Long Term Planning for a Fast Comfortable Cross Country Plane

[idahoflier]

IIUC, for all but longer cross country flights, a private turbine aircraft leaving from an airpark residence will usually beat the airlines in door-to-door time due to the logistics I mentioned above:

Plus it's so much more fun along the way even though you're going slower.

In fairness, that's the first I read about an airpark residence... ;-) But even so, unless you're a "kick the tires and light the fires" type, I think you will find you will spend as much and probably more time flying yourself. Your time will be spent on other things like flight planning, loading the aircraft, etc.

Regardless, I can't argue it will be a more enjoyable experience!

 

[AFlyGuy]

I wonder if a PC-12 should actually be his goal aircraft.

I'm absolutely enamored with that airplane. The engineering Pilatus has put into it is outstanding at almost every level. The only (very minimal) downside is its 275 kts cruise speed doesn't match the desired 300+ kts envelope, but for the sheer utility of a PC-12, I might happily make this concession. I'll only be able to know after building up hundreds of hours before looking at the PC-12, but damn - what a plane.

You make a really good point with the high recapture. I wonder if the Denali is going to put a dent in that at all - I've no idea.

 

[AA5Bman]

I'm not sure if anything I have to add is worth anything to anyone, as I'm a relatively low-hour pilot (170 hrs) in a MUCH lower ... ummmm... income bracket than the original poster... and I own a '65 PA28-140 Cherokee. I did the first 14 hours of my training in a Cessna 152, then bought into this Cherokee, got my certificate, started my instrument work, and eventually bought out my partners. The Cherokee is in pretty awful cosmetic shape, especially the interior, and it's cramped and slow... and I still love flying it. Every once in a while, I think about just selling it, chipping in another 20 or 30K out of my savings, and buying something better/prettier/faster/newer, but the truth is that there is still much more I can learn from flying this airplane, including finishing my IFR and really starting to USE it purposefully as true transportation instead of just recreationally. At THAT point, if the airplane is not up to what I need from an aircraft, I'll consider moving up in capability. There really is no rush to do so... airplanes tend to hold their value after the initial major depreciation bottoms out, so why not just buy a cheap, inexpensive fun flier, get your ratings, get a lot of experience, and THEN drop the major dime you're talking about on the airplane you KNOW you want. By then, you'll have a much better idea of what that TRULY is. When I started flying, I was planning on buying a Cherokee Six so I could take my family or another couple places for vacations w/ baggage, figuring that I could find a really good older one for $60K or so. Once I got my ticket, I realized that the vast, VAST majority of my time spent in the air is either alone or with one other person. Burning money flying a thirsty Six would have been incredibly stupid, and very hard on me financially. The buy-in? Could have managed it. Flying constantly and maintaining it? Nope. The Cherokee I can fly whenever I want w/out sweating the cost... and the more I fly it, the cheaper it is to own figured by the hour.
If the OP really has so much money that frugality is not at all a factor, then my views probably aren't worth much. Personally, I can't imagine not taking costs in to account no matter how much wealth I'd earned or otherwise amassed. Buy an inexpensive airplane, enjoy the tar out of it until you need something better, sell it and get most of your money back out of it (unless you spent too much on it in the first place or did a lot of upgrades after purchase), then put that dough and more into your next plane. To me, that's about the only thing that makes sense. How do you know what you need until you know what you need?

I really like this post. My experience has been the same: I've owned planes that were right at the limit of my ability financially, and I've owned planes that were comfortably under my limit financially. Whatever your financial capability, the whole thing is a hell of a lot more fun when you significantly undershoot whatever it is that you can afford.

 

[alfadog]

You asked about a training and experience arc. If I were in your shoes here is what I would do.

1. Get your PPL in a modern glass-panel rented a/c. Here is S. Florida we have plenty of options; Cessna, Diamond, Cirrus. Don't know what options you have.
2. PPL in-hand, purchase a fairly new or well-equipped SE a/c that meets your useful load requirements. Something with maybe 500-800 SMOH. So you go a bit slower or make an extra stop, NBD.
3. Get instrument rating in that a/c.
4. Get some serious tailwheel time to improve stick-and-rudder.
5. PROFIT!!!
6. No, seriously, with IR and some hours, now start thinking about that twin or turboprop or whatever.

 

[Clip4]

In just the replies I've seen here, it definitely seems possible. A Cheyenne 400LS will do 350 kts @ FL240 and can be had for ~ $800k and that definitely is lower than $1M. In coming years, some used TBMs will be right under that mark as well.

400LS is not a luxury airplane + 50 years old in a few years.

 

[Ted]

400LS is not a luxury airplane + 50 years old in a few years.

It absolutely is a luxury airplane. The real problem is that there are only 25 of them flying still, and Cheyenne Air (now called Friend Aircare I think?) in PA is the only shop that really knows them. It’s a fantastic aircraft, bucket list for me to fly one, but support is limited with supply even more limited, and that drives the cost as low as it is.

 

[Clip4]

It absolutely is a luxury airplane. The real problem is that there are only 25 of them flying still, and Cheyenne Air (now called Friend Aircare I think?) in PA is the only shop that really knows them. It’s a fantastic aircraft, bucket list for me to fly one, but support is limited with supply even more limited, and that drives the cost as low as it is.

Pick one of the 25, park it next to a new TBM and stroll through both.

 

[Ted]

Pick one of the 25, park it next to a new TBM and stroll through both.

The TBM is also a luxury airplane. A Cadillac and a Rolls Royce are both luxury cars.

 

[bbchien]

Citation 500 will meet his price point.

 

[GRG55]

It absolutely is a luxury airplane. The real problem is that there are only 25 of them flying still, and Cheyenne Air (now called Friend Aircare I think?) in PA is the only shop that really knows them. It’s a fantastic aircraft, bucket list for me to fly one, but support is limited with supply even more limited, and that drives the cost as low as it is.

+1

22 years ago I worked for someone who owned one. He eventually upgraded to a new Lear 45, but before that happened I got to sit the right seat, up front with his pilot, on multiple cross-continent trips to see our investors in NY, Boston and Toronto. What a rocket ship.

 

[OkieAviator]

Make shorter posts and use the time saved building an RV-10.

 

[Clip4]

The TBM is also a luxury airplane. A Cadillac and a Rolls Royce are both luxury cars.

A DC3 was a luxury airplane too, but no longer.

 

[AA5Bman]

Make shorter posts and use the time saved building an RV-10.

/thread

 

[N1120A]

The TBM is also a luxury airplane. A Cadillac and a Rolls Royce are both luxury cars.

The TBM is like a CTS-V, compared to the Cheyenne IV's Panamera. How anyone can say any Cheyenne, let alone a Cheyenne IV, isn't a luxury plane really doesn't know airplanes.

 

[Sinistar]

@AFlyGuy , I can't give you a full training arc, buy my suggestion will be a bit more aggressive given you have time/$$$. My hunch is you will go low wing but wind up in a retract so here goes:

• Start PPL training in a low wing.
• At the same be on the lookout for a Bonanza so you will have HP/Complex and a bit more complex fuel system than high wing gravity fed.
• The day you get that plane switch to flying in it. I would even suggest finishing your PPL in it. Make the prop/gear/fuel system be your norm.
• Do at least (5) VFR cross countries in it of over 400nm from your base.
• As you do those XC's you'll learn why you need the IR and why that isn't even enough sometimes. You will see what it is really like to travel by GA, etc. You'll find out how often you actually fly with lots of passengers.
• Get your IR and Commercial in it.
• About this time, say 300 hrs or so I am pretty sure you will be in one of 3 camps
  • I still love it, time to step up to a SE Turbine or SR22T/ TTx. You might partner.
  • I love flying but traveling the US via GA just isn't what I thought it would be. You keep the revered Bo and enjoy casual flying until you are old and gray. You do a family trip of 300nm once a year which seems to be perfect number for everyone.
  • You discover your interst in GA was short term and you sell the Bo and join a sweet club and fly periodically. The Bo is popular and you don't loose to much on it.
• All thru this you'll also get good at ownership including: annuals, avionics, hangar buy/build/rent, etc. Great experience to have when you decide to transition form a $150/hr plane to a $350/hr plane.
• If you suffer a medical issue up to this point your fall won't be so hard vs being all in on a Turbine you can't fly.

 

[James_Dean]

I went PA32 -> 310 -> 425.

I think your focus on acquisition cost is a mistake. What is your budget for annual ops cost? That is probably the most important question for planning your journey.

A 400LS at 100hrs/yr? That is a $2000/hr proposition.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I went PA32 -> 310 -> 425.

I think your focus on acquisition cost is a mistake. What is your budget for annual ops cost? That is probably the most important question for planning your journey.

A 400LS at 100hrs/yr? That is a $2000/hr proposition.

If the engines are in good shape, I'd guess that the hourly cost would be substantially less than that (interpolating from a similar airplane). Only $325/hour or so fuel costs.

 

[hindsight2020]

What is your budget for annual ops cost? That is probably the most important question for planning your journey.

Yup, I asked the same earlier in the thread. The great mystery. I've seen this kind of thread before, but I won't presume publicly. You hit it dead on though.

 

[47PILOT]

Have you looked at an epic yet? The price point, speed, cost per hr. are hard to beat. Comfortable,fast, fairly roomy, and can haul a sizable load. I’ve narrowed my list down to an sr22 or an epic. Flew from CA to OSH last year

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...7/?temp_hash=cc26e356327eabfc3ec1c3a58761d45e

 

[James_Dean]

If the engines are in good shape, I'd guess that the hourly cost would be substantially less than that (interpolating from a similar airplane). Only $325/hour or so fuel costs.

You’re talking about a 12,000lb plane with 2 1000hp engines that is best case 28 years old with only 25ish siblings in the wild. You’re in the world of $25k windshields, $4k batteries, $70k turbine wheels, and some parts that are nearly unobtanium. How about the $20k insurance bill, or the huge hangar? How about the $5k bill for annual recurrent training?

The fuel is absolutely the cheap part.

 

[Jamie Kirk]

As a new pilot and aircraft owner I discovered the cheapest part of aircraft ownership is the purchase. Having the cash on hand is easy for purchase, but how much you’re going to spend operating, maintaining, upgrading, storing, insuring and flying is the sobering part.

New pilot with the airplanes you listed is going to cost you an arm and a leg. For me in a complex aircraft insurance was $5k a year with a $100k hull value. Going to buy a million dollar plane as a new pilot? I cannot even imagine that insurance cost.

 

[jsstevens]

The OP did explicitly ask about Total Cost of Ownership not simply purchase price.

In other words: the thread subject is back thataway folks!

John

 

[hindsight2020]

The OP did explicitly ask about Total Cost of Ownership not simply purchase price.

In other words: the thread subject is back thataway folks!

John

But people already acknowledged that. OP he refuses to reveal his yearly operating budget, which is the entire inflection point among all types of airplanes offered. Until that figure is known, this will have to be presumed yet another thread about a neophyte with SR22 money thinking he can swing a proverbial Meridian because he can afford the finance payment.

 

[Jamie Kirk]

The OP did explicitly ask about Total Cost of Ownership not simply purchase price.

In other words: the thread subject is back thataway folks!

John

He did, like someone who has never owned a plane before. Like I did. I made the same mistake.

New pilots and owners need to be taught operating cost, maintenance reserves and not purchasing cost.

 

[AFlyGuy]

New pilots and owners need to be taught operating cost, maintenance reserves and not purchasing cost.

I'm sorry, but with respect, this is incorrect. Please feel free to talk to a CPA or fiduciary if you don't believe me. I don't care if it's an aircraft, heavy machinery, a yacht, a new office building - initial capital expenditure ('upfront costs') and continued variable + fixed costs all matter and are considered in a purchase decision. If my initial capex is 50% of a 10-year TCO and realized in the first year, that influences decisions with respect to investment rate of return over that same 10 year period, offset by depreciation and/or capital gains/losses over that same period, based on interest rates. If that initial capex is 90% up front followed by 10% fixed and variable monthly costs realized over the same 10 years, that changes the calculation greatly.

To put it another way, if one spends A) $2M on a plane and the annual operating costs are $100k a year (upper end of the SF50 operating costs for an owner-operator and 100 hours a year, they're probably closer to $70k), this is a very different 10-year financial calculation compared to spending B) $1M on a plane with $200k a year. Some might think that scenario A and B equal the same amount of money over a 10 year period ($3M), but they'd be wrong. Scenario A is much more costly to an investor because the extra initial $1M capex is not compounding in growth over 10 years, which could result in anywhere from an additional $700k to $1M in net value even after accounting for the operating costs in scenario B (assuming historical market patterns). And if you finance instead of buy outright, Scenario B is even that much more capital efficient assuming investment rate of return is higher than the financing interest rate, which is very likely based on previous and current interest rates and market history the last 20 years.

OP he refuses to reveal his yearly operating budget, which is the entire inflection point among all types of airplanes offered. Until that figure is known, this will have to be presumed yet another thread about a neophyte with SR22 money thinking he can swing a proverbial Meridian because he can afford the finance payment.

Did I ever say anything about a finance payment? I'm not sure where you got that.

Anyway, I haven't refused - I just didn't think it relevant for the conclusions we came to in the discussion on Friday. Your desire to define an upper operating cost budget line misses the point of the 'lowest TCO' objective. Half of the point of the post was to find the 'sweet spot' of the lowest TCO for an owner-operated high performance aircraft that satisfied the mission profile. There are objective criteria that can be evaluated against all current high performance GA aircraft to find which have the lowest TCO for that mission, and those results could be plotted on a chart, whether it's certified or experimental, and no matter who pays those bills.

In any event, this is mostly moot for me now since I will be taking the approach outlined in my bulleted summary post last Friday with the 7 items represented. Even when I started this thread, I would never think of acquiring any of these aircraft as a low-time pilot - I was crystal clear about this in my initial post and all subsequent ones, yet people are still surfacing 'low time pilot' and 'neophyte' issues. I won't be a low-time pilot by the time I consider acquiring such aircraft because the other point of the post was to get recommended advice on how to get the skills to be proficient enough to handle one. Yet again, for some reason, I feel I have to make this clear. Ah the joys of Internet forums .

 

[AFlyGuy]

Joking aside and all due respect, your retorts are plain circuitous sophistry.

I know it's difficult sometimes to represent demeanor or humor on public forums, and I just want to say that I take no offense and this is all in (hopefully) good fun in an attempt to learn and debate the more interesting points of aircraft ownership. I'm genuinely grateful you've joined in the discussion.

That said, I definitely don't think it's sophistry. For example, you haven't refuted *why* the following statement is invalid:

There are objective criteria that can be evaluated against all current high performance GA aircraft to find which have the lowest TCO for that mission, and those results could be plotted on a chart, whether it's certified or experimental, and no matter who pays those bills.

More concretely, if I give you a number, I'm assuming you're going to start crunching numbers based on what that upper limit is. I'm not being coy about the limit, I promise. It's because I believe any number completely defeats the purpose of an objective TCO discussion and forces bias towards that number. The point of data and resulting graphs is that they have nothing to do with what one *could* pay - they have everything to do with what actual costs are within a reasonable margin of error.

Based on that, anyone (not just me) can decide what they want to pay based on what the chart shows and their comfort level and desires, etc. It's why there are pages and pages of internet websites that are dedicated to realistic estimates of purchase + annual (fixed + variable) costs. Based on this data, you could theoretically plot a chart for everything that satisfies the mission and then have an objective discussion on which lowest-cost TCO would satisfy it. If one wanted to spend more than that, that's fine, but that's based on preference, opinions, desires, etc, and are not objective criteria.

If you don't believe this is a valid approach for an objective (not subjective) cost discussion, why might that be the case?

Cheers!

 

[WillFly4Food]

There’s a lot of good advice to be found in this thread.

For most pilots getting into recreational flying, perhaps with a middle class budget, the route with learning to fly on a 152/172/PA-28 and progressing on to more capable aircraft, but topping out with something like a Mooney, Bonanza, 210, T182RG, SR22 etc., has been the established route. But you have clearly identified a goal that reaches well above those aircraft, and the established route doesn’t have to fit everyone.

I have a buddy that started in an A36 Bonanza, that he bought before earning his ticket. I thought it was absolutely crazy, and I told him so. But he had a plan to progress to a turboprop, and wanted to build his foundation with a more capable and challenging plane, to assist with his transition at the next step. He got himself a well respected and safety conscious gold seal instructor. He earned both his PPL and Instrument tickets in that plane. And he did a lot of dual with his CFI, certainly much more than Part 61 requires. Flew a lot of family trips with the instructor along side. And he ended up flying about 250 hours per year in that A36.

He proved my initial assessment to be wrong. And it worked out well for him - he’s now driving a Cheyenne I.

 

[WillFly4Food]

OP, one thing you’ve mentioned does raise a little concern (forgive me if I misunderstood your intent).

You’ve written about beating the airlines and the hassles of scheduled commercial service. I get that. But there’s a saying some of us use: If you have time to spare, go by air.

Be careful about entering aviation with a mindset of beating the airlines. Everything you mentioned, the lines, TSA, boarding, etc applies, but stuff happens in GA, too. Stuff that’s not planned. Weather, magnetos, weather, tires, weather, GPS database updates, weather, pesky maintenance issues, and, I should mention, weather.

There will be times when you do beat the airlines, but not always. Cherish the victories, but Plan A is a safe flight, and you canceled or diverted if needed. I always tell non-pilot friends if we’re going on a trip, be prepared for cancellations. It just makes it easier to do when those issues inevitably arise.

 

[Sinistar]

There’s a lot of good advice to be found in this thread.

For most pilots getting into recreational flying, perhaps with a middle class budget, the route with learning to fly on a 152/172/PA-28 and progressing on to more capable aircraft, but topping out with something like a Mooney, Bonanza, 210, T182RG, SR22 etc., has been the established route. But you have clearly identified a goal that reaches well above those aircraft, and the established route doesn’t have to fit everyone.

I have a buddy that started in an A36 Bonanza, that he bought before earning his ticket. I thought it was absolutely crazy, and I told him so. But he had a plan to progress to a turboprop, and wanted to build his foundation with a more capable and challenging plane, to assist with his transition at the next step. He got himself a well respected and safety conscious gold seal instructor. He earned both his PPL and Instrument tickets in that plane. And he did a lot of dual with his CFI, certainly much more than Part 61 requires. Flew a lot of family trips with the instructor along side. And he ended up flying about 250 hours per year in that A36.

He proved my initial assessment to be wrong. And it worked out well for him - he’s now driving a Cheyenne I.

Pretty much what I proposed in post # 55. Just think, many pilots have learned in planes more sophisticated/powerful/complex than a 150/152/Archer/172/etc. Not a majority, but many. I think it mainly depends on finding a CFI worthy of the task and who believes in it...along with a student with deeper pockets.

Example: I am guessing most people these days do the majority if their commercial rating in the same Archer/172 with the exception of the complex time requirement. I was talking to my wife a while back and learned something new. She did all of her commercial training and check ride in a good friends T34. To some it would be waste of money. She used that experience to help towards flying it to OSH later on.

 

[Sinistar]

New pilots and owners need to be taught operating cost, maintenance reserves and not purchasing cost.

I think you took a leap here...why should a new pilot who never intends to be an owner be required to learn this stuff. There isn't much (if any) in the CFR's that require a PIC to know what it cost, what a maintenance reserve is, etc. It might be good that they are aware, but definitely not required.

 

[Jamie Kirk]

I think you took a leap here...why should a new pilot who never intends to be an owner be required to learn this stuff. There isn't much (if any) in the CFR's that require a PIC to know what it cost, what a maintenance reserve is, etc. It might be good that they are aware, but definitely not required.

New pilots and owners, I did not say all new pilots.

 

[Sinistar]

OP, one thing you’ve mentioned does raise a little concern (forgive me if I misunderstood your intent).

You’ve written about beating the airlines and the hassles of scheduled commercial service. I get that. But there’s a saying some of us use: If you have time to spare, go by air.

Be careful about entering aviation with a mindset of beating the airlines. Everything you mentioned, the lines, TSA, boarding, etc applies, but stuff happens in GA, too. Stuff that’s not planned. Weather, magnetos, weather, tires, weather, GPS database updates, weather, pesky maintenance issues, and, I should mention, weather.

There will be times when you do beat the airlines, but not always. Cherish the victories, but Plan A is a safe flight, and you canceled or diverted if needed. I always tell non-pilot friends if we’re going on a trip, be prepared for cancellations. It just makes it easier to do when those issues inevitably arise.

I get the same vibe. I can't even imagine how much airplane, training and money it would take (privately/GA) to book 10 flights from MSKP to KRAP and be able to make all 10, especially during the winter. And that doesn't count being on time.

 

[Sinistar]

New pilots and owners, I did not say all new pilots.

Sorry, I read that to mean "New Pilots" and "Owners". I think you mean "New pilots that are owners" right?

 

[AFlyGuy]

That's good to know, thanks for chiming in @WillFly4Food . That gives one hope that it's possible as long as you're diligent and focus on safety

That said, I think I'll re-post last Friday's summary here because it has been so valuable for me, and then explain what my current plan is:

In summary, the (really great) advice I'm getting from many pilots on this forum seems to be summarized as follows:

1. Plan for your dream, and take action to the best that you are able, but be diligent and calculated and don't rush.
2. Spend solid time to find a quality CFI, one who will teach your real stick and rudder skills, push you to be the best you can be, and who is in it because of their love of teaching and not someone who is just trying to accumulate time to leave for their ATP certification.
3. Get as much training as possible in a calculated progression of manageable aircraft, preferably a couple hundred hours in each type before progressing to the next one.
4. Leave your ego and hubris at the door. Being an alert, focused, extensively trained and humble pilot is so much better than being a dead pilot.
5. Fully realize that your plans may change with each aircraft you fly and as you accumulate time, and this isn't a bad thing at all. You don't know what you don't know, so enjoy the journey and be happy wherever it takes you.
6. If you've still been able to progress through all of that, and you have the same goal, get your TBM or Meridian or SF50 or whatever because you'll have the skill and knowledge and self-awareness to know if it's right for you.
7. Don't ever stop training. Spend $ on recurrent training and instructors as regularly as you can because being alive is worth it.

As for my particular current plan - I had a great call with my new CFI over the weekend. He's a gold seal CFI (ATP as well) and not a single one of his students has ever failed their PPL checkride. His advice to me:

1. Get your PPL and IR in the Archer (which has a G1000 panel). Don't worry about complex/hp until after you get your IR and about 150 to 200 hours, whereby you should have the basic skills necessary to start thinking about more complex aircraft. Complex aircraft require you to think about more things (situational awareness), and that kind of workload is better to deal with after you get your fundamentals down.
   
   
2. When you're ready to move to complex, if you want to buy, go Bonanza all day every day. He personally does not like Cirrus aircraft at all and doesn't think they're safe (he said, and I quote, "700 feet AGL and you enter a spin on base - which is when most will enter a spin - CAPS isn't much help at all." Fly something with better design where a spin recovery might actually work). I told him that Cirrus' incident and fatality rate is around 20% lower than GA in general, making it safer by that standard, but he's made up his mind and just prefers stick and rudder skills over technology. I'm totally fine with that since I prefer to learn from people like him.
   
   
3. After you get many IFR long-distance cross country flights under your belt and a few hundred to 500 hours or more in that Bonanza, totally go for a single-engine turbine if you still want it and can afford it. Tuboprops are great, have fun. Just remember the old addage, "There are old pilots and bold pilots, but not old bold pilots." Be safe, and smart, and define personal limits and train regularly with a CFI in the right seat.

Since this very nearly echoes what other experienced pilots here have already recommended, I found that to be sound corroboration from a trusted source. I'll be taking that advice!

 

[AFlyGuy]

You’ve written about beating the airlines and the hassles of scheduled commercial service. I get that. But there’s a saying some of us use: If you have time to spare, go by air.

Be careful about entering aviation with a mindset of beating the airlines. Everything you mentioned, the lines, TSA, boarding, etc applies, but stuff happens in GA, too. Stuff that’s not planned. Weather, magnetos, weather, tires, weather, GPS database updates, weather, pesky maintenance issues, and, I should mention, weather.

Yep, I've no disillusions about those things, but it feels different to me. Waiting on me (or the weather) is a fundamentally different feeling that being forced to wait on someone else. Stuff breaks, things go wrong, and you deal with that and then use commercial aviation as a backup - that's totally fine for me. Having a GA plane as my first option is more desirable. The only time I would differ from this opinion is if I have a time-critical appointment that I absolutely couldn't miss, which is exceedingly rare these days.

Here's a video that captures my sentiments wonderfully:

A C310 pilot that beats the airlines from Jacksonville, FL to Washington D.C. almost always, every week. That's the norm for him, not the exception, and it's not even a turboprop! I believe with a well-maintained high-performance aircraft, IFR, and travel distances of less than 1000 NM, it would be for most as well. Could it be different for me? Sure, but I won't know until I get there

 

[idahoflier]

When you're ready to move to complex, if you want to buy, go Bonanza all day every day. He personally does not like Cirrus aircraft at all and doesn't think they're safe (he said, and I quote, "700 feet AGL and you enter a spin on base - which is when most will enter a spin - CAPS isn't much help at all." Fly something with better design where a spin recovery might actually work).

With respect to your future CFI, I don't think you're going to recover in ANY aircraft from an inadvertent spin at 700 AGL...

 

[AFlyGuy]

With respect to your future CFI, I don't think you're going to recover in ANY aircraft from an inadvertent spin at 700 AGL...

To the best of my knowledge, the Cirrus training drives it into your head that, during an emergency imminent crash scenario:

1. Below 600 feet, you fly straight ahead and try to land via normal crash landing techniques.
2. From 600-2000 feet AGL, you use CAPS immediately.
3. Above 2000 feet AGL, you try to troubleshoot before resorting to CAPS.

#2 implies CAPS could actually be good at 700 AGL (assuming you had reaction timing good enough to pull it - a big 'if'). But I didn't want to press the issue with my CFI for fear of sounding like I was challenging him (what do I know?). Maybe that list only applies for engine failure? Are there any Cirrus flyers here that can clarify the Cirrus recommended protocol for spins at or below pattern altitude?

I believe the latest Cirrus G5 aircraft utilize their custom Garmin + Cirrus Perspective system with enforced checks-and-balances to actually prevent the aircraft (i.e. the pilot) from entering control attitudes that would create a spin at pattern altitudes/speeds, so maybe that's their answer? Is that correct?

I'll respectfully probe a little more and ask him what he meant by that and see what nuances he might have been thinking.

 

[idahoflier]

Honestly, I wouldn't press the issue with the CFI, it sounds like you have already debated it with him, no point in trying to change his mind. I think a Cirrus is probably the most survivable in that scenario, but as you mentioned above you would have to recognize what's happening and act fast.

Here's a video of a skyhawk getting into an inadvertent spin. Note how fast the altimeter unwinds in the recovery. Since they were practicing stalls they were somewhat aware of what could happen vs. flying in the pattern and they still lost more that 700 feet...

I have a whopping 0.5 hrs or Cirrus time so I can't speak to the G5, but I bet @Tantalum could!

 

[Tantalum]

he's made up his mind and just prefers stick and rudder skills over technology

I agree. That implies though that technology makes someone a "bad" pilot.. the two don't have to stand at odds with each other. At the end of the day, the world's best stick and rudder pilot will still benefit from having a moving map and synthetic vision display when they're hard IMC with a (gasp) magenta line to follow. In addition, the envelope protection the technology gives you is a good reminder to let you know that you're getting near the edge of the envelope.. the ultimate pilot will use both his or her stick and rudder skills and the technology to create the safest environment. My dad hates tech, but guess what, after I bought some proper chart plotters for the boat he's suddenly more comfortable being on the water in fog and poor weather. Sure, a compass and a timer can get you there, but why make the road harder than it has to be?

I'm totally fine with that since I prefer to learn from people like him

To a degree, but don't pick up anti tech prejudices or an idea that having a G5 or GTN650 makes you a bad pilot

I have a whopping 0.5 hrs or Cirrus time so I can't speak to the G5, but I bet @Tantalum could!

Thanks, so many Cirrus misconceptions out there. I'm sure similar misconceptions exist for other types, but the Cirrus ones are more prevalent (partly because of the volume they sell compared to Bonanza, 210, Mooney, etc.)

if you want to buy, go Bonanza all day every day. He personally does not like Cirrus aircraft at all and doesn't think they're safe (he said, and I quote, "700 feet AGL and you enter a spin on base - which is when most will enter a spin - CAPS isn't much help at all." Fly something with better design where a spin recovery might actually work).

I saved the best for last!
(1) at 700 AGL the CAPS will work, even for the heavier G5/G6 the max demonstrated altitude loss in caps deployment was 561 ft
(2) spinning at 700 AGL is the sign of poor airmanship, the idea that you are safer in a Bonanza vs a Cirrus, when one has a chute and the other doesn't, because you might spin at 700 ft agl doesn't make any sense. Will his beloved Bonanza recover from a spin at 700 ft agl. I doubt it. For what it's worth, Cirrus does actually do spin testing, NO, it doesn't need the chute to recover, but if used the max altitude loss is 1,081 ft
(3) the Cirrus is just more comfortable for long cross country. The Bonanza cabin, despite it's impressive ramp appeal, is narrow, and tapers dramatically towards the rear. I do not find it comfortable, and what passenger wants to sit backwards facing downhill getting motion sick the whole flight? Nevermind using the back seats in a Bo, they're basically there for show as the CG will quickly get away from you if you load up the very back
(4) Envelope protection, which the G3/G5/G6 Perspective planes have (at least as on option) should give you a friendly nudge if you're doing something dumb, like banking too tight, getting near a stall, etc. I've played with these features and you'd have to actively be incapacitated to not feel the stick pushing back on you, or miss the big red stall alerts, which come on well before you actually stall
(5) back to spinning in the pattern, just about any plane will kill you if you spin in the pattern.. let's instead teach coordination, and, how to enter and recover from accelerated stalls as a way to really drive the coordination point home. Also, the Cirrus has a yaw damper that works with the AP otherwise off.. use it
(6) good pilots don't need parachutes. Sure, the Mooney may have a killer glide ratio, but if you have an engine failure over a dense urban area, or you lose spatial orientation in IMC, or you lose your engine over the grand canyon.. I guarantee you'll be happy you have a chute and an accident you can walk away from vs something where your survival is no where near as assured

But I digress.. oh and even if you're ditching in the water descending under canopy will give you time to get your life jacket on, get the life raft ready, call for help, use the sat phone, and give you a few moments to safely egress the plane.. vs diving it into the water and potentially flipping and drowning

*but no, the CFI is right, Cirrus are not safe

 

[AFlyGuy]

I saved the best for last!

Thanks @Tantalum for chiming in! What's interesting about your post is that I did a lot of research on Cirrus before choosing a CFI and I had come to pretty much the exact same conclusions you presented here - spinning in a pattern, Perspective envelope protection, Bonanza's comfort issues, etc and how Cirrus addresses them. Pretty much identical feelings.

Because I don't know what I don't know, I decided to bring up Cirrus in a casual discussion with this CFI when I first met him and he surfaced many of the issues you raise as misconceptions. After feeling confused about what I read vs what he said, that's when I had another discussion with him this past Sunday and he largely echoed the same points. And that's why I brought it up here, for continued discussion.

Of course, as a newbie student pilot, and one who has trained in Japanese martial arts and been in Japan many times, I just can't bring it in myself to ever challenge an instructor directly. It's just antithetical to how I was raised and the cultures to which I've been exposed and it would make me extraordinarily uncomfortable and feel quite disrespectful, so I just don't do it. That said, I rarely take any one person's word on anything and choose to research the living daylights out of everything, and rely on quality of research, information, and corroborative respected data sources to form my own conclusions, and this has served me well in my life. Anyway, it's quite possible that my CFI just has outdated information and formed his opinions based on very early model Cirrus', but it's not my place to push the issue further with him.

As for technology, I quite agree with you. Things like envelope protection on *any* aircraft would be an incredible boon to the safety of the GA industry, and Cirrus is leading the pack here, and it's wonderful to see. My CFI bought the Piper Archer III that I'll be training in, and it has a Garmin 1000 glass panel, so he's not averse to tech either, but I suppose he's more traditional in his skill instruction approach. And that's actually partially why I chose him - I'm *such* a fan of technology, I was afraid I might rely on it too much, so I wanted a CFI that was more traditional in that aspect to balance my inclinations and to give me a more stable set of fundamentals before I fudge with tech too much.

Thanks again for the helpful addition to the discussion!