Owning before obtaining a PP license

[New Pilot]

Hello all,

Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
getting the PPL ticket.

Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will probably
get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
Cirri SR22.

Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also that
there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain some
experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?

Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford to
pay cash for them?

Thanks in advance,

A Newbie Pilot

[Kyle Boatright]

Don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars before you get your license.
You may find that you don't like flying, or you don't have one of the
necessary skills to be a safe pilot, particularly in a higher performance
airplane. Wait until you know what type of flyer you are (or will be) and
pick a suitable airplane at the time.

If you're thinking Cirrus long term, when the time comes to buy, get a
Tomahawk, Cherokee, or Grumman to get a feel for low wing aircraft and
systems. That'll make the transition to the Cirrus easier, and you won't
lose too much money on any of those aircraft. In addition, if you really
want to do a lease-back, those airplanes will be affordable enough that you
might actually rent them enough so you don't lose your shirt. Unless you
live in the perfect environment (plenty of people with money and free time,
plus excellent weather), I don't see how you'd do enough rental business on
a Cirrus to even put a dent in the ownership cost.


"New Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello all,
>
> Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
> getting the PPL ticket.
>
> Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
> being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will
> probably
> get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
> Cirri SR22.
>
> Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also
> that
> there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
> sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain
> some
> experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?
>
> Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
> good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford
> to
> pay cash for them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> A Newbie Pilot
>
>

[Jim H]

Ask your tax professional if you would benefit from sec 179 depreciation.

As far as Cirrus specific information, check out the Cirrus Owners and
Pilots Association at http://www.cirruspilots.org/ . Spend the $50 to join,
it'll pay for itself many times.

If you are halfway through your training and pretty sure you will continue
with it, by all means get on the ownership train.

Jim


"New Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello all,
>
> Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
> getting the PPL ticket.
>
> Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
> being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will
> probably
> get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
> Cirri SR22.
>
> Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also
> that
> there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
> sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain
> some
> experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?
>
> Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
> good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford
> to
> pay cash for them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> A Newbie Pilot
>
>

[Dude]

If you are sure you want to be an owner, then don't let not having a license
stop you. Lot's of people, including me, bought before they got the PPL.
Purchase and ownership do take time though, so you are likely delaying your
PPL completion.

The SR22 is too much plane for many folks with 10 times your experience. In
order to get one of those, and be able to fly it, you will pay HUGE amounts
in insurance and training costs.

I suggest buying something much more docile if you really want to own now.
Wait until you have an IFR and a few hundred hours before getting that much
airplane. Yes, they are nice and fast, and have long legs, but a 182 or
Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.

If you plan to use depreciation, make sure you want to own a plane for life
(otherwise, you have to pay it back).

Lastly, if you really, really want to get up to an SR22 soon, buy a late
model plane but not new. New planes take a big hit in the first two years,
so if you are trading up quickly, its generally better to go used.




"New Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello all,
>
> Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
> getting the PPL ticket.
>
> Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
> being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will
> probably
> get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
> Cirri SR22.
>
> Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also
> that
> there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
> sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain
> some
> experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?
>
> Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
> good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford
> to
> pay cash for them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> A Newbie Pilot
>
>

[tony roberts]

What makes sense economically is to pound a rental plane into the runway
and after you attain your licence and then some - you buy an aircraft
that you look after.

Do you really want to practice landings in your own new Cirrus?

Tony
C-GICE

In article >,
"New Pilot" > wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
> getting the PPL ticket.
>
> Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
> being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will probably
> get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
> Cirri SR22.
>
> Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also that
> there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
> sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain some
> experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?
>
> Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
> good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford to
> pay cash for them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> A Newbie Pilot




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Jon Kraus]

I agree.... I won't even do T & G's in my "new" '79 Mooney.... I'd much
rather pound the hell out of a rental 172 (at least try not to pound)
then and aircraft I am going to have to repair. Gosh that makes me sound
pretty insensitive doesn't it? JK


tony roberts wrote:

> What makes sense economically is to pound a rental plane into the runway
> and after you attain your licence and then some - you buy an aircraft
> that you look after.
>
> Do you really want to practice landings in your own new Cirrus?
>
> Tony
> C-GICE
>
> In article >,
> "New Pilot" > wrote:
>
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
>>getting the PPL ticket.
>>
>>Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
>>being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will probably
>>get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
>>Cirri SR22.
>>
>>Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also that
>>there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
>>sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain some
>>experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?
>>
>>Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
>>good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford to
>>pay cash for them?
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>A Newbie Pilot
>
>
>
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

"New Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello all,
>
> Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
> getting the PPL ticket.
>
> Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
> being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will
probably
> get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
> Cirri SR22.

You've probably heard the saying that "A fool and his money will soon have
more airplane than either can handle." You're probably not a fool but it's a
wise statement to heed nonetheless.

> Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
> good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford
to
> pay cash for them?

There's only one kind of new asset that stands a good chance of appreciating
over time: a house. And that works only because they ain't makin' any more
land. If you want to preserve your equity buy a low-time plane that's 10-20
years old in good shape.

If you do buy a new plane with the intent to do a leaseback you want to buy
a common plane that everyone knows how to fly already. A new 172SP or 182
with the G1000 would be the queen of any rental fleet and would probably get
plenty of usage. Since it's under warranty you won't have to sweat
maintenance costs. Oh, and either of these would be very realistic planes to
learn to fly in and not get murdered on insurance. I'm usually very bearish
on leasebacks but this one could work.

-cwk.

[Dave]

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> .... but a 182 or
> Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.
>

I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
than the Cirrus SR22?

Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
paid.

Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
more with an instructor with time in type.

[George Hamilton]

I bought a J4 when I had three hours instruction. I soloed in it and
flew many hours as a student. You will not beat the system any way
you choose to fly. Private aviation is an extravagence. Business
aviation another story. If you can write it off in the business
great, otherwise open your wallet.
I definately would not buy a relative new design aircraft. After
owning a PA28 -140 for twenty years you would be surprised how the
AD's pop up and take more of your money. Buy a Mooney or fixed gear
Piper. Then move up when you get some experience.

[Blanche]

George Hamilton > wrote:
>I bought a J4 when I had three hours instruction. I soloed in it and
>flew many hours as a student. You will not beat the system any way
>you choose to fly. Private aviation is an extravagence. Business
>aviation another story. If you can write it off in the business

Define "extravagence" (please take this in the gentle manner it's offered,
the word is "extravagance", but brownie points for using the noun version
properly rather than "extravagant")

I live out in the Rocky Mountains. If I want a day of skiing, lift
tickets are $40-85 per day (yes, I could get a season pass but those
are to specific areas or groups of areas). Transportation, call it
100 miles each way (Vail is 100 sm from my front door) or at 25 mpg
in my car, 8 gallons or $16. Don't forget lunch. Let's be pragmatic.
If I'm spending over $100/day, another $5-10 for lunch isn't going
to be the deciding issue. I moved to Colorado to ski and used to
get in 50-60 days. No more - I took up flying when I quit skiing.
If I were skiing that much the $300-400 season ticket would be
the first thing to buy. But cheap season tickets didn't exist
when I was skiing like that, so it wasn't difficult to spend
$4000 (now it wouldbe $5K-6K) just on lift tickets in a season.

Wait! Forgot the gear (warm clothes, boots, skis or board). Not
that many people out here buy new gear every year. I've still got
my skis and bindings from 10 yrs ago (the "rock skis") and stuff
from 5 years ago. Guess it's time for new stuff. That'll probably
set me back about $450-750 (boots, skis & bindings).

Hm...my fixed costs per year for the cherokee are

Hangar $3000
Insurance $1000
Maint $1000
total 5000

Awfully similar to skiing....

And I get to fly to Sante Fe or Taos for lunch in nice weather and
be home in time for dinner. Or Devil's Tower AND Mt Rushmore in
one day with friends from the flatlands east of the Mississippi.
Or fly to Phoenix in less than 6 hours instead of the 2 days of
driving.

And I can carry nail clippers if I choose!

Extravagance is in the mind of the beholder. I have friends who are
diehard wind surfers -- any time of the year (wetsuits in the winter!).
Sitting on the wall in their garage are 3 boards and sails for each
of them!

Some people would consider stamp collecting, model railroading, or
gardening as extravagances. It's up to each person to decide on the
hobby of choice.

[Mike Rapoport]

The best reason not to buy an airplane before you get your certificate is
that you don't have as clear an idea of what you want now as you will after
your checkride. Another reason is that you are likely to pay over
$10,000/yr for a lot of performance (like de-ice) that you can't use until
you have an instrument rating and that is assuming that anyone will insure
you at any price.

Airplanes aren't investments. There was a period recently where used
airplane appreciated, mostly because the new airplanes weren't improved over
the older ones. Cars would hold their value if manufacturers produced the
same models for decades without improvement. Now that virtually all new
airplanes are being delivered with glass cockpits you can expect the old
ones to continue sliding.

Mike
MU-2


"New Pilot" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello all,
>
> Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
> getting the PPL ticket.
>
> Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
> being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will
> probably
> get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
> Cirri SR22.
>
> Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also
> that
> there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
> sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain
> some
> experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?
>
> Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
> good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford
> to
> pay cash for them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> A Newbie Pilot
>
>

[Dude]

The numbers I heard for a student in a 22 were 14k insurance, and they had
to use a factory course. There is a group out of Oregon that comes to your
airport and trains you. It cannot be cheap.


"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> >...
>> .... but a 182 or
>> Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.
>>
>
> I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
> have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
> than the Cirrus SR22?
>
> Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
> into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
> consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
> you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
> Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
> you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
> paid.
>
> Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
> prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
> real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
> hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
> more with an instructor with time in type.

[Dude]

> I definately would not buy a relative new design aircraft. After
> owning a PA28 -140 for twenty years you would be surprised how the
> AD's pop up and take more of your money. Buy a Mooney or fixed gear
> Piper. Then move up when you get some experience.

I have to disagree. The new Cessna's have had many times more AD's than
Cirrus, Lancair, and Diamond combined. People I know that have fleets are
not happy with Piper either.

[Dude]

I have to disagree with a few other statements I am reading here. I am sure
I will catch it, but the world is changing. Mike makes some good points.
Cessna and Beech will be happy to tell you about demand for the new panels.
It has actually sparked the heresy of proposing new designs within Cessna
(Unless they are keeping the worlds best secret, don't hold your breath).

Buying a 10 to 20 year old aircraft is a way to preserve equity, but not the
best investment for everyone. The cost of maintaining them is much higher,
potentially making it cost even more to own over the long haul than a later
model or new plane. If you count the time to learn about used planes, and
your time managing all the repairs (potentially with technicians from
several companies), it can add up fast.

If you want to go glass, you could likely justify a new glass trainer, and
expect to sell it for about a 40 to 60k loss in 3 years. If you trade it
back to the people that sold it, for one of their bigger models, they
usually cut you a better deal. Otherwise, you have to sell it yourself, or
lose even more.

[Dude]

The numbers I use are the only ones I trust - NTSB incident and fatality
statistics.

The rest is all conjecture, anecdote, and psuedo science. Well, its not
that bad, but I start with the stats, and qualify it from there.

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing better
since they started the factory training. There are lots of theories, but we
really do not know why they have faired so badly. Cirrus has reacted
reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
year or so.

The newer 182's are doing a bit better than the older ones. The Diamond's
have low fleet numbers on the 4 seaters, but the 2 seater is a similar
design, and is so much safer than anything else in the fleet that there have
been serious studies to figure out why. There have been midairs, inverted
landings, IFR CFIT accidents, wire strikes, and cross runway collisions with
the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
employees from them to make the 400.

Aviation Consumer had an excellent article on all this.



"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> >...
>> .... but a 182 or
>> Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.
>>
>
> I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
> have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
> than the Cirrus SR22?
>
> Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
> into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
> consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
> you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
> Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
> you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
> paid.
>
> Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
> prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
> real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
> hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
> more with an instructor with time in type.

[steves]

I am 52 yers old and bought a new 2004 Archer III in January with only
15 hours of time ...which was in a CEssna 172SP. Figured if I was
paying 120 per hour I might as well own.
Received my certificate in August and am working on my instrument. I
love the airplane and have enrolled in Pipers step up Program. I
sometimes do drool over a Beech A36, Saratoga, or maybe Cirrus(not
sure yet because of the insurance and reputation), but I am going to
try to be patient and let my experience match the plane. Good Luck !

Jon Kraus > wrote in message >...
> I agree.... I won't even do T & G's in my "new" '79 Mooney.... I'd much
> rather pound the hell out of a rental 172 (at least try not to pound)
> then and aircraft I am going to have to repair. Gosh that makes me sound
> pretty insensitive doesn't it? JK
>
>
> tony roberts wrote:
>
> > What makes sense economically is to pound a rental plane into the runway
> > and after you attain your licence and then some - you buy an aircraft
> > that you look after.
> >
> > Do you really want to practice landings in your own new Cirrus?
> >
> > Tony
> > C-GICE
> >
> > In article >,
> > "New Pilot" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hello all,
> >>
> >>Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
> >>getting the PPL ticket.
> >>
> >>Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
> >>being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will probably
> >>get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
> >>Cirri SR22.
> >>
> >>Considering that the inflation in this country is picking up, and also that
> >>there is quite a long waitlist for those Cirrus aircraft, would it make
> >>sense for me to place an order now, and until I get my ticket and gain some
> >>experience, to lease the plane back to my local FBO?
> >>
> >>Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
> >>good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford to
> >>pay cash for them?
> >>
> >>Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >>A Newbie Pilot
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >

[T.Roger]

Which Diamond Two Seater? The Katana/Rotax or the current DA20
Eclipse/Evolution?


"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> The numbers I use are the only ones I trust - NTSB incident and fatality
> statistics.
>
> The rest is all conjecture, anecdote, and psuedo science. Well, its not
> that bad, but I start with the stats, and qualify it from there.
>
> The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
> since they started the factory training. There are lots of theories, but
we
> really do not know why they have faired so badly. Cirrus has reacted
> reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
> year or so.
>
> The newer 182's are doing a bit better than the older ones. The Diamond's
> have low fleet numbers on the 4 seaters, but the 2 seater is a similar
> design, and is so much safer than anything else in the fleet that there
have
> been serious studies to figure out why. There have been midairs,
inverted
> landings, IFR CFIT accidents, wire strikes, and cross runway collisions
with
> the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
> hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
> employees from them to make the 400.
>
> Aviation Consumer had an excellent article on all this.
>
>
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> .... but a 182 or
> >> Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.
> >>
> >
> > I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
> > have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
> > than the Cirrus SR22?
> >
> > Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
> > into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
> > consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
> > you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
> > Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
> > you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
> > paid.
> >
> > Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
> > prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
> > real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
> > hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
> > more with an instructor with time in type.
>
>

[Dude]

I don't know if the reports I have seen included the rotax planes or not.
However, there are so few of them that they would make little difference in
the overall numbers.


"T.Roger" > wrote in message
m...
> Which Diamond Two Seater? The Katana/Rotax or the current DA20
> Eclipse/Evolution?
>
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The numbers I use are the only ones I trust - NTSB incident and fatality
>> statistics.
>>
>> The rest is all conjecture, anecdote, and psuedo science. Well, its not
>> that bad, but I start with the stats, and qualify it from there.
>>
>> The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
> better
>> since they started the factory training. There are lots of theories, but
> we
>> really do not know why they have faired so badly. Cirrus has reacted
>> reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
>> year or so.
>>
>> The newer 182's are doing a bit better than the older ones. The
>> Diamond's
>> have low fleet numbers on the 4 seaters, but the 2 seater is a similar
>> design, and is so much safer than anything else in the fleet that there
> have
>> been serious studies to figure out why. There have been midairs,
> inverted
>> landings, IFR CFIT accidents, wire strikes, and cross runway collisions
> with
>> the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
>> hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
>> employees from them to make the 400.
>>
>> Aviation Consumer had an excellent article on all this.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > "Dude" > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >> .... but a 182 or
>> >> Diamond Star won't be that far behind the 22, and they are much safer.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I'm curious to see where this statement comes from. What data do you
>> > have to back up the statement that a Diamond Star or 182 is "safer"
>> > than the Cirrus SR22?
>> >
>> > Aside from that, as a newly minted PPL, most would not advise jumping
>> > into a high-perf airplane. What are you training in? If you like it,
>> > consider buying that model, new or used. Or others similar to it. If
>> > you want to unload that pile of cash, you can spend it nicely on a new
>> > Cessna 172/182 or a Piper Archer. Over $200K. In a year or two
>> > you'll probably be able to sell it for a good percentage of what you
>> > paid.
>> >
>> > Save your pile of cash for down the road when you're adequately
>> > prepared for the step up. And, as others have said, you'll have a
>> > real hard time getting insured as a new pilot, without IFR, with low
>> > hours, in an SR22 to fly it solo. They may even require 50 hours or
>> > more with an instructor with time in type.
>>
>>
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
> since they started the factory training.

How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture is
statistically on shaky ground.

> There are lots of theories, but we
> really do not know why they have faired so badly.

My unqualified conjecture is that aircraft performance has not been taken
sufficiently into account in our understanding of risk. The SR-22 delivers
speeds formerly available only to twins and the most complex singles with
the same number of knobs to twiddle as a 172. But a new SR-22 will nearly
double the cruise speed of a middle-aged 172.

I tend to think, again unqualified opinion, that the Cirrus has been
attracting a dangerous type of pilot. That is, someone with less experience
but a lot of money who sees the high performance only as a benefit and is
lured by an illusion of low complexity.

I'd like to see an analysis of the SR-22 against other types where one
controls for pilot experience. In other words, how do 400-hour Cirrus pilots
do compared to 400-hour A36 pilots? Give a less-experienced or current pilot
the choice between flying an SR-22 and a Bonanza and he'll almost certainly
choose the Cirrus. In fact the risk may be quite comparable.

Also, there's the notion, which I believe very strongly in, that the
parachute creates a false sense of security and entices pilots into trying
things that get them killed in ways the 'chute won't help. As the Lancair
fleet grows we'll see if this holds out, because they offer similar
performance and complexity.

Also, I tend to wonder whether speed brakes wouldn't be a great addition to
the SR-22 that would actually make it safer to fly by making it easier for
the pilot to get rid of speed.

> Cirrus has reacted
> reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
> year or so.

Well, they had to do something--you can't sell a plane that no one will
insure and that's where Cirrus looked to be heading.

From what I've read the SR-22 rates seem to be converging towards those of
the 182, which casts some doubt on my performance-vs-complexity theory. Or
not. If this was a decisive factor it would seem straightforward enough to
incorporate it into the training. This would comport with what we've seen
between owner-flown turbine twins and light jets like the CJ1. The jet may
challenge you with a lot more altitude and cruise speed but it also offers a
lot more tools to manage all that performance. We do know that with proper
training a pilot can operate very high performance aircraft with relatively
few training hours.

> the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
> hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
> employees from them to make the 400.

The kind of crashes that people have survived in Katanas are amazing.
Diamond talks a lot about the 20g cage structure and it seems to really
work.

-cwk.

[Dude]

This is really going off topic, and the debate has been had but...


> ...
>>
>> The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
> better
>> since they started the factory training.
>
How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture is
> statistically on shaky ground.
>

My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which seems
to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those who
refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro Cirrus
crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain number, and
ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever growing history.
In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20 years of records and
will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.

>> There are lots of theories, but we
>> really do not know why they have faired so badly.
>
> My unqualified conjecture is that aircraft performance has not been taken
> sufficiently into account in our understanding of risk. The SR-22 delivers
> speeds formerly available only to twins and the most complex singles with
> the same number of knobs to twiddle as a 172. But a new SR-22 will nearly
> double the cruise speed of a middle-aged 172.
>
> I tend to think, again unqualified opinion, that the Cirrus has been
> attracting a dangerous type of pilot. That is, someone with less
> experience
> but a lot of money who sees the high performance only as a benefit and is
> lured by an illusion of low complexity.
>
> I'd like to see an analysis of the SR-22 against other types where one
> controls for pilot experience. In other words, how do 400-hour Cirrus
> pilots
> do compared to 400-hour A36 pilots? Give a less-experienced or current
> pilot
> the choice between flying an SR-22 and a Bonanza and he'll almost
> certainly
> choose the Cirrus. In fact the risk may be quite comparable.
>
> Also, there's the notion, which I believe very strongly in, that the
> parachute creates a false sense of security and entices pilots into trying
> things that get them killed in ways the 'chute won't help. As the Lancair
> fleet grows we'll see if this holds out, because they offer similar
> performance and complexity.
>

I can't find anything wrong with your statements here, and I tend to agree.
However, the Brothers in Minnesota are still happy to sell an SR22 to anyone
willing to pay for the plane and the training.

> Also, I tend to wonder whether speed brakes wouldn't be a great addition
> to
> the SR-22 that would actually make it safer to fly by making it easier for
> the pilot to get rid of speed.
>

Again, I agree. Unfortunately, the Cirrus owners cry fowl at this heresy
because they say the plane is easy to land. I say its as slick as a Mooney,
and they are a great help in a Mooney.

>> Cirrus has reacted
>> reasonably well, with more training. We will likely know more in another
>> year or so.
>
> Well, they had to do something--you can't sell a plane that no one will
> insure and that's where Cirrus looked to be heading.
>
> From what I've read the SR-22 rates seem to be converging towards those of
> the 182, which casts some doubt on my performance-vs-complexity theory. Or
> not. If this was a decisive factor it would seem straightforward enough to
> incorporate it into the training. This would comport with what we've seen
> between owner-flown turbine twins and light jets like the CJ1. The jet may
> challenge you with a lot more altitude and cruise speed but it also offers
> a
> lot more tools to manage all that performance. We do know that with proper
> training a pilot can operate very high performance aircraft with
> relatively
> few training hours.
>

Certainly. I wonder about judgement though. Also, there is something to be
said for having your first "OH S#*T" experience in something that is slower
and more stable (not to mention crash worthy). Though the numbers on the 22
were headed into the green, I have not seen anyone split out the stats to
show that they are doing that well. Better, but not in Cessna territory.

>> the Diamond's in which the passengers walked away virtually unharmed. I
>> hear that Lancair has looked at Diamond's success, and even hired away
>> employees from them to make the 400.
>
> The kind of crashes that people have survived in Katanas are amazing.
> Diamond talks a lot about the 20g cage structure and it seems to really
> work.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:50:09 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>
>There was a period recently where used
>airplane appreciated, mostly because the new airplanes weren't improved over
>the older ones. Cars would hold their value if manufacturers produced the
>same models for decades without improvement. Now that virtually all new
>airplanes are being delivered with glass cockpits you can expect the old
>ones to continue sliding.

This is an interesting viewpoint, and it will be interesting to see
what happens to the price of used planes. I personally think the used
market will move sideways, perhaps a bit down for a while, largely
driven by increased fuel and insurance costs and the overall economy
reflecting a lack of free cash to indulge in the aviation market.

-Nathan

[C Kingsbury]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> This is really going off topic, and the debate has been had but...

This is Usenet! Just 'cuz the horse is lyin' down and hasn't moved in a week
don't mean we can't kick it again :)

>
> > ...
> >>
> >> The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
> > better
> >> since they started the factory training.
> >
> How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture
is
> > statistically on shaky ground.
> >
>
> My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
> per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
seems
> to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those who
> refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
Cirrus
> crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain number, and
> ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever growing
history.
> In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20 years of records
and
> will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.

There's another rule in statistics that the smallest sample about which you
can make a statistically sound statement is 30. It's statistically dubious
to draw assumptions from very small samples but there's also a point of
diminishing returns to having ever-larger sample sizes.

> I can't find anything wrong with your statements here, and I tend to
agree.
> However, the Brothers in Minnesota are still happy to sell an SR22 to
anyone
> willing to pay for the plane and the training.

Just as a Ford dealer will happily sell a 300HP Mustang to a 17 year-old
boy. It's the insurance companies that have a stake in not seeing either
party drive into a telephone pole metaphorically or otherwise. Problem is
that the way the insurance market works there was a real risk that the plane
could become almost uninsurable by any pilot. Anyway, it's long been the
insurance companies who determine what constitutes a "qualified pilot," and
rightly so, as they're the only ones who have a financial stake in the
successful outcome of the flight.

> Again, I agree. Unfortunately, the Cirrus owners cry fowl at this heresy
> because they say the plane is easy to land. I say its as slick as a
Mooney,
> and they are a great help in a Mooney.

And in the transition from enroute to approach, which is the first really
big opportunity for a pilot to get behind the airplane. I think the only
thing it says about the airplane is that it's fast. You don't see
speedbrakes on Saratogas for a reason.

> Certainly. I wonder about judgement though. Also, there is something to
be
> said for having your first "OH S#*T" experience in something that is
slower
> and more stable (not to mention crash worthy).

Well, let's be fair and say that there are a significant body of "OH S#*T"
experiences that are more survivable in a Cirrus than anything else. Of
course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing in
the mountains.

I would love to have my hands on an SR-22, but right now, as a 200-hour
instrument pilot, I feel like my 172 is enough for me to deal with. I'd love
to upgrade to a 182, but I think that would be plenty for at least another
300 hours.

-cwk.

[Elwood Dowd]

> course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
> total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing in
> the mountains.

One difference---the latter scenario is also likely to be accompanied by
medical payments, or worse. Presumably the CAPS landing would be
injury-free.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>>
> My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
> per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
> seems to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those
> who refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
> Cirrus crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain
> number, and ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever
> growing history. In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20
> years of records and will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.
>

Why do they want to ignore CFIT accidents?

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:50:09 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
>>
>>There was a period recently where used
>>airplane appreciated, mostly because the new airplanes weren't improved
>>over
>>the older ones. Cars would hold their value if manufacturers produced the
>>same models for decades without improvement. Now that virtually all new
>>airplanes are being delivered with glass cockpits you can expect the old
>>ones to continue sliding.
>
> This is an interesting viewpoint, and it will be interesting to see
> what happens to the price of used planes. I personally think the used
> market will move sideways, perhaps a bit down for a while, largely
> driven by increased fuel and insurance costs and the overall economy
> reflecting a lack of free cash to indulge in the aviation market.
>
> -Nathan

I agree with you that higher fuel and insurance will negatively impact the
market but I think that the glass cockpit airplanes are a big deal. How
would you like to be the last guy to buy a 206 without the G1000? That
announcement cost him at least $50,000. Lets face reality, used machinery
generally depreciates both because of wear and because the current product
generally improves. Airplanes have been stagnant for years, but now Cirrus,
Diamond and Lancair have delivered genuine improvements in terms of speed
per dollar. Soon there will be diesels with significantly longer TBOs,
single lever control and much better economy. An old airplane is simply not
going to hold its value when the new ones go 50% faster on 70% of the fuel
and the engines last half again as long. It is about time that GA started
moving forward again!

Mike
MU-2

[Dude]

Because they know too little about accident statistics, and they believe
that the plane is safer than the statistics show.

Many of the fatalities in Cirrus aircraft have been CFIT. So they want to
take those out. Unfortunately, no one thinks the result would be valid.
The whole point of the statistic is that it is about the only objective
measure of safety. We cannot even predict the performance of a car in the
fatalities per million stats with much accuracy, but after the fact we can
usually see some sort of reason for a failure.

With Cirrus the most popular theory is that the plane is great, but a bunch
of idiots buy them. From one perspective this makes sense, so if you are
not an idiot, it should be safe for you. OTOH, this is ludicrous. The dead
pilots did not think they were idiots either. Strangely, corporate jets also
have a large percentage of CFIT accidents, but no one in that group says
those numbers don't belong. It begs for an objective analysis, but no one
pays for those, and few are capable of pulling one off anymore.

It may be telling to examine the percentage of CFIT's to other planes. Some
people think it is a glass cockpit issue as well. I have not seen numbers
that are telling in this regard, but I believe many of the accidents were in
SR20's that were not glass anyway.

The parachute gets mixed up in the whole thing because we are not used to
it. It would likely be more worthwhile to treat it like any other system
available for safety.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
>> per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
>> seems to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those
>> who refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
>> Cirrus crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain
>> number, and ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever
>> growing history. In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20
>> years of records and will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.
>>
>
> Why do they want to ignore CFIT accidents?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[Dude]

>
> This is Usenet! Just 'cuz the horse is lyin' down and hasn't moved in a
> week
> don't mean we can't kick it again :)
>

You know that's the truth!

> There's another rule in statistics that the smallest sample about which
> you
> can make a statistically sound statement is 30. It's statistically dubious
> to draw assumptions from very small samples but there's also a point of
> diminishing returns to having ever-larger sample sizes.

Interesting. What is the sample size here really? Is a sample a single
hour, an average flight of some number of hours, an accident, a plane, or
what? It would seem if the best performer runs at .28 failures per 100,000
hours (I think this was the rate for the DA20 at last look) then you would
need about a million to ensure a good number because there is no such thing
as a .28 dead person.


>
> Well, let's be fair and say that there are a significant body of "OH S#*T"
> experiences that are more survivable in a Cirrus than anything else. Of
> course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
> total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing
> in
> the mountains.
>

I am not yet ready to agree. I await more hours free of fatalities. Sure
the chute is good, but what would the designer have done without the BRS
option. Would the plane be less safe? I would rather have the Lancair I
think, but its more money.

[Richard Hertz]

I bought a grumman before I finished training. I am very pleased with how
it worked out and would do it again. Make sure you have the money for it
and have a fairly good idea what sort of flying (how much load, how far) you
will be doing. It is going to be expensive.

Good luck and go ahead with it if you want. Just do your research first.

Bottom line is you can never justify (finance-wise) having your own plane -
but the less quantifiable things like always flying the same plane, having a
reliable plane, etc are very nice if you can get away with owning.


"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "New Pilot" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
>> getting the PPL ticket.
>>
>> Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
>> being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will
> probably
>> get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
>> Cirri SR22.
>
> You've probably heard the saying that "A fool and his money will soon have
> more airplane than either can handle." You're probably not a fool but it's
> a
> wise statement to heed nonetheless.
>
>> Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
>> good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford
> to
>> pay cash for them?
>
> There's only one kind of new asset that stands a good chance of
> appreciating
> over time: a house. And that works only because they ain't makin' any more
> land. If you want to preserve your equity buy a low-time plane that's
> 10-20
> years old in good shape.
>
> If you do buy a new plane with the intent to do a leaseback you want to
> buy
> a common plane that everyone knows how to fly already. A new 172SP or 182
> with the G1000 would be the queen of any rental fleet and would probably
> get
> plenty of usage. Since it's under warranty you won't have to sweat
> maintenance costs. Oh, and either of these would be very realistic planes
> to
> learn to fly in and not get murdered on insurance. I'm usually very
> bearish
> on leasebacks but this one could work.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[tony roberts]

> Hm...my fixed costs per year for the cherokee are
>
> Hangar $3000
> Insurance $1000
> Maint $1000
> total 5000
>
> Awfully similar to skiing....

Blanche!
I'm moving over there :)

I spend more than $1000 maintenance on transponders, ADF's, VOR's and
ELT's, before I even start on 100 hour maintenance, and all of the snags
that I manage to find each year.
And all of that before I go for annual!

My fixed costs are more like:

Tiedown $650
Insurance $1700.00
Maintenance/Service - $3000.00
Annual - Sky is the limit
Stuck exhaust valve $650.00
No Mag Drop $1100.00
Upgrades $2500.00

and on. . . . and on . . . and on . . . :)

Tony

P.S. Thaks fo th english Leson -
i enjoyd that :)


Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Nathan Young]

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:45:22 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:


>
>I agree with you that higher fuel and insurance will negatively impact the
>market but I think that the glass cockpit airplanes are a big deal. How
>would you like to be the last guy to buy a 206 without the G1000? That
>announcement cost him at least $50,000. Lets face reality, used machinery
>generally depreciates both because of wear and because the current product
>generally improves. Airplanes have been stagnant for years, but now Cirrus,
>Diamond and Lancair have delivered genuine improvements in terms of speed
>per dollar. Soon there will be diesels with significantly longer TBOs,
>single lever control and much better economy. An old airplane is simply not
>going to hold its value when the new ones go 50% faster on 70% of the fuel
>and the engines last half again as long. It is about time that GA started
>moving forward again!


The Cirrus, Lancair, and Diamond 'glass' aircraft are a huge step
forward for GA. Faster and more fuel efficient. That's the bottom
line when we're trying to get someplace. These planes should (and do)
command a higher asking price because they offer more performance than
the existing GA spamcan.

Sarcasticly speaking - I wouldn't have been the last guy to buy a 2003
C206 because I would have been buying a 1970s 206 instead, and saving
myself $200k+. In my view, the planes were essentially the same.
Your point is dead on for the recently mfg'd used planes vs the new
glass panels. Anyone who has the cash to buy a $300k C182 or C206 is
going to spend the extra $50k to get the glass paneled version.

Hopefully a retrofit market will popup to service the thousands of
steam-gauge Piper/Cessna/Beeches. That would help bridge the gap
between old and new. Anytime there are that many dollars at stake,
you can bet an entrepreneur will give it a go. I wonder how much
owners would be willing to pay to 'glass-panelize' their older
spamcan?

-Nathan

[Mike Rapoport]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:45:22 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I agree with you that higher fuel and insurance will negatively impact the
>>market but I think that the glass cockpit airplanes are a big deal. How
>>would you like to be the last guy to buy a 206 without the G1000? That
>>announcement cost him at least $50,000. Lets face reality, used machinery
>>generally depreciates both because of wear and because the current product
>>generally improves. Airplanes have been stagnant for years, but now
>>Cirrus,
>>Diamond and Lancair have delivered genuine improvements in terms of speed
>>per dollar. Soon there will be diesels with significantly longer TBOs,
>>single lever control and much better economy. An old airplane is simply
>>not
>>going to hold its value when the new ones go 50% faster on 70% of the fuel
>>and the engines last half again as long. It is about time that GA started
>>moving forward again!
>
>
> The Cirrus, Lancair, and Diamond 'glass' aircraft are a huge step
> forward for GA. Faster and more fuel efficient. That's the bottom
> line when we're trying to get someplace. These planes should (and do)
> command a higher asking price because they offer more performance than
> the existing GA spamcan.
>
> Sarcasticly speaking - I wouldn't have been the last guy to buy a 2003
> C206 because I would have been buying a 1970s 206 instead, and saving
> myself $200k+. In my view, the planes were essentially the same.
> Your point is dead on for the recently mfg'd used planes vs the new
> glass panels. Anyone who has the cash to buy a $300k C182 or C206 is
> going to spend the extra $50k to get the glass paneled version.
>
> Hopefully a retrofit market will popup to service the thousands of
> steam-gauge Piper/Cessna/Beeches. That would help bridge the gap
> between old and new. Anytime there are that many dollars at stake,
> you can bet an entrepreneur will give it a go. I wonder how much
> owners would be willing to pay to 'glass-panelize' their older
> spamcan?
>
> -Nathan

What is interesting, but hasn't come into play yet is that the G-1000 is
cheaper (to Cessna) than the instruments it replaces. At some point
manufacturers will stop charging a premium for glass. My guess is that it
will happen in the next two years.

Mike
MU-2

[Jim Weir]

From this chair? $ero.

Jim



Nathan Young >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

I wonder how much
->owners would be willing to pay to 'glass-panelize' their older
->spamcan?



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[C Kingsbury]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Because they know too little about accident statistics, and they believe
> that the plane is safer than the statistics show.
>
> Many of the fatalities in Cirrus aircraft have been CFIT. So they want to
> take those out. Unfortunately, no one thinks the result would be valid.
> The whole point of the statistic is that it is about the only objective
> measure of safety. We cannot even predict the performance of a car in the
> fatalities per million stats with much accuracy, but after the fact we can
> usually see some sort of reason for a failure.

The idea with CFIT is that it's "not the plane's fault." The question is, is
there something about the SR-2x that encourages pilots to do stupid things?
I've argued before that the chute could have this effect by creating a false
sense of security. However, we're in dark territory here because the numbers
just aren't big enough yet to justify statistical assertions. It is entirely
possible to get a cluster of CFITs and the fact that the rates have
regressed to more typical levels may be nothing but the trends working
themselves out. In other words, all this fancy new training might have no
effect at all.

Over a longer-term period we will be able to draw conclusions by comparing
Cirrus, Lancair, and Diamond airplanes to each other, and the new
glass-panel Cessnas will give us a chance to compare against decades of
non-glass Cessnas to see what effect they might have.

Until then, all statistical assertions are subject to very high margins of
error, such that I find them dubious. We are left to draw conclusions the
old-fashioned way, by gut instinct.

-cwk.

[Dude]

>
> What is interesting, but hasn't come into play yet is that the G-1000 is
> cheaper (to Cessna) than the instruments it replaces. At some point
> manufacturers will stop charging a premium for glass. My guess is that it
> will happen in the next two years.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>


Is it really cheaper? If you are talking about a replacement for a full
panel with HSI, Dual Nav/Com/GPS, engine analysis system, and intercom with
traffic - then you are certainly correct. But is it cheaper than a base
unit with a single Nav/Com?

Anyone know what the cost of the AHRS really is? That seems to be the main
thing. I can see how the rest could end up being cheaper easily.

[C Kingsbury]

Ditto that.

-cwk. (172N)

[C Kingsbury]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyone know what the cost of the AHRS really is? That seems to be the
main
> thing. I can see how the rest could end up being cheaper easily.
>

Probably not that large actually. I believe it's based on accelerometers
derived from those used in the automotive industry. Look at those backup AIs
that run on PDAs- they cost around $1000.

There's a huge investment to make in the one-time cost of development and
certification. Enough that it probably has a pretty appreciable portion of
the cost of the first 5-10k units.

-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

What new planes ship with a single navcom these days? The G1000 as
installed in a single like a 182 costs about $30K and includes audio, VOR,
GS, GPS, transponder, Airspeed, ADI, HSI, VSI, MFD, Fuel, Tach, MP,
intercom, ammeter, as well as a bunch of stuff that the older 182 is
unlikely to have. So the $30k system is replacing everything except the
standby AH, airspeed and altimeter. Of course most 182s don't have these
redundant instruments. Since everything is integrated, the wiring is
significantly reduced too saving expensive labor.

Mike
MU-2


"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> What is interesting, but hasn't come into play yet is that the G-1000 is
>> cheaper (to Cessna) than the instruments it replaces. At some point
>> manufacturers will stop charging a premium for glass. My guess is that
>> it will happen in the next two years.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>
>
> Is it really cheaper? If you are talking about a replacement for a full
> panel with HSI, Dual Nav/Com/GPS, engine analysis system, and intercom
> with traffic - then you are certainly correct. But is it cheaper than a
> base unit with a single Nav/Com?
>
> Anyone know what the cost of the AHRS really is? That seems to be the
> main thing. I can see how the rest could end up being cheaper easily.
>

[George Hamilton]

These comments seem to be more of a self reinforcing circular reasoning.
Or, I fly therefore I buy.

[Dude]

I was thinking they were likely more than 30k. Are you confident on that
number?

Also, 172's and Diamond Stars are coming with the G1000. You can order
either of those planes with a single NAV/COM/GPS, standard six pack, VOR
Head, Transponder (no traffic), intercom and engine instruments for at least
30k less than the minimal install price of a G1000 unit.

You are correct if you compare to a normally well configured 182, Star or
Mooney that they are nearly the same though.

The question will be what pricing model will the manufacturers use to bring
it to upgrade planes and low end models to increase the market. I suspect
they may try to sell units with lower capabilities built in that you will
have to pay a software charge to use. The real question is Chelton. Will
they try to increase their marketshare by discounting heavily, betting on
volume (like Cirrus has done).






"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> What new planes ship with a single navcom these days? The G1000 as
> installed in a single like a 182 costs about $30K and includes audio, VOR,
> GS, GPS, transponder, Airspeed, ADI, HSI, VSI, MFD, Fuel, Tach, MP,
> intercom, ammeter, as well as a bunch of stuff that the older 182 is
> unlikely to have. So the $30k system is replacing everything except the
> standby AH, airspeed and altimeter. Of course most 182s don't have these
> redundant instruments. Since everything is integrated, the wiring is
> significantly reduced too saving expensive labor.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>>> What is interesting, but hasn't come into play yet is that the G-1000 is
>>> cheaper (to Cessna) than the instruments it replaces. At some point
>>> manufacturers will stop charging a premium for glass. My guess is that
>>> it will happen in the next two years.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is it really cheaper? If you are talking about a replacement for a full
>> panel with HSI, Dual Nav/Com/GPS, engine analysis system, and intercom
>> with traffic - then you are certainly correct. But is it cheaper than a
>> base unit with a single Nav/Com?
>>
>> Anyone know what the cost of the AHRS really is? That seems to be the
>> main thing. I can see how the rest could end up being cheaper easily.
>>
>
>

[Dude]

I completely don't get your point.

Please be more specific about what points you mean, and how they are
"circular".

What you have stated is a truism, equivalent to "I eat, therefore I buy." Of
course it costs money. There is no way to eat or fly without spending
someone's cash or resources.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking they were likely more than 30k. Are you confident on that
>number?

Yes.

> Also, 172's and Diamond Stars are coming with the G1000. You can order
> either of those planes with a single NAV/COM/GPS, standard six pack, VOR
> Head, Transponder (no traffic), intercom and engine instruments for at
> least 30k less than the minimal install price of a G1000 unit.

Yes but how many airplanes are actually shipped with one navcom? The G1000
is cheap compared to the configurations that people actually buy.

> You are correct if you compare to a normally well configured 182, Star or
> Mooney that they are nearly the same though.
>
> The question will be what pricing model will the manufacturers use to
> bring it to upgrade planes and low end models to increase the market. I
> suspect they may try to sell units with lower capabilities built in that
> you will have to pay a software charge to use. The real question is
> Chelton. Will they try to increase their marketshare by discounting
> heavily, betting on volume (like Cirrus has done).
>
Chelton is not an integrated system. The key to the value of the G1000 is
that it is just a bunch of sensors, a computer and some software and it
replaces everything except the master switch and circuit breakers.. There
is minimial interfacing by connecting wires by hand, it is internal. Garmin
is paying the same for a screen, memory or CPU as the manufacturer of a
laptop or cell phone. Compare that to hand-building a electromechanical
gyro with its numerous custom parts and remember that it probably has as
much electronics (in $s) as an AHARS in addition to all the moving, gimbled,
spinning parts. It is almost impossible for an electromechnical device to
maintain the same cost curve as a semiconductor based device.

I think that now that there are new entrants coming into the market, there
will be price competition. Right now we are in the phase of the market
where there is a shortage of the new, cool product. The same thing happens
to in autos where a desirable car can sell for thousands above invoice for a
few month until supply catches up.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> What new planes ship with a single navcom these days? The G1000 as
>> installed in a single like a 182 costs about $30K and includes audio,
>> VOR, GS, GPS, transponder, Airspeed, ADI, HSI, VSI, MFD, Fuel, Tach, MP,
>> intercom, ammeter, as well as a bunch of stuff that the older 182 is
>> unlikely to have. So the $30k system is replacing everything except the
>> standby AH, airspeed and altimeter. Of course most 182s don't have these
>> redundant instruments. Since everything is integrated, the wiring is
>> significantly reduced too saving expensive labor.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Dude" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >
>>>> What is interesting, but hasn't come into play yet is that the G-1000
>>>> is cheaper (to Cessna) than the instruments it replaces. At some point
>>>> manufacturers will stop charging a premium for glass. My guess is that
>>>> it will happen in the next two years.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> MU-2
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it really cheaper? If you are talking about a replacement for a full
>>> panel with HSI, Dual Nav/Com/GPS, engine analysis system, and intercom
>>> with traffic - then you are certainly correct. But is it cheaper than a
>>> base unit with a single Nav/Com?
>>>
>>> Anyone know what the cost of the AHRS really is? That seems to be the
>>> main thing. I can see how the rest could end up being cheaper easily.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[George Hamilton]

Not my idea at all. French philosopher, Descarte: " I think
therefore I am".
Later Descarte concluded that the existence of God depended on mans'
conscious efforts.

[Dude]

This is no value at all if you have no idea what it means, and I can't see
how you hope to apply it here at all. My statements were not circular.

If you want to play philosopher, go prove that Mill's Utilitarianism is
circular.


"George Hamilton" > wrote in message
om...
> Not my idea at all. French philosopher, Descarte: " I think
> therefore I am".
> Later Descarte concluded that the existence of God depended on mans'
> conscious efforts.

[Matt Whiting]

George Hamilton wrote:

> Not my idea at all. French philosopher, Descarte: " I think
> therefore I am".
> Later Descarte concluded that the existence of God depended on mans'
> conscious efforts.

He got it backwards though!


Matt

[George Hamilton]

Not really circular more elliptical and warped?

[Dude]

Oh, well, if you put it that way how could I disagree?


"George Hamilton" > wrote in message
om...
> Not really circular more elliptical and warped?