Saratoga or Mooney or CirrusSR22 or Cessna400

PaulS said:
Another airplane the op should look at is the Pipistrel Pantera it has a chute, 1100 pound useful load, deice (not sure if fiki though, probably not) and a 194 knot cruise at 75% 10,000 feet. They are touring the country, I just signed up for a flight, but might be too late. Nice machine.
Click to expand...

The FAA should require kit-makers put "EXPERIMENTAL" prominently on their website like they do to the aircraft themselves. I had to dig a bit to discover that they are claiming 2022 for a certified version -- which in aviation-speak is somewhere between "maybe, if stars align ever so perfectly" and "never"

Cool looking plane. $547K "plus options" though is a really large nut for a E-AB 4 seat single. I had to really dig to find that price list. ( https://www.pipistrel-prices.com/configurator/configure/843/ ) and I'm still not sure how much I gotta build to make that work.
 
schmookeeg said:
The FAA should require kit-makers put "EXPERIMENTAL" prominently on their website like they do to the aircraft themselves. I had to dig a bit to discover that they are claiming 2022 for a certified version -- which in aviation-speak is somewhere between "maybe, if stars align ever so perfectly" and "never"

Cool looking plane. $547K "plus options" though is a really large nut for a E-AB 4 seat single. I had to really dig to find that price list. ( https://www.pipistrel-prices.com/configurator/configure/843/ ) and I'm still not sure how much I gotta build to make that work.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that 547 figure is the certified number?
 
Cessna 182 RG. Will do 155 kts, great payload, good range, very common so parts and mechanics should be easily available. Lots of money left over to upgrade the panel, seats, etc.
 
Racerx said:
I wonder if that 547 figure is the certified number?
Click to expand...

I interpreted the 43,000 Euro upcharge on the top right column to be the certification tax. Hey, only 2 grand cheaper than the long range tanks option. :D
 
schmookeeg said:
The FAA should require kit-makers put "EXPERIMENTAL" prominently on their website like they do to the aircraft themselves. I had to dig a bit to discover that they are claiming 2022 for a certified version -- which in aviation-speak is somewhere between "maybe, if stars align ever so perfectly" and "never"

Cool looking plane. $547K "plus options" though is a really large nut for a E-AB 4 seat single. I had to really dig to find that price list. ( https://www.pipistrel-prices.com/configurator/configure/843/ ) and I'm still not sure how much I gotta build to make that work.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, thanks for that I thought it was certified. It must be a pretty complicated kit.
 
Think what a novel idea that could be though. We'll sell you a certified plane ready to go... Or all the parts in the kit as an EAB. You don't think that would sell some more Cessna or Piper's... I could actually see Mooney taking advantage of that. I remember someone made a slightly scaled down version of the Comanche which for me always seemed like the Cherokee line was several steps behind the Comanche despite being newer. I know the Comanche was more expensive to build but still, you think they could have developed the Comanche planform around the Cherokee inners. New airplanes are so damn expensive vs the same platform of the 60s it's a wonder anyone buys the new singles from Piper or Cessna. Not really gaining much except the new plane smell and some glass.
 
Racerx said:
New airplanes are so damn expensive vs the same platform of the 60s it's a wonder anyone buys the new singles from Piper or Cessna. Not really gaining much except the new plane smell and some glass.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t trivialize new aircraft purchase to that degree. Dollar for dollar, can the value of a new aircraft compete with an older used model? Probably not. By the numbers, the performance profile of a 1960s aircraft is equal or sometimes better than that same model purchased today from the factory. But there are definite benefits of factory new aircraft like dispatch reliability, lower initial maintenance costs, factory warranty, and transition training. All aircraft components are life limited, and complete logs with a thorough pre-buy can’t always catch everything. And avionics/interior are a big part of it. New glass cockpits tend to be seamlessly integrated into the aircraft and function reliably. Nearly every aircraft upgraded from steam to glass that I have flown had some quirks and electrical gremlins that made me uneasy in IFR and congested airspace. Old interiors are cosmetic, but very off putting to passengers. Velour upholstery, ashtrays, and sagging headliners don’t inspire confidence in people who don’t understand the concept of recurring inspections and overhauls. Many have posted in previous threads that they don’t want to fly with those kinds of people anyway, but I do want my friends and family to enjoy flying with me. Again, is a 6 figure price difference justified? Depends on what you value as a pilot.
 
You could take an old plane, gut the entire panel and replace with 100% new glass with nothing old left, replace the entire interior with new modern upholstery, and have a lot of money left over vs. buying new.

In 1970 you could buy a plane for 2X median income. In 2020 it’s 10 X or more.

IMHO- new planes are just a lot more expansive vs what you get than before.
 
Cervieres said:
I wouldn’t trivialize new aircraft purchase to that degree. Dollar for dollar, can the value of a new aircraft compete with an older used model? Probably not. By the numbers, the performance profile of a 1960s aircraft is equal or sometimes better than that same model purchased today from the factory. But there are definite benefits of factory new aircraft like dispatch reliability, lower initial maintenance costs, factory warranty, and transition training. All aircraft components are life limited, and complete logs with a thorough pre-buy can’t always catch everything. And avionics/interior are a big part of it. New glass cockpits tend to be seamlessly integrated into the aircraft and function reliably. Nearly every aircraft upgraded from steam to glass that I have flown had some quirks and electrical gremlins that made me uneasy in IFR and congested airspace. Old interiors are cosmetic, but very off putting to passengers. Velour upholstery, ashtrays, and sagging headliners don’t inspire confidence in people who don’t understand the concept of recurring inspections and overhauls. Many have posted in previous threads that they don’t want to fly with those kinds of people anyway, but I do want my friends and family to enjoy flying with me. Again, is a 6 figure price difference justified? Depends on what you value as a pilot.
Click to expand...
But we're not talking just a 100k difference. It's closer to 300k. For example a piper arrow. To put new paint and interior it can be done for 15k. All new avionics for 50k. And can find them from 60-75k. Depending on if you want the tapered wing a little more and used to be able to find them with relatively low time pre covid. So you've got 150k into a plane that brand new would run 400k plus depending on package. It's the equivalent if Ford still made the model T but added bluetooth and air conditioning. It's still a t bucket. To that end I do have to give the Raptor it's dues. At least he's trying something. It's not working but it's better than the same thing for 50 years.
 
Racerx said:
But we're not talking just a 100k difference. It's closer to 300k. For example a piper arrow. To put new paint and interior it can be done for 15k. All new avionics for 50k. And can find them from 60-75k. Depending on if you want the tapered wing a little more and used to be able to find them with relatively low time pre covid. So you've got 150k into a plane that brand new would run 400k plus depending on package. It's the equivalent if Ford still made the model T but added bluetooth and air conditioning. It's still a t bucket. To that end I do have to give the Raptor it's dues. At least he's trying something. It's not working but it's better than the same thing for 50 years.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree. But, a complete restoration of an aging aircraft takes months, and the fit and finish of the panel, interior appointments, and exterior will never equal factory original. Add in an aging engine, airframe, and a long list of ADs to try to comply with on every original and serialized aftermarket part. The ability to fly consistently without fear of mechanical issues plus not having to invest the time and energy required to maintain an antique can result in a very different ownership experience. The initial depreciation from a new aircraft is substantial, but you can generally count on being able to recover a significant portion of the investment from the sale of the aircraft, at least for now. Again, whether or not that justifies the cost is going to differ from person to person, but I think there are some subtleties to consider. Plus, we need to invest in new aircraft to support GA. Everyone should get comfortable with Diamond and Cirrus, because on the current trajectory, that’s the future. For as much adoration is given to Mooneys and Bonanzas on this site, not many people are willing to invest in a new one. Mooney is unfortunately never coming back and I anticipate Textron will cut the Bonanza in the very near future given the single digit annual sales numbers.
 
Cervieres said:
I don’t disagree. But, a complete restoration of an aging aircraft takes months, and the fit and finish of the panel, interior appointments, and exterior will never equal factory original. Add in an aging engine, airframe, and a long list of ADs to try to comply with on every original and serialized aftermarket part. The ability to fly consistently without fear of mechanical issues plus not having to invest the time and energy required to maintain an antique can result in a very different ownership experience. The initial depreciation from a new aircraft is substantial, but you can generally count on being able to recover a significant portion of the investment from the sale of the aircraft, at least for now. Again, whether or not that justifies the cost is going to differ from person to person, but I think there are some subtleties to consider. Plus, we need to invest in new aircraft to support GA. Everyone should get comfortable with Diamond and Cirrus, because on the current trajectory, that’s the future. For as much adoration is given to Mooneys and Bonanzas on this site, not many people are willing to invest in a new one. Mooney is unfortunately never coming back and I anticipate Textron will cut the Bonanza in the very near future given the single digit annual sales numbers.
Click to expand...

Could the new ownership at Mooney supply kits? Vans seems to do very well with what they do. Supporting a new Cirrus isn't in the cards for a lot of guys in general aviation. Myself included. Planes aren't like cars. Now an RV-10...that may be in the cards. Both in price and the ability to customize. With the FAA appearing ready to listen some restrictions on the LSA category perhaps we see more options
 
Last edited:
I’d love to get used to Cirrus and Diamond. But that’s not really in the cards, at least not for a long time. The starting price of a new Cirrus is beyond reason IMHO. The prices of used Cirrus and Diamonds are beyond any way I can figure will ever be affordable.

We need a new, modern Pipper or Clyde Cessna. It isn’t going to be Textron, Cirrus, or the Raptor guy.
 
WDD said:
I’d love to get used to Cirrus and Diamond. But that’s not really in the cards, at least not for a long time. The starting price of a new Cirrus is beyond reason IMHO. The prices of used Cirrus and Diamonds are beyond any way I can figure will ever be affordable.

We need a new, modern Pipper or Clyde Cessna. It isn’t going to be Textron, Cirrus, or the Raptor guy.
Click to expand...
I like what Vashon has done. Replicating the 150 and selling it for 120k with autopilot and full Dynon panel... because it's owned by the guy that owns Dynon. The problem is labor rates have increased so much from the 60s. Look at the cost of a kit alone for an RV-10. 50k without an engine. But then we saw them build one in a week at oshkosh. What would be an acceptable price for a new 4 place certified plane?
 
WDD said:
Cessna 182 RG. Will do 155 kts, great payload, good range, very common so parts and mechanics should be easily available. Lots of money left over to upgrade the panel, seats, etc.
Click to expand...
Not a low wing or after 2000, and 4 adults is tough, let alone 6. But if we're going high wing, may as well go C-210 turbo.

But A Piper Malibu, mid 90's fits the bill, other than being older than 2000.
 
Racerx said:
Could the new ownership at Mooney supply kits? Vans seems to do very well with what they do. Supporting a new Cirrus isn't in the cards for a lot of guys in general aviation. Myself included. Planes aren't like cars. Now an RV-10...that may be in the cards. Both in price and the ability to customize. With the FAA appearing ready to listen some restrictions on the LSA category perhaps we see more options
Click to expand...

LSA has a lot to offer. That Tecnam P2008 is really impressive all around, looks great, and had BRS. Well over $200K for a new one, which may be a steep ask for the LSA market, but I’m honestly surprised I haven’t seen more of them. Sorry, I‘ve diverged pretty far from the original post.
 
My 2005 G2 has a 1064 pound useful, which is actually enough to go several hours at 11.5 - 12 gph at 165 knots with 4 not too heavy adults.

At the risk of bringing out the Cirrus-hater crowd, I chose the Cirrus for the parachute. I have many hours in the Saratoga and other than the parachute, it’s my favorite.

That said, I fly So Cal...over ocean, mountains and urban areas. A high percentage of the time for me, there are no good engine-out landing options. The parachute gives me that feeling of comfort that if the unthinkable happens, I have a good option.

The parachute also brings great comfort to my spouse, and to the many friends who fly with me.

While I don’t find the SR22 as fun as a 172 or Saratoga, it was the best fit with my mission. I’m in my 7th year of ownership, and my SR22 is worth much more than I paid for it.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
My 2005 G2 has a 1064 pound useful, which is actually enough to go several hours at 11.5 - 12 gph at 165 knots with 4 not too heavy adults.

At the risk of bringing out the Cirrus-hater crowd, I chose the Cirrus for the parachute. I have many hours in the Saratoga and other than the parachute, it’s my favorite.

That said, I fly So Cal...over ocean, mountains and urban areas. A high percentage of the time for me, there are no good engine-out landing options. The parachute gives me that feeling of comfort that if the unthinkable happens, I have a good option.

The parachute also brings great comfort to my spouse, and to the many friends who fly with me.

While I don’t find the SR22 as fun as a 172 or Saratoga, it was the best fit with my mission. I’m in my 7th year of ownership, and my SR22 is worth much more than I paid for it.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you find the SR22 less fun than the Toga. Would've thought the SR22 is more nimble which usually translates to more fun. In the end, fun is in the eye of the beholder. I remember how heavy the Lance felt to me initially. Now it is just normal to me.
 
WDD said:
Cessna 182 RG. Will do 155 kts, great payload, good range, very common so parts and mechanics should be easily available. Lots of money left over to upgrade the panel, seats, etc.
Click to expand...

The 182RG is probably my favorite Cessna high wing single. Can clean them up to about 160 knots and still keep fuel burn low. The rear seats suck though.

Geosync said:
Not a low wing or after 2000, and 4 adults is tough, let alone 6. But if we're going high wing, may as well go C-210 turbo.

But A Piper Malibu, mid 90's fits the bill, other than being older than 2000.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the best Malibus are from the mid to late 80s. The LOP optimized Continental engine is a real sweetspot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top