Owning before obtaining a PP license

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

.

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.

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.

"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.

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.