $625,000. Piper Meridian is still the best value and buy. $1.1 million for sub-1000 hour aircraft.
I think a better comparison would be a late model Bonanza G36. About same performance numbers but much higher useful load. Use the cost savings from the Bonanza purchase price for extra fuel costs. I think maintenance would be higher on the DA62. TBO is too low and those gear boxes need to be serviced. People would have to factor in the comfort factor twins for safety. Probably find a low time 2015 G36 for 750k. 500k in your pocket goes a real long way on fuel etc. Bonanzas are a a hellva work horse plane and very comfortable for travel.
I did my training in the Da42, and absolutely loved it. I can't imagine how much fun flying this thing must be!
I am very envious that your country has allowed flying，Blessings from China！
I am a non-flyer person (though an aviation adict) and I love the ultra-modern design of the DA62. Wish it a successful operation.
Maybe I misheard, but it sounds like he described 7.5 GPH as a lot of fuel. That’s 15 GPH from a twin at 170+ KTAS. There are a lot of singles that do that same burn rate at that speed.
Exactly my reaction. 15 Gal Jet A total combined my jaw dropped. I was saying to myself how can you complain about that. Cirrus SR22’s non turbo burn slightly less and Turbos are more. Try getting that amount in a Senaca, Baron or Seminole for that speed.
I understood the comment to be that the 86 gallon capacity was a lot of fuel when the burn rate is only 15 gal per hour.
Schnabel That could be. It certainly has a nice range with those numbers.
Joe Boisselle I think most pilots would still care about fuel consumption.
@Joe Boisselle many would, cause 1/3 of the cost of ownership of an airplane comes down to the cost of fuel and also it burns jet A which is much cheaper than 100LL it's competitors burn.
Outstanding quality aircraft.
Yes! I was hoping you'd do one on this.
This type of propulsion system could revolutionize the lite single engine experimental category ! The flying cowboys are going to love this engine . thank you for the Video .
I think it's much too heavy for their use. They use tiny Rotax engines and gear the prop so they can run the engines at high RPM specifically because it keeps the weight and size down. Diesel would be going the wrong direction for them.
A used DA-62 would be the way to go. She is one awesome GA Aircraft for sure!
used they're still 7 figures.
I like the down turned tailplane wingtips! Make sense since it’s essentially and upside down flying airfoil.
Thank you !
Beautiful Aircraft.
this plane is awesome.
Dear Santa...
😂
Great video. I really enjoyed it!
One of the biggest features of this airplane is shown in the location this video was shot: somewhere in the USA. This Austrian registered plane has flown across the Atlantic with a headwind but thanks to it's low fuel consumption has the range to fly the distance. This is truly a plane you can circumnavigate the world with. And as a contrary to Avgas you can buy JET-A everywhere! Tell me what other 1.3 million plane can do that?
I want one! Such a gorgeous aircraft😍
I like that plane bro...
Good plane..hope can buy this some time
What a beauty
Quite a nice airplane!
DA62... no squelch adjustment
Very good
7 seats!?? That’s incredible!
was watching planes climbing out of Stansted airport and one of these flew over .. reg 2-SALE , got a nice photo of its underside
That price is quite eye-watering but I imagine there will be a fair few flight schools interested in it.
DA-42 will have to suffice for me! ;)
Flight schools are going to stick to the DA-42. The DA-62 is meant for people who learn in DA-42s and want more capability.
Flight schools are not going to buy this thing.
@@C172Pilotdude - They're not meant too. Not the target market whatsoever.
Cessna and piper needs to step up their game, this non legacy companies are giving them a run for their money.
Piper just launched a diesel Seminole and has been selling a diesel Archer very successfully.
The DA62 gives me a chub
Like how he’s like oh “1.08” thought it was more.
Yeah only 1.08. We'll all take two.
What a gangbusters aircraft!
Million dollar SUV with wings 🙂 Very good looking though, I like Diamonds. Seem very quiet too, another Diamond at the local airport flies over sometimes and it's a whisper.
Wat a beautiful plane
Yes, planes that look that great are expensive.If I got one and I'd really love to have it, would have to get a pilot cause I can't fly any more. Miss it terribly too. Would really love some high quality air to air video of this aircraft. If you ever do, please post it. It would be appreciated greatly. Since it's diesel powered and being a retired over the road driver, doesn't the fuel freeze up at high altitudes? My KW & Petes sure did when it got to 0 & below.
I’ll never be able to afford one, but I put in about 40 hours a week flying one in msfs 2020 😆
You and me both. I'm on a round-the-world trip in "mine" (no ctrl-shift-f cheating, so routing gets interesting). If the performance of the improved mod is anything like the real one, it only makes me lust for one even more. 😁
Reminds me of that TV show: Life Style of the Rich and Famous.
good plane
🎼 I’m in the high fidelity first class traveling section I think I need a D4-62 💰 🤘🔥🤘
The listed never exceed speed is 205 KCAS while the max speed in level flight is listed as 197 KTAS, which at 6000 feet corresponds to 179 KCAS. That is a small margin to avoid exceeding NE in a descent.
What determines this limitation ?
T tail flutter, which is determined by true airspeed is not uncommon in aircraft with high mounted tailplanes and could be a concern if tests at the max certified altitude have not been conducted, have such tests been attempted ?
Those diesels are great for towing capacity!
Is there any way to measure the actual cabin noise?
Like decibel level at cruise?
When buying a multi seat ac it’s about the comfort.
look cool:)
Where can I find more information on the water-cooled engines?
What the heck is up with the vortex generators? In several clips they are present, but on the demo airplane, they are not there!
Can't imagine the upkeep on this bird. Even your basic C172 will ring you up to $10K per year.
15 gallons per hour jet fuel combined for both sides is very little fuel
+Rahul Govani With only 360 hp max, that's not all that exciting.
Uses FADEC. Auto feather and auto mixture management. 360 is actually plenty in this case. The DA42 with the 135hp engines (Thielert) have a single engine ceiling of 10,000ft! Try doing that with a Seneca
Diesels always have lower HP but way more torque, meaning they operate and much higher load at the same rpm. You saw them make 500fpm climb on one "only 180hp" engine. Try that with a 180hp avgas engine.
That doesn't make any sense, 180 hp is 180 hp, gas or diesel. For example, at 2,700 rpm, 180 hp is 350 lb-ft of torque, period, no matter what engine is behind it.
It's hilarious how wrong people get diesels. Diesels actually produce less torque than gasoline engines of the same displacement unless they're turbocharged, and turbocharged gasoline engines often produce more torque than turbocharged diesel engines. Either way, an aircraft engine is going to be geared to run a prop at a certain rpm, and at any given rpm, torque is the same for any horsepower rating, there's no way around that without breaking the laws of physics. Modern diesels are also more complex than modern gasoline engines because of the complexity of their fuel system and the requirement for them to be turbocharged, they're heavier than gasoline engines, and the reduction in CO2 emissions that they provide is negligible.
What is the 2 minute limit they reference while demonstrating the left engine out?
Richard Gurbin I think that was in reference to the amount of time in said climb with one engine out. Not sure though.
I checked the operating handbook, in-flight restarts are prohibited after an engine has been shut down for 2 minutes. Not sure on the reason, possibly temperature related.
because at altitude if you stop the engine for more than 2 minutes, it gets really cold and that might cause some restarting problem.
Great aircraft, but extremely expensive!!!!
Dual side panel mounted control sticks, as found on the Cirrus line-up, would be awesome and/or a dual ram horn yoke option. Also, because of size/7-place and the power-plants, should offer an optional pressurized cabin. If any GA twin should have these options, it the Diamond DA-62 imho. Happy/Safe Flying!
is that allowed to use one single engine for some significant time/distance? For example, I need to increase my flight range,
You wont be able to increase your range on one engine. That's performance 101.
This aircraft is the future of twin flight training.
Although this is a sweet aircraft, I believe the P2006t to be the future. 9 gallons max fuel burn of 91 unleaded gasoline with Rotax 912 S engines and a price of only $500,000. Half that of the DA-62.
I've never flown the P2006t so I might be wrong to bring up this point, but I had fellow pilots from my previous airport complain about the power and useful load on the P2006. Thoughts?
+MigOp21 It's definitely not the most powerful thing out there, especially in a high density altitude location. I currently fly a single-engine P2008 turbo and the power is ridiculous! I think the P2006t could really benefit from twin 115hp 914 turbo boosted engines.
That's nice, then again there's that detail, they were probably not talking about the turbo! Hopefully I can fly one some day
DA 42 for training. This is too much airplane for training only
P.S. Voice audio breaking up on inside cabin on flight.
Looks like a Lamborghini with wings.
If you are here to daydream about owning an airplane this is the airplane for you!
are the fuel caps backwards
Fuel cap on backwards?
looks like it
👍👍👍 🇧🇷
when i win the lottery i will get one
So basically never...good plan ;-)
Me Too!
@@brianlawliss1080 hey we can dream right ? I’d settle for a Cessna 310 turbo, can you imagine? Your family 400 mi away, hey I’ll see ya in an hour and 1/2 damn.
@@deborahchesser7375 agreed. I don't have a mega yacht but I can still go fishing.
lottery may not afford the whole price（include the airfield rental fee）
5:50 This airplane does not have autofeather. True autofeather systems sense a loss of engine power condition and initiate propeller feathering without any pilot intervention. In the DA62, selecting the engine master switch off initiates propeller feathering. That requires pilot action, so to call that “autofeather” is misleading.
When you turn off the engine master, it "auto feathers". A pilot that does not recognise that an engine has lost thrust and is causing drag, shouldn't really be in the sky. Autofeather as you describe it, belongs in commercial turbo props, not GA twins.
Great little innovative aircraft. Price and cost effectiveness, not so much.
I'm always amused by the discussions about how "If I had a wife and kids this would be the perfect plane for my family." Like normal people spend over 1 million for stuff.
I'm pretty sure if I had a family I wouldn't own any airplane! Nice plane either way though.
Rich people do have families you know.
Yes. And most rich people have earned it (as most are small business owners.)
Normal people will never see 1,000,000
Thats actually not exactly true anymore. About 60% of wealth is inherited these days.
@@fadedflage Rich kids with money to burn just to go play. Meanwhile most commercial pilots are using old aircraft and some rich kid or old dentist is rocking out with a new DA62 for an entire 25-50 hrs flight time per year.
I personally feel like Diamond's Flight deck is a little weak compared to others. They're really still using 10" screens? The perfect plane .. ( DA62 with Cessna TTX flight deck including direct control side stick. ) Just my opinion : )
Diamond seems committed to the center sticks; I don't really get it myself. As a pilot I do prefer it over a side stick, but for the non-flying passenger it's just awkward.
Man, the TTX flight deck setup in the DA62, side sticks and 210-220hp on both sides 🥰
@@hempelcx I know this starts getting into "religious wars" territory, but having flown Cirruses (Cirri? Cirres?), I actually was NOT fond of the side-stick. I'm probably in a minority here. Something about it's angle and position I found fatiguing when hand-flying through-out.
After the engine is shut down. Paul: "Well the headings in the same zip code.." LOL
Paul rules!!
The landing lights are not LED, they are HID and superior in performance to any LED in a comparable form factor. The same HID as used in the DA42
Only the position and strobes are LED.
I have one in my garage.
i never realized they were diesel engines. nice.
in europe fuel is an issue. in italy fuel is up to 4 euro ... per LITER of avgas (not gallon). so fuel does matter. this is why the austrians invested heavy in the engine part. you can get diesel everywhere. this is not true for avgas
@@hansschonig2472 Jet-A
If I paid $1.3M for this aircraft then I would want to keep it in a hanger. However, with that wingspan one will need to find a much larger (and more expensive) hanger.
i would expect, that if affording a $1.3million airplane, one might be able to swing a larger hangar.
and if you paid $1.3M for a aircraft, i am sure you can afford a bigger hanger.
Could you explain the comment related to the "2 minute limit" restriction? Thank you.
The time limit for shutting off one engine, on purpose. So the engine doesn't cool off completely.
And if you actually lose 1, your supposed to be getting down to the ground, bc you’re too rich to die early!
Did I got it right that in case of an engine failure at take off the seven people onboard are flown on one 180 HP (the power of an average 172) engine pulling sideways? Sorry, I'm too young to fly planes like these ;)
I think having at least one engine pulling sideways is better than a engine failure on a single, because on twin you can more or less safely make a turn and land on a runway, instead of landing on a grass or trees.
Yeah, it pulls, that is why you have rudders to compensate for the asymetric thrust. And this is true for every multi engine plane.
This is the question - better or not. There is a well known pilot joke: "In case of an engine failure in a twin engine aircraft the second engine will take you all the way to the crash site."
I asked the question because I highly doubt that 180 hp is enough to even maintain a horisontal flight with seven people onboard, let alone to climb away. This is the power of a Cessna 172 with 4 not very fat people MAX, and the inop engine creates serious extra drag even in a feathered state. And worse, a sideways drag.
This was on the edge even in a smaller DA-42, and now they create a much larger aircraft with THE SAME engines. Looks like a joke. And if it's really unable to climb away in case of an EFATO - then the aircraft is just dangerous.
Anyway I'm sure I'd be MILES safer in any used single TURBOPROP aircraft for the same price.
Yeah 180hp seems incredibly low, but they somehow managed to certify it.
7 Person on Board with 180 HP seem's a bit weak. These A/C are certified CS23 and not CS25. But, i flew on his younger brother the DA42 135HB Each Engine, At the maximum take off mass, we still have a positive rate of climb in a wide range of conditions. Those engines a very efficients and the A/C is well designed.
I would not be impressed if this aircraft keeps a positive rate at the max takeoff mass with one engine out.
I want to ask the price of the DA62 aircraft for how much that send to Indonesia?
cut abank you’d have to call diamond aircraft directly. I work at their London Ontario plant and we’ve built planes for Brazil, Bangladesh, Mexico. The prices are reasonable to have them shipped
It's like the sexy minivan of the sky.
If minivans had practically no useful storage space. It's more one of those badly though out crossovers of the sky.
Diamond da42 in Malaysia
What does that 2 minute limit mean at 6:45 ?
2 minute limit for a simulated engine failure. Per the FIM
i think it is a limit for simulated engine failure, cause if you shut down the engine for more than 2 minutes it might become really cold at altitude.
This is one sexy airplane.
Curious as to why Diamond chose the joystick instead of the yoke. Anyone?
There wouldn't be a definite answer... like which is better or worse. it's more of a designer's preference. I personally much prefer stick because it is less "jumpy" for fine control. Left hand control took much less time to get used to than expected.
Stick v. Yoke is really preference. The thing I'm not a fan of is the stick position. If you are going to do a stick, it should be a side stick, not something that limits your ability to write down IFR instructions and the like.
They already have certification passed designs for their joystick control system? If they designed something diffrent from scratch that's a lot more risks and or costs.
Sooo... A 1000 hour TBO on each engine and gearbox? That's an engine and gearbox overhaul every 500 hours.
"The company hopes to increase TBO to as high as 2,400 hours eventually. Other required engine maintenance, meanwhile, includes inspection of the generators at 300 hours, and replacement of the high-pressure fuel pump and inspection of the two-mass flywheel at 600 hours." www.flyingmag.com/we-fly-diamond-da62
TBO of 1k hours - That is less than stellar, no arguing there. Basically those Austroengine engines are Mercedes Benz Diesel engines, reworked and fitted with a new ECU.
That's not indicative of the engine's reliability, but the regulatory bodies overseeing it. Design life of the engines is quite likely substantially in excess of that.
all new engines get rated at lower TBO and inspections because they are new as they gain more flight hours the TBO will be increased all those legacy engine have much higher TBO because they have been in service for nearly half a century.
@@superchargedpetrolhead not for diesels
Edit: I mean yes, we can speculate about what will happen, but that's not the point. They have to be replaced every thousand hours until that change occurs. That's a pretty tough sell.
tried this in msfs
I think it would be a better aircraft with maybe only 5 seats but with pressurization.
no more stone age Lycosaurus engines ;). good work!
I agree... But these engines should have been a clean sheet design, intended from the start to be aero diesel engines. Because they are repurposed Daimler / Mercedes engines, they have Generator inspection at 300hrs, HPP full replacement at 600hrs, and a TBO of JUST 1000hrs, or essentially an engine overhaul every 500hrs. Sure, the time between oil changes and oil filter replacement is twice the industry standard, but it still is more expensive on any diesel engine, and it in no way offsets the other huge maintenance costs; though, low fuel consumption may help, but I'd assume not by much.
Disclaimer; I am NOT saying that these engines are in any way bad, I just feel that they are an interim solution to pushing the Lycomings an Continental Teledynes if the world to actually Puch the envelope with engine design. I say this because everyone knows that duty cycles for a car and a plane are wildly different, and it's no surprise that an automotive engine will require such a maintenance cycle as seen with the AE330 to stay airworthy.
I have to hand one thing to Lycosaur, they have reliable engines, and huge TBO ratings. And unfortunately, in the GA industry where reliability trumps fuel economy, it leaves no room (until now I suppose) for messing around with such alternative designs. I am excited for the future, and hope that Austro will eventually develop it's own cleansheet engine, - or even work with Mercedes / Daimler as a partner to develop a true aviation diesel engine. Can't wait to see what's in store.
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Things have changed on these engines.
@@ictpilot have the ratings changed? Can you provide me with more information? Very curious
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Think the TBO has been raised, as said before the engines are somewhat New. They are the same as the DA42-VI just mostly software upgrades. The engines are good they just pull off some of the accessories that are not needed for aviation. The engines on the DA42 are up to around 1800 hrs. Last I heard, they might even be up to 2000 now. It took these guys to get Continental off their ass and develop a jet A/ diesel engine. It's in the DA 42 NG and might be in the DA50.
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Hey Eric here's an update on the AE300 engines for the DA42 and DA40NG. Engines are now 1800 TBO and no inspection of the gearbox/reduction gear. This is from an article in Flying magazine from last year.
Can you cross the Atlantic with it ? Like from Canada to uk ?
Not non-stop, but search YT for "flightchops" and watch their ongoing video series where they are flying a 62 and a 42 from Austria to Canada.
We need the Chinese to make an affordable copy.
Given the current situation..we dont.It will be a death trap.
Aircraft grade diesel? How one goes about finding it? How about its ultra cold weather performance?
Jet A, or Jet A1 good to -40 C, and -47 C. not automotive type diesel.
Thanks, that clarifies it
@@sandymcnab6782 it burns jet A like every commercial jets and turboprops, it is much cheaper than 100LL and widely available.
the rear two most seats are optional extras... for a cool $27,725.... Thats just stupid money. And air conditioning? Thats a cool $34,686 extra... That price is a joke.
Haha! Tell ya what, go to the hospital and tell'em you need an aspirin!! That's aviation, just like everything else that's regulated by the GOMINT. Yep it is indeed a joke!
Well, given nobody is wasting their money or time on those punishment back seats at least you can not buy them and have more room (not much) back there.
Damn. 200fpm on one engine? Not terrible. And the shutdown looked like a non-event.
I wish I could get one for $10.88 and an old shoe, but.... Nice things cost real money. That's just how the world works.
On the face of it, a nice bird, however because it's heavy it has lower power to weight ratio than a typical LSA. It has half decent speed at around 300km/h presumably as a function of sleek shape. And at 1.1-1.3million dollars it's not even pressurized. Compare that to Lancair IV-P admittedly with only 4 seats and single engine but close to twice the speed and pressurized at a fraction of the price.
lancair is a kit airplane you have to build it yourself, This is a certified one. but i get it if you don't need all this space and you have the technical know how of how to build an airplane then lancair is a good option
@@superchargedpetrolhead they are no longer produced so you have to buy a used one, so no building. But it's true it's not certified, that's part of the failure of the GA world. It should have been certified and the kit world shouldn't exist. And certification should not be an excuse to 4x the price like it is being done.
@@DanFrederiksen yep, certification costs a lot of money and time and getting a composite airplane certified is even more a costly affair that is why the certified plane usually tend to be much higher priced as well.
Because of how difficult the certification process is there are no new innovations in GA market, that is why we still see legacy airplanes with 50s technology and engines still being sold brand new.
@@superchargedpetrolhead that's the conventional 'wisdom'. I think that's both a lie and has to change further. One easy way to know it is a lie is that crap archaic engines designed in the 50s are still sold today like they were solid gold. Same with frankly crappy planes like cessnas. if the certification process was worth anything it would have refused the cessna on account of having really poor aerodynamics. It might also have caught the 737 max issues. Or Dreamliner issues. It's a bureaucracy without merit.
I believe some thoughtful aircraft makers can come together with FAA to streamline the process so it's less bureaucracy if there is a problem there and more pouring over engineering decisions to make somewhat sure it's a good design. In my book, admittedly a modest genius, it should be quite possible to go over an initial 3D cad design with a stated total weight and material choices, to assess it for good engineering practices, like rounded corners in a stress area, sizing of elements, material choices in erosion areas, mixed metals issues, delamination stresses, wire chafing etc. That simply cannot cost a billion, 10 million, 1 million or even 1/10 of a million.
In a time before computers I could imagine endless stacks of documentation and endless meetings among incompetent hoards. But a small GA plane design is something a single person can go over thoroughly several times for less than a single kit cost. Particularly a single body composite fuselage can be fast to get comfortable with.
@@DanFrederiksen it should be like the way you say, a small GA airplane should not have to jump through million hoops and go through insane cost over runs and dues to get through these certification process but that is what happens now.
unless you are a big manufacturer with deep pockets getting certified is more difficult than designing and building the plane itself, take the epic 1000 a turboprop with carbon fibre body and it took close to a decade to just get certified and it was only certified in early 2020, they went to near bankruptcy many times and many cost overruns just because of how slow the legal process is...
What exactly cost 1 million bucks here?
The fact it allows you to fly.
Everything in aviation costs an arm and a leg. How much do used cessna 172's go for, 60-120k? That's like 35-60 year old aviation technology, and they still fetch that price. If that old stuff is selling for that much, how can you expect newer tech to sell for anything but a ton more? Research and development cost a ton, and because companies spend so much on these developments and making sure they are fit for general aviation, it makes it so that the new technology costs what seems like an excessive amount to those who don't really get what goes in to their creation.
If people are willing to spend 60-120k for technology that is over half a century old in some cases, it makes sense that the brand new technology costs 7 figures in many cases.
The g1000 the 2 engines the oxygen system
it is made completely out of carbon fibre, even cars which are made completely out of carbon fibre would cost close to this.
Nice airplane, great fuel efficiency :)
$1.08 milion :|
TBO 1000hrs :(
The TBO won't stay at that level, these are newly certified engines so they start out at very conservative TBO's. The AE 300's are at 1800 hours now and are expected to end up at over 2000. The AE 330 is the same engine with minor tweaks to turbo boost and fuel delivery.
I wouldn't worry about the TBO. I'd bet money that they TBO will be over 1000 hours by the time you actually get to 1000 hours. Diesels last forever, and a water cooled diesel (in theory) should be closer 10000 hours.
15 gallons per hour is not a lot of fuel, not sure what you're comparing to... the other guy looks like he wants to disagree but then nods like, "it's Paul Barterelli he must be right"
Great stuff this airplane, you need to think of total cost of ownership, despite's the TBO which will get better folks, diamonds are soooo much cheaper to own than alternatives ... cirrus, Cessna ttx, and don't get me started on the comments about king air and Pilatus, I've owned and currently own diamonds and despite the poor cabin looks, the cost of ownership per mile and per year is always lower. I am tempted by that Baron though, need to do a little more homework on that one.
Hopefully trump doesn't take away tax deductions for GA
I believe Paul's comment "that's a lot of fuel" is referring to the 86 gallons onboard. He's saying that 86 gallons is a lot compared to the 15 GPH rate of consumption, which of course means long range.
Francis Molloy i
Well, ya know it all depends on your mission set.
beauty but for 1.3 mil not for me. Maybe the used market
In the trucking world diesel fuel gels in low temps. Does the Diamond use a special fuel mixture?
They use JET-A (Kerosene) so no worries there.
To expansive
You can bay private jet wet that
7 seats, if 5 of the people are the size of hamsters.
15 Gal/hr total of Jet A at 9,500 ft in a light twin is a lot of fuel for you....? I suggest you stay in singles then. A normally aspirated SR22 G2 burns around 11.5 to 13.5 at best economy, and 17-18 for power. Turbo charged singles burn more then that for around the same TAS.
i think he meant that interms of fuel capacity as it has a 85 gallons tank, he meant if it only burns 15 gph then having 85 gallons tank is a lot of fuel...
So can someone explain this to me? 200mph cruising speed and it burns through 15 gallons in an hour, that's 13.3mpg? That seems thirsty to me or am I wrong?
Thirsty in comparison to a Prius, yes. But it's an airplane after all...
But you get there in an hour.... 200 miles. That's fast, and that's the benefit of flying GA. Plus no dealing with TSA! (YUGE benefit).
if you were to do 200mph in a car, you would be burning way more than 15 gallons.
I’ll pick one up in 30 years when they are under 250k
Owning any new twin is only for the well connected ...to your bank manager.
Acquisition costs aside-the speed is less that a comparable 310 or Baron. And those typically have higher useful load. You’d also expect a higher TBO on a diesel. Seems like it’s a spacey looking comparator to a Seneca.
with full fuel baron has a useful load of around 350lbs, this with a full fuel has a useful load of 1000lbs. TBO is low becuase it is a new engine over the time it gets increased infact the TBO is over 1800 hours now compared to 1000 hours when this video was filmed
why is he moving the ailerons for the check if there is explicit a sign you shouldnt do that
it means dont push the aircraft by the control surfaces
Diamond is a Chinese owned company.
Counter-rotating props and this plane would be perfect.
For that price they should make the cockpit look cool, currently it looks like it was put together by toddlers. Think cool like TTX.
Do we have thrust reversers?
it is a piston not a turboprop...
It's a nice plane but it's not $1.3mil USD nice. They're out of their minds trying to sell it at that price. You'd be better off buying a used PC-12
Used PC12 at $1.3 million is usually one with high time and an overhaul in the near future. You can expect to drop $625,000. Piper Meridian is still the best value and buy. $1.1 million for sub-1000 hour aircraft.
PC-12 is a turboprop. This is whole another level and licensing too
PC-12 is light enough to not need a type rating.
its not a bad price, and a much better useful load than a meridian and better economy.
I think a better comparison would be a late model Bonanza G36. About same performance numbers but much higher useful load. Use the cost savings from the Bonanza purchase price for extra fuel costs. I think maintenance would be higher on the DA62. TBO is too low and those gear boxes need to be serviced. People would have to factor in the comfort factor twins for safety. Probably find a low time 2015 G36 for 750k. 500k in your pocket goes a real long way on fuel etc. Bonanzas are a a hellva work horse plane and very comfortable for travel.
For $1.1 million I would prefer a Piper Meridian single engine turbo prop or a used Pc-12 or any other single engine turbo prop aircraft.
Piper Meridian is much more capable, and in my opinion, better looking aircraft. The price of this toy is insane.
1m for twin piston... i could buy two Citations twos
and then resell one to pay for the other...