To Glass or Not To Glass...

I'm starting the process of shopping for an airplane.
I'm thinking of buying one in 2 to 3 months.

I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.

As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.

I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.

Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
about reliability, software glitches etc....
See:http://www.da40g1000.com/

For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.

I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
(50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
CRQ-AVX-SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.

This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.

As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-


Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....

Paul

wrote:
I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.

As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.

I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.

Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
about reliability, software glitches etc....
See:http://www.da40g1000.com/

For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.

I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
(50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
CRQ-AVX-SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.

This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.

As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-


Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....


Mr Peanut weighing in he

At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting. If you're getting a
G1000 checkout in a Skylane already to rent that's probably your best
option. New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
for the G1000 182 IIRC, and they're still up over 250K. Yes, an older
airframe can be made better than new with engine, paint, interior &
avionics but the investment may not be recouped when you go to sell the
plane. The used piston single market is kinda flat right now
(something to do with $4.50+ avgas?) which works in your favor when
you're the buyer but of course will work against you if you're selling.

The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
power-off glide. That alone wouldn't justify a twin IMHO. If you've
priced out older hi-perf twins like the Baron and C-310 you'd know
they'd eat you alive in maintenance & operating costs not to mention
insuring one. Overhauling engines & props on an older Baron (like a
BE-55 for example) plus an avionics upgrade would cost as much, if not
*more* than a new glass 182. I know a local guy that went that route,
and the total investment when he was done would have bought a new 182.
And he didn't even touch the panel. Yikes.

At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting.
I realize that owning does not make financial sense.

I want to be able to go out to the airport on a whim.
I'm tired of flying tired old minimally maintained planes.
I want to be able to stay for an extra day without out having schedule problems.
For proficiency sake I want to fly the same plane, not "whats availible today"


The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
power-off glide.
Take a look at the map, AVX is an island well off the coast.
You will spend more than 1/2 the flight beyond gliding distance.
The daytime weekend plan is to ditch near one of the many many many boats going back and forth in the
area, at night or on a week day, its a much dicer afair.

(Both my self and my wife are ex-lifeguards and strong ocean swimmers, I might be tempted to
routinely fly that route in a single with a pair of survival suits and a elt in a ditch bag.)


Paul

wrote:

I want to be able to go out to the airport on a whim.
I'm tired of flying tired old minimally maintained planes.
I want to be able to stay for an extra day without out having schedule problems.
For proficiency sake I want to fly the same plane, not "whats availible today"

This sounds familiar. Same issues we all have to deal with when
renting, huh?


The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
power-off glide.
Take a look at the map, AVX is an island well off the coast.
You will spend more than 1/2 the flight beyond gliding distance.

I'm in Connecticut and don't have any Left Coast maps : )

Another poster mentioned the OurPlane fractional ownership deal.
Another similar shared ownership company is AirShares. IIRC they only
fly Cirrus SR-22s. That might be the best compromise for you.

wrote:
Take a look at the map, AVX is an island well off the coast.
You will spend more than 1/2 the flight beyond gliding distance.

I found an online sectional. AVX is about 15nm off the coast of San
Pedro. That's no less distant than Nantucket is from the Massachusetts
mainland, slightly more than for Martha's Vineyard. Yet every weekend
many singles make the trip back & forth, myself included.

Hi Paul:

I think the bad news is, if you fly as little as 100 hours a year a
complex twin is NOT going to be safer for you, it's likely going to be
a killing machine. A brute like the 182 would be plenty of airplane. It
would appear also your out-of-gliding-range flight time might be 15% of
your total time: you may be making a mountain of a very unlikely event:
I suspect a pilot error is MUCH more likely than an in the water
ditching if you're flying complex only a couple of hours a week.

You might want to run some engine/airplane failure stats, also over
water vs over land engine failures to decide how uncomfortable you
really are with the notion of SEL. My guess is, if your initial feet
dry segment is 30 minutes or so you've probably pretty well
demonstrated the engine will chug along for another hour feet wet.

Having said all of that, it's a neat problem to have, isn't it?


CLEAR!
Kingfish wrote:
wrote:
I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.

As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.

I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.

Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
about reliability, software glitches etc....
See:http://www.da40g1000.com/

For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.

I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
(50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
CRQ-AVX-SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.

This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.

As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-


Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....


Mr Peanut weighing in he

At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting. If you're getting a
G1000 checkout in a Skylane already to rent that's probably your best
option. New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
for the G1000 182 IIRC, and they're still up over 250K. Yes, an older
airframe can be made better than new with engine, paint, interior &
avionics but the investment may not be recouped when you go to sell the
plane. The used piston single market is kinda flat right now
(something to do with $4.50+ avgas?) which works in your favor when
you're the buyer but of course will work against you if you're selling.

The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
power-off glide. That alone wouldn't justify a twin IMHO. If you've
priced out older hi-perf twins like the Baron and C-310 you'd know
they'd eat you alive in maintenance & operating costs not to mention
insuring one. Overhauling engines & props on an older Baron (like a
BE-55 for example) plus an avionics upgrade would cost as much, if not
*more* than a new glass 182. I know a local guy that went that route,
and the total investment when he was done would have bought a new 182.
And he didn't even touch the panel. Yikes.

Why not think about fractional ownership.. You'll get all the tech
stuff without the upfront costs. Check out OURPLANE they have a range
of choices (182, cirrus etc etc..)

Just a thought but I know I would lean that way if I was thinking of
flying a new bird...

Good luck


Tony wrote:
Hi Paul:

I think the bad news is, if you fly as little as 100 hours a year a
complex twin is NOT going to be safer for you, it's likely going to be
a killing machine. A brute like the 182 would be plenty of airplane. It
would appear also your out-of-gliding-range flight time might be 15% of
your total time: you may be making a mountain of a very unlikely event:
I suspect a pilot error is MUCH more likely than an in the water
ditching if you're flying complex only a couple of hours a week.

You might want to run some engine/airplane failure stats, also over
water vs over land engine failures to decide how uncomfortable you
really are with the notion of SEL. My guess is, if your initial feet
dry segment is 30 minutes or so you've probably pretty well
demonstrated the engine will chug along for another hour feet wet.

Having said all of that, it's a neat problem to have, isn't it?


CLEAR!
Kingfish wrote:
wrote:
I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.

As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.

I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.

Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
about reliability, software glitches etc....
See:http://www.da40g1000.com/

For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.

I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
(50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
CRQ-AVX-SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.

This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.

As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-


Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....


Mr Peanut weighing in he

At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting. If you're getting a
G1000 checkout in a Skylane already to rent that's probably your best
option. New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
for the G1000 182 IIRC, and they're still up over 250K. Yes, an older
airframe can be made better than new with engine, paint, interior &
avionics but the investment may not be recouped when you go to sell the
plane. The used piston single market is kinda flat right now
(something to do with $4.50+ avgas?) which works in your favor when
you're the buyer but of course will work against you if you're selling.

The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
power-off glide. That alone wouldn't justify a twin IMHO. If you've
priced out older hi-perf twins like the Baron and C-310 you'd know
they'd eat you alive in maintenance & operating costs not to mention
insuring one. Overhauling engines & props on an older Baron (like a
BE-55 for example) plus an avionics upgrade would cost as much, if not
*more* than a new glass 182. I know a local guy that went that route,
and the total investment when he was done would have bought a new 182.
And he didn't even touch the panel. Yikes.

Why not think about fractional ownership.. You'll get all the tech
stuff without the upfront costs. Check out OURPLANE they have a range
of choices (182, cirrus etc etc..)

Just a thought but I know I would lean that way if I was thinking of
flying a new bird...

Good luck


I've looked very seriously at a new OurPlane SR22.
In talking to others I've come to the conclusion that 8 people sharing one plane is about 4 too many.

There is a brand new SR22 comming to CRQ any day now.
The only nearby OurPlane is a SR22 at MYF, when I asked the representative
if I could look at the schedule for the MYF SR22 he got very evasive and said things like "that
particular SR22 is used more than any other in the fleet", "its very busy", "its not represenative"
etc.. etc..
I've also talked to several pilots that were OurPlane or Airshares users in other areas
and only about 50% said they would do it again, and the biggest complaint was scheduling.



Paul

Only in terms of price. In every other way owning is better.

-Robert


Kingfish wrote:
wrote:
Mr Peanut weighing in he

At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting.

But doesn't it tie you up to your home base? With a rental you have the
option to do some flying far from home without having to ferry your
aircraft all the way there and back. It would be more of a concern for
a smaller single, of course.

Andrey

Robert M. Gary wrote:
Only in terms of price. In every other way owning is better.

-Robert


Kingfish wrote:
wrote:
Mr Peanut weighing in he

At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting.