To Glass or Not To Glass...

Martin Hotze wrote:
"Kingfish" wrote:

New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
for the G1000 182 IIRC

and for (starting at) $ 478.000 you can buy a Diamond DA42 Twin Star.
That's a multi engine with a G1000 and burning Jet fuel ....

478k is a heckuva lot more money than he was considering spending for a
1 or 2 year old 182 in his OP. Personally, I like the DA42 and can't
wait to check one out, even if it's just a look-see on a ramp somewhere.

wrote:
I have seriously considered the RV10 and maybe the Lancair ES.
The Lancair 4P is cool... but the safety record of the Lancair 4P is somewhat poor....
The airplane is probably too hot for the pilots, my self included.
It was damm hard to type that ;-)


I don't know about the safety record of the IV-P but the ones I've seen
on Controller.com are not cheap - more than a new G1000 182. Not sure
how comfortable I'd feel in an amateur-built pressurized airplane. One
of my friends had seriously considered selling his 182 for a Lancair IV
(not pressurized) but the insurance was prohibitive, apparently (he
explained) because of the small pool of IVs flying to spread out the
risk.

Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
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.

How does owning an airplane remove that option?

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.

478k is a heckuva lot more money than he was considering spending for a
1 or 2 year old 182 in his OP. Personally, I like the DA42 and can't
wait to check one out, even if it's just a look-see on a ramp somewhere.

If you get the desired options and pay taxes to the peoples republic of CA then
it will be more than 500K more than what I can afford.

Other than not being able to afford it I'd love a DA42.

"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.

Why would it be a significant factor when choosing your next destination?

If you can fly your airplane there, you would. Owning is a benefit in that
case.

If you can't fly your airplane there, then you don't. But it's not as
though your owned airplane costs you MORE just because you had to travel
without it. If when you are at your destination, you choose to rent an
airplane locally, then you have the expense for that rental, but you'd have
that expense whether or not you owned an airplane. Again, owning the
airplane doesn't increase your cost in that situation.

I don't see any way that owning an airplane ties you to your home base, nor
do I see any way that owning an airplane restricts one's ability to fly
other airplanes elsewhere.

I've owned my airplane for 12 years now, and not once have I found that
owning an airplane has in any way restricted my ability to travel or other
fly other airplanes.

Your comment sounds a lot like something someone who has never owned an
airplane might say when trying to find some reason to not own an airplane.
There ARE reasons to not own an airplane (economics and the hassle of
managing the airplane being the two main ones), but the question of what
one's options are when traveling without the owned airplane is NOT among
them.

Pete

"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.

Let's say I'm like the majority of the population and don't own a plane and
I take and airline across county and need to travel on the surface once I
get there. Should the fact that I own a car at home have any effect on my
decision whether to rent a car or walk?

That seems like a good analogy, but for one thing: you get enough utility
out of your car to justify the cost of owning it as it is, and it is not
a huge cost or hassle. If recreational trips is all the flying you do,
then every trip made in a different airplane from the one you've paid and keep
paying for takes away from its utility and drives the cost/value number
ever higher.


Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.

Let's say I'm like the majority of the population and don't own a plane and
I take and airline across county and need to travel on the surface once I
get there. Should the fact that I own a car at home have any effect on my
decision whether to rent a car or walk?

If you can't fly your airplane there, then you don't. But it's not as
though your owned airplane costs you MORE just because you had to travel
without it. If when you are at your destination, you choose to rent an

It is not the pure dollar cost that matters, but the effectiveness of
the money spent, i.e. cost vs. utility. It is especially true for
something requiring continuous money infusions like owning an airplane.

Your comment sounds a lot like something someone who has never owned an

That's exactly that. I'm evaluating my options now.

airplane might say when trying to find some reason to not own an airplane.

Not that I'm trying to find a reason not to own, rather a sound justification
to own.


Andrey

There's the problem in your logic. You are assuming that an airplane owner
that just uses the aircraft for recreational trips isn't getting enough
utility out of it.


"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
That seems like a good analogy, but for one thing: you get enough utility
out of your car to justify the cost of owning it as it is, and it is not
a huge cost or hassle. If recreational trips is all the flying you do,
then every trip made in a different airplane from the one you've paid and
keep
paying for takes away from its utility and drives the cost/value number
ever higher.


Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Andrey Serbinenko" wrote in message
...
Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money
wasted,
and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next
destination.

Let's say I'm like the majority of the population and don't own a plane
and
I take and airline across county and need to travel on the surface once I
get there. Should the fact that I own a car at home have any effect on my
decision whether to rent a car or walk?