Owning before obtaining a PP license

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:50:09 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"

There was a period recently where used
airplane appreciated, mostly because the new airplanes weren't improved over
the older ones. Cars would hold their value if manufacturers produced the
same models for decades without improvement. Now that virtually all new
airplanes are being delivered with glass cockpits you can expect the old
ones to continue sliding.

This is an interesting viewpoint, and it will be interesting to see
what happens to the price of used planes. I personally think the used
market will move sideways, perhaps a bit down for a while, largely
driven by increased fuel and insurance costs and the overall economy
reflecting a lack of free cash to indulge in the aviation market.

-Nathan

"Dude" wrote in message
...
This is really going off topic, and the debate has been had but...

This is Usenet! Just 'cuz the horse is lyin' down and hasn't moved in a week
don't mean we can't kick it again


...

The SR22 is statistically safer than the 20, and both have been doing
better
since they started the factory training.

How is the sample size on this? I suspect that any 20 vs. 22 conjecture
is
statistically on shaky ground.


My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
seems
to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those who
refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
Cirrus
crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain number, and
ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever growing
history.
In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20 years of records
and
will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.

There's another rule in statistics that the smallest sample about which you
can make a statistically sound statement is 30. It's statistically dubious
to draw assumptions from very small samples but there's also a point of
diminishing returns to having ever-larger sample sizes.

I can't find anything wrong with your statements here, and I tend to
agree.
However, the Brothers in Minnesota are still happy to sell an SR22 to
anyone
willing to pay for the plane and the training.

Just as a Ford dealer will happily sell a 300HP Mustang to a 17 year-old
boy. It's the insurance companies that have a stake in not seeing either
party drive into a telephone pole metaphorically or otherwise. Problem is
that the way the insurance market works there was a real risk that the plane
could become almost uninsurable by any pilot. Anyway, it's long been the
insurance companies who determine what constitutes a "qualified pilot," and
rightly so, as they're the only ones who have a financial stake in the
successful outcome of the flight.

Again, I agree. Unfortunately, the Cirrus owners cry fowl at this heresy
because they say the plane is easy to land. I say its as slick as a
Mooney,
and they are a great help in a Mooney.

And in the transition from enroute to approach, which is the first really
big opportunity for a pilot to get behind the airplane. I think the only
thing it says about the airplane is that it's fast. You don't see
speedbrakes on Saratogas for a reason.

Certainly. I wonder about judgement though. Also, there is something to
be
said for having your first "OH S#*T" experience in something that is
slower
and more stable (not to mention crash worthy).

Well, let's be fair and say that there are a significant body of "OH S#*T"
experiences that are more survivable in a Cirrus than anything else. Of
course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing in
the mountains.

I would love to have my hands on an SR-22, but right now, as a 200-hour
instrument pilot, I feel like my 172 is enough for me to deal with. I'd love
to upgrade to a 182, but I think that would be plenty for at least another
300 hours.

-cwk.

course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing in
the mountains.

One difference---the latter scenario is also likely to be accompanied by
medical payments, or worse. Presumably the CAPS landing would be
injury-free.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
seems to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those
who refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
Cirrus crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain
number, and ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever
growing history. In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20
years of records and will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.


Why do they want to ignore CFIT accidents?

Mike
MU-2

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:50:09 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"

There was a period recently where used
airplane appreciated, mostly because the new airplanes weren't improved
over
the older ones. Cars would hold their value if manufacturers produced the
same models for decades without improvement. Now that virtually all new
airplanes are being delivered with glass cockpits you can expect the old
ones to continue sliding.

This is an interesting viewpoint, and it will be interesting to see
what happens to the price of used planes. I personally think the used
market will move sideways, perhaps a bit down for a while, largely
driven by increased fuel and insurance costs and the overall economy
reflecting a lack of free cash to indulge in the aviation market.

-Nathan

I agree with you that higher fuel and insurance will negatively impact the
market but I think that the glass cockpit airplanes are a big deal. How
would you like to be the last guy to buy a 206 without the G1000? That
announcement cost him at least $50,000. Lets face reality, used machinery
generally depreciates both because of wear and because the current product
generally improves. Airplanes have been stagnant for years, but now Cirrus,
Diamond and Lancair have delivered genuine improvements in terms of speed
per dollar. Soon there will be diesels with significantly longer TBOs,
single lever control and much better economy. An old airplane is simply not
going to hold its value when the new ones go 50% faster on 70% of the fuel
and the engines last half again as long. It is about time that GA started
moving forward again!

Mike
MU-2

Because they know too little about accident statistics, and they believe
that the plane is safer than the statistics show.

Many of the fatalities in Cirrus aircraft have been CFIT. So they want to
take those out. Unfortunately, no one thinks the result would be valid.
The whole point of the statistic is that it is about the only objective
measure of safety. We cannot even predict the performance of a car in the
fatalities per million stats with much accuracy, but after the fact we can
usually see some sort of reason for a failure.

With Cirrus the most popular theory is that the plane is great, but a bunch
of idiots buy them. From one perspective this makes sense, so if you are
not an idiot, it should be safe for you. OTOH, this is ludicrous. The dead
pilots did not think they were idiots either. Strangely, corporate jets also
have a large percentage of CFIT accidents, but no one in that group says
those numbers don't belong. It begs for an objective analysis, but no one
pays for those, and few are capable of pulling one off anymore.

It may be telling to examine the percentage of CFIT's to other planes. Some
people think it is a glass cockpit issue as well. I have not seen numbers
that are telling in this regard, but I believe many of the accidents were in
SR20's that were not glass anyway.

The parachute gets mixed up in the whole thing because we are not used to
it. It would likely be more worthwhile to treat it like any other system
available for safety.



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dude" wrote in message
...

My statement on the 20 vs. 22 number is based on incidents and fatalities
per 100k hours. The fleet of 20's may not have a million hours which
seems to be the least amount acceptable to the statistician types. Those
who refuse to accept the data generally want a different number. The pro
Cirrus crowd thinks you should ignore all the data before a certain
number, and ignore CFIT accidents. The Cessna Beech crowd want an ever
growing history. In other words, to compare to their planes you need 20
years of records and will need 30 years in another ten, etc. etc.


Why do they want to ignore CFIT accidents?

Mike
MU-2

This is Usenet! Just 'cuz the horse is lyin' down and hasn't moved in a
week
don't mean we can't kick it again


You know that's the truth!

There's another rule in statistics that the smallest sample about which
you
can make a statistically sound statement is 30. It's statistically dubious
to draw assumptions from very small samples but there's also a point of
diminishing returns to having ever-larger sample sizes.

Interesting. What is the sample size here really? Is a sample a single
hour, an average flight of some number of hours, an accident, a plane, or
what? It would seem if the best performer runs at .28 failures per 100,000
hours (I think this was the rate for the DA20 at last look) then you would
need about a million to ensure a good number because there is no such thing
as a .28 dead person.



Well, let's be fair and say that there are a significant body of "OH S#*T"
experiences that are more survivable in a Cirrus than anything else. Of
course, from the insurance company's perspective, a total hull loss is a
total hull loss, whether it's due to CAPS or an engine-out night landing
in
the mountains.


I am not yet ready to agree. I await more hours free of fatalities. Sure
the chute is good, but what would the designer have done without the BRS
option. Would the plane be less safe? I would rather have the Lancair I
think, but its more money.

I bought a grumman before I finished training. I am very pleased with how
it worked out and would do it again. Make sure you have the money for it
and have a fairly good idea what sort of flying (how much load, how far) you
will be doing. It is going to be expensive.

Good luck and go ahead with it if you want. Just do your research first.

Bottom line is you can never justify (finance-wise) having your own plane -
but the less quantifiable things like always flying the same plane, having a
reliable plane, etc are very nice if you can get away with owning.


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"New Pilot" wrote in message
. ..
Hello all,

Wanted to hear your advice about buying a brand-new plane even before
getting the PPL ticket.

Here is my situation: I am a businessman sitting on quite a bit of cash
being generated by my business, and I am also a student pilot, will
probably
get my ticket by the next Summer. I am thinking about buying one of them
Cirri SR22.

You've probably heard the saying that "A fool and his money will soon have
more airplane than either can handle." You're probably not a fool but it's
a
wise statement to heed nonetheless.

Does this make sense economically, or am I totally crazy? In general, how
good an investment are those brand-new airplanes, provided one can afford
to
pay cash for them?

There's only one kind of new asset that stands a good chance of
appreciating
over time: a house. And that works only because they ain't makin' any more
land. If you want to preserve your equity buy a low-time plane that's
10-20
years old in good shape.

If you do buy a new plane with the intent to do a leaseback you want to
buy
a common plane that everyone knows how to fly already. A new 172SP or 182
with the G1000 would be the queen of any rental fleet and would probably
get
plenty of usage. Since it's under warranty you won't have to sweat
maintenance costs. Oh, and either of these would be very realistic planes
to
learn to fly in and not get murdered on insurance. I'm usually very
bearish
on leasebacks but this one could work.

-cwk.

Hm...my fixed costs per year for the cherokee are

Hangar $3000
Insurance $1000
Maint $1000
total 5000

Awfully similar to skiing....

Blanche!
I'm moving over there

I spend more than $1000 maintenance on transponders, ADF's, VOR's and
ELT's, before I even start on 100 hour maintenance, and all of the snags
that I manage to find each year.
And all of that before I go for annual!

My fixed costs are more like:

Tiedown $650
Insurance $1700.00
Maintenance/Service - $3000.00
Annual - Sky is the limit
Stuck exhaust valve $650.00
No Mag Drop $1100.00
Upgrades $2500.00

and on. . . . and on . . . and on . . .

Tony

P.S. Thaks fo th english Leson -
i enjoyd that


Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:45:22 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:



I agree with you that higher fuel and insurance will negatively impact the
market but I think that the glass cockpit airplanes are a big deal. How
would you like to be the last guy to buy a 206 without the G1000? That
announcement cost him at least $50,000. Lets face reality, used machinery
generally depreciates both because of wear and because the current product
generally improves. Airplanes have been stagnant for years, but now Cirrus,
Diamond and Lancair have delivered genuine improvements in terms of speed
per dollar. Soon there will be diesels with significantly longer TBOs,
single lever control and much better economy. An old airplane is simply not
going to hold its value when the new ones go 50% faster on 70% of the fuel
and the engines last half again as long. It is about time that GA started
moving forward again!


The Cirrus, Lancair, and Diamond 'glass' aircraft are a huge step
forward for GA. Faster and more fuel efficient. That's the bottom
line when we're trying to get someplace. These planes should (and do)
command a higher asking price because they offer more performance than
the existing GA spamcan.

Sarcasticly speaking - I wouldn't have been the last guy to buy a 2003
C206 because I would have been buying a 1970s 206 instead, and saving
myself $200k+. In my view, the planes were essentially the same.
Your point is dead on for the recently mfg'd used planes vs the new
glass panels. Anyone who has the cash to buy a $300k C182 or C206 is
going to spend the extra $50k to get the glass paneled version.

Hopefully a retrofit market will popup to service the thousands of
steam-gauge Piper/Cessna/Beeches. That would help bridge the gap
between old and new. Anytime there are that many dollars at stake,
you can bet an entrepreneur will give it a go. I wonder how much
owners would be willing to pay to 'glass-panelize' their older
spamcan?

-Nathan