Am I nuts???

I don't know much about it but the little bit I've heard second hand has not been good.
I think some owners have grounded their DA42's until things get resolved.
And there are rumors of lawsuits being involved.

I also heard the lack of the promised service network can be a real challenge, depending on your base airport location.
Flying in a certified mechanic gets very expensive with significant schedule delays possible.

Interesting article about the historical Thielert issues and the new engines here:
http://www.diamond-air.at/fileadmin/uploads/News/Presseberichte/English/FLY01.diamond.v6.IW.indd_01.pdf

And, I'd also check the "real world" useful load / payload limitations of the tail number you're buying to make sure it meets your needs.

 

A few months ago, Flying Magazine did an article about the Diamond/Theilert issue. You moight want to check that out. Unless Theilert's assests are purchased out the banjruptcy by a reliable aviation firm, I think prospects for good support of the engines are not good.

 

Run away.

 

I can't for the life of me figure why this plane is even built...no load advantage to speak of, there are many piston singles that are faster, and it is so uncomfortable that most people will never utilize the range because your spine won't let you.

I guess if you like the idea of flying a twin, just for the sake of flying a twin?

Given the overall market and depressed pricing it would seem there are better choices (simplicity of a single, faster, more load, comfort & continued support) than a TwinStar regardless of pricing.

Think Russ hit it on the head.

 

Also, to me, part of owning a twin someday is the clean powerful look of the plane.

The DA42 doesn't have clean lines like a Baron or SkyKing has.
The back part of the fuselage has got too many shapes to it, the engine nacelles aren't cleanly designed, and the wing seem too long for a twin.

Compare the pics below to see some of these differences.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

When I look at the lower photo all I can see are gimmicks to fix things that maybe should have been part of the original design. The anhedral in the horizontal stab, winglets, wasp waist, ventral strakes, etc. I always question the inclusion of these manipulations of air flow and pressures. The Baron and 310 are sensible and proven designs and good performers but I have to admit that I am not up to date on the newer aircraft. There are many beneficial design features now but that airplane looks like a collection of all the things that they could collect from the new age dictionary on how to design a " modern airplane". Just my old but honest opinion.
Switches

 

My thoughts exactly. Granted, my experience with them has been fairly limited, but I' can't find a single benefit beyond the efficiency. I guess the real strong suit of the aircraft is training. Other than that, I just don't get it.

 

The Baron 58 (and the 55, for that matter) is a wonderful airplane. I admit I don't have any experience with 310s, but I think the early ones don't hold a candle to the Baron of any era in looks alone-- the only criteria I'm qualified to judge about a 310.

 

Yes, the above posters have it right, the only reason is training....

Small twins like the DA42 and the Seminole are just trainers, the market there is for the least expensive twin that can be used to get the rating. The payload is limted by the ability to climb on one engine, but since the engines aren't that big, the gross weight climb rate is miserable. When one engine fails they can limp along, but if the airplane is heavily loaded they will get one and only one shot at landing, the SE climb rate is so bad that a go-around on one engine at gross weight is a really dangerous proposition.

But if you aren't carrying anybody in the back seat, and don't have a heavy fuel load, the performance is good enough that you can safely do training in the airplane so that's the real mission. If you are thinking about using them for anything else than that, the answer is, yes, you are crazy.

 

That's what I've always said about the Beech 1900, an aircraft which I've avoided flying.

 

I was able to fly Ernie Gann's 310 several times and it is a nice airplane. I felt that it was pretty nimble for a twin, fast and comfortable. I flew a Baron in the right hand seat down the coast of California and thought that it was a solid, smooth, and very comfortable airplane. This flight was in 1972 and took us from San Fran. to Palm Springs and will forever remember the heavy traffic silhouetted over the smog when we crossed the L.A. airspace at 12000. There was a string heavies on short, medium, and long finals that stretched back to the Grand Canyon. I would have a Baron if I was young, rich, and good looking.
Switches

 

Almost the same quote that Charles Lindbergh offered in 1926 when he was questioned about his flying a single engined airplane across the Atlantic.

 

Piper Seneca V, with counter rotating props, Continental TSIO 360 engines 220 hp per side, turbocharged. At blue line on one engine it will climb 500 FPM to a service ceiling of 17,000'. Even the Baron B-58 is only normally aspirated, one engine the service ceiling might be 7000'. Depends on where you are flying, but the Seneca is great with the mountain ranges we have out west.

 

It also is a nice clean-looking twin. I found this pic of one on the web.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Seneca.

Aesthetics.

Not a smart way to make a decision, but the looks of the 'Hershey Bar' wing and horizontal stabilizer bothers me enough that I would not buy one.

Just me.