Aircraft manufacturers and their reputations

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 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.

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 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.

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

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)

"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?

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"