Owning before obtaining a PP license

"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

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

"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.

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.

Ditto that.

-cwk. (172N)

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.