Beech Starship

[Ted]

*insert Cessna loving words from Kent*

I'm still with you on all the good points and good features about the 172 and 182. Ford is not still selling 1979 LTDs like the one my Grandfather used to have. Like the 182, the 1979 Ford LTD had a lot of good features. However if Ford tried to sell an updated 1979 LTD, they'd get crushed (even though I'd probably buy one). My point is more that the 172 and 182 have maintained minimal updates for decades.

I'm with you there. I wonder if all the OWT's have hurt them over the years.

OWTs... I don't know what that means. I know that I love flying the M20F, and if I were looking for a new, certificated plane, that Mooney would be top on my list.

Well, if you didn't have to BUILD the thing, that would increase sales by orders of magnitude. The other thing is that it's only two seats (how many certified two-seaters for sale that aren't LSA's right now?) and it is a go-fast machine that's challenging to fly, practically the exact opposite of the 182. The 182 can fit a lot more people's mission profile.

I thought the IV-P was a 4-seater? I could be wrong. And yes, I agree that building the thing is the worst part of it - but it isn't unheard of to pay an A&P (or two or three) to build the plane for you. Still, that is significantly harder than going to the Cessna, Piper, or Mooney dealer and just buying one. For a number of pilots they probably don't care enough to choose the avionics stack, etc. that building your own plane gives you the option of.

Easy to fly, easy to maintain, hauls a pretty good load (ours are both at 1005 ±1 pound useful load, or 717±1 payload with full fuel, or 801±1 payload with fuel to the tabs), simple systems, etc. It's another good all-around plane, and IMHO has better ground handling and is easier to land than a 172.

Yep, I love the Archers. If only they made a PA-28R-250. Sure, they make the Comanche 250/260, but I like the PA-28 series better. That said, I like the Mooney better than both.

I am, however, surprised that the DA40 (232 shipped in 2007) doesn't sell better than the 172 (373 shipped between the R and SP), and completely obliterate the Warrior and Archer (27 and 16, respectively). It's got all the same advantages (simple, easy to fly), full-fuel payload beats the new Archers by over 100 pounds, it's a good solid 30 knots or more faster, and it definitely is a lot sexier than the old metal birds.

Having zero experience with Diamonds, I hae zero input.

The problem with the new Archers is that they've gained a lot of weight. The useful load has dropped by nearly 50% compared to the late-70's ones.

Yikes, I didn't know that. With modern accessories come more weight, I suppose.

I doubt there's very many people, if any, were considering a used King Air and decided on a Seminole instead. Completely different missions, again. The King Air carries a lot of stuff and goes fast. The Seminole just sits on the ramp at the flight school and dreams about being able to climb on one engine.

Yeah, someone who buys a Seminole is probably not in the market for a King Air, but that was part of my point. If it was my money (or Felix's, I believe) we'd buy the King Air instead - but the person who's buying a new Seminole probably wouldn't hav ea lot of use for a King Air.

So, which planes are you speaking of?

The cabin class piston twins. I know you can still buy a new Seminole or a new G58 Baron, but neither of those are of any interest to me. Of course, I'm not going to spend that much on a plane anyway, so whatever I buy will be used anyways. However 20-30 years from now, that also means there will be no 20-30 year old cabin class piston twins for sale since they aren't selling them today.

Of course, none of the manufacturers care about what I want since I won't buy a new one.

 

[sba55]

I doubt there's very many people, if any, were considering a used King Air and decided on a Seminole instead. Completely different missions, again. The King Air carries a lot of stuff and goes fast. The Seminole just sits on the ramp at the flight school and dreams about being able to climb on one engine.

Well, no there aren't, but that's not my point. Unless you like the younger age aspect of the plane, there's really no point in buying product a if product b, although used, is orders of magnitude more capable and not much more expensive. Of course, operating costs are a different matter....

 

[flyersfan31]

Yeah, someone who buys a Seminole is probably not in the market for a King Air, but that was part of my point. If it was my money (or Felix's, I believe) we'd buy the King Air instead - but the person who's buying a new Seminole probably wouldn't hav ea lot of use for a King Air.

The ONLY person who buys a Seminole these days is a flight school operator.

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm still with you on all the good points and good features about the 172 and 182. Ford is not still selling 1979 LTDs like the one my Grandfather used to have. Like the 182, the 1979 Ford LTD had a lot of good features. However if Ford tried to sell an updated 1979 LTD, they'd get crushed (even though I'd probably buy one). My point is more that the 172 and 182 have maintained minimal updates for decades.

Wrong comparison. Try the Ford F-150, which has been around for 5 decades (in the F-series)!

The F-Series is a series of full-size pickup trucks from Ford Motor Company sold for over five decades. The most popular variant of the F-Series is the F-150. It was the best-selling vehicle in the United States for 23 years and has been the best-selling truck for 31 years[1], though this does not include combined sales of GM pickup trucks.[2] Analysts estimate that the F-Series alone makes up half of the Ford Motor Company's profits in recent years. In the 10th generation of the F-series, Ford split the F-150 & F-250/350 into two different body styles.

OWTs... I don't know what that means

Old Wives' Tales.

 

[Ted]

Wrong comparison. Try the Ford F-150, which has been around for 5 decades (in the F-series)!

Yeah, but the F-150 has received massive updates and changes, whereas the 172 and 182... haven't.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm still with you on all the good points and good features about the 172 and 182. Ford is not still selling 1979 LTDs like the one my Grandfather used to have. Like the 182, the 1979 Ford LTD had a lot of good features. However if Ford tried to sell an updated 1979 LTD, they'd get crushed (even though I'd probably buy one). My point is more that the 172 and 182 have maintained minimal updates for decades.

I think Grant's example of the F150 is a better analogy, and the 172/182 are much better products than the LTD.

Both the C182 and the F150 have the same general form factor they did 30 years ago.

Both the C182 and the F150 are better-looking and more efficient than they were 30 years ago.

Both the C182 and the F150 are made of mostly the same materials they were 30 years ago.

OWTs... I don't know what that means. I know that I love flying the M20F, and if I were looking for a new, certificated plane, that Mooney would be top on my list.

Old Wives' Tales. You know, like how Mooneys are cramped inside, that their wings will shred themselves if you land on grass, that they're going out of business again tomorrow (that one is the only one that had any basis for being started in the first place), that you can't make good landings on the rubber donuts... I've heard so many of them, but if I were in the market for a new four-place complex single, the Mooney is the first place I'd look. (Used, I'd also look at Comanches, 182RG's, and Cardinal RG's.)

I thought the IV-P was a 4-seater? I could be wrong.

No, I guess it is a 4-seater. I guess I was confused.

Yep, I love the Archers. If only they made a PA-28R-250. Sure, they make the Comanche 250/260, but I like the PA-28 series better.

Why, you'd rather have a big fat draggy wing than a nice efficient fast laminar-flow wing? The Arrow requires about 10% more horsepower than the Comanche to go the same speed. So, you'd better make that a PA-28R-275.

The cabin class piston twins. I know you can still buy a new Seminole or a new G58 Baron, but neither of those are of any interest to me. Of course, I'm not going to spend that much on a plane anyway, so whatever I buy will be used anyways. However 20-30 years from now, that also means there will be no 20-30 year old cabin class piston twins for sale since they aren't selling them today.

Yeah. I've been wondering about that myself recently. These days, to go cabin class seems to require a turbine. Why? Cheap gas? For a charter, the cheaper the hourly rate, the more potential customers you have. Maybe they just can't manufacture a cabin-class piston twin any more economically than a bizjet? There must still be something to the CCPT market if Adam spent all that time working on building one! Bad example, I know, but why wouldn't they have gone straight for the jet otherwise? Plus, I sure see a ton of CCPT's on charter fleets.

 

[Ted]

I think Grant's example of the F150 is a better analogy, and the 172/182 are much better products than the LTD.

Both the C182 and the F150 have the same general form factor they did 30 years ago.

Both the C182 and the F150 are better-looking and more efficient than they were 30 years ago.

Both the C182 and the F150 are made of mostly the same materials they were 30 years ago.

I agree the F-150 is a better example than the LTD. That said, I miss that '79 LTD. Go figure. In '79 it still had a V8 in it... I think it was the 400 mated to a C4. Anyway, the F-150 is a better comparison, but Ford has made far more updates to the F-150 than Cessna has to the 182 over the course of their respective histories. The biggest update in the 182 has been the G1000, but the F-150 doesn't even share the same frame that it used to, and the two look completely different. Granted, evolution has been relatively slow, but it's still occured faster for the F-150 vs. the 182.

Old Wives' Tales. You know, like how Mooneys are cramped inside, that their wings will shred themselves if you land on grass, that they're going out of business again tomorrow (that one is the only one that had any basis for being started in the first place), that you can't make good landings on the rubber donuts... I've heard so many of them, but if I were in the market for a new four-place complex single, the Mooney is the first place I'd look. (Used, I'd also look at Comanches, 182RG's, and Cardinal RG's.)

Ahh, gotcha. You know, my landings are actually smoother in the Mooney now than the Archer just because it's what I'm flying more. The one thing with the rubber donuts is that if you don't let the nose down softly enough, it will tend to bounce.

For me, if I wanted a certified complex single, Mooney's the first place I'd look. If I didn't mind experimental, I'd go for an IV-P.

Why, you'd rather have a big fat draggy wing than a nice efficient fast laminar-flow wing? The Arrow requires about 10% more horsepower than the Comanche to go the same speed. So, you'd better make that a PA-28R-275.

It has to do with how the plane flies. I don't like the way the Comanche flies as much as the Archer. But I could probably fix most of that with some different pilot/plane interaction mechanisms. Ergonomics of how I interact with the plane is a big thing to me. Ultimately, I wouldn't actually buy either, I'd go for a Mooney.

Yeah. I've been wondering about that myself recently. These days, to go cabin class seems to require a turbine. Why? Cheap gas? For a charter, the cheaper the hourly rate, the more potential customers you have. Maybe they just can't manufacture a cabin-class piston twin any more economically than a bizjet? There must still be something to the CCPT market if Adam spent all that time working on building one! Bad example, I know, but why wouldn't they have gone straight for the jet otherwise? Plus, I sure see a ton of CCPT's on charter fleets.

I wonder somewhat about economics here. The OWT I've heard is that the turbines cost less to operate per hour due to their lower maintenance requirements. This only works to your benefit if you fly a lot. So, the companies that have enough money to buy a new plane are the ones that probably operate a lot, and therefore getting a King Air or a Pilatus (especially with the high efficiency of the Pilatus) ends up being more economical. The missions also tend to be of the sort where flying high and fast is better, i.e. longer distance trips.

Then you've got operations that use the piston twin setups. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that most of those are shorter trips, and they aren't operating at the duty cycle that the bigger places that run the newer planes. So, it may not make sense for them to go out and spend a couple million on a new King Air, but buying a used Navajo or 421 is affordable, and the business case works better. In either case, I don't know enough about the costs of either to say for certain, but it is a question I wonder about.

Interesting math: I looked at the cruise speed and fuel burn of the Pilatus vs. the Navajo (PA-31-310, what my instructor flies) and it turns out their miles per gallon is just about the same, despite the Pilatus going almost 50% faster.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Anyway, the F-150 is a better comparison, but Ford has made far more updates to the F-150 than Cessna has to the 182 over the course of their respective histories. The biggest update in the 182 has been the G1000, but the F-150 doesn't even share the same frame that it used to, and the two look completely different. Granted, evolution has been relatively slow, but it's still occured faster for the F-150 vs. the 182.

I think the main reason for that is that Ford doesn't have to deal with the FAA!

Interesting math: I looked at the cruise speed and fuel burn of the Pilatus vs. the Navajo (PA-31-310, what my instructor flies) and it turns out their miles per gallon is just about the same, despite the Pilatus going almost 50% faster.

Yeah, well, one of them has one engine, and one of them has two.

The other thing is that the Pilatus is operating up in the thin air of the lower flight levels, while the Navajo is down in Indian territory working against greater drag.