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

The Baron is a very nice airplane and it is very easy to fly
at 85-90 knots. But any twin requires that you practice a
lot or the second engine will quickly take you to the scene
of the accident. The 310 is developing a lot of airframe
problems.

The glass cockpit is nice, but the real selling point is
that it is cheaper for the manufacturer to buy and install.
You can buy a nice used airplane and upgrade to modern panel
mounted GPS and displays for less money than buying a new
G1000 airplane.

You may need a 5-6 seat airplane to be able to carry 4 and
some baggage with enough fuel to fly x-c. Over-water. you
will need a raft and floatation gear whether you are in a
single or twin. If you have the money, a Cessna 208 Caravan
with a PT6 engine is a nice airplane with good sight-seeing
layout.


wrote in message
...
| 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

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.

I'd suggest a single for your first airplane. As for which year, it is
up to your budget. Aircraft are like cars in that the newer ones
depreciate more, so you will eat it when you sell if you buy new(er).
Still, safetywise, newer is better. Old stuff is OLD. If you like the
182 and glass cockpit, get one of those. Not a bad choice. Cessna 182
will do your mission. You'll just have to live with over the water
single issues, but Catalina can be flown so you can glide to land, if
you climb high enough. Small twins are expensive, and statistically
more dangerous than singles. If budget is at all a consideration, stick
with a single. Buy the newest you can afford.

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.

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.

I teach in the C-182 with G1000. It's a nice airplane but it has a
very sad useful load and quite a high fuel burn for being as slow as it
is. As a result you end up having to use those extra large tanks but
then it becomes a two person airplane.
You might check out the G1000 systems offered in the Mooney line up.
The G1000 integration is tighter in the Mooney (the autopilot is fully
integrated, in the C-182 you have to set attitude and barometer in both
separately).
The nice thing about the Mooney is that you can get a really good known
ice system that has an amazing track record for performance. Cirrus
also has a known ice system but seems to have had some problems in
icing conditions.
I'm not aware of twins that are being offered with G1000 systems.

I think, after you buy, you will realize its the right choice. Knowing
you can jump in your plane and launch on a 1000 mile IFR trip is
priceless. Showing up at the FBO to find the atitude indicator out for
repairs in the rental will make you a convert.

-Robert


wrote:
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

Certainly buy all the goodies you can afford. Adding
avionics/autopilots/etc to an existing plane is enormously expensive
and you never get the money back. Best bet is to always buy a plane
that has the stuff you want.

-Robert

Doug wrote:
Buy the newest you can afford.