GFC700 v. KAP 140?

[jamie]

Need to make a decision RIGHT NOW. Looking at a 2006 and 2008 T182T, 150 hours tt each. Price delta is huge: like $70k.

I'm a 600 hr ir pilot who flies a lot of 1 hour hamburger missions. I rarely fly in IMC except for a few flights a year.

Thoughts?

Many thanks.

[Jason]

GFC700 is an awesome autopilot but for your mission and purpose, it doesn't sound like it's worth an extra $70k. For single pilot IFR in hard IMC, the GFC700 and flight director is definitely a nice feature. But if that's not what you're flying in, then why spend the money?

Hope this helps.

Best,
Jason

[Tim]

Spend the money - the better integration will result in lower avionics bills in the future. You'll also love the features. You're also getting a newer airplane.

[Freiburgfan31]

Me? I'd take the GFC700 in a heartbeat. Better resale, if nothing else. In the event you fly distances, or IMC, you will LOVE the GFC700.

[weilke]

The difference in price reflects the fact that the market puts a 70k price on an installed GFC700. How much money does having 70k vs not having 70k in your pocket during the hold time of the aircraft cost you ? One could also argue that for hamburger runs, the 'T' is a bit of an overkill.

[jamie]

Thanks for the input boys. I believe I have a now have a deal on a 2008 Turbo 182 with 150 hours. No SVT, however.

[weilke]

Originally Posted by jamie

No SVT, however.

You'll see the hamburgers just as well in 2D.

[Bill Burkett]

Originally Posted by weilke

The difference in price reflects the fact that the market puts a 70k price on an installed GFC700.

And when the next wonderbox comes out, the value of the GFC700 (and the rest of the panel) falls to what?


Trapper John

[weilke]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

And when the next wonderbox comes out, the value of the GFC700 (and the rest of the panel) falls to what?

Given the extremely slow development cycle of stand-alone autopilots I don't see that as much of a concern. Certifying a new wonderbox costs a lot of money, even Avidyne with their Stec55 replacement is taking it one step at a time.

[Bill Burkett]

Originally Posted by weilke

Given the extremely slow development cycle of stand-alone autopilots I don't see that as much of a concern. Certifying a new wonderbox costs a lot of money, even Avidyne with their Stec55 replacement is taking it one step at a time.

I suppose you're right, but when one A/P in a fixed gear single is worth 70k more than another A/P, I'd go for the cheaper one and have enough left over to buy a whole 'nother plane.


Trapper John

[weilke]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I suppose you're right, but when one A/P in a fixed gear single is worth 70k more than another A/P, I'd go for the cheaper one and have enough left over to buy a whole 'nother plane.

That will cost you a whole other set of fixed cost, will depreciate by itself and won't keep its value for resale.

How many planes can you fly at the same time ?

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by weilke

That will cost you a whole other set of fixed cost, will depreciate by itself and won't keep its value for resale.

How many planes can you fly at the same time ?

I would be willing to bet 70K into a separate airplane would keep its resale value better than 70K more on a T182 just because it has a better autopilot.

[weilke]

Originally Posted by jesse

I would be willing to bet 70K into a separate airplane would keep its resale value better than 70K more on a T182 just because it has a better autopilot.

Barring some cataclysmic market-disruptive event such as TSO approval for a a Digiflight autopilot to replace the KAP140 or certification of the stand-alone R9 autopilot for the 182, I don't see why the historical difference between the kap140 and GFC700 planes should diminish.

The same differential (about 50k) exists in the used DA40 market.

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by weilke

Barring some cataclysmic market-disruptive event such as TSO approval for a a Digiflight autopilot to replace the KAP140 or certification of the stand-alone R9 autopilot for the 182, I don't see why the historical difference between the kap140 and GFC700 planes should diminish.

The same differential (about 50k) exists in the used DA40 market.

Give it 10 years. That new airplane is going to depreciate a lot and those avionics won't be that fancy anymore. The depreciation is a lot lower on a 20 year old airplane that becomes a 30 year old airplane.

[weilke]

Originally Posted by jesse

Give it 10 years. That new airplane is going to depreciate a lot and those avionics won't be that fancy anymore. The depreciation is a lot lower on a 20 year old airplane that becomes a 30 year old airplane.

Sure, and 100 years out they are both soda-cans .

[Jesse]

Originally Posted by weilke

Sure, and 100 years out they are both soda-cans .

Okay? So how does talking about what happens to your money over 10 years compare to what happens over 100 years? Owning an airplane for 10 years is pretty damn common.

[iASCIIart]

Originally Posted by jamie

Need to make a decision RIGHT NOW. Looking at a 2006 and 2008 T182T, 150 hours tt each. Price delta is huge: like $70k.

I'm a 600 hr ir pilot who flies a lot of 1 hour hamburger missions. I rarely fly in IMC except for a few flights a year.

Thoughts?

Many thanks.

A lot of 1 hour hamburger missions, and you're getting a turbo? Why? Turbos don't do you much good unless you go high, and you won't go very high on a 1-hour burger mission... I made a spreadsheet to figure out the best altitudes to fly in a non-pressurized turbo bird (not a 182 tho), and came up with the rules of thumb that the fastest time would be had (neglecting wind) by climbing 1,000 feet for every 18 miles traveled, and the best efficiency by climbing 1,000 feet for every 20 miles traveled. 1 hour in a 182, you're not going to be going above 7,000 feet or so, where you can still develop good power in a normally aspirated bird, so the turbo really won't be any faster unless you push it hard, which will cost you big-time in maintenance, early overhauls, and fuel for very little speed advantage.

That said, the GFC 700 is a very good autopilot, more sophisticated than the KAP 140. $70K worth? Only you can answer that question. Since the 140 climbs only with a vertical speed mode, you'll be constantly adjusting it when you go high with the turbo bird. The GFC's Flight Level Change mode will hold a constant airspeed, keeping your engine cool, your forward speed up, and your wing flying. (The KAP 140 can and will stall the airplane if you get too high to maintain the selected climb rate.)

[TangoWhiskey]

Originally Posted by jamie

Thanks for the input boys. I believe I have a now have a deal on a 2008 Turbo 182 with 150 hours. No SVT, however.

You can add it later; software upgrade for that new of a 182.

Congrats! That's what I'd be looking for, too.

[peter-h]

If the cost diff is really $70k, somebody is making a load of $$$$$$$$$$$$ somewhere.

The total cost of manufacturing a digital autopilot computer (e.g. my KFC225) is around $500 (about the same as a Garmin 430).

The cost of manufacturing each of the three servos (e.g. my KS27xC) is around $200.

The other 90% of the money goes on supporting a mountain of people (massive fixed costs) but they probably do make a lot of money on these products. Unless it is something like a KFC225 whose half-life is less than a lot of stuff on the periodic table

[Freiburgfan31]

Cost difference is due to depreciation. 2005 vs 2008.

If you keep the airplane for a long time, you will be much happier with the GFC700. that technology will not be dated any time soon. Fly it and you'll see why.

[Jason W (FlyNE)]

Originally Posted by peter-h

If the cost diff is really $70k, somebody is making a load of $$$$$$$$$$$$ somewhere.

The total cost of manufacturing a digital autopilot computer (e.g. my KFC225) is around $500 (about the same as a Garmin 430).

The cost of manufacturing each of the three servos (e.g. my KS27xC) is around $200.

The other 90% of the money goes on supporting a mountain of people (massive fixed costs) but they probably do make a lot of money on these products. Unless it is something like a KFC225 whose half-life is less than a lot of stuff on the periodic table

Well, when you have to get your stuff certified, it's an entirely different story. That's like when somebody is talking about drug companies and says "that pill only costs $.05 to produce". Yes, that's true. That one only cost that much. But the first one cost $15 billion.

[Matt]

Here is a potential issue for you. I have been looking at similar airplanes. Do both of your aircraft have WAAS? I am willing to guess the GFC700 one has it and the KAP140 doesn't. I think it costs $20k-$30k or so for the WAAS upgrade.

[weilke]

Originally Posted by peter-h

If the cost diff is really $70k, somebody is making a load of $$$$$$$$$$$$ somewhere.

This thread is not about the cost of the unit itself but rather the differential the market on used aircraft puts on KAP140 vs GFC700 equipped Cessna 182s (there is a bit more to that difference as the kap140 planes by definition are 1-2 years older and may have other goodies like the exploding seatbelts that got added later).

A similar differential exists for DA40 with G1000 and KAP140 vs GFC700.

At this point, the GFC700 is not available as a stand-alone retrofit.

[jamie]

Originally Posted by flyingcheesehead

Why?

4 reasons.

1. larger resale audience
2. slight speed increase
3. slight performance improvement on triple h days
4. I have to cross the Appalachians a few times a year and it's sometimes much safer to do so at 17 as opposed to 11.

In my haste, I forgot to mention the presence of WAAS in the newer plane.

Thanks again for the thoughtful input.

[Jason W (FlyNE)]

Originally Posted by jamie

4 reasons.

1. larger resale audience
2. slight speed increase
3. slight performance improvement on triple h days
4. I have to cross the Appalachians a few times a year and it's sometimes much safer to do so at 17 as opposed to 11.

In my haste, I forgot to mention the presence of WAAS in the newer plane.

Thanks again for the thoughtful input.

That's a biggie...