Aircraft manufacturers and their reputations

[Mxsmanic]

What are the overall reputations of manufacturers like Cessna,
Raytheon Beechcraft, Piper, Mooney, Cirrus, and all the others?

In every domain, there are usually specific legends and/or realities
associated with particular manufacturers' equipment. What are they in
general aviation?

From what I've read here, Beech is considered a bit hoity-toity,
Cessna is a common workhorse of sorts, Mooney is a case apart that
some love and some hate, and ... I'm not sure for the others.

I bring this up because of the occasional references I see along these
lines, implying that a Baron 58 is a Cadillac or that Mooney aircraft
have bizarre minds of their own. It makes me wonder. I'm sure each
manufacturer must have a bit of "personality" that shows through each
of the aircraft it builds.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> What are the overall reputations of manufacturers like Cessna,
> Raytheon Beechcraft, Piper, Mooney, Cirrus, and all the others?
>
> In every domain, there are usually specific legends and/or realities
> associated with particular manufacturers' equipment. What are they in
> general aviation?
>
> From what I've read here, Beech is considered a bit hoity-toity,
> Cessna is a common workhorse of sorts, Mooney is a case apart that
> some love and some hate, and ... I'm not sure for the others.
>
> I bring this up because of the occasional references I see along these
> lines, implying that a Baron 58 is a Cadillac or that Mooney aircraft
> have bizarre minds of their own. It makes me wonder. I'm sure each
> manufacturer must have a bit of "personality" that shows through each
> of the aircraft it builds.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Good God, would you just go the **** away???? Go find some Simulator Forum
on the internet to fulfill your mental masturbation. You have been killfiled
by a ton of people on here because you should read WAY WAY WAY more than you
post.

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[Aluckyguess]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What are the overall reputations of manufacturers like Cessna,
>> Raytheon Beechcraft, Piper, Mooney, Cirrus, and all the others?
>>
>> In every domain, there are usually specific legends and/or realities
>> associated with particular manufacturers' equipment. What are they in
>> general aviation?
>>
>> From what I've read here, Beech is considered a bit hoity-toity,
>> Cessna is a common workhorse of sorts, Mooney is a case apart that
>> some love and some hate, and ... I'm not sure for the others.
>>
>> I bring this up because of the occasional references I see along these
>> lines, implying that a Baron 58 is a Cadillac or that Mooney aircraft
>> have bizarre minds of their own. It makes me wonder. I'm sure each
>> manufacturer must have a bit of "personality" that shows through each
>> of the aircraft it builds.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> Good God, would you just go the **** away???? Go find some Simulator Forum
> on the internet to fulfill your mental masturbation. You have been
> killfiled by a ton of people on here because you should read WAY WAY WAY
> more than you post.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> DW
>
Uncalled for, dont read his posts. Its actually a pretty good question. I
think he has the 58 Baron thing right. That is one nice solid great flying
plane.

[Jim Macklin]

Beech [Raytheon] are very good because of the attitude of
the management under Olive Ann Beech. If they drill a hole
in a sheet in the wrong spot, they get a new sheet, Cessna
puts a rivet in the hole.

Mooney has solid construction, but has had financial
trouble. TBM 750 was designed to be the "new" Mooney but
they didn't have the money at Mooney to build it.

Every company builds good and not so good airplanes. The
intended use, and who will use it may be a deciding factor.


"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >> What are the overall reputations of manufacturers like
Cessna,
| >> Raytheon Beechcraft, Piper, Mooney, Cirrus, and all the
others?
| >>
| >> In every domain, there are usually specific legends
and/or realities
| >> associated with particular manufacturers' equipment.
What are they in
| >> general aviation?
| >>
| >> From what I've read here, Beech is considered a bit
hoity-toity,
| >> Cessna is a common workhorse of sorts, Mooney is a case
apart that
| >> some love and some hate, and ... I'm not sure for the
others.
| >>
| >> I bring this up because of the occasional references I
see along these
| >> lines, implying that a Baron 58 is a Cadillac or that
Mooney aircraft
| >> have bizarre minds of their own. It makes me wonder.
I'm sure each
| >> manufacturer must have a bit of "personality" that
shows through each
| >> of the aircraft it builds.
| >>
| >> --
| >> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
| >
| > Good God, would you just go the **** away???? Go find
some Simulator Forum
| > on the internet to fulfill your mental masturbation. You
have been
| > killfiled by a ton of people on here because you should
read WAY WAY WAY
| > more than you post.
| >
| > -----------------------------------------------
| > DW
| >
| Uncalled for, dont read his posts. Its actually a pretty
good question. I
| think he has the 58 Baron thing right. That is one nice
solid great flying
| plane.
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

Aluckyguess writes:

> Uncalled for, dont read his posts. Its actually a pretty good question. I
> think he has the 58 Baron thing right. That is one nice solid great flying
> plane.

It must be gold-plated in real life if it costs $1.7 million. But
it's nice to fly in the sim.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Beech [Raytheon] are very good because of the attitude of
> the management under Olive Ann Beech. If they drill a hole
> in a sheet in the wrong spot, they get a new sheet, Cessna
> puts a rivet in the hole.

I understand she's been out of the picture for 25 years, though, no?

If they have a reputation for quality, I hope they keep it. I'm so
tired of companies sacrificing quality in whatever they do in pursuit
of quarterly profits.

> Every company builds good and not so good airplanes. The
> intended use, and who will use it may be a deciding factor.

Which companies are still likely to be around twenty years from now?
(Keeping in mind that aircraft can remain airworthy much longer than
that.)

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stefan]

Jim Macklin schrieb:

> Beech [Raytheon] are very good because of the attitude of
> the management under Olive Ann Beech. If they drill a hole
> in a sheet in the wrong spot, they get a new sheet, Cessna
> puts a rivet in the hole.

Interesting that none of them choose the third option: Not drilling
wrong holes in the first place...

Stefan

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> It must be gold-plated in real life if it costs $1.7 million. But
> it's nice to fly in the sim.


Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
<scratching head>

[Newps]

Kingfish wrote:

>
>
> Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
> advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
> it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
> <scratching head>

The Eclipse will cost well north of $100K per year to operate, that's
how Beech sells Barons.

[Jim Macklin]

Beech rarely drills holes in the wring place. But it does
happen and Beech starts a new piece, Cessna has an engineer
approve just putting a rivet in the hole.

Cessna uses a fair amount of "aerodynamic fairing compound"
[bondo]. If I could afford it, I'd have a Beechjet 400
withy clearcoat on the primer.



"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin schrieb:
|
| > Beech [Raytheon] are very good because of the attitude
of
| > the management under Olive Ann Beech. If they drill a
hole
| > in a sheet in the wrong spot, they get a new sheet,
Cessna
| > puts a rivet in the hole.
|
| Interesting that none of them choose the third option: Not
drilling
| wrong holes in the first place...
|
| Stefan

[Jim Macklin]

That will be an issue.



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| >
| > It must be gold-plated in real life if it costs $1.7
million. But
| > it's nice to fly in the sim.
|
|
| Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation
is
| advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how
Beech can sell
| it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster
for $1.4M
| <scratching head>
|

[Kingfish]

Newps wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
> > advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
> > it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
> > <scratching head>
>
> The Eclipse will cost well north of $100K per year to operate, that's
> how Beech sells Barons.

What are you basing that figure on?

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
> advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million.

A $200,000 savings? Where did I put my wallet?

> I wonder how Beech can sell it for that kinda dough when the
> Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M <scratching head>

That's one reason why I'm wondering about manufacturer reputations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> The Eclipse will cost well north of $100K per year to operate, that's
> how Beech sells Barons.

Why $100K per year? And what would the costs be for a Baron?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Kingfish wrote:
> Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
> advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
> it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
> <scratching head>

well, I don't know, but have you look into running costs? insurances?
etc.? and other performances stuff like range? I have no idea what
the numbers are for either machines, but speed alone is not the
only criterion...

that and the fact that some people might be US$140k short of change... :-)

--Sylvain

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

> I wonder how Beech can sell
> it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
>

What Eclipse? Show me flying examples in numbers and with a track
record in maintenance, dispatch reliability and so on. There's your
answer.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/

They have a complete program in place, lots of orders, many
for charter operations. The fleet will build hours rapidly.

The Baron will be very close to the chock to chock speed of
a jet on a short flight because the profile is very
different and they will all taxi at the same speed. The jet
will have to climb higher and thus the speed advantage will
come into play on trips over some distance, such as 200
miles.

Raytheon is worried, was looking to sell the Beech line of
prop driven planes and keep Hawker.



"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Kingfish,
|
| > I wonder how Beech can sell
| > it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster
for $1.4M
| >
|
| What Eclipse? Show me flying examples in numbers and with
a track
| record in maintenance, dispatch reliability and so on.
There's your
| answer.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

You also probably won't see an Eclipse for under $2 million delivered, by
the time one actually adds up the cost of a reasonable avionics package and
interior.

Hourly operating costs will likely be on the order of $800-1,000.

[Kingfish]

Viperdoc wrote:
> You also probably won't see an Eclipse for under $2 million delivered, by
> the time one actually adds up the cost of a reasonable avionics package and
> interior.
>

The fly-away price is 1.5M (projected cost from their website) Unlike
larger jets the Eclipse is not delivered green, and the avionics suite
is standard

> Hourly operating costs will likely be on the order of $800-1,000.

Their figures are $372/hr based on 500hrs annual utilization. I think
those figures might prove to be conservative (salesmanship?) but I'd
guess the actual costs will be closer to their number instead of yours

[Kingfish]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Kingfish,
>
> > I wonder how Beech can sell
> > it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
> >
>
> What Eclipse? Show me flying examples in numbers and with a track
> record in maintenance, dispatch reliability and so on. There's your
> answer.

This is simply a comparison between purchase price, Thomas. The fact
that the Eclipse is not in full production yet is irrelevant. The point
is that you can now buy a jet with an extra 150kt capability for 200k
more than a Baron.

[Kingfish]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > I wonder how Beech can sell it for that kinda dough when the
> > Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M <scratching head>
>
> That's one reason why I'm wondering about manufacturer reputations.

Mfr reputations have little to do with an apples-to-oranges comparison
between a piston twin and a jet

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

> The point
> is that you can now buy a jet with an extra 150kt capability for 200k
> more than a Baron.
>


I understand. I just wanted to present one possible explanation for the
traditionally very conservative pilot community. OTOH, I can't even
understand why anyone would buy a new 172 (except price), so I can
follow you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Beech [Raytheon] are very good because of the attitude of
> the management under Olive Ann Beech. If they drill a hole
> in a sheet in the wrong spot, they get a new sheet, Cessna
> puts a rivet in the hole.
>
> Mooney has solid construction, but has had financial
> trouble. TBM 750 was designed to be the "new" Mooney but
> they didn't have the money at Mooney to build it.
>
> Every company builds good and not so good airplanes. The
> intended use, and who will use it may be a deciding factor.
>

Best workmanship I've ever seen on something less than a Gulfstream was a
Commander 114-TC. The exterior looked like it was composite it was so
smooth. The interior was like a Benz, BMW or Caddy (pick your biased
favorite).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>> It must be gold-plated in real life if it costs $1.7 million. But
>> it's nice to fly in the sim.
>
>
> Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
> advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
> it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
> <scratching head>

Union labor force?

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Kingfish wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
>> advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
>> it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
>> <scratching head>
>
> The Eclipse will cost well north of $100K per year to operate, that's how
> Beech sells Barons.

$600 an hour for 200 hours a year, yeah! A Beech or Baron at $200 (+/-) an
hour for 125 hours a year will certainly be less.

I wonder how many birds Beech sells to the crowd that can't qualify for a
Jet SP rating?

[Matt Barrow]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> You also probably won't see an Eclipse for under $2 million delivered, by
> the time one actually adds up the cost of a reasonable avionics package
> and interior.
>
> Hourly operating costs will likely be on the order of $800-1,000.
>
I read someplace that eclipse is expecting around $600 an hour.

What is the standard avionics package in the Eclipse?

[Matt Barrow]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The fly-away price is 1.5M (projected cost from their website) Unlike
> larger jets the Eclipse is not delivered green, and the avionics suite
> is standard
>
>> Hourly operating costs will likely be on the order of $800-1,000.
>
> Their figures are $372/hr based on 500hrs annual utilization. I think
> those figures might prove to be conservative (salesmanship?) but I'd
> guess the actual costs will be closer to their number instead of yours

What was Jet-A selling for when they ran the numbers?

[Jose[_1_]]

> $600 an hour for 200 hours a year, yeah! A Beech or Baron at $200 (+/-) an
> hour for 125 hours a year will certainly be less.

Why did you also drop the number of hours per year?

"Costs less than more expensive items!"

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

All the avionics are included.



"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
| You also probably won't see an Eclipse for under $2
million delivered, by
| the time one actually adds up the cost of a reasonable
avionics package and
| interior.
|
| Hourly operating costs will likely be on the order of
$800-1,000.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

They were nice airplanes. I wish they had gotten a 250 hp
twin version in production.Most comfortable cabin on the
market.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Beech [Raytheon] are very good because of the attitude
of
| > the management under Olive Ann Beech. If they drill a
hole
| > in a sheet in the wrong spot, they get a new sheet,
Cessna
| > puts a rivet in the hole.
| >
| > Mooney has solid construction, but has had financial
| > trouble. TBM 750 was designed to be the "new" Mooney
but
| > they didn't have the money at Mooney to build it.
| >
| > Every company builds good and not so good airplanes.
The
| > intended use, and who will use it may be a deciding
factor.
| >
|
| Best workmanship I've ever seen on something less than a
Gulfstream was a
| Commander 114-TC. The exterior looked like it was
composite it was so
| smooth. The interior was like a Benz, BMW or Caddy (pick
your biased
| favorite).
|
|
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO (MTJ)
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/eclipse_500/specifications/


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
| ...
| > You also probably won't see an Eclipse for under $2
million delivered, by
| > the time one actually adds up the cost of a reasonable
avionics package
| > and interior.
| >
| > Hourly operating costs will likely be on the order of
$800-1,000.
| >
| I read someplace that eclipse is expecting around $600 an
hour.
|
| What is the standard avionics package in the Eclipse?
|
|
|

[Newps]

Kingfish wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>Kingfish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
>>>advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
>>>it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
>>><scratching head>
>>
>>The Eclipse will cost well north of $100K per year to operate, that's
>>how Beech sells Barons.
>
>
> What are you basing that figure on?

Several magazine articles and several friends with jets. Nobody
shopping for a Baron looks at any VLJ as an optional plane. The VLJ
will replace the King Air, Conquest, Cheyenne, etc. One friend has a
Caravan on amphibs. Annual insurance cost is $38K. He also has a
Citation, annual insurance premium is $95K. One trip a year to Flight
Safety is a chunk of change too. Operating a jet is so much more
expensive than any piston as to never, ever compare on an apples to
apples basis.

[Kingfish]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> >> Hourly operating costs will likely be on the order of $800-1,000.
> >
> > (KF:)Their figures are $372/hr based on 500hrs annual utilization. I think
> > those figures might prove to be conservative (salesmanship?) but I'd
> > guess the actual costs will be closer to their number instead of yours
>
> What was Jet-A selling for when they ran the numbers?

Don't know, but fuel is only a small (not insignificant, though) part
of operation cost for a jet with engines that small. Their projected
price of 1.5M for June '06 suggests that might be their time frame
reference for determining cost.

[Kingfish]

Newps wrote:
> >
> > (KF:)What are you basing that figure on?
>
> Several magazine articles and several friends with jets. Nobody
> shopping for a Baron looks at any VLJ as an optional plane. The VLJ
> will replace the King Air, Conquest, Cheyenne, etc. One friend has a
> Caravan on amphibs. Annual insurance cost is $38K. He also has a
> Citation, annual insurance premium is $95K. One trip a year to Flight
> Safety is a chunk of change too. Operating a jet is so much more
> expensive than any piston as to never, ever compare on an apples to
> apples basis.

Eclipse uses $32k for annual insurance cost on their site, but I've
read about it being as high as $42k depending on an individual pilot's
time & ratings. Either way, I sure won't be writing a check anytime
soon : ) I realize Barons & VLJs are apples & oranges, and most
people wouldn't cross-shop the two types. That being said, I guess I
was just amazed by the relatively minimal (purchase) price increase to
go 150kt faster.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...

>>>>Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
>>>>advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
>>>>it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
>>>><scratching head>
>>>
>>>The Eclipse will cost well north of $100K per year to operate, that's
>>>how Beech sells Barons.
>>
>>
>> What are you basing that figure on?
>
> Several magazine articles and several friends with jets. Nobody shopping
> for a Baron looks at any VLJ as an optional plane. The VLJ will replace
> the King Air, Conquest, Cheyenne, etc. One friend has a Caravan on
> amphibs. Annual insurance cost is $38K. He also has a Citation, annual
> insurance premium is $95K. One trip a year to Flight Safety is a chunk of
> change too. Operating a jet is so much more expensive than any piston as
> to never, ever compare on an apples to apples basis.
>
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the Eclipse
500 and the Baron)

[Jay Honeck]

> What are the overall reputations of manufacturers like Cessna,
> Raytheon Beechcraft, Piper, Mooney, Cirrus, and all the others?

Cessna and Piper are "Everyman Planes". They are engineered well to
last as long as you maintain them, with similar performance and
features. The only real difference between them is high wing versus
low wing design.

Beech appeals to the Cadillac/Mercedes crowd. Everything is
over-engineered, heavy, and imparts the feel of quality. They will
last forever, but you will pay a pretty penny for both acquistion and
maintenance. ($1.7 million for a new Baron is, IMHO, insane -- but
Beech found 17 people last year who were both smart enough to earn that
much, and dumb enough to spend it all on a piston twin.)

Mooney sets themselves apart as the "Mazda Miata" of the bunch. Fast,
efficient, fun to fly, not necessarily very useful for a family of
four, but great for a couple. They've failed multiple times.

Cirrus is the new doctor killer. Lots of money up front, a sleek
airframe, great features, great to fly, but only affordable only by the
rich and (not necessarily) proficient.

Lancair (or Columbia) is like Cirrus on steroids, without the 'chute.
A very, very cool plane. (If I didn't have a wife and kids, I'd be
living in a Columbia 400... ;-)

Commander is (was) always known for quality, beefy construction, and
expense. Sort of like Beechcraft, without the history. They failed.

Maule has an interesting reputation. Everyone loves them as kind of a
"throw-back plane", yet no one seems to think they're built
consistently well. The design is very durable, however, so it's
apparently forgiving of this trait.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>>>Not sure where you got that figure from, Woodland Aviation is
>>>>>advertising an '06 G58 for $1.26 million. I wonder how Beech can sell
>>>>>it for that kinda dough when the Eclipse is 150kt faster for $1.4M
>>>>><scratching head>
>>>>
>>>>The Eclipse will cost well north of $100K per year to operate, that's
>>>>how Beech sells Barons.
>>>
>>>
>>>What are you basing that figure on?
>>
>>Several magazine articles and several friends with jets. Nobody shopping
>>for a Baron looks at any VLJ as an optional plane. The VLJ will replace
>>the King Air, Conquest, Cheyenne, etc. One friend has a Caravan on
>>amphibs. Annual insurance cost is $38K. He also has a Citation, annual
>>insurance premium is $95K. One trip a year to Flight Safety is a chunk of
>>change too. Operating a jet is so much more expensive than any piston as
>>to never, ever compare on an apples to apples basis.
>>
>
> http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the Eclipse
> 500 and the Baron)

Using an Eclipse site for cost comparisons is pretty funny. I'd like to
see some unbiased data.

Matt

[Kingfish]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the Eclipse
> 500 and the Baron)

Eclipse sez $29K to insure a Baron? Yikes. That makes a 10 year old B58
look a lot more attractive to a buyer huh? But if you MUST have glass...

[Kingfish]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the Eclipse
> 500 and the Baron)

Eclipse sez $29k to insure a new Baron? Yikes. Kinda makes a 10 year
old B58 a bit more attractive to a buyer, huh? But, if you MUST have
glass...

[Matt Barrow]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the
>> Eclipse
>> 500 and the Baron)
>
> Eclipse sez $29K to insure a Baron? Yikes. That makes a 10 year old B58
> look a lot more attractive to a buyer huh? But if you MUST have glass...

IIRC, light twins have the highest accident rates...by far.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the
>>> Eclipse
>>> 500 and the Baron)
>>
>> Eclipse sez $29K to insure a Baron? Yikes. That makes a 10 year old
>> B58 look a lot more attractive to a buyer huh? But if you MUST have
>> glass...
>
> IIRC, light twins have the highest accident rates...by far.
>
Not so, in terms of the percentage of the fleet, however, the percentage
of fatal accidents is about 10% higher than singles (NTSB 2001).

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the
>> Eclipse 500 and the Baron)
>
> Using an Eclipse site for cost comparisons is pretty funny. I'd like to
> see some unbiased data.
>
Did you check their data sources?

(This is my only response, Matt, as I'm not into your typical lame
filibustering).

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.eclipseaviation.com/affordability/economics/ (Compare the
>>>Eclipse 500 and the Baron)
>>
>>Using an Eclipse site for cost comparisons is pretty funny. I'd like to
>>see some unbiased data.
>>
>
> Did you check their data sources?
>
> (This is my only response, Matt, as I'm not into your typical lame
> filibustering).
>
>

No, as I can't afford any of the airplanes on their list. However, I
know from past experience that you have to take manufacturer's
comparisons with a large grain of salt.

Matt