ERAUdude

Eh, doesn't matter too much to me. Almost done with all the flight courses.

BHopper88

I have over 100 hrs in the twin star and have to say its EASIER to instruct in and fly than a seminole and seneca I (the other light twins I have flown). Its single engine performance is around +500 fpm single engine at 5,000 feet in WARM Orlando Florida. The range is crazy when flying long distances. I flew regular flights from Orlando to ROA, HSV, CHS, LOU,etc with ease. The normal fuel burn I have seen at 11,000 feet at 90 percent pwr was 14 gal/hr with 168 tas; at 65 percent pwr at 8.8 gal/hr with 150 tas.

Some of the downsides to the DA42 are the weights and CG. Many times you have to put alot of weight in the front (max 66lbs) to counter the rearward CG if you want to take 3 people.

Landings are easy (especially if you have flown the DA40), stall characteristics are like in the DA40. Its a pretty stable platform for training in compared to other light twins.

Just wish the twinstar would have the intergrated autopilot like the newer DA40XLs.

But thats just my opinion.

Scooter2525

I agree with BHopper88. It's an easy plane to fly (my experience is DA 20's, 40's warriors, cherokee, arrows, 172, 182 and 210's) I remember doing climbs at about 150 FPM in winter at 10,000 with two people and full tanks. I'de look into reliability tho, because the flight school I was at had 3 grounded at different times for issues due to head gaskets (it's water cooled for those unfamiliar) leaking, and other TAE issues. The plane is great for situational awareness, but for someone who might not transition to a glass JOB after training in that particular plane, I would opt for something with a six pack. I guess I say that in the sense of what future IFR would be used. The performance is pretty good. We flew APV to PVU on one fill up and had about a hours flight left. Got to fly over the Hoover dam too! :-)