Upcoming Piper Announcement @ SnF

Ventucky Red said:
I think the issue with the new 172 is the price and the lack of "local" dealer support. Cessna is selling direct to the end user in the lower 48... there was a brand new one at the AOPA fly in last year at KCMA... the price was north of $400K and these are decked out aircraft with all the goodies, leather seats, G1000, etc.... It was sweet, but....... A few steps down from that was the AOPA Sweepstakes 172 that just had a total rebuild... I would be hard pressed to think that plane carried a retail price of more than $175K.. Even if I could write the check for the new one, the AOPA plane looked pretty nice.. and what the hell., it's a 172... I am sure Cessna could come out with a 172N or M version that is a basic aircraft that would hit the sub $300K market... But then again, there is Yingling Aviation that is refurbishing them with a starting price of $160K. If I were in the business of training pilots and renting aircraft... to me this is a no brainier... Case and point

https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/01/16/university-adds-ascend-172-to-fleet/
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But note what it said (inserted below) in the linked article. A G-1000 is not an option in a "remanufactured" plane. They have to settle for the retrofit Garmin screen(s) which are less integrated than a G-1000 system. Maybe that's good enough? Maybe the students need "G1000" on the resume? Don't know.

"...Mills also noted that EMU’s latest class of new student pilots is its largest ever, which created a need for an additional aircraft to integrate into a fleet of Cessna G1000 Skyhawks currently operated by the university..."​

I also think there's a limit to the pace and number of re-manufactured Skyhawks that can be produced.

If one is running a large school (UND, Embry, etc) there is value in having a completely and absolutely identical fleet. Difficult to achieve in scale with remanufactured airplanes imo.

We have twelve 172s in our club's flight training unit. All but one are 'N' models. We are slowly retrofitting them with dual G5s and trying to standardize the center stack, but its a long process. And finding any more decent N model 172s is a real challenge right now.
 
GRG55 said:
Perhaps. But note what it said (inserted below) in the linked article. A G-1000 is not an option in a "remanufactured" plane. They have to settle for the retrofit Garmin screen(s) which are less integrated than a G-1000 system. Maybe that's good enough? Maybe the students need "G1000" on the resume? Don't know.

"...Mills also noted that EMU’s latest class of new student pilots is its largest ever, which created a need for an additional aircraft to integrate into a fleet of Cessna G1000 Skyhawks currently operated by the university..."​

I also think there's a limit to the pace and number of re-manufactured Skyhawks that can be produced.

If one is running a large school (UND, Embry, etc) there is value in having a completely and absolutely identical fleet. Difficult to achieve in scale with remanufactured airplanes imo.

We have twelve 172s in our club's flight training unit. All but one are 'N' models. We are slowly retrofitting them with dual G5s and trying to standardize the center stack, but its a long process. And finding any more decent N model 172s is a real challenge right now.
Click to expand...

Indeed. My AP down here is associated with a flight school and told me they have a contract with the USAF for the IFS/IFT critters. As part of the fulfillment of that contract, the airplanes have to be TAA. G1000s et al. He said they couldn't find G1000 equipped airplanes, so they're eating the cost of leasing one, and I believe running on a G500? suite on another one in order to satisfy the requirements. BL, 172s are a hot commodity right now. He straight up told me they can't find them CONUS-wide through the usual greasy palm non-TAP sources these revenue outfits generally acquire planes through.

The poor bastard in the hail shed next to mine down here in skid row told me there's not an instance where he stops by his legacy N model 172 that there's not business cards stuck to the door, struts or windshield with contact info and offers to buy unsolicited. I told him to chain that thing up real good lol.
 
Ventucky Red said:
I think the issue with the new 172 is the price and the lack of "local" dealer support. Cessna is selling direct to the end user in the lower 48... there was a brand new one at the AOPA fly in last year at KCMA... the price was north of $400K and these are decked out aircraft with all the goodies, leather seats, G1000, etc.... It was sweet, but....... A few steps down from that was the AOPA Sweepstakes 172 that just had a total rebuild... I would be hard pressed to think that plane carried a retail price of more than $175K.. Even if I could write the check for the new one, the AOPA plane looked pretty nice.. and what the hell., it's a 172... I am sure Cessna could come out with a 172N or M version that is a basic aircraft that would hit the sub $300K market... But then again, there is Yingling Aviation that is refurbishing them with a starting price of $160K. If I were in the business of training pilots and renting aircraft... to me this is a no brainier... Case and point

https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/01/16/university-adds-ascend-172-to-fleet/
Click to expand...

That all sounds great in theory, but Cessna has tried that. The restarted 172 line included the fully equipped SPs, but also the lower end R model. The SP outsold the R model substantially, and the R was eventually dropped. I don't think there was that much savings between the two, I'm not sure of the pricing.

While we all claim to want a cheap lower end aircraft, but sales indicate otherwise. The PiperSport included 3 trim models, nearly all sales from our dealer were for the top end model. The person that has $100-$200k to spend on a new aircraft is usually willing to spend the extra $10-30k to get the bells and whistles.

In the end, the manufacturers are building what will sell. Any new aircraft will have a six figure price tag, and the people spending that kind of money want the bells and whistles.
 
midwestpa24 said:
...In the end, the manufacturers are building what will sell. Any new aircraft will have a six figure price tag, and the people spending that kind of money want the bells and whistles.
Click to expand...

I doubt many of training units are buying the new airplanes outright. With cost of capital the way it has been since the 08/09 financial crisis there's been a proliferation of equipment leasing outfits, and even Textron is probably making more money leasing planes through its finance sub to customers than selling them outright. It's all cash flow management to maintain debt servicing these days.
 
midwestpa24 said:
While we all claim to want a cheap lower end aircraft, but sales indicate otherwise. The PiperSport included 3 trim models, nearly all sales from our dealer were for the top end model. The person that has $100-$200k to spend on a new aircraft is usually willing to spend the extra $10-30k to get the bells and whistles.
Click to expand...

Point taken. But again these are going to be training aircraft not a personal $100 cheeseburger scooter....
 
GRG55 said:
All but one are 'N' models. We are slowly retrofitting them with dual G5s and trying to standardize the center stack, but its a long process. And finding any more decent N model 172s is a real challenge right now.
Click to expand...

Finding a decent one at a decent price... We looked at one in.... above average but very nice air-frame, over 2000 hour engine, made an offer, was told, thanks but no thanks... as the seller said... "some school will scoop this up at the asking and I am in no hurry to sell it." :(
 
Ventucky Red said:
Finding a decent one at a decent price... We looked at one in.... above average but very nice air-frame, over 2000 hour engine, made an offer, was told, thanks but no thanks... as the seller said... "some school will scoop this up at the asking and I am in no hurry to sell it." :(
Click to expand...

Same experience. Exactly. Run out engine, cosmetically challenged inside and out, and would not consider anything close to a reasonable offer.
 
midwestpa24 said:
That all sounds great in theory, but Cessna has tried that. The restarted 172 line included the fully equipped SPs, but also the lower end R model. The SP outsold the R model substantially, and the R was eventually dropped. I don't think there was that much savings between the two, I'm not sure of the pricing.
Click to expand...

I thought Cessna delivered something like 600 C172R in 18 months before they dropped in favor of the 172SP that was geared towards the owner pilot....
 
Ventucky Red said:
I thought Cessna delivered something like 600 C172R in 18 months before they dropped in favor of the 172SP that was geared towards the owner pilot....
Click to expand...
They built the 172R (160 hp) and 172S (180 hp) side-by-side for a few years. Buyers realized the 172R was not such a great deal - same IO-360 engine as the 172S, de-rated to 160 hp, a different prop, and different markings on the tachometer.

The flight schools are what motivated a 180 hp Skyhawk in the first place. In the early 1980s ERAU asked Cessna for a special-order O-360-powered Skyhawk specifically for its Prescott AZ (5000' elevation) operation. Cessna added it to the catalogue as the Model 172Q "Cutlass" (not to be confused with the 172RG "Cutlass RG"), which in turn was the basis for the popular Penn Yan and Air Plains conversions.
 
Here you go - introducing the Pilot 100 and Pilot 100i

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...04-02/piper-unveils-affordable-pilot-trainers

Piper Aircraft launched the Piper Pilot 100 and 100i basic trainers this morning at Sun ‘n‘ Fun 2019. The new models, which are derivatives of the PA-28, feature a Continental Prime IO-370-D3A engine and Garmin G3X Touch Certified avionics in a standard two-pilot interior configuration, but a third rear seat is available as an option. Both aircraft will be available in “limited quantities” beginning next year, with sales being direct from the factory instead of Piper dealers.

The VFR Pilot 100 retails for $259,000 and includes a single 10.6-inch Garmin G3X Touch unit, while the $285,000 IFR-outfitted 100i has dual 3X Touch displays, as well as Garmin GFC500 autopilot and GNX 375 transponder. Both aircraft will also be the first Piper airplanes to include 3D-printed parts, though these will be limited to plastic-molded components such as vent tubes and trim pieces, said v-p of sales, marketing, and customer support Ron Gunnarson.
 
Rgbeard said:
Here you go - introducing the Pilot 100 and Pilot 100i

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...04-02/piper-unveils-affordable-pilot-trainers

Piper Aircraft launched the Piper Pilot 100 and 100i basic trainers this morning at Sun ‘n‘ Fun 2019. The new models, which are derivatives of the PA-28, feature a Continental Prime IO-370-D3A engine and Garmin G3X Touch Certified avionics in a standard two-pilot interior configuration, but a third rear seat is available as an option. Both aircraft will be available in “limited quantities” beginning next year, with sales being direct from the factory instead of Piper dealers.

The VFR Pilot 100 retails for $259,000 and includes a single 10.6-inch Garmin G3X Touch unit, while the $285,000 IFR-outfitted 100i has dual 3X Touch displays, as well as Garmin GFC500 autopilot and GNX 375 transponder. Both aircraft will also be the first Piper airplanes to include 3D-printed parts, though these will be limited to plastic-molded components such as vent tubes and trim pieces, said v-p of sales, marketing, and customer support Ron Gunnarson.
Click to expand...
Excuse my yawn, please.
 
That livestream was horrible. The product, in either form, is underwhelming.
 
Rgbeard said:
Why? It's been in development for a while, and there's even an STC in development for the IO-370 in a Cessna 170 and 175.
Click to expand...
Interesting. First I've heard of it.
 
Let's see, how did I do?

flyingcheesehead said:
Given what Piper is saying on their web site, I'm guessing it's this:

variant on the PA28 series
updates designed specifically for high dispatch rates and low maintenance
worldwide operations - diesel, probably a Continental CD-155
cost as low as possible.

It'll have cloth seats that are engineered for durability (kevlar maybe).
It'll have modern avionics, likely Garmin, but probably as cheap as possible - Not a G1000+GFC700, but more like a G3X Touch/G5/GFC 500 combo
Click to expand...

PA28 variant: Check
Updates for low maintenance and high dispatch: Sounds like it
Diesel for worldwide operations: Hmmm. Not so much. Surprising. I guess since most foreign airlines are still training in the US, the 100LL burner still makes sense. Kinda.'
Low cost: Yes. Surprisingly. This is easily 40% less than a new 172.
Seats: Unknown
Avionics: Garmin G3X Touch.

So yeah. Fairly predictable.
 
asicer said:
"Limited quantities"... "factory direct sales only"...
This thing ain't meant for you and me.
Click to expand...

until a bunch of years down the road when they get sold on the open market. and while maybe not 'you and me' cause I'm not looking for a plane but some people will get a plane with decent avionics and autopilot for relatively on the cheap.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Let's see, how did I do?



PA28 variant: Check
Updates for low maintenance and high dispatch: Sounds like it
Diesel for worldwide operations: Hmmm. Not so much. Surprising. I guess since most foreign airlines are still training in the US, the 100LL burner still makes sense. Kinda.'
Low cost: Yes. Surprisingly. This is easily 40% less than a new 172.
Seats: Unknown
Avionics: Garmin G3X Touch.

So yeah. Fairly predictable.
Click to expand...

you threw a whole slew of wide enough potential options that it would have been very difficult for you to be wrong. don't go high fiving yourself too much on that one......
 
GRG55 said:
LOL. From a commercial standpoint I think they hit the bullseye. ;)
Click to expand...

Which makes me curious what the half-life of these things will be and what the secondary market will be when a school goes to replace them.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Piper offers up some sort of ‘lease’ option with factory turn-in at the end. Make profit on the finance side and re-let to someone else, at a cheaper price, then lather, rinse, repeat until life limit is reached and factory destroys the plane.

And to go along with it, a ‘maintenance solution’ for operators available from Piper (for a few, of course) offered as a feature, lowering the cost of capital, but still making a tidy profit for the company.

While it may be a ‘solution’, it sounds more like a pilot program, to test the waters for this concept.
 
Salty said:
I jokingly call my buddies 162 a guycatcher or flycatcher.
Click to expand...

I know you're just having fun. But people seriously made fun of the skycatcher and the piper sport. I never got that. Attractive little planes perfect for what I do 95% of the time.
 
I think putting that cowling on a slow plane is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I actually like the classic Cherokee cowling better.
 
First I've heard of this Titan spin off "Continental" IO-370, as admittedly I don't follow the experimental engine clone market. It looks like a Lycoming though.

So I take it Continental is now making Lycoming clones? Maybe now they'll make an engine worth a damn...lol. As long as you can put Lycoming factory cylinders on it I think they'll be alright. Hopefully they won't run into the IO-390 cylinder pricing boo boo though. That could be a quick non-starter for a trainer fleet of this nature. 4K cylinders for a NA engine would quickly sour a flight school.

--break break--
....YAAAAAAAWN. I think the whole photoshopping the gear out was weaksauce. Talk about being a -----tease. BTW, Are we allowed to say that in 2019, or is that microaggression and victim-blaming? :D

--break break---

So Tecnam's P2010 is a decent concept. I really wish they hadn't gone with the IO-390 for their uprated version. I think a parallel valve Lycoming 6 banger would have been a much better alternative. Those -390 cylinder kits are a non-starter. And of course then there's the price LOL. Other than the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?...... :D
 
When Cirrus first got off the ground they had a VFR model they hoped would be a good primary trainer. I never understood why that never happened. They pulled it after a very short period of time. I'm hoping Piper does well with this.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I think for $250K I can have a Bonanza with a new engine and new panel, and have money left over.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are talking about a used Bonanza, compared to a new aircraft. You are not the person this aircraft is marketed to.

Hopefully this aircraft will fill the niche for flight schools. The only things I don't see is how much money is saved removing the fourth seat (I'm assuming this is the same old Warrior/Archer fuselage with a window removed), and how common will the IO-370 become. You almost hate to see an aircraft get mated to an uncommon engine that could be a problem down the road.

But a factory new airplane for $250k, that is better than I would have thought could be done.
 
Gerhardt said:
When Cirrus first got off the ground they had a VFR model they hoped would be a good primary trainer. I never understood why that never happened. They pulled it after a very short period of time. I'm hoping Piper does well with this.
Click to expand...

The SR-V wasn't actually there right away, that came along later. I think they were trying to play to the same market Piper is here, but it was the wrong time. I also think that, if I'm remembering correctly, the price wasn't all that much better for the SR-V than it was for the SR-20, and not being able to do IFR is a pretty big restriction. I expect that Piper will sell plenty of the IFR variety, but very few of the VFR-only ones. I think Diamond had some more success with the flight school-oriented DA40-FP than Cirrus ever did with the SR-V, because the FP was still IFR.
 
Gerhardt said:
When Cirrus first got off the ground they had a VFR model they hoped would be a good primary trainer. I never understood why that never happened. They pulled it after a very short period of time. I'm hoping Piper does well with this.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine a flight school would have a ton of use for a VFR aircraft. If I'm running a flight school and need flexibility in aircraft dispatch, I certainly don't want to mess with juggling which aircraft are VFR vs IFR. If everything is IFR-ready, then it's an easy solution. Even more so if all of the aircraft are TAA, so then you meet the Comm students' needs as well aside from needing to keep one or two complex birds on the line/leaseback in order to satisfy the 10hrs of complex time. I just don't see much value in a VFR bird if all the aircraft are otherwise identical aside from the avionics package.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I can't imagine a flight school would have a ton of use for a VFR aircraft... I just don't see much value in a VFR bird if all the aircraft are otherwise identical aside from the avionics package.
Click to expand...

This isn't my domain, so I'm just throwing it out there to see what sticks, but...
I'd think most flight hours in a flight school would be wrapped up in primary (VFR) training. And I'd think it would be cheaper to operate a VFR aircraft, especially since primary trainers tend to get beat up a little (a lot) harder.
 
Gerhardt said:
This isn't my domain, so I'm just throwing it out there to see what sticks, but...
I'd think most flight hours in a flight school would be wrapped up in primary (VFR) training. And I'd think it would be cheaper to operate a VFR aircraft, especially since primary trainers tend to get beat up a little (a lot) harder.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the aforementioned lack of flexibility in scheduling is hard to deal with unless you're a Really Big Flight School. It sounds like this might be getting aimed at the smaller end of the market. And even a not-so-small flight school that isn't going to have that many of them, I think would likely still want a significant majority of their fleet to be IFR, even if IFR isn't the majority of their training.

I bet the VFR ones do terrible on resale, as well. That alone might pay for the IFR version.
 
Gerhardt said:
This isn't my domain, so I'm just throwing it out there to see what sticks, but...
I'd think most flight hours in a flight school would be wrapped up in primary (VFR) training. And I'd think it would be cheaper to operate a VFR aircraft, especially since primary trainers tend to get beat up a little (a lot) harder.
Click to expand...

My school way back when bought 4 172R and 8 172SP, intending that the R would be slightly cheaper for primary training. It seldom worked out that way, you took whatever aircraft was available, and it soon became a moot point to have two different types.

I wonder about resale of these new aircraft, considering they don't have the 4 seats a regular Cherokee would have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top