You telling me you can afford a $1.4 million plane and you can't buy a hangar with a 15M door? My hangar fits my 22M Duo Discus, and it don't cost 1/10th of what a DA62 cost.
There is a big difference in range once fuel consumption is taken into account with typical load. The DA62 burns far less fuel and therefore enables a heavier payload to go further. The DA62 is also much better at dissipating turbulence with it's high-aspect carbon wings. I went for a flight in a DA62 in rough weather a few weeks ago and then immediately flew in the same weather in my Cessna Skylane and was blown away with how much smoother the ride was in the DA62. I want one!
My god right?? The cockpit can withstand 25g impact. The seats are designed for impact. The FADEC engines where a loss of engine isn’t a catastrophic situation unless you are super experienced.
I like the ease of entry that the DA62 provides with the open out doors on both sides of the aircraft . The DA62 meets all the needs for use as a GA aircraft . It is also easer to operate than the Baron G58 . I give the DA62 my vote!
Spent a delightful day in August 2018 at the Diamond Factory in Vienna, including an opportunity to fly the DA62. So different from the typical piston twin! Single lever power control vs three levers for each engine, hot starts were a non-event, and engine shutdown/feathering prop is simple and automatic. Aircraft beautifully finished with build quality better than anything I have seen in GA. Burning Jet-A is also a plus and likely to become even more desirable in the next 5-10 years. We almost purchased one but in end decided to go with M350....largely due to pressurization.
We have been going through the pre-purchase process for 14 months and the different paths we take always lead us to the Piper m350. Are you happy with the M350 in general? Can you tell us about the cons of the M350 based on your experiences?
@@joakoc.6235 Having done lots of Flight Level flying in unpressurized aircraft breathing oxygen I can assure you there is a world of difference in terms of comfort and likely safety between being in a a 20K cabin at 20K feet and say a 6K cabin at 20K feet. The oxygen keeps your blood oxygenated but the rest of your body is still 20K feet up, not a place humans are designed to operate particularly if you get there from sea level in 30 minutes. Not to mention discomfort of wearing mask above FL180, makes it hard to eat, drink, and in general be comfortable. Pressurization is a whole different level of comfort.
A few years ago I researched the DA62 fairly deeply. There are somethings just out of view about Diamond that pose some really interesting possibilities. First, Diamond doesn't seem particularly market driven. They have made several large advances in technology and construction for which they are not given sufficient credit. The safety of the entire Diamond line is superb due to the care with which the fuel system and energy absorption features are designed and built. These are far and away the safest general aviation craft. There are a few negatives to the parachute systems on the other make of aircraft. Should Diamond wish to install parachutes, and produced them with similar levels of engineering the use in crash worthiness, they would be unstoppable. Also, Diamond had exhibited automated detection of a disabled pilot and automatic landing a long ways back, 2009 perhaps, I'm unsure of the year. The 62 has an airborne version of electronic stability control to keep pilots out of trouble such as stall/spins. Also, the DA50, which has had a 15 year career as vaporware, maybe coming to fruition in the next several months. It looks like a DA62 single engine with retractable gear. The DA50 is reputed to have a larger jet a engine than the 62. There have been some changes since I examined the line, but I think a 300hp Jet A will be on the DA50, at least in some markets. I don't know if the 50 will be faster than the 62. Now, it is apparent that the 62 is loaded very conservatively. Once the 50's larger diesels have a track record, I can't help but believe they will migrate to the twin engine configuration. So, as autoland becomes widespread in GA, these are increasingly desireable aircraft. Imagine a high horsepower DA62, hopefully the full 600hp, with ESP, autoland, Jet A engines, OMG. Please Diamond, hit high gear on product development! Your potential is amazing.
600hp engines mean $$$$ op costs, no two ways about it. DA-62 doesn't need more than 400hp to reach GREATER speeds, and range, and useful load - than a gas-guzzling twin from the 60s. Because carbon fiber, long and thin wings, and no rivets, and dramatically more aerodynamic shape. Rate of climb is the only thing you can't trick, it's physics. So it will be lower than that of a 600hp machine of same weight. I'd be fine with that.
Marlin, the challenge I have with this comparison is the price of fuel. The Barron uses AV Fuel/100LL and the DA62 uses Jet A or even Diesel fuel. Both are much cheaper than 100LL. I feel with DA62 costing a full $450K+ less (Barron is almost 50% more!!) and the cheaper fuel (operating costs), the greater speed of the Barron is nullified. DA62 wins.
Baron owner here. You can typically land a Baron in 1400-1600ft, distance no obstacle clearance. Also normal cruise is 185-195 ktas. It’s not uncommon to cruise at 200 ktas at only 2300rpms, but 200 is not our max cruise speed. 2-engine Initial climb rate is between +1700 to +3000fpm. For example, my SOP is +3000 fpm to 3000ft (@ our climb cruise speed of 130 Kias), then +1000fpm to 10, 11, or 13,000ft.
They are solid planes no doubt. It’s just sad that with other companies making huge leaps in safety and technology ie: reduced pilot workload, automatic engine fuel management, beech is stuck in 1961. There are planes that can literally return to the airport and land at the push of a button, but baron is still manual props and mixture. Lol
A lot are dismissive of the Baron. A couple of things, it’s been around a LONG time - has to be a reason for that. Second and importantly is dealer network Textron/Beechcraft has a larger support base globally - something that in aviation should never be dismissed.
Every other manufacturer has strived for new technologies, advancement in extreme avionics capabilities, safety, and reduced pilot workload with automated engine fuel management and constant speed props. Beech CEOs and engineers: “Na we good. 1961 technology is fine”
Great points. Also, you can go on controller and buy a 1961 baron right now. How confident are you that you will be able to buy a 2022 da62 in the year 2083? There is something to be said about proven technology and engineering when you are sinking > $ 1,000,000 into an aircraft.
"A couple of things, it’s been around a LONG time - has to be a reason for that." - same as any other well-known American airplane. Sure, there are reasons for GA producing 50+ year old designs to this day, but they aren't particularly good reasons, and they don't mean that it's a rationally good idea to keep sticking to these dinosaurs in 2022 and beyond.
@@keithkarner3294 Most non-pressurized GA planes tend to have long service lives. Its pretty much all about the frame. Most of the aircrafts from the 60's and 70's have had pretty much every other part replaced. I don't see any evidence that a well built carbon fiber frame isn't going to last as long.
You did a great job of a short form vlog comparing these two planes! My understanding is the DA62 is easier to get insurance on, but I have not confirmed this.
Besides all the safety improvements the Diamond aircraft has, it uses a much more prevalent and less expensive fuel. It also uses liquid engine cooling which reduces engine management stress during high altitude descents.
I was kind of wondering about the climb speed, and I went back and looked, and that 1,029 f/m climb speed is a cruise climb. A FLYING article from 2016 indicates at a cruise climb of 128 knots at mid weights would give you 1,200 fpm, while FLYING also stated that at a cruise climb of 158 knots in the Baron only produces 800 fpm. So, I think, realistically, that the climb rates for both aircraft aren't nearly as far off as it might seem. The technology that goes into the DA62 just shows the difference between what was designed in the 1940s and 1950s, when the Bonanza came out and where we are today. At 185 knots, the DA62 is burning 17 gallons per hour, which is about 88% power. At 75% power for the G58, which is what gives you that 202 knot cruise speed, you're burning 32 gallons of fuel per hour, or, almost double the amount of fuel burned per hour. Our local FBO has Full Serve 100LL at $5.86 per gallon and JetA at $4.67 per gallon. That's a 15 gallon per hour difference, or $108 per hour in just fuel costs alone savings in the DA62. The max full fuel in the DA62 is 86 gallons, in the Baron, it's 192 gallons. Fill up from empty is $401 for the DA62, $1,125 for the Baron. The DA62 stall characteristics are far superior, as well. Hold the stick back, and she'll stall, and will just come down, straight ahead, nose up, and you can even roll it somewhat. Then, engine out is a dream. Reach up and turn the switch off after identifying the bad engine. That's all there is to it. Try that in a Baron. The DA62 actually has a higher single engine service ceiling, of 13.000' versus less than 8,000' for the Baron. Hey, I like Beechcraft, but I don't like them enough to spend that much more money on them. Steel Aviation is listing a 2023 DA62 for $1.25M, while the Baron is about $250,000 more, at $1.5M. So, yeah, I think if I were in the market for an airplane like this, the DA62 would be my choice, without question. Easier to fly, less expensive to fly, lower carbon footprint, and a far newer design with improved safety as part of the design.
Beech’s technology was the best at its time, Diamond is today’s technology and the result of more advanced research and development. Blue skies to all.
50 years of R&D actually improved aircraft design. Who would've thought, right? What I don't get is why a lot of people still stick to Cessnas and other designs virtually unchanged since the 60s, but somehow still in production today. Would anyone buy a 60s car today (for practical purposes, collectors and car geeks don't count) ? No? Then why the F are C-182T still selling for $700k+ ?!?!
Really depends on what your priorities are. If you want to get there faster, get the Baron. If you want to burn less fuel and use Jet A, get the Diamond. Also Diamond has an impeccable safety record. Something to consider.
I really appreciate your comparisons. The only thing I would have liked is the fuel burn at max cruise for both planes. I realize there is a lot that can be inferred by the difference in operating costs.
I like both the DA and the Beech. But, if I had a $1M+ budget and were looking for a twin with any kind of carrying capabilities, I’d buy a turboprop twin. Yea the cost per hour would be higher, but I think the tradeoffs would be worth it. A nicely equipped King Air 90 with time on the engines and props is a strong competitor in my opinion.
I love Beechcraft products, especially the Bonanzas and Barons. But if I was investing in a new aircraft it wouldn't even be a debate between the G58 and DA62....I'd take the Diamond in a heartbeat. The sophistication of the powerplants, amazing systems redundancy, the benefit of burning JetA, the fuel economy.....the list of advantages is very long. Just just need a very wide hangar door with the DA62!
Philip likes both airoplanes they will both do a outstanding job I like the look of the beach craft baron presentation and the colours of the airoplane. But still like the diamond da62.both out standing airoplanes philip.
I looked very hard at the DA-62 and truly wanted to purchase one but there is one GIANT problem with the DA-62 that forced me another direction...the Wingspan. At 48' your hangar options will be severely limited. At my local airport (2R4), there is only one hangar that will hold the DA-62 and that hangar has been leased for 10 years. Sadly the DA-62 won't work for me unless I move or am willing to drive over an hour to the airport.
there is one option. I own a DA62 an have it in a large hangar with other planes but a friend who owns one put his on a sled and slides in the hangar slightly sideways....a creative solutions that cost him a couple Gs but paid for itself the 1st year relative to a larger hangar.
Good review - thanks. I'd say it's a case of horses for courses, the Baron still holds its own, but the Diamond is more economical across the board and seems to have better, more modern, safety features. Plus the Diamond probably handles certain wx better and has lots of modern innovations that make living with it easier and more pleasurable? Both nice aircraft and I'd be happy if either one were given to me👍🤞😊
No comparison: DA wins for modernity on all counts. And I am a long time Beechcraft owner operator. The DA62 has markedly superior structural integrity than anything made by the United States traditional GA manufacturers. Payload w full fuel is off the charts for the Diamond. The seats are not false advertising. Those diesels operate far more like a modern auto engine. A G58 w 194 gallon tanks full will haul 395#'s. The DA62 w 85 gallons topped off will carry almost 1000#'s. It's carbon development vs no genuine innovation in 40 years.
Beechcraft is an amazing company they have a proven track record with the King Air series. The Barron G58 is not a King Air though it is nice. People need to actually REALLY look at the Diamond DA62 then they will understand what Diamond actually created. This comparison of brochure specs does nothing for each plane. I was a skeptic of the DA62, and now that I am much more informed...the aircraft is just brilliant through and through. P.S. Jet-A really is better than AV Gas. Diamond perfectly demonstrates why.
Never flown a 62, but flown a DA-40 a few times and it's DRAMATICALLY better than any old C-172 or 182 or 210 in our flight club. I just can't understand why anyone would still buy those dinosaurs new for $500-$750k in 2022, when a brand new DA-40 costs about the same but for SO MUCH MORE aircraft. In every role imaginable. Except maybe spin training.
I've very surprised there was no mention of the safety engineering that went into the DA62. The cockpit is similar in structural integrity as an F1 monocoque cockpit. The fuel tanks and fuel lines in the DA62 significantly reduce the risk of fire in the event of a crash. The flight controls of the DA62 do not rely on cables. The wing design decreases the chance of stall and helps mitigate that stall if incurred. Design isn't something quantifiable in data points but the DA62 has the exterior design and interior elegance of a high end luxury sedan. A whole video could have been made on the differences in the enjoins, starting with liquid cooling and FADEC for the DA62.
Well the thing is, if I was to buy a newly built today then I'll definitely pick the DA62. Don't get me wrong tho, the Beechcraft Baron is an amazing aircraft. It's just that by today's standards, other than the Garmin NXi, the Baron is an outdated aircraft. Though, without the Baron, there won't be the DA62.
Never flew a DA-62, but flew a DA-40 a few times. Day and night compared to any Cessna 172 or 182 I've flown before. The only thing the DA-40 could improve on is the engine. It comes with either the old, 100LL-burning IO-360, or the Austro-4 which is nicer but kinda underpowered while 100 lbs heavier. I'd put a 200hp turbocharged UL-520 (the new-ish flat-6 engine by UL power - as of now found only in experimentals) into a DA-40 if I ever bought one and was willing to make it an experimental. The UL engines can't burn diesel or Jet-A, but run on mogas (can use avgas, too - much like a Rotax). Or, if Rotax would ever make a 6-cylinder ~180..240 hp engine... we can wish, heh.
In theory, the Diamond clearly wins. Unfortunately, the reality is very different. Our Diamond DA42 produces a lot of error messages and therefore has to be taken to the maintenance again and again. This year we haven't been able to fly since August, and today it's December. Perhaps the DA62 is already more reliable.
i like both but i like the baron more because you can adda turbine engine option that stops way faster than the legacy baron and is just a DA-62 but faster I mean they are a close match
In my opinion, The Beechcraft is good when it comes to payload however, it’s performance is quickly being overpassed by the Diamond Diamond is my preference
I don’t know how much the Baron’s few higher capabilities factor in when it costs 1.5x the DA62 AND the 62 also only consumes something like 6gph per engine at cruise (65 or 75%) at the cost of JetA vs. Avga$. Another thing that paces the DA62 WAY above the Baron is its stall behavior…I’ve never seen such a stable airframe at full stall OR seen someone recover from a stall so effortlessly. Either way, the Diamond is worth a look. 🖖😎👍
Here is a big difference is a nice late model Baron 58 is $300K and the other is $1.25M..... So the diamond cost 4 times. Yes a brand new G58 is about the same price, but why pay a million for Piston twin you can get for much less that does 95% of what the new plane does. (your price for the Diamond is not correct, that is bear bones and no one buys it like this. Like wise a Baron G58 can be had for less than the price you report.... )
Pretty stupid to compare a very used Aircraft to a brand new one anyway. However that Beechcraft is still seeling this Dinosaur New is telling me something - No Innovation! And that Americans are fine with that. Like they also love to drive Vintage Cars!
@@WanderfalkeAT No. It's stupid to not compare. That is why you are you. Ha ha. The Baron is larger with cargo doors. Dimond DA62 is based on a 4 plc single seat plane. Efficiency? The difference is measured in a few percent. If you can afford to own and fly either plane you are not sweeting a few bucks fuel cost. Don't be stupid. You will never own a $1.2M plane much less $500,000 plane. It's moot point. I own a plane (RV-7) and owned several SE and twins o er 30 yrs.
@@WanderfalkeAT What is dinosaur about the G58 Baron? You mean the advanced Lycoming TIO550's 300 HP and advanced code Hartzell props. The Dimond uses 2 CAR ENGINES and heavy cast iron block that make 180 HP. Diesel? Diesel has been around 100 years. Oh so advanced. Ha ha. The Baron is roomy and can carry cargo with large cargo doors. In the back you can have club seating for 4 and a table.. Dimond DA62 is tiny toy plastic plane the snugly fits 4 ppl like a sports car and a few bags. So advanced. Ha ha. Continental TSIO550 uses electrically independent magnetos and mechanical fuel injection independent of batter alternator of aircraft electrical system. The Dimond Electronic Iginition and EFI is dependent on battery/alternator. A crash of DA62 due to jumping dead battery to get started and flying battery failed and electrical system failed, both engines stopped, plane crashed. So advanced? BTW you can get full FADEC single lever Continental 550 as used in Cirrus SR22. You can get certfied self powered Electronic Iginition independent of electrical system called "Surefly". Magnetos put out very hot 🔥 spark and reliable. Very little different in performance to EI. Again a few percent more efficient at high altitude and low power. However a Lycoming or Continental aircraft engine are direct drive purposes built engines with over 1/2 million flying, state of art manufacturing, QC, experience. The DA62 Austro is a Merc car engine with a reduction gear box (PSRU). These will fail not if but when. You don't know what you are talking about. $1.2M for a 4 place plane is not a good value. Speed and economy are not different or different enough to make me care from a logical choice. An emotional choice like yours "it's advanced" looks sexu is stupid.
@@gmcjetpilot Such an accident as you describe sounds like a pilot that does not have a clue about the aircraft they are flying. I think your point does indicate that battery life is important in the event of an alternator/generator failure which implies there should be a monitoring system to detect aging batteries. I'd be curious if there were battery health warnings ignored in that incident, or if jumpstarting is an approved procedure there. In any case if it is critical, I can't fathom why one wouldn't keep a spare battery on hand. Batteries are consumable items. Hell, I do that for my race car and sometimes for my road cars and they won't fall out of the sky and kill me. Also curious, did the pilot survive that crash?
There is much more to say in comparing to aircraft and just those facts. A club configuration is much more attractive than what diamond has to offer. On the other hand the diamond is cheaper to operate easier to fly and as far as I know it’s safer and more modern airplane. It would be interesting to discuss with a shorter one way it’s relevant at all for the kind of people who have the money to operate such an airplane especially in Europe small airplanes are so far away from town that I don’t think it would make much sense to access small airports just the distance to get. To the airport but you have your airplane standing take so much time in Germany for example that you were in no case be faster at your destination by using a plane like this compared to using a jet airliner.
What is the major reasons today's manufactures choose NOT to install as an option parachutes? Is it that their engineers can not comprehend how to or is it too much money installing cloth to back of planes in case of emergencies or do companies accountants decide saving a few pennies is cheaper than the pilots life? if Diamond had a side option that installation of parachutes they would be unstoppable in all their models. People would think twice about choosing a Baron or Cirrus.
G58 baron i own 3 of them they are the best in terms of payload reliability range im sure the other plane is good too but has nothing on the baron by Beechcraft
have a nice day. max speed. 275-300 mph. range 2000 mph. Two-seater plane for $200,000. A 4-seater plane for $300,000. Can I have it done to you or others? please provide information. thanks.
As someone who cannot afford either of these planes plus not having a license, I believe my entitled ass would like the diamond because of the shorter landing and take offs. Plus looks cooler more luxury like a Bentley.
I only find one glaring Omission for claiming that the diamond da62 is a thoroughly modern and safe aircraft in every respect. How is it that they do not make the aircraft with counter-rotating props????? It can't be that it's difficult to make an engine run opposite direction. We've had Marine older versions of aircraft engines for decades that run opposite directions. Just two days ago I saw a video on the diamond da62, and it shows a useful load of 1300 pounds not 1500. Why is different videos showing different useful loads for the same aircraft?
The Baron G58 all the way.. Classic looking plane, Proven record. Just a great looking and well built plane. The Diamond DA62 reminds me of a Tomahawk PA-38 on steroids. Just doesn't cut the mustard. Ugly.
I don't see the point of the comparison.. Almost 1k ft less landing strip required. No mention of gallons per hour and jet fuel The Diamond is very low.. but 240 hp less
Bottom line: Cost of flying has risen so much it's rarely a cost effective option when compared with vehicles. And it sucks. But when all the hassles and time and money are considered there is no way it makes sense unless you are making money doing it. Very sad
Previous post is correct. The lower fuel burn of the DA 62 means that for a given range the DA 62 can carry more payload in the cabin because it doesn’t need to carry as much fuel. I was surprised by the difference in climb performance, but that is due to the considerably higher power (and fuel burn) of the Baron. The Baron is so much more expensive to buy and feed that it is hard to justify, but it sure looks better (IMO). The DA 62 is so angular. It looks like it was carved from a block of carbon fiber with an axe. The nacelles are cancerous looking - a bulge here, a random lump there, an intake on, oh I don’t know, how about here. But not one on the other side. Good heavens. At this price point looks count. Yes, it’s the smart choice. But you get tickets for defacing public property every time you pull it on the ramp! No doubt some people like the looks of the DA62, but some people thought Phyllis Deller was cute too.
I have flown a lot in one and none in the other, but I'd have to go with the one that has withstood the test of time. The Beech Baron. I've been out of the business of flying for a while, but heck, I thought Diamond made 2 strokes, etc. Guess I've been out of the loop for a while. Still, I'd have to go with the 58. It's been proven for a LONG, LONG time. Just as the King Air series and Cessna Citation series have.
The worst comparison on my opinion 1. Diamond burn much less and has way bigger range 2. Diamond safety features beats all of possible advantages Baron might have 3. Diamond is 10 times not just safer but also easier to fly and fully operated by computer All those other specs mentioned can be just read in a comparison table, no need to make a video for that
I think the DA62 looks a lot nicer and modern. The rear seats are higher so legs are more comfortable. It's much more modern design and needs servicing every 100 hours as opposed to 50 hours.
Quite the contrary. I have people always comment how cool the plane looks. Even had a controller once tell me "you get the cool plane of the day award".
The DA62 won’t fit in a T-hangar
Get another hangar.
You telling me you can afford a $1.4 million plane and you can't buy a hangar with a 15M door? My hangar fits my 22M Duo Discus, and it don't cost 1/10th of what a DA62 cost.
There is a big difference in range once fuel consumption is taken into account with typical load. The DA62 burns far less fuel and therefore enables a heavier payload to go further. The DA62 is also much better at dissipating turbulence with it's high-aspect carbon wings. I went for a flight in a DA62 in rough weather a few weeks ago and then immediately flew in the same weather in my Cessna Skylane and was blown away with how much smoother the ride was in the DA62. I want one!
Yeah, thar might be true, but expect to pay about 600-900k more for that
I believe the diamond has an Advantage with safety why was that not mention
Thinking the same thing. Nothing mentioned about stall, stability etc.
My god right?? The cockpit can withstand 25g impact. The seats are designed for impact. The FADEC engines where a loss of engine isn’t a catastrophic situation unless you are super experienced.
Because the presenter is bias
the whole reason i took interest in diamond aircraft was the exceptional safety!
I like the ease of entry that the DA62 provides with the open out doors on both sides of the aircraft . The DA62 meets all the needs for use as a GA aircraft . It is also easer to operate than the Baron G58 . I give the DA62 my vote!
Spent a delightful day in August 2018 at the Diamond Factory in Vienna, including an opportunity to fly the DA62. So different from the typical piston twin! Single lever power control vs three levers for each engine, hot starts were a non-event, and engine shutdown/feathering prop is simple and automatic. Aircraft beautifully finished with build quality better than anything I have seen in GA. Burning Jet-A is also a plus and likely to become even more desirable in the next 5-10 years. We almost purchased one but in end decided to go with M350....largely due to pressurization.
Sounds like a lot of fun and I agree that Jet A pistons will become more desirable
@@marlintheaviator Pressurization was the deal breaker. What's the point 20,000 feet if not pressurized?
@@raymondb7664 It has oxygen system for all occupants, so you just need to wear an oxygen mask.
We have been going through the pre-purchase process for 14 months and the different paths we take always lead us to the Piper m350.
Are you happy with the M350 in general?
Can you tell us about the cons of the M350 based on your experiences?
@@joakoc.6235 Having done lots of Flight Level flying in unpressurized aircraft breathing oxygen I can assure you there is a world of difference in terms of comfort and likely safety between being in a a 20K cabin at 20K feet and say a 6K cabin at 20K feet. The oxygen keeps your blood oxygenated but the rest of your body is still 20K feet up, not a place humans are designed to operate particularly if you get there from sea level in 30 minutes. Not to mention discomfort of wearing mask above FL180, makes it hard to eat, drink, and in general be comfortable. Pressurization is a whole different level of comfort.
A few years ago I researched the DA62 fairly deeply. There are somethings just out of view about Diamond that pose some really interesting possibilities.
First, Diamond doesn't seem particularly market driven. They have made several large advances in technology and construction for which they are not given sufficient credit.
The safety of the entire Diamond line is superb due to the care with which the fuel system and energy absorption features are designed and built. These are far and away the safest general aviation craft. There are a few negatives to the parachute systems on the other make of aircraft. Should Diamond wish to install parachutes, and produced them with similar levels of engineering the use in crash worthiness, they would be unstoppable. Also, Diamond had exhibited automated detection of a disabled pilot and automatic landing a long ways back, 2009 perhaps, I'm unsure of the year. The 62 has an airborne version of electronic stability control to keep pilots out of trouble such as stall/spins.
Also, the DA50, which has had a 15 year career as vaporware, maybe coming to fruition in the next several months. It looks like a DA62 single engine with retractable gear. The DA50 is reputed to have a larger jet a engine than the 62. There have been some changes since I examined the line, but I think a 300hp Jet A will be on the DA50, at least in some markets. I don't know if the 50 will be faster than the 62.
Now, it is apparent that the 62 is loaded very conservatively. Once the 50's larger diesels have a track record, I can't help but believe they will migrate to the twin engine configuration.
So, as autoland becomes widespread in GA, these are increasingly desireable aircraft. Imagine a high horsepower DA62, hopefully the full 600hp, with ESP, autoland, Jet A engines, OMG.
Please Diamond, hit high gear on product development! Your potential is amazing.
So amazing..
600hp engines mean $$$$ op costs, no two ways about it. DA-62 doesn't need more than 400hp to reach GREATER speeds, and range, and useful load - than a gas-guzzling twin from the 60s. Because carbon fiber, long and thin wings, and no rivets, and dramatically more aerodynamic shape. Rate of climb is the only thing you can't trick, it's physics. So it will be lower than that of a 600hp machine of same weight. I'd be fine with that.
Marlin, the challenge I have with this comparison is the price of fuel. The Barron uses AV Fuel/100LL and the DA62 uses Jet A or even Diesel fuel. Both are much cheaper than 100LL. I feel with DA62 costing a full $450K+ less (Barron is almost 50% more!!) and the cheaper fuel (operating costs), the greater speed of the Barron is nullified. DA62 wins.
For sure!!!!
Not only that, but we’re talking about a WHOPPING difference of 10kts. BFD.
Baron owner here. You can typically land a Baron in 1400-1600ft, distance no obstacle clearance. Also normal cruise is 185-195 ktas. It’s not uncommon to cruise at 200 ktas at only 2300rpms, but 200 is not our max cruise speed. 2-engine Initial climb rate is between +1700 to +3000fpm. For example, my SOP is +3000 fpm to 3000ft (@ our climb cruise speed of 130 Kias), then +1000fpm to 10, 11, or 13,000ft.
They are solid planes no doubt. It’s just sad that with other companies making huge leaps in safety and technology ie: reduced pilot workload, automatic engine fuel management, beech is stuck in 1961.
There are planes that can literally return to the airport and land at the push of a button, but baron is still manual props and mixture. Lol
A lot are dismissive of the Baron. A couple of things, it’s been around a LONG time - has to be a reason for that. Second and importantly is dealer network Textron/Beechcraft has a larger support base globally - something that in aviation should never be dismissed.
Every other manufacturer has strived for new technologies, advancement in extreme avionics capabilities, safety, and reduced pilot workload with automated engine fuel management and constant speed props.
Beech CEOs and engineers: “Na we good. 1961 technology is fine”
Great points. Also, you can go on controller and buy a 1961 baron right now. How confident are you that you will be able to buy a 2022 da62 in the year 2083? There is something to be said about proven technology and engineering when you are sinking > $ 1,000,000 into an aircraft.
"A couple of things, it’s been around a LONG time - has to be a reason for that."
- same as any other well-known American airplane. Sure, there are reasons for GA producing 50+ year old designs to this day, but they aren't particularly good reasons, and they don't mean that it's a rationally good idea to keep sticking to these dinosaurs in 2022 and beyond.
@@keithkarner3294 Most non-pressurized GA planes tend to have long service lives. Its pretty much all about the frame. Most of the aircrafts from the 60's and 70's have had pretty much every other part replaced. I don't see any evidence that a well built carbon fiber frame isn't going to last as long.
You did a great job of a short form vlog comparing these two planes! My understanding is the DA62 is easier to get insurance on, but I have not confirmed this.
Besides all the safety improvements the Diamond aircraft has, it uses a much more prevalent and less expensive fuel. It also uses liquid engine cooling which reduces engine management stress during high altitude descents.
I was kind of wondering about the climb speed, and I went back and looked, and that 1,029 f/m climb speed is a cruise climb. A FLYING article from 2016 indicates at a cruise climb of 128 knots at mid weights would give you 1,200 fpm, while FLYING also stated that at a cruise climb of 158 knots in the Baron only produces 800 fpm. So, I think, realistically, that the climb rates for both aircraft aren't nearly as far off as it might seem.
The technology that goes into the DA62 just shows the difference between what was designed in the 1940s and 1950s, when the Bonanza came out and where we are today. At 185 knots, the DA62 is burning 17 gallons per hour, which is about 88% power. At 75% power for the G58, which is what gives you that 202 knot cruise speed, you're burning 32 gallons of fuel per hour, or, almost double the amount of fuel burned per hour. Our local FBO has Full Serve 100LL at $5.86 per gallon and JetA at $4.67 per gallon. That's a 15 gallon per hour difference, or $108 per hour in just fuel costs alone savings in the DA62. The max full fuel in the DA62 is 86 gallons, in the Baron, it's 192 gallons. Fill up from empty is $401 for the DA62, $1,125 for the Baron.
The DA62 stall characteristics are far superior, as well. Hold the stick back, and she'll stall, and will just come down, straight ahead, nose up, and you can even roll it somewhat. Then, engine out is a dream. Reach up and turn the switch off after identifying the bad engine. That's all there is to it. Try that in a Baron. The DA62 actually has a higher single engine service ceiling, of 13.000' versus less than 8,000' for the Baron.
Hey, I like Beechcraft, but I don't like them enough to spend that much more money on them. Steel Aviation is listing a 2023 DA62 for $1.25M, while the Baron is about $250,000 more, at $1.5M. So, yeah, I think if I were in the market for an airplane like this, the DA62 would be my choice, without question. Easier to fly, less expensive to fly, lower carbon footprint, and a far newer design with improved safety as part of the design.
Easy choice the DA62
Beech’s technology was the best at its time, Diamond is today’s technology and the result of more advanced research and development. Blue skies to all.
True talk.
50 years of R&D actually improved aircraft design. Who would've thought, right? What I don't get is why a lot of people still stick to Cessnas and other designs virtually unchanged since the 60s, but somehow still in production today. Would anyone buy a 60s car today (for practical purposes, collectors and car geeks don't count) ? No? Then why the F are C-182T still selling for $700k+ ?!?!
Really depends on what your priorities are. If you want to get there faster, get the Baron. If you want to burn less fuel and use Jet A, get the Diamond. Also Diamond has an impeccable safety record. Something to consider.
I really appreciate your comparisons. The only thing I would have liked is the fuel burn at max cruise for both planes. I realize there is a lot that can be inferred by the difference in operating costs.
DA62 is the more modern and safer machine here
The diamodt DA62, this a win
I like both the DA and the Beech. But, if I had a $1M+ budget and were looking for a twin with any kind of carrying capabilities, I’d buy a turboprop twin. Yea the cost per hour would be higher, but I think the tradeoffs would be worth it. A nicely equipped King Air 90 with time on the engines and props is a strong competitor in my opinion.
I love both aircraft but the sleek lines of the DA62 have grown on me. Too bad I can't afford one lol
Someday you will, if you really want one
Cool video! Thanks man
I love Beechcraft products, especially the Bonanzas and Barons. But if I was investing in a new aircraft it wouldn't even be a debate between the G58 and DA62....I'd take the Diamond in a heartbeat. The sophistication of the powerplants, amazing systems redundancy, the benefit of burning JetA, the fuel economy.....the list of advantages is very long. Just just need a very wide hangar door with the DA62!
And the best thing is that if you have a Hummve with an engine rated for JP8 you can also run Jet A in it, buy it in bulk.
Philip likes both airoplanes they will both do a outstanding job I like the look of the beach craft baron presentation and the colours of the airoplane. But still like the diamond da62.both out standing airoplanes philip.
I agree, they both are great airplanes!
do you always refer to yourself in 3r person
I looked very hard at the DA-62 and truly wanted to purchase one but there is one GIANT problem with the DA-62 that forced me another direction...the Wingspan. At 48' your hangar options will be severely limited. At my local airport (2R4), there is only one hangar that will hold the DA-62 and that hangar has been leased for 10 years. Sadly the DA-62 won't work for me unless I move or am willing to drive over an hour to the airport.
there is one option. I own a DA62 an have it in a large hangar with other planes but a friend who owns one put his on a sled and slides in the hangar slightly sideways....a creative solutions that cost him a couple Gs but paid for itself the 1st year relative to a larger hangar.
Come on guys.. million $ airplane.. Throw up a $25,000 hanger and park it. The DA62 really shows how to use brain instead of muscle.
@@johnmayfield4769 HUH? Where? I don't own an airfield. Also, you are most certainly disconnected from the reality of construction prices currently.
100 % DA 62 linda máquina a evolução na avião
Shine bright like a diamond 💎
What about cabin width and accident rate as well as single engine handling issues like I hear the Baron has
It's like comparing A220 with B727.
DA62!
Good choice
Круто! Хорошие самолёты:)...
Thanks. which one is stable fly when one engine quit?
DA62 is better.
DA62 is better
Hands down,,, the DA62. 1 engine is almost a non event. did it today for training....twice.
A spec sheet comparison is just that, let’s see where the DA-62 is in 20 years
Good review - thanks.
I'd say it's a case of horses for courses, the Baron still holds its own, but the Diamond is more economical across the board and seems to have better, more modern, safety features. Plus the Diamond probably handles certain wx better and has lots of modern innovations that make living with it easier and more pleasurable?
Both nice aircraft and I'd be happy if either one were given to me👍🤞😊
😄
No comparison: DA wins for modernity on all counts. And I am a long time Beechcraft owner operator. The DA62 has markedly superior structural integrity than anything made by the United States traditional GA manufacturers. Payload w full fuel is off the charts for the Diamond. The seats are not false advertising. Those diesels operate far more like a modern auto engine. A G58 w 194 gallon tanks full will haul 395#'s. The DA62 w 85 gallons topped off will carry almost 1000#'s. It's carbon development vs no genuine innovation in 40 years.
Its a pitty that Beech dropped the Starship One. One of the best composites of its time and far safer than the Barron.
Beechcraft is an amazing company they have a proven track record with the King Air series. The Barron G58 is not a King Air though it is nice. People need to actually REALLY look at the Diamond DA62 then they will understand what Diamond actually created. This comparison of brochure specs does nothing for each plane. I was a skeptic of the DA62, and now that I am much more informed...the aircraft is just brilliant through and through. P.S. Jet-A really is better than AV Gas. Diamond perfectly demonstrates why.
Never flown a 62, but flown a DA-40 a few times and it's DRAMATICALLY better than any old C-172 or 182 or 210 in our flight club. I just can't understand why anyone would still buy those dinosaurs new for $500-$750k in 2022, when a brand new DA-40 costs about the same but for SO MUCH MORE aircraft. In every role imaginable. Except maybe spin training.
What about single engine climb performance? Thats super important if flying with high density altitudes.
I am surprised the price of the Beech is such higher than the Diamond since it is older technology
It's really not. The DA62 is $1.4MM the way almost everyone equips it.
The RUclipsr appears to be providing price for the Diamond DA42, not the DA62 which is $1.4 million.
DA62 more modern fuel management and better operative costs/h is convincing
I've very surprised there was no mention of the safety engineering that went into the DA62. The cockpit is similar in structural integrity as an F1 monocoque cockpit. The fuel tanks and fuel lines in the DA62 significantly reduce the risk of fire in the event of a crash. The flight controls of the DA62 do not rely on cables. The wing design decreases the chance of stall and helps mitigate that stall if incurred. Design isn't something quantifiable in data points but the DA62 has the exterior design and interior elegance of a high end luxury sedan. A whole video could have been made on the differences in the enjoins, starting with liquid cooling and FADEC for the DA62.
Well the thing is, if I was to buy a newly built today then I'll definitely pick the DA62. Don't get me wrong tho, the Beechcraft Baron is an amazing aircraft. It's just that by today's standards, other than the Garmin NXi, the Baron is an outdated aircraft. Though, without the Baron, there won't be the DA62.
I'd pick the Baron then look into adding HP to the engines.
Use real world numbers. Max altitude, range and speed are unreal in daily life.
My thoughts? I think I would not like to pay the operating costs for either!
Never flew a DA-62, but flew a DA-40 a few times. Day and night compared to any Cessna 172 or 182 I've flown before. The only thing the DA-40 could improve on is the engine. It comes with either the old, 100LL-burning IO-360, or the Austro-4 which is nicer but kinda underpowered while 100 lbs heavier.
I'd put a 200hp turbocharged UL-520 (the new-ish flat-6 engine by UL power - as of now found only in experimentals) into a DA-40 if I ever bought one and was willing to make it an experimental. The UL engines can't burn diesel or Jet-A, but run on mogas (can use avgas, too - much like a Rotax).
Or, if Rotax would ever make a 6-cylinder ~180..240 hp engine... we can wish, heh.
In theory, the Diamond clearly wins. Unfortunately, the reality is very different. Our Diamond DA42 produces a lot of error messages and therefore has to be taken to the maintenance again and again. This year we haven't been able to fly since August, and today it's December. Perhaps the DA62 is already more reliable.
Da62 all the way
i like both but i like the baron more because you can adda turbine engine option that stops way faster than the legacy baron and is just a DA-62 but faster I mean they are a close match
In my opinion, The Beechcraft is good when it comes to payload however, it’s performance is quickly being overpassed by the Diamond
Diamond is my preference
I don’t know how much the Baron’s few higher capabilities factor in when it costs 1.5x the DA62 AND the 62 also only consumes something like 6gph per engine at cruise (65 or 75%) at the cost of JetA vs. Avga$. Another thing that paces the DA62 WAY above the Baron is its stall behavior…I’ve never seen such a stable airframe at full stall OR seen someone recover from a stall so effortlessly. Either way, the Diamond is worth a look. 🖖😎👍
easy, analyzed both, own diamond 62
Here is a big difference is a nice late model Baron 58 is $300K and the other is $1.25M..... So the diamond cost 4 times. Yes a brand new G58 is about the same price, but why pay a million for Piston twin you can get for much less that does 95% of what the new plane does. (your price for the Diamond is not correct, that is bear bones and no one buys it like this. Like wise a Baron G58 can be had for less than the price you report.... )
Pretty stupid to compare a very used Aircraft to a brand new one anyway. However that Beechcraft is still seeling this Dinosaur New is telling me something - No Innovation! And that Americans are fine with that. Like they also love to drive Vintage Cars!
@@WanderfalkeAT No. It's stupid to not compare. That is why you are you. Ha ha. The Baron is larger with cargo doors. Dimond DA62 is based on a 4 plc single seat plane. Efficiency? The difference is measured in a few percent. If you can afford to own and fly either plane you are not sweeting a few bucks fuel cost. Don't be stupid. You will never own a $1.2M plane much less $500,000 plane. It's moot point. I own a plane (RV-7) and owned several SE and twins o er 30 yrs.
@@WanderfalkeAT What is dinosaur about the G58 Baron? You mean the advanced Lycoming TIO550's 300 HP and advanced code Hartzell props. The Dimond uses 2 CAR ENGINES and heavy cast iron block that make 180 HP. Diesel? Diesel has been around 100 years. Oh so advanced. Ha ha.
The Baron is roomy and can carry cargo with large cargo doors. In the back you can have club seating for 4 and a table.. Dimond DA62 is tiny toy plastic plane the snugly fits 4 ppl like a sports car and a few bags. So advanced. Ha ha.
Continental TSIO550 uses electrically independent magnetos and mechanical fuel injection independent of batter alternator of aircraft electrical system. The Dimond Electronic Iginition and EFI is dependent on battery/alternator. A crash of DA62 due to jumping dead battery to get started and flying battery failed and electrical system failed, both engines stopped, plane crashed. So advanced?
BTW you can get full FADEC single lever Continental 550 as used in Cirrus SR22. You can get certfied self powered Electronic Iginition independent of electrical system called "Surefly". Magnetos put out very hot 🔥 spark and reliable. Very little different in performance to EI. Again a few percent more efficient at high altitude and low power. However a Lycoming or Continental aircraft engine are direct drive purposes built engines with over 1/2 million flying, state of art manufacturing, QC, experience. The DA62 Austro is a Merc car engine with a reduction gear box (PSRU). These will fail not if but when.
You don't know what you are talking about. $1.2M for a 4 place plane is not a good value. Speed and economy are not different or different enough to make me care from a logical choice. An emotional choice like yours "it's advanced" looks sexu is stupid.
@@gmcjetpilot Such an accident as you describe sounds like a pilot that does not have a clue about the aircraft they are flying. I think your point does indicate that battery life is important in the event of an alternator/generator failure which implies there should be a monitoring system to detect aging batteries. I'd be curious if there were battery health warnings ignored in that incident, or if jumpstarting is an approved procedure there. In any case if it is critical, I can't fathom why one wouldn't keep a spare battery on hand. Batteries are consumable items. Hell, I do that for my race car and sometimes for my road cars and they won't fall out of the sky and kill me. Also curious, did the pilot survive that crash?
The DA62 is the bees knees
I like the diamod aircraft.
Well it sounds like the diamond can take off and land better than the baron and the cost operate is cheaper. So what if it goes a little slower
Diamond every day and always.
There is much more to say in comparing to aircraft and just those facts.
A club configuration is much more attractive than what diamond has to offer. On the other hand the diamond is cheaper to operate easier to fly and as far as I know it’s safer and more modern airplane. It would be interesting to discuss with a shorter one way it’s relevant at all for the kind of people who have the money to operate such an airplane especially in Europe small airplanes are so far away from town that I don’t think it would make much sense to access small airports just the distance to get. To the airport but you have your airplane standing take so much time in Germany for example that you were in no case be faster at your destination by using a plane like this compared to using a jet airliner.
What is the major reasons today's manufactures choose NOT to install as an option parachutes? Is it that their engineers can not comprehend how to or is it too much money installing cloth to back of planes in case of emergencies or do companies accountants decide saving a few pennies is cheaper than the pilots life? if Diamond had a side option that installation of parachutes they would be unstoppable in all their models. People would think twice about choosing a Baron or Cirrus.
DA62 is clear winner to me. Beechcraft gonna cost more to operate also
G58 baron i own 3 of them they are the best in terms of payload reliability range im sure the other plane is good too but has nothing on the baron by Beechcraft
how is the a62 larger than the barron and it looks like the da could fit in the barrons backseat ffs lol
DA62 all the way!
have a nice day. max speed. 275-300 mph. range 2000 mph. Two-seater plane for $200,000. A 4-seater plane for $300,000. Can I have it done to you or others? please provide information. thanks.
As someone who cannot afford either of these planes plus not having a license, I believe my entitled ass would like the diamond because of the shorter landing and take offs. Plus looks cooler more luxury like a Bentley.
Keep the faith! You can have your license and plane, work towards it
I only find one glaring Omission for claiming that the diamond da62 is a thoroughly modern and safe aircraft in every respect.
How is it that they do not make the aircraft with counter-rotating props?????
It can't be that it's difficult to make an engine run opposite direction. We've had Marine older versions of aircraft engines for decades that run opposite directions.
Just two days ago I saw a video on the diamond da62, and it shows a useful load of 1300 pounds not 1500. Why is different videos showing different useful loads for the same aircraft?
The Diamond all the way
The Baron G58 all the way.. Classic looking plane, Proven record. Just a great looking and well built plane.
The Diamond DA62 reminds me of a Tomahawk PA-38 on steroids. Just doesn't cut the mustard. Ugly.
And, you can't get these engines overhauled - you have to buy new engines at the TBO, @ $100,000 each...!!
🇩🇿🇩🇿🇩🇿👌🏻👌🏻
Amazing Aircraft but no go on gravel runways....
I don't see the point of the comparison..
Almost 1k ft less landing strip required.
No mention of gallons per hour and jet fuel
The Diamond is very low.. but 240 hp less
Bottom line: Cost of flying has risen so much it's rarely a cost effective option when compared with vehicles. And it sucks. But when all the hassles and time and money are considered there is no way it makes sense unless you are making money doing it. Very sad
✔
Previous post is correct. The lower fuel burn of the DA 62 means that for a given range the DA 62 can carry more payload in the cabin because it doesn’t need to carry as much fuel. I was surprised by the difference in climb performance, but that is due to the considerably higher power (and fuel burn) of the Baron. The Baron is so much more expensive to buy and feed that it is hard to justify, but it sure looks better (IMO). The DA 62 is so angular. It looks like it was carved from a block of carbon fiber with an axe. The nacelles are cancerous looking - a bulge here, a random lump there, an intake on, oh I don’t know, how about here. But not one on the other side. Good heavens. At this price point looks count. Yes, it’s the smart choice. But you get tickets for defacing public property every time you pull it on the ramp! No doubt some people like the looks of the DA62, but some people thought Phyllis Deller was cute too.
I have flown a lot in one and none in the other, but I'd have to go with the one that has withstood the test of time. The Beech Baron. I've been out of the business of flying for a while, but heck, I thought Diamond made 2 strokes, etc. Guess I've been out of the loop for a while. Still, I'd have to go with the 58. It's been proven for a LONG, LONG time. Just as the King Air series and Cessna Citation series have.
The worst comparison on my opinion
1. Diamond burn much less and has way bigger range
2. Diamond safety features beats all of possible advantages Baron might have
3. Diamond is 10 times not just safer but also easier to fly and fully operated by computer
All those other specs mentioned can be just read in a comparison table, no need to make a video for that
G58 hands down.
Good choice
Hard pass on those diesels...
The Baron is great, the other thing is ugly.
30 second commercials = thumbs down
It's pronounced "Bare-on". NOT "Baaarn". Speak English...!!
It sounds like you're talking with In your mouth.
the DA62 is the more modern airplane, and has a smoother ride. But it is considered by many also as the much uglier plane. No ramp appeal.
I think the DA62 looks a lot nicer and modern. The rear seats are higher so legs are more comfortable. It's much more modern design and needs servicing every 100 hours as opposed to 50 hours.
The funniest think I ever heard about the DA62 was that it looked like a sperm cell 😆😆😆😆 (once you see it you can't un-see it)
Quite the contrary. I have people always comment how cool the plane looks. Even had a controller once tell me "you get the cool plane of the day award".
Ramp appeal is subjective and not everyone will agree with the statement that the DA62 is uglier.