Diamond DA42

Philip Greenspun's Homepage : Philip Greenspun's Homepage Discussion Forums : Aviation : One Thread
Notify me of new responses
At the moment I'm looking at getting myself a fast single (SR22,
Columbia 400 etc for my comute to work). As time has past though, I've
started to getting my eyes open for the DA42 twin star. The problem is
that I'm having problems finding user reviews on the internet. Does
anybody here have any experience with the aircraft or does anybody
have any usefull links?

Thank you!


-- Terje Rasmussen, January 15, 2007


You don't say where you live. If you're actually commuting, the difference among these planes is vast. The DA42 will be certified for known ice; the others will not be.

Between the SR22 and the Columbia... the SR22 has the better back seat and maybe a better layout for passengers. The Columbia is a better pilot's airplane.

-- Philip Greenspun, January 17, 2007

The plane is pretty and intriguing to look at and pleasant to fly, is less expensive than other light twins, and fuel costs are comparatively low. Here are some downsides: The DA 42 is not much faster than the DA40-180, and although the payload is larger, with full fuel it is still not a true four seater. The engine manufacturer is discontinuing the 1.7 ltr engine because the blocks are being discontinued by Daimler-Benz, which means that although demand is white hot at the moment, the resale value for your plane may be uncertain. The engines at 135 HP are awfully small so single engine performance on climb and at altitude is weak, even by light twin standards, and especially critical at slow approach speeds. The engines are prone to running hot and a lot of exhaust manifolds have had to be replaced. The turbo-boost pressure is twice as high as you will find on conventional aviation turbo-charged engines, which has to translate to higher heat and wear and tear on the turbo and everything downstream. The long wings make the plane awkward to shift in the hangar, unless you have your own, and thus hangar space can be more difficult to find. The plane is brand new and so, as you have found, there is very little knowledgeable feedback available.

-- nicholas budd, January 16, 2007

Regarding the 1.7 engines, Thielert is supposedly replacing those with a 2.0 liter engine, which will be used everywhere the 1.7 engine was used. So, you shouldn't be stuck without an engine option.

Do they still have the 1,000 hour TBR with the cost "prorated" for 2400 hours (you only pay 1/2.4 the cost of a new engine when you reach 1,000 hours)?

-- Mike Zaharis, January 26, 2007

My understanding is that the TBO for the 1.7 has been upped to 2400 hours, but that the TBO for the 2.0 (as, when and if certified for the 42) is expected to be in the neighborhood of 1000 hours.

-- nicholas budd, January 28, 2007

A year has passed since Terje raised the question about DA42. Have you bought one? Does anyone have more experience with that twin? Has the heat issue been resolved with the Thielert 2.0? The negatives that were mentioned include relatively slow speed, wingspan too long for hangars and aspect ratio contributing to rougher ride in turbulence, discomfort of wet seats when opening canopy in rainy weather. The positives include two engines, ease of operation (FADEC etc.), very low consumption, safety of Diamonds, optional known ice. Supposedly a very good trainer, good for club/fun flying, not quite the right plane for cross country/family/ partial business. Is that right? It's the family part (small children), trips 3-600 nm, sometime mountains and water, for which I'd like the second engine. Any new views? Thanks, gab

-- G Eichler, February 19, 2008

i purchased da42 in oct. 07 and presently have 87hrs. to date. i can report that performance is great and fun to fly. averaging 13.6 gph at 90% power. shut down engine completely with ap engaged at 90% power, stepped on ball and trimmed for balance very quickly and airplane flew beautifully. had some servo problems, an ahrs failure, auto/pilot issues (new airplane shake-down).....warranty and service were spectacular. has useful load of about 880 lbs. full fuel..keep it on the ground until almost blue-line and it climbs. smartly..86-90 knts. on final..45-55 % power, hold it off and grease it on...follow check-list to the tee with watchfull eye on total amps and red x's....state of the art cock-pit naviagation and weather...used 1 qt. of oil each side in 72 hrs.....love my airplane

-- joe mascaro, March 15, 2008

I'm new to the DA42, but I can tell you its a solid airplane. Single engine maneuvers are a breeze, and the FADEC makes is arguably the safest piston twin on the market. Losing an engine on take off (all of our biggest nightmares) requires nothing more than turning off the failed engine master, and pull the failed engine to idle, & shut off fuel. The engine automatically shuts down & feathers in a second. Step on the ball, and dial in most of the rudder trim, and you can easily keep it at or above blue line and continue your climb. Let's face it, we fly twins to have the added safety and redundancy of the second engine and corresponding systems...but the statistics are horrible. I believe that this airplane will change that. I think of it as a twin engine cirrus, with a LOWER total fuel burn!

-- oren zaslansky, March 20, 2008

Thanks to both Joe and Oren. A follow up to both of you: in bad weather, does the higher span/ aspect ratio really create a bigger problem, i.e. more of a turbulence, more rapid altitude change then the C or P singles? Or you just don't take it much into weather, less than you would an SR20, 22, C182 or say a Baron? Gabe

-- G Eichler, March 21, 2008

I'm about to purchase a DA 42, since it seems the right answer for me since I go over about 60km of water every week, and also do nightflying also once a week. I was in love with Cirrus because of the CAPS and all the features, but after reading and talking a bit, it seems that the DA 42 is the right choice. If anyone has any new experience to share or some comment for me please do! Thanks.


-- Martin Antranik, April 18, 2008

I have 250 hours in my 2007 DA42. I would have more but it is hard to get off the ground with only one engine. Its been almost 8 weeks since we discovered a broken piston coolant nozzle during the 300 hr inspection. I can only tell want I know. Thielert sent me an Email 4/30 stating "business as usual here" but would not give me a ship date for the replacement engine. Diamond's David Staller left me a message saying "Diamond has 17 aircraft in production with out engines" another Diamond source calls the the situation "dire". As for as I'm concerned Diamond has not steped up to eases my concerns of bing able to fly this aircraft anytime soon. There is so many "what if" questions, as an owner I get sick thinking about it. 635k is a whole lot of nothing sitting in a hanger waiting for someone to do something. I'll keep you posted.

-- Robert Lesmeister, May 4, 2008

Huge bummer! Thanks for the experience!!! All this late reviews and the Thielert problem... It seemed like the best option by far... Now impossible to choose if youre on your right mind... We'll see what happens. If anyone knows of a light twin like that one let me know... Now Im looking at the tecnam p2006t, but its not as good and I dont think it is available yet...

-- Martin Antranik, May 11, 2008

If you bought one of these it appears that you are royally screwed. I believe the Tecnam light twin will be the future of light twins. Operating at the cost of a 172? Yes please.... actually... it operates cheaper from reports.

Thielert has gone bankrupt w/o anyone to provide support for it's engines. Diamond is looking for alternative engines at this point.

sorry for the bad news. Stay away from the DA 42 for the time being. We don't even know if their new diesel engine options will pan out well (thielert sure didn't). And the DA 42 Lycoming adds insult to injury. Welcome back to the 1970s if you decide to go that route.

For an economical modern twin.... wait for the P2006T.

-- Brandon Barlow, October 21, 2008

I do realize that this dialog has been going on for some time. I am a DA42 owner. This aircraft is a wonderful new technology endevor, which has it's place. It is a joy to fly, and brings a new level of safety with it's systems, and G1000. I have over 8000 hours of multi engine flight time, and I can say, that the DA42 is different, compared to Dukes, King Airs, and Aztecs. This aircraft may save many newer pilots lives due to the twin engine technology the aircraft has. On the downside, is the Diamond Aircraft Company. It is a shame that they are no different than other corporations in the world today. In a word "Greed". Take the money a screw the owner. The problem with the engines, and Diamond not knowing of the fiancial problems of their engine supplier, is simply short of them not telling us the truth. Take $635,000 on my money, and then not back up the product, with any service, parts, or future. They call this a new Starship. If Diamond was honorable they would tell all their owners to bring back the units, as this problem should be placed right on Diamond and it's owner, and no where else. I would bet if it was their $635,000, and we took it from them they would have us in court in days. I have 1.7 engines in my twin star. It is not saleable, it has depreciated like no other plane I have owned. My DA42 still flys great, but I dread the day, something breaks, and I have no where to turn. Diamond and it's dealers, and owners, should step up to the plate, and show us they believe in their product, which they have not done thus far. It has been talk, talk, talk, but no action. Customer support and customer appreciation would be a novel idea, if they want to grow this company.

-- Randy Acker, May 15, 2009

I have to agree 100% with Randy. I bought a da42 in December of 2007. I received one of the first 2.0 liter Thielert Engines.

Simply put, Diamond has been a nightmare to work with. They continually missed communication deadlines regarding their "customer assistance program" and have been all but non responsize. They have done everything they can to sweep this whole mess under the table and move on. The customer assistance program was a complete farce.

Several lawsuits have been filed as well as a class action lawsuit. Diamond could have easily prevented this by providing some level of support to their customers.

If you are considering investing in a Diamond or buying from Premier aviation, understnad this. There is zero after the sale support. There is zero customer service after the sale. You are 100% on your own.

The thing that I find most amusing about this is that the magazines and organizations (AOPA) that claim to represent the pilots have refused to run any articles shedding light on how poorly Diamond has handled this mess. Want to know why? Diamond is one of their biggest advertisers.

-- Trent Doucet, August 5, 2009

USAERO has been great on service but I've been astonished how difficult it is to get a response to sales and support inquires among several Diamond Dealers in the Central U.S.

This quote is from an email I received from Mr. David M. Pomerance of Premier Aircraft Sales that reflects his idea of respectful customer service relations,

"Jeff would you like to take a shot at this guy. Maybe you can make nice and sell him our DA20."

-- Richard Miles, August 5, 2009

You have to wonder whether the dealer/franchise system makes sense today. How much less could a DA42 cost if you could buy it directly online? It would be interesting to know how much of your retail purchase price goes to the dealer � perhaps 15 maybe 30%. And how much of that is spent on facades � fancy buildings, flashy sales staff, gimmicky things to give away. Given the limited number of planes that are sold each year something�s gotta give. I�d rather have service done at a place where paying the mechanics well is the first priority. It would be nice to have the choice to take my new plane to any shop of my choosing where I know the mechanics are competent and conscientious. This report from the Department of Labor shows what we�re up against � the airlines pay more for mechanics than general aviation � www.bis.gov/ocs/ocos179.htm. And anyone in a technology career knows the difference in caliber between those who earn in the upper 30 percentile vs. those in the lowest 30 percentile. A shop that wants a $100 per hour is asking twice what they may be worth, but a shop billing $50 per hour is charging ten times what they are worth.

-- Richard Miles, August 6, 2009

Several postings here claim complete and total abandonment. What would help is to have more details. Although anyone would be sympathetic to the hardships that have been endured as a result of the Thielert bankrupcy my interest is in knowing whatメs fair to blame on Diamond and its dealers and which part of the responsibility belongs to Thielert. Ideally it would be nice if Diamond could absorb this loss, but at the same time I wouldnメt want to have to pay more to buy a Diamond aircraft because tens of thousands of dollars of my purchase are in effect subsidizing Thielert. Itメs up to the new investors in Thielert to provide that funding and promptly make right by all previous purchasers of aircraft with their engines if they want to establish credibility in their market.

Nor would I want to see funding pulled from the development of Austro engines. Diamond doesn't have the deep pockets of companies that have enjoyed decades of DOD contracts or years in the lucrative business jet market.

Having produced safety videos for more than twenty-five years the issue of survivability really concerns me and have been astonished at peopleメs high tolerance for risk (or complete lack of understanding of the risks to which they are exposed). 1.2 fatalities per 100,000 hours of flight time means you have a one in ten chance of dying in an aircraft if you fly 250 hours a year over three or four decades. Iメve never known of any transportation vehicle manufacturer to prove a record as Diamond has achieved with a six fold increase in safety over the rest of the field.

Having dealt with several people including the president of Premier Aircraft Sales they have a long way to go to prove to me that they can deliver the service they claim. But the experiences Iメm having with Diamond Aircraft at all levels of the company and the caliber of support from Diamondメs other dealers is proving be much better than I have with any of the other manufacturers.

The more you investigate, itメs seems that Diamond is trying to do a lot of things right in terms of support and engineering, much more so than the established manufacturers whose idea is to get Congress to pass legislation to protect them from lawsuits if their planes kill people and so they continue to produce the same old stuff theyメve made since the 50メs.

-- Richard Miles, August 14, 2009

With all due respect, I think Mr Miles is being rather charitable towards Diamond and its role in the Thielert fiasco. There is no shortage of instances of total abandonment in the Diamond Aviators fora, but just as an example, here is one that appeared within the last few days (and gathered cheers from the audience of Diamond owners):

[Quote] Would you buy a new aircraft from Diamond? - I did, but I wouldn't make that mistake again.

I have no idea whether anyone from Diamond ever reads these posts. The indifference they display to their client base means they probably don't care, or even know, about commentary on this site. The local agent has set up several meetings with representatives from Diamond to address owners concerns. To date, Diamond representatives have cancelled every meeting often without explanation.

I had the opportunity at a local aviation event this last weekend to spend some quality time meeting and chatting with many fellow aviators. I am generally very pleased with my DA42 TDI and my responses to questions about performance and efficiency drew admiration from those who continue to fly older Avgas sucking machines.

However, I went out of my way to explain that while I love my aircraft, I have absolutely no intention of ever buying another aircraft from Diamond, nor would I ever recommend that they do. The reason for this attitude is simply that Diamond, having taken my cash in exchange for their then "top of the range" aircraft, completely betrayed any faith I had in their organisation by refusing to continue development of the TDI range. They won't even certify the SVT option for the G1000 for TDI powered aircraft (the NG has SVT). One assumes that this is simply because they now want to sell 42NGs and need to distinguish their new ground-pounder from the previous "inferior" 42s. Anyone who thinks that they are going to see an upgrade from 135hp is likely to be disappointed. Centurion may be able to produce a viable upgrade but Diamond will almost certainly bury it. They won't want to bear the re-certification costs for an upgrade that they get little commercial benefit from and worse, is likely to result in an aircraft with potentially significantly better performance than the 42NG delivers. They want all TDI owners to �upgrade� to their engines because it suits them commercially, not because it is better for the owners. I am convinced that they figure they have a captive audience that ultimately has no choice if they don�t want to see their investment depreciate further. Frankly, I believe that, given the problems with the engines they sold, they should be giving upgrades away to try to recover some brand loyalty. Apparently they don�t believe this is necessary.

Anyone still think that Diamond had nothing whatsoever to do with Thielert's demise? I personally believe that Diamond�s decision to build the Austro engine was a significant factor in Thielert�s demise. Further, had Diamond not decided to build their own engine, this conflict of interests between Diamond and its former customers would not have occurred. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Thielert were not responsible for many of the problems in their relationship with Diamond. I am saying however that when Diamond made a decision to start building their own engine, a long time before the ultimate demise of Thielert, they must have realised that would lead to a conflict of interests with their existing client base.

I understand that Diamond need to market and sell the 42 NG, I just think that this should not be done at the expense of those of us who supported them by buying the 42 TDI. When they marketed the TDI, it was implicit that they would support the product into the future, not screw the customers in an attempt to force upgrades to their engine. IMHO they need to continue to develop and support both versions and let customers choose which aircraft they want. As it stands at the moment, with Thielert/Centurion hopefully on the road to recovery, I own a brilliant aircraft which, thanks solely to the airframe manufacturer's actions, is likely to be traded for all time at a significant discount to the current model. The only way out is to pay Diamond, who in part engineered the problem a further chunk of change to get an aircraft I don't especially want.

I am happy to say that I believe I successfully dissuaded at least one and possibly two other prospective NG/Diamond customers from looking at purchasing Diamond aircraft. I fully intend to continue to do whatever I can to sabotage NG/Diamond sales until Diamond demonstrate an intention to honour their obligations to 42TDI owners. I urge all other TDI owners to do the same. Diamond need to understand that the worst possible advertising is a seriously dissatisfied and vocal customer base.[Unquote]

-- nicholas budd, August 20, 2009

Clearly the two of us are types who dislike bad service � really, really, really dislike bad service. What�s missing for me from the picture is knowing whether you�ve had the plane grounded for long periods waiting for Diamond or its dealers or Thielert to come through on parts or service or had to pay for service out of pocket that was explicitly guaranteed at the time of sale. The idea of paying over a half million dollars and not getting country club level service would gall the Hell out of me, but I�m learning the aviation industry has a lot of people who are not competent. The local car dealer selling you a Camry is proving to offer better at service than what I find with so many aviation dealers around the country. But then the car dealer can sell many times more vehicles. What I find tragic is the regulatory burden of getting a plane certified. Wonder what we would be driving if the automakers had to go through the same approval process that aircraft manufacturers do. It would be interesting to know what Diamond or Garmin has to pay the FAA and EASA to get a plane certified for Synthetic Vision. But I agree, for 10,000 bucks a plane, there ought to be enough funding to make it available. Diamond had to spend 63 million dollars to obtain FAA and EASA certification for their diesel engine. So for the next 10,000 engines they manufacture, $6,300 would go for R&D and certification. Hate seeing those who sit on the laurels triumph, that Lycoming and Continental aren�t progressing any faster getting a diesel engine developed but retain their market share. It would seem that having Austro Engines and Theilert competing should result in more options down the road. It will be interesting to see where they price the engines and how much the conversion costs will run. Hope it won�t be as expensive as an SMA engine, that we see the pricing marginalize the technology out of existence. The question is, what is the alternative, what other plane are you going to buy? Would really like to save on fuel and not be spewing lead into the atmosphere. And, I have no interest in flying in a plane where I figure my survivability over a lifetime is less than 1 in 100. That limits it to a very small number of planes. We may come to different conclusions but I really appreciate having the info you are sharing. You�re not going to find this level of candid information from any aviation publication that depends on advertising, and there�s not much reason to believe that Aviation Consumer has gobs of money to do extensive, scientific surveys on customer support in the industry. Don�t see GAMA releasing a hard hitting report critical of the industry�s level of service. Although I have great empathy for your situation, the experiences I�m having with Diamond are much more positive. The Thielert bankruptcy is truly a fiasco and completely unfair to everyone caught up in it. But the money that was lost because Thielert couldn�t get it done isn�t going to materialize out of a void. Given the quality of the engineering I�m hoping that Diamond is able to thrive. The industry desperately needs innovation and a safe plane that will appeal to the masses.

-- Richard Miles, August 21, 2009

I am considering a new aircraft and found this page. My perspective is from having a friend that owns a 42TDI 2.0. He went through the BK, loss of warranty and calculating the costs to ground his aircraft. As it turns out, he is still flying, and while maintenance is higher than budgeted for, spare parts are back to a reasonable level.

What really bothers me is that I went to Controller.com and looked at DA42s versus other aircraft with similar price/performance. Not unexpected, the resale of DA42 has fallen through the floor, but the drop was actually more than I expected. I shifted by thinking and started looking at a used Baron with G1000. Not much more money than an NG, but a lot more to operate. However, you must factor in the resale in 3-7 years as a real cost. I am also a believer that the 'greens' will continue to press for elimination of 100LL, which at the very least causes a loss of power in a Baron class aircraft (re-certification???).

So, is anyone buying the 42NG, and how did you come to terms with resale value?

I was actually looking to see if Diamond was offering some type of resale guarantee, perhaps in upgrade to a D-Jet.

-- Mike Azzarello, August 27, 2009

I am a new pilot, under 100 hours. Started training in the cessna, piper planes (typical school trainers) and was frustrated as this was not the type of plane I would be purchasing. I tried the cirrus, columbia and diamond and enjoyed the diamond by far the best and switched the remainder of my training to the DA20 and DA40. I enjoyed the ease of takeoff and landings in both these aircrafts and quickly determined this was the plane to have, except I wanted the twin. We have homes in several states and flying was our answer to getting their faster and that meant the DA42 for the very reason of that second engine for flying over mountains. I took several test flights in the DA42, we stalled out one engine and continued to climb, we did takeoff with one engine and I was very pleased with performance. We nearly ordered one just at the time the exchange rate went through the roof and decided to not get sucked into that; now are we ever glad we didnt as we would have paid nearly 685,000 for something that is now selling used for under 300,000. Given that I am pleased with the planes performance and have read that many others are as well, a used plane is in the same boat as a new one as far as parts and service so it appears as though there is no warranty benefit from buying a new one based on the comments from others. Does anyone know of options for replacement parts, are there aftermarket options for repairs rather than the frustration of going to diamond?

-- robynn mccaann, October 18, 2009

If the manufacture of parts for aviation were more like that of automobiles we would have more selection, increased competition and much lower cost. Because of FAA/EASA certification the number of suppliers will continue to be limited � regulation protects the status quo, stifles competition, keeps prices high and quality of service low.

I would be especially leery of costs in the future for Diamond Aircraft, especially components manufactured in Europe. Given that the U.S. government is keeping interest rates low, running huge deficits and has got their printing presses going full tilt printing up billions and billions of unbacked dollars you can expect the exchange rate to be unfavorable for quite some time.

You are looking at nearly a $150,000 to have DA42 engines retrofitted with the Austro Engines diesels. Seems rather audacious to think people would pay that much for a couple of 170hp engines. http://www.diamond-air.at/austro_engine_upgrade0.98.html. Not sure what you�ll be paying out again at 1,000 hours if the TBE is not increased.

You can expect Diamond to not be shy to continue to escalate prices. It�s a bit like living in a fiefdom where the royalty has a captive citizenry and the king�s only concern is raising whatever taxes are needed to support the castle. They simply look at the prices their suppliers give them and tack on a percentage and because they sell so few planes they have no leverage with their vendors. Dealers will tell you that getting parts from Thielert is not a problem. But if anyone gets a response to inquires made directly through Thielert�s website please let me know. Or if anyone comes across information that would indicate Thielert received the minimum financial backing they need to stay in business it would be encouraging, but the growing evidence is indicating they may be as dysfunctional now as they were at the high of the bankruptcy.

I�d agree with others, if you�re in a position to afford a plane in the $600,000 to million dollar plus range a turboprop would have a lot of appeal. Given that there are Cessna 340�s and Beech Dukes in the under $200.000 range you could have a more comfortable and faster plane and still have lots left over for the high fuel consumption and maintenance costs.

As attractive as the specs are for a DA42 as a novice trying to decide what my first plane will be I�m growing more and more inclined to wait for new technologies to prove themselves and go with companies with long standing reputations.

-- Richard Miles, October 18, 2009

I thought some of you might be interested in some of the latest news from Thielert-Centurion. Not much, but at least it isn't a press release saying they are shutting their doors. http://dieselair.com/2009/11/centurion-firm-owning-and-developing.html Trent Doucet

-- Trent Doucet, December 6, 2009

Several years ago (April 2004 I think) I placed an order for the then uite revolutionary DA42, and was allocated position number 122, serial number DA42.140 I believe.

Well, the delays and Thielert problems have been well documented already, and I was (selfishly) very relieved when Thielert went into bankruptcy just a week or two before my latest promised delivery date.

Like other position holders, I was given options of essentially (1) take a Lycoming engined version, (2) switch my order to an NG whenever it was available (3) wait for the Thielert mess to resolve itself or (4) have my deposit refunded. I opted for the NG version, thinking that, in the year or two that it may take to be produced and certified, the dust may have settled and the future of the DA42 range may be more certain.

Finally, in the spring of 2010, I was offered a DA42NG by my dealer at almost double my original order price, at which point I demanded a refund of my deposit. Negotiations between the dealer and Diamond led to a better offer and so the decision-making process is underway once more.

In summary:

The 'plane seems to meet my needs

The low fuel cost is extremely attractive

The latest discount would go some way to offsetting the huge depreciation that I would anticipate seeing


Diamond's communications and arrogance have been shocking

The much higher cost is reflected in a very large insurance premium

The NG (and in particular the Austro engines) are still a relatively unknown quantity

Does anyone have any input that may help my decision?

Many thanks,

Geoff Slater tobago@btopenworld.com

-- Geoff Slater, June 30, 2010

I did a demo flight in a DA42 this past weekend in Long Beach and liked it very much. It was my first time to fly a twin, and the DA42 made it easy. For example, to shut down an engine, move the engine's master switch past the detent to Off, and it stops and feathers.

From what I have read and talked about with the dealer, the Austro engine is the same Mercedes-Benz turbo-diesel automobile engine as the Thielert is based on. Diamond replaced some components (like the friction clutch) that had been problematic with the Thielerts. Also, Diamond kept the engine closer to the original automobile version (for example, keeping an iron crankcase).

So, neither the Thielert nor the Austro is really a new engine. If Thielert had not had financial irregularities, I think they could have managed any technical issues without causing owners so many headaches.

I also learned that Thielert is back in business as Centurion and providing parts and support. Their Thielert 2.0 engine has been far less problematic than the original 1.7. If Centurion is going to survive, it will be based on the 2.0, which is used in other aircraft as well, such as drones.

To your question, you could by a used DA42 with the 2.0 engines for about 350,000, which is 350K less than new. You could either keep the 2.0 engines or upgrade them later to Austro engines for about 100K.

A new DA42 NG is better in some ways (for example, GFC700 autopilot vs KAP140), but, as always seems to be the case, it is not 350K better, so if you buy new, you will have the best airplane but will lose money with the initial depreciation. My rough guess is that a brand new DA42 NG is worth between 500K and 550K if you tried to resell it, so you are losing 150K to 200K on initial depreciation offset by any discount. I am not trying to say that buying a new NG is a waste of money. Rather, the question is what will you use the aircraft for that is worth 150K to 200K to you.


-- Todd Ramming, June 30, 2010

Geoff, you might not be aware that there is a Diamond Aviators Association website and forum with a DA42 Thread. Before you decide on becoming a member of the Diamond community, I suggest that you join the DAA and have a look at the hundreds of comments made by actual DA42 owners. There are diverse opinions expressed on the wisdom of purchasing a DA42 with Thielert 2.0 engines as opposed to the Austro engines, and the wisdom of purchasing any aircraft at all from Diamond. The vast majority of owners love to fly the airplane but feelings towards Diamond management range from disgruntled to homicidal.

-- nicholas budd, July 1, 2010

I just want to reply to the poster above who says that peoples' feelings toward Diamond range from disgruntled to homicidal. I would not place myself anywhere in that continuum. I am a Diamond owner who is thrilled with Diamond's excellent after sale support and service. I own both a 2008 DA40XLS and a 2008 DA42 with 2.0 Theilert engines. I purchased the DA40 and put over 400 hours on it in 2009 then I bought the DA42 in 2010 and I have over 430 hours on it now. Both were purchased new from Diamond and I am the only person who flies either airplane. There were a few small teething problems typical of any newly manufactured machine, but Diamond paid for my local A&P to fix all of these little issues and they did it with a smile. I have nothing but good things to say about the company and their airplanes. I love my Diamonds! I fly the DA42 almost exclusively now and I think nothing of hopping in it and flying across the country. The reliability has been almost perfect and, except for an alternator failure on the DA40 on final to my home airport, I have never been stuck with a mechanical problem or grounded at all. In fact, I'm flying from NH to CA tomorrow. Diamond even goes to bat for me when it isn't their warranty. They took care of an issue with Avidyne and the TAS600 in the DA40 (teething problems) as well as a problem with my KAP140 with Honeywell in the DA42. If Diamond made a 250kt 6-8 seat pressurized twin (or single turbine) airplane with a ~2000lb useful load and ideally 20-30gph fuel burn with 270hp turbocharged diesels, it would be my next airplane. I would definitely buy from them again and would and have recommended that my friends do so. My contrarian $.02 anyway.

-- Robert Boyle, February 24, 2011

Nice to see the positive comment by Mr Boyle re his experience with the Diamond factory/dealers and his appreciation of the aircraft. As a current owner of a DA42 and former owner of a DA40, I entirely share his affection for the aircraft, and have no negative experience to report on my dealings with the factory or individual dealers. Judging from the postings over the last several years on the DAA website the reaction is certainly different from people who have purchased DA40s (in Europe, they are not certified in N America) and DA42s with TAE 1.7 engines, however as these engines are eventually being replaced with Centurion 2.0 or Austro NG engines, the level of dissatisfaction may be diminishing. I do hope so, because the success of the company depends on customer satisfaction and the aircraft themselves are wonderful.

-- nicholas budd, February 25, 2011

Hello, I am a proud owner of a DA-42 with TDI 2.0 Engines. We operate out of M�co and have had excellent reliability with no dispatch delays. We did have some teething problems which were kindly solved by Diamond; Centurion service in the U.S. has been great on my side. Parts have been available. I have put 150 hrs TT and I am looking forward on the new extended clutch that has 600 hrs of life time.- With oil prices heading who knows were I can just say that with +/- 14 GPH on both engines nothing comes close to this efficiency on ANY twin-aircraft except for the Tecnam which has no FIKI.- It is sad that Diamond did not help resolve the 1.7 issue in a satisfactory manner that it lost a big customer base because 1 happy customer maybe convinces 1 future owner; but I one un-happy customer probably drives away a herd of potential customers... For the value of my aircraft I wish success to Centurion and would be looking forward on replacing the 2.0 engines with 2.0 "S" engines with 155 hp! More HP and less weight than the NG�s ;) happy landings...

-- Daniel Arredondo, March 9, 2011

An owner at our flight club just purchased a DA42 NG. We have already taken it into solid icing conditions and it handled like a dream. With over an inch on the winglets the wings and windshield kept all clear. Beautiful plane. Weight should be a prob according to the POH - BTW who wrote this POH anyway?!?! We have continued to increase incremently above max wt and still get 1200-1400 fpm steady climb (of course this was in winter though)...still - handles like a dream. Great plane. Jet A. Worth a look for sure!

-- Matt Dee, March 25, 2011

Dear Daniel,

I note with interest your comments , Mar 9th 2011, on greenspun.

I purchased DA42.135 ( 1.7 engines) in May 2006 in the UK.

Y is about to make initial engine runs with the Centurion (Thielert) 2.0S engines, followed by test flights in order to achieve the STC. I expect , like you, that the performance will be equal to or superior to the Diamond DA42NG.

The objective is both both EASA and FAA STCs and soon.

If you are you still interested, please drop me a line?


Where are you in the USA?


Dr John Crosby

-- crosbyjohnr@gmail.com John Crosby, November 27, 2011

We are also a Flight School in SE Asia looking to add DA42 to our fleet. We are not sure which is more suitable for flight school environment, DA42 TDI or DA42NG? Any one can give an input?

-- Edmond Fung, June 1, 2014