New single, vs older twin.

[stratobee]

From another thread, on another forum, a gentleman was on the hunt for a $500-600K high performance single engine aircraft. He wanted something new - and I can't argue with that if that is how he wants it. There's something to be said for that "new plane smell", I'm certain. But I can argue with economics. This whole high end single stuff is getting out of hand when it comes to financial justification on many boards, not just that one.

Just for the sake of argument take my twin. It cost $85K to buy with fresh annual. I just put newly O/H props on her for $10K. I will have to overhaul the engines for $50-60K soon, although they still run good. So, spending around $150K I have a plane that has de-ice, is fully IFR, pressurised and will leave a Cirrus in the dust at FL250 and keep up with many turboprops. On top of this you have the safety of two engines, and marginally higher fuel burn than a single - anyone who makes it out to be twice as much is misinformed. It's at the most 30% more.

$350K buys a hell of a lot of fuel.

Let's break it down: Considering a 30% greater fuel burn, you'd have to fly 7777 hrs before the Cirrus that cost $500K would be cheaper. OK, OK, but what about the engine funds, I hear you say? At $25K for an extra engines O/H you'd have to fly for 25000 hrs before that ended up eating up the $350K you are in the hole. What about maintenance? Well, it's about 50% higher than a high end single and in the grand scheme of things and compared to fuel, peanuts. My last annual was $10K. Let's say that's $5K more expensive than on a Cirrus, and you're looking at 70 years of ownership before the single pays off!

Now, let's actually compare apples to apples. A Cirrus isn't retractable and it's not pressurised. A new retractable pressurised FIKI single vs my old twin. Not that many of those around - Piper Matrix is the only ones that come to mind. List price is $939,950 for a brand new Piper Matrix. I don't have to bore you with the calculations, but suffice to say that you could fly the twin for decades and decades before you even get close to the costs of maintaining and purchasing the Matrix. And if you're talking about financing the Matrix on top of that, let's say over 15 years spending 5% interest, you're looking at another $700K in interest on top of that! Even a twin engine turbine that's paid for would be cheaper to run than that!

There's simply no way you can make that almost new single pay for itself in the average private pilot's lifetime with the depressed twin prices that prevail today. OK, so you need a multi engine rating. Big deal. It takes about 10hrs to do so and it's dead simple.

Obviously, if one wants a new plane and have the money then that's great. I have no argument. It's great if newer planes can get sold and replace banged up old beaters - aviation certainly needs that. But the economic justifications do not hold water.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

Newer does not always mean better, Look at at 1966 206 vs a new one.


If hes got that kind of money, get a used single engine turbine.

 

[olasek]

OK, you keep talking about your "twin" for 85K, pressurized that will leave Cirrus in the "dust" at FL250 but what is it? Pardon me but I am very curious.

 

[Skylane81E]

Aerostar,

Grossly over stated the annual maintenance costs for the Cirrus though

 

[frfly172]

Apples and oranges when looking at overall costs.not really a fair comparison of the two aircraft.Had an old beech Travelair and now own a new liberty single two seater.loved them both depends on your mission what works better.

 

[wabower]

It's a lttle early in the game to be declaring victory, don't you think? Please make a note to provide an update after a year of operations are completed.

Why do you think the 601 was available for $85K? Doesn't everybody have access to the same own/op information? If it's such a great deal, how can so many people be so wrong? Or could it be that they know more about it than you do?

Does the new single have a chute? Does yours?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Oh yeah lets mix GA justification with reason. How many airline tickets(netjets card perhaps), beach bungalows, and sailboats does that coin buy?
Ask the guy what he likes to do, then figure out the time/money way to maximize doing that, and unless it is sitting in a noisy tin can the answer probably doesn't involve plane ownership.

 

[Ted]

$85k for an Aerostar? Guessing bad avionics, and the next annual will find lots wrong. Plus you've also got two timed out engines as I recall.

By the way, I agree with the logic overall (hence why I fly an old twin), but the comparison wouldn't be accurate unless you included the $200-$250k you'd have to put into the Aerostar on top of purchase price for new engines, new P&I, and modern avionics.

 

[Wingsofglass]

I'll give you the counter point. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it makes the decision to buy new a little more understandable. Say I use my plane for business. This probably applies to most people who can afford to and are interested in purchasing a new plane. If I buy new, I can depreciate 100% of the purchase price on my taxes this year which is going to be great since my business is growing as the economy improves and I'm looking at a big tax bill this year. So my $700k Cirrus is now financed with a $315k interest free loan curtesy of the US Taxpayer. Now I understand this loan may eventually have to be paid back, but I'm an optimist because otherwise I never would never have started a business and I'm going to have way more money in the future than I do now and so paying it back won't be a problem. Plus, in a few years, I'm going to do a like kind exchange and trade it in for a PC12 and so I'm probably never going to have to pay it back.

So my new Cirrus comes with a $315k cash back coupon. That still means I'm out $385k. But wait, I can finance this by putting down 15% and making about $60k in payments a year. Oh, and those payments are pretty much all deductible anyway so it's really only about $35k. So in order to get my new Cirrus, all I have to do is make one phone call to Cirrus, write a check for $105k (I'll fund this with the revolver from my business) then incur about $35k in payments and get a $315k tax benefit. So if I buy new in year one I have $175k in extra cash. ($315k tax benefit - $105k downpayment - $35k in monthly payments). $175k pays for a lot of gas at 16gph @190 knots and covers a lot of interest payments.

But wait, there's more! I don't have a lot of free time since I'm running my business so I'm pretty excited that all I have do is make one phone call to Cirrus and I'm getting a plane. That's way better than spending 100's of hours trying to find a decent twin, negotiating a purchase, and actually finding someone who can do a good pre buy inspection and hoping they didn't miss anything. I'd much rather make one phone call and spend the search hours on training.

Also, my new Cirrus comes with a 3 year warranty so I'm going to rest easy knowing there won't be any surprises in terms of maintenance or annuals. And in 3 years, my PC12 will also come with a warranty.

Now I take my piloting seriously but I also know I'm not a professional pilot. I've stuck my head inside one of those twins on the ramp and WOW do they have a lot of knobs, buttons, switches and round gauges. That seems really complicated compared to the G1000 172 I just got my PPL in. Plus, I know flying a twin means I need to be more proficient in my flying and that gear lever scares me.

But aren't twins safer? Well maybe not for me. My Cirrus has dual batteries, dual AHRS, FIKI certification under the new stricter FAA standards, synthetic vision, no vacuum anything and an awesome autopilot. Plus a chute! I only have a few hundred hours so I think I'm going to be safer flying my Cirrus and doing recurrent training than I am trying to stay proficient in a steam gauge twin. Sure I could upgrade the avionics in the twin but it won't be nearly as integrated as my Cirrus, it will cost money and take time. I'd rather just make one phone call and be done with it. Plus my PC12 will also only have one engine so what's the point?

So when I look at it, it's both cheaper and safer for me to buy new. It's also going to be much less of a hassle and so that means I can spend more time on training and growing my business which means more safety and money. What idiot in my position would buy some overly complicated deathtrap twin that's going to spend months AOG getting new engines and avionics to go just as fast burning twice the fuel as I will in my new Cirrus? Oh sorry - 30% more fuel. Still a no brainer.

 

[LDJones]

I'll give you the counter point. I'm not saying I agree with it, but it makes the decision to buy new a little more understandable. Say I use my plane for business. This probably applies to most people who can afford to and are interested in purchasing a new plane. If I buy new, I can depreciate 100% of the purchase price on my taxes this year which is going to be great since my business is growing as the economy improves and I'm looking at a big tax bill this year. So my $700k Cirrus is now financed with a $315k interest free loan curtesy of the US Taxpayer. Now I understand this loan may eventually have to be paid back, but I'm an optimist because otherwise I never would never have started a business and I'm going to have way more money in the future than I do now and so paying it back won't be a problem. Plus, in a few years, I'm going to do a like kind exchange and trade it in for a PC12 and so I'm probably never going to have to pay it back.

So my new Cirrus comes with a $315k cash back coupon. That still means I'm out $385k. But wait, I can finance this by putting down 15% and making about $60k in payments a year. Oh, and those payments are pretty much all deductible anyway so it's really only about $35k. So in order to get my new Cirrus, all I have to do is make one phone call to Cirrus, write a check for $105k (I'll fund this with the revolver from my business) then incur about $35k in payments and get a $315k tax benefit. So if I buy new in year one I have $175k in extra cash. ($315k tax benefit - $105k downpayment - $35k in monthly payments). $175k pays for a lot of gas at 16gph @190 knots and covers a lot of interest payments.

But wait, there's more! I don't have a lot of free time since I'm running my business so I'm pretty excited that all I have do is make one phone call to Cirrus and I'm getting a plane. That's way better than spending 100's of hours trying to find a decent twin, negotiating a purchase, and actually finding someone who can do a good pre buy inspection and hoping they didn't miss anything. I'd much rather make one phone call and spend the search hours on training.

Also, my new Cirrus comes with a 3 year warranty so I'm going to rest easy knowing there won't be any surprises in terms of maintenance or annuals. And in 3 years, my PC12 will also come with a warranty.

Now I take my piloting seriously but I also know I'm not a professional pilot. I've stuck my head inside one of those twins on the ramp and WOW do they have a lot of knobs, buttons, switches and round gauges. That seems really complicated compared to the G1000 172 I just got my PPL in. Plus, I know flying a twin means I need to be more proficient in my flying and that gear lever scares me.

But aren't twins safer? Well maybe not for me. My Cirrus has dual batteries, dual AHRS, FIKI certification under the new stricter FAA standards, synthetic vision, no vacuum anything and an awesome autopilot. Plus a chute! I only have a few hundred hours so I think I'm going to be safer flying my Cirrus and doing recurrent training than I am trying to stay proficient in a steam gauge twin. Sure I could upgrade the avionics in the twin but it won't be nearly as integrated as my Cirrus, it will cost money and take time. I'd rather just make one phone call and be done with it. Plus my PC12 will also only have one engine so what's the point?

So when I look at it, it's both cheaper and safer for me to buy new. It's also going to be much less of a hassle and so that means I can spend more time on training and growing my business which means more safety and money. What idiot in my position would buy some overly complicated deathtrap twin that's going to spend months AOG getting new engines and avionics to go just as fast burning twice the fuel as I will in my new Cirrus? Oh sorry - 30% more fuel. Still a no brainer.

PLUS, you got that "new airplane smell"!

 

[olasek]

$85k for an Aerostar? Guessing bad avionics, and the next annual will find lots wrong. Plus you've also got two timed out engines as I recall.

By the way, I agree with the logic overall (hence why I fly an old twin), but the comparison wouldn't be accurate unless you included the $200-$250k you'd have to put into the Aerostar on top of purchase price for new engines, new P&I, and modern avionics.

This is what I suspected - the numbers in his original posts are totally made up, I looked up some Aerostar prices on the controller, the flyable ones start at around 200 K, there is one for 75K but this is a 'project' aircraft as the owner writes with missing engines, some avionics stolen, incomplete books, aircraft was repossessed, etc. The new versus old argument applies to everything, cars too and makes a lot of sense but don't resort to cooking numbers to make your point.

 

[stratobee]

I didn't want this to be Aerostar specific, or Cirrus specific, or Matrix specific, but a general comparison between old twins vs new single of similar performance. That's why I didn't even mention what I flew. It's not type specific. Any twin will be cheaper to run and own compared to a new single of the same performance/specs over its useful life.

BTW, 601P Aerostars habitually sell for 100-150K these days. Mine was $85k because the engines were not only run out, they were 350hrs over TBO. That terrifies people, hence the price reduction. Sure, avionics are old, but not more than many others: 430 WAAS came installed.

Don't believe me - check prices here:

http://www.aerostarworld.com/index.php/aircraft-sales

We do the same contortionist exercises with cars - we justify it buy saying a new car has warranty, it won't break as much, burn less fuel, but the fact is that no new car will be cheaper to run than an older one, almost no matter how much the old one breaks down.

New things are nice. But lets be honest with how we justify them.

 

[olasek]

It's not type specific.Any twin will be cheaper to run and own compared to a new single of the same performance/specs over its useful

Sorry, if I were on a serious budget and was considering aircraft ownership at all I would be looking for a used single versus new single. Plus as statistics show extra engine gives me zero safety advantage (my chances of survival are higher with an engine-out in a SE than in engine-out in ME). I don't want to be paying elevated insurance, maintenance costs associated with a twin even though the original price can be attractive. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[N747JB]

So much depends on the mission involved. Hauling 2 folks and bags in decent weather a new Cirrus is great. Moving 4+ folks in lots of different weather including nights, ice, mountains a pressurized, air conditioned, FIKI twin is a pretty comfortable ride.
You can buy a pretty nice 421B or even a 421C for between $175-300K that is ready to go, good avionics, good paint and interior, FIKI, low time engines etc, but it's going to cost you $5-700.00 per hour to operate.
Fuel 45 GPH block to block $250.00 hour
Annuals $8-12K per year if nothing major needs addressing
insurance $4-6K
Hanger, I paid $500 per month, but that varies.
Misc maintenance $5K per year (oil changes etc)
Subscriptions $1500 per year
Training $1500+ per year
That is no reserves for engine, props, or paint/interior

 

[DavidWhite]

So much depends on the mission involved. Hauling 2 folks and bags in decent weather a new Cirrus is great. Moving 4+ folks in lots of different weather including nights, ice, mountains a pressurized, air conditioned, FIKI twin is a pretty comfortable ride.
You can buy a pretty nice 421B or even a 421C for between $175-300K that is ready to go, good avionics, good paint and interior, FIKI, low time engines etc, but it's going to cost you $5-700.00 per hour to operate.
Fuel 45 GPH block to block $250.00 hour
Annuals $8-12K per year if nothing major needs addressing
insurance $4-6K
Hanger, I paid $500 per month, but that varies.
Misc maintenance $5K per year (oil changes etc)
Subscriptions $1500 per year
Training $1500+ per year
That is no reserves for engine, props, or paint/interior

Sounds like a 421 would have been a cheaper alternative to my Mooney.

 

[stratobee]

No argument there - older single vs new is an even better deal.

Why do you think the 601 was available for $85K? Doesn't everybody have access to the same own/op information? If it's such a great deal, how can so many people be so wrong? Or could it be that they know more about it than you do?

Does the new single have a chute? Does yours?

Because today not many people have a multi rating and for some reason think it's a huge deal or resist it, even though it's perhaps the easiest rating to get. I think it's because it used to be that twins = high performance/status. Today, with all the high end singles, that's no longer the case. The TBMs and the PC12's act like Ferraris in the car world. They keep the dream alive, but few will ever own them. They're enticers. This has artificially inflated the singles market, created demand and muddied the waters to the point where people don't actually sit down and do the math. They have stars in their eyes, and carbon fibre sleekness on their brain.

 

[Skylane81E]

I didn't want this to be Aerostar specific, or Cirrus specific, or Matrix specific, but a general comparison between old twins vs new single of similar performance. That's why I didn't even mention what I flew. It's not type specific. Any twin will be cheaper to run and own compared to a new single of the same performance/specs over its useful life.

BTW, 601P Aerostars habitually sell for 100-150K these days. Mine was $85k because the engines were not only run out, they were 350hrs over TBO. That terrifies people, hence the price reduction. Sure, avionics are old, but not more than many others: 430 WAAS came installed.

Don't believe me - check prices here:

http://www.aerostarworld.com/index.php/aircraft-sales

We do the same contortionist exercises with cars - we justify it buy saying a new car has warranty, it won't break as much, burn less fuel, but the fact is that no new car will be cheaper to run than an older one, almost no matter how much the old one breaks down.

New things are nice. But lets be honest with how we justify them.

So lets do this right, used to used.

Lets start with that Cirrus
http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/Vi...al=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=7008085&dealerid=

Knocking a few hundred K off the purchase price will have quite the affect on your numbers, as will no repair costs for another two years. Then half the annual costs you quoted and we can still have reserve for the chute pack.


Then try this one on for size
http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/Vi...al=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=7008149&dealerid=


For cost the single wins, all things equal they have less drag, fewer cylinders, half the props, simpler fuel systems...

If you want a twin to make sence you have to look beyond the dollar signs

 

[wabower]

I fear you have a lot to learn about airplane economics and glad somebody else is looking up that dead horses's ass rather than me.

No argument there - older single vs new is an even better deal.



Because today not many people have a multi rating and for some reason think it's a huge deal or resist it, even though it's perhaps the easiest rating to get. I think it's because it used to be that twins = high performance/status. Today, with all the high end singles, that's no longer the case. The TBMs and the PC12's act like Ferraris in the car world. They keep the dream alive, but few will ever own them. They're enticers. This has artificially inflated the singles market, created demand and muddied the waters to the point where people don't actually sit down and do the math. They have stars in their eyes, and carbon fibre sleekness on their brain.

 

[Apache123]

So lets do this right, used to used.

For cost the single wins, all things equal they have less drag, fewer cylinders, half the props, simpler fuel systems...

If you want a twin to make sence you have to look beyond the dollar signs

Also instrument upgrades will always be cheaper in the single; at the very least you're buying one instead of two of something (engine monitor/fuel flow/etc.).

 

[DavidWhite]

Also instrument upgrades will always be cheaper in the single; at the very least you're buying one instead of two of something (engine monitor/fuel flow/etc.).

They make one unit engine monitors for twins

 

[Ted]

Also instrument upgrades will always be cheaper in the single; at the very least you're buying one instead of two of something (engine monitor/fuel flow/etc.).

Instrument upgrades will be pretty much the same cost with the exception of the engine monitors. Otherwise, a 530W costs the same as a 530W.

 

[docmirror]

Even if the price of the singe v twin in this class were almost the same, I'd still go for the Aerostar.

To be sure, both of the planes are out of my price range, but if I'm dreaming of flying at the FL, I want pressure, and I want another engine.

Notwithstanding our resident curmudgeon displeasure at writing checks for mx on an older twin, once I'm in that class of plane, the costs kind of blur into 'a lot' along with the fuel bill.

After looking at the mx and upgrades on the Aerostar, I'd get one that's already been down the refurb road and buy that.

http://www.aerostarworld.com/index.php/aircraft-sales?id=69

I just wrote a check for quarter mil, and I've avoided all those costly upgrades and crud that the low budget Aerostar will face. Sure, I've still got two of everything to work on regarding engines and props, but I'm willing to pay that extra when one side goes very quiet some night over Montana.

Even though I work in hi tech field, the TAA glass means nothing to me. If you can't get around with a dual 430, and a FD, maybe remedial pilotage would be of value.

 

[DavidWhite]

Even if the price of the singe v twin in this class were almost the same, I'd still go for the Aerostar.

To be sure, both of the planes are out of my price range, but if I'm dreaming of flying at the FL, I want pressure, and I want another engine.

Notwithstanding our resident curmudgeon displeasure at writing checks for mx on an older twin, once I'm in that class of plane, the costs kind of blur into 'a lot' along with the fuel bill.

After looking at the mx and upgrades on the Aerostar, I'd get one that's already been down the refurb road and buy that.

http://www.aerostarworld.com/index.php/aircraft-sales?id=69

I just wrote a check for quarter mil, and I've avoided all those costly upgrades and crud that the low budget Aerostar will face. Sure, I've still got two of everything to work on regarding engines and props, but I'm willing to pay that extra when one side goes very quiet some night over Montana.

Even though I work in hi tech field, the TAA glass means nothing to me. If you can't get around with a dual 430, and a FD, maybe remedial pilotage would be of value.

It's only flown 120 hours in 6 years. engines past calendar TBO

 

[wabower]

I'd pay admission to watch that show.

Even if the price of the singe v twin in this class were almost the same, I'd still go for the Aerostar.

To be sure, both of the planes are out of my price range, but if I'm dreaming of flying at the FL, I want pressure, and I want another engine.

Notwithstanding our resident curmudgeon displeasure at writing checks for mx on an older twin, once I'm in that class of plane, the costs kind of blur into 'a lot' along with the fuel bill.

After looking at the mx and upgrades on the Aerostar, I'd get one that's already been down the refurb road and buy that.

http://www.aerostarworld.com/index.php/aircraft-sales?id=69

I just wrote a check for quarter mil, and I've avoided all those costly upgrades and crud that the low budget Aerostar will face. Sure, I've still got two of everything to work on regarding engines and props, but I'm willing to pay that extra when one side goes very quiet some night over Montana.

Even though I work in hi tech field, the TAA glass means nothing to me. If you can't get around with a dual 430, and a FD, maybe remedial pilotage would be of value.

 

[docmirror]

It's only flown 120 hours in 6 years. engines past calendar TBO

That describes 90% of the GA engine fleet.

 

[Irish_Armada]

Plus as statistics show extra engine gives me zero safety advantage (my chances of survival are higher with an engine-out in a SE than in engine-out in ME).

Is this true? I heard someone else suggest this at the airport the other day and I had always assumed the opposite. If this issue has been beat to death on this forum before, apologies, a link to that thread would suffice.

 

[wabower]

The subject has been hotly debated for at least 40 years that I've been paying attention. As with many other aviation discussions, both sides claim victory.

Is this true? I heard someone else suggest this at the airport the other day and I had always assumed the opposite. If this issue has been beat to death on this forum before, apologies, a link to that thread would suffice.

 

[warthog1984]

Is this true? I heard someone else suggest this at the airport the other day and I had always assumed the opposite. If this issue has been beat to death on this forum before, apologies, a link to that thread would suffice.

Depends on the pilot. Well-trained, experienced pilots who do simulated engine-out frequently do do better in twins. Inexperienced pilots or those without recent training in engine-outs tend to hurt themselves worse in a twin with a dead engine than in a comparable single.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Depends on the pilot. Well-trained, experienced pilots who do simulated engine-out frequently do do better in twins. Inexperienced pilots or those without recent training in engine-outs tend to hurt themselves worse in a twin with a dead engine than in a comparable single.

Doesn't it depend more on how much weight you carry. Legal ain't always safe, were not supposed to say that it upsets the nanny and rulebook is my savior types.

 

[warthog1984]

Doesn't it depend more on how much weight you carry.

Haven't heard that theory before... please explain.

 

[Skylane81E]

Haven't heard that theory before... please explain.

Affects your SE performance (if you even have any)

A twin is much less forgiving of sloppy flying when on one vs a single on none.

But the single is going down, the twin doesn't HAVE to.

I found the multi to be very easy, just fly the damn thing yet folks seem to screw it up regularly.

 

[olasek]

Is this true?

YES, this what statistics say, this was widely discussed in FLYING by none other than Richard Collins. Of course any twin pilot wants to believe that one the time comes he will do just fine, he is well trained but unfortunately numbers tell us something different.

 

[NineThreeKilo]

The subject has been hotly debated for at least 40 years that I've been paying attention. As with many other aviation discussions, both sides claim victory.

Hence TURBINE!

 

[Skylane81E]

YES, this what statistics say, this was widely discussed in FLYING by none other than Richard Collins. Of course any twin pilot wants to believe that one the time comes he will do just fine, he is well trained but unfortunately numbers tell us something different.

What we don't see in the numbers are the twin drivers who made it safely and just had the issue fixed without reporting it.

 

[olasek]

FAA (and insurance companies) agree with the above conclusion, whether they know of every single engine failure in flight I don't know, I am going to stick with that for now in the absence of evidence to the contrary. By the way, it applies to piston engines only.

 

[hindsight2020]

I think he means operating these faux-twins below gross gives them OEI handling qualities benign enough for amateur part-time pilots to not mort themselves in a new york minute with.

I still think the parent theorem rules. That is, the fundamental safety argument is negated when the multi-engine aircraft is being operated by an amateur that's just as underprepared to handle IMC partial panel as he is underprepared to handle OEI in a part 23 twin. There is no substantive demonstration out there that the median part 23 operator has what it takes to uncluster himself out of a engine loss during takeoff/ instrument approach go-around. Their only repeatable recourse in the absence of more training is to treat their aircraft as single engine for the purposes of these scenarios. The statistics show they do not and continue morting themselves by mishandling the engine that was supposed to make them safer. In that respect I think part 23 multi engine certification has done people a disservice. Even so, that's still a training deficiency, not something I'm willing to point at the FAA for blame.

 

[wabower]

Nor do we know how many single pilots made it home, or diverted somewhere for repairs or whatever. Using the "you can't prove a negative" argument to support M/E safety has always been highly subjective and even more highly suspect.

We also know that many M/E accidents are not the result of engine failure but from pilots screwing up other stuff that is dog-simple but they just couldn't handle. A good example is the Bill Gray accident in which he lost an engine in cruise, decided to stop in McAlister, OK to get it fixed and then crashed and killed the entire family because he couldn't fly a simple S/E approach to a big runway in broad daylight.

Much of the M/E training has been superficial at best with "simulated this" because the CFI and student both knew they were likely to die if they really practiced the problem in the airplane. Sims have provided better training and it's now being required by many insurors, but we have a long way to go.

What we don't see in the numbers are the twin drivers who made it safely and just had the issue fixed without reporting it.

 

[JHW]

There is no point in trying to rationalize new. If people want new then they want new. And the used car analogy doesn't hold as much water as it used to because we are running out of used cars.

 

[Ted]

There is no point in trying to rationalize new. If people want new then they want new. And the used car analogy doesn't hold as much water as it used to because we are running out of used cars.

Still works out well for me. My 20 year old 450 HP daily driver has cost me about $300/month including purchase price. I can sell it for about what I paid for it if I want to, and my insurance is dirt cheap. For that I get 21 MPG on my commuting cycle.

My wife's 10 year old truck is paid for, was bought used, also has cheap insurance, and is reliable. But it doesn't do great on fuel economy.

 

[denverpilot]

There is no point in trying to rationalize new. If people want new then they want new. And the used car analogy doesn't hold as much water as it used to because we are running out of used cars.

Really? I see no shortage of crap on dealer lots.