Hello forum,
I am a 400 hr PPL pilot based in Thailand. I am halfway through my ME/IR rating here as I was due to take delivery of my Diamond DA42 in July 2008. Due to the uncertainty now over the supply of the diesel engines for Diamonds, I want to consider alternatives.
Thankfully I have only paid for 40% of the DA42 so far, and have a good case to get my money back for failure to deliver as there is no longer a current delivery date on my aircraft.
My original mission profile was for a good IFR machine capable of carrying up to 4 people with luggage 900 Nm, and the ability on occasion to operate from 700 meter (2,100 ft) grass or dirt strips.
Due to supply issues here in Asia I also wanted to move away from AVGAS.
My original shortlist taking budget (USD 750-900K approx) into consideration was a Silver Eagle 210, TurboProp Bonanza, JetProp Malibu, or the DA42.
I know these are very different animals and difficult to compare, but that is what I did rightly or wrongly.
In the end I went for the DA42 as I felt a twin would end up being safer over water or mountainous terrain, and I felt more comfortable with a modern up to date design and avionics.
I have spent the last 3 months training on a DA42, and it is a fine aircraft. My ME/IR training has also made me realise that at MTOW, single engine operation on a twin is not the panacea one imagines.
The two main original reasons I discounted the JetProp were the following:-
· Payload with full tanks seems very low. Approx 360 Lbs. Is this really a 4-6 seater aircraft?
· I was given conflicting advise operating out of grass/dirt strips. Some said it was not good, others said that use of the inertial separator would minimise risk from FOD damage to the engine and therefore dirt/grass operation should not be an issue.
Given my change in circumstances I would like to revisit the JetProp as one has become available for sale here in Thailand. I will be test flying her this Saturday.
I would like to hear from any JetProp owners with comments on the suitability of it for my mission, and whether my original concerns were justified.
I think you would be very happy with a Jetprop conversion. I would not buy the 1984-mid 1986 airframe if you plan on flying off of dirt or grass. I've picked up a few early Gar- Kenyon hydraulics airplanes that had a nose gear collapse on grass. The later Malibu and mirage airframes with Parker or Frisbee hydraulics have a much stronger nose gear actuator. Don't look at the useful with full tanks, you wont be able to load yourself legally into the airplane. Off the record most owners will admit that they take off at weights well over gross. My only other suggestion is to have someone that is very familiar with the aircraft check it out at a pre-purchase inspection.
Kevin...Just curious about other Malibu owners taking off over Useful load. I have a Bonanza A36 certified at 1401 useful load and take off way over that many times. My passengers have been pounded one to many times in moderate to severe turbulance going to Mammouth Lakes,ca so we are now looking into the Malibu P-46 350 gas engine or the Jet-prop, gas being more affordable. Some of the Malibu's for sale have advertised no radar, no boots, no cabinets, etc stating an empty weight of 2660 with a gross of 4300 putting useful in the 1600 range. First have you heard this is possible and secondly what are your friends taking of at total useful. I realize I can limit fuel to get more weight, but that really cuts down on distance.
There are some light PA46 airframes out there, mostly early 310P models. Every time we weigh one it's a lot heavier. My wife had me weigh our 1985 after installing a Mirage interior and it got a lot heavier too. Some owners have stripped out cabinets, table, and a seat or two to improve the usefull load. The 3 and 4 blade prop makes a big difference on take-off roll and climb rate for both airframes.
I think it,s safe to say a lot of owners are flying above gross, the Jetprop owners are the worst (all of that extra power). It hasn't seem to cause many of the PA46 owners problems
