Refurb an old plane or buy new? Opinions welcome!

You essentially recondition the entire airplane on every wearable/replaceable part. Nice!
 
WDD said:
You essentially recondition the entire airplane on every wearable/replaceable part. Nice!
Click to expand...

Transport airplanes go through A. B, C, and D inspections, and those inspections have subset inspections as well. When it comes to the D inspection the airplane is gone for months and gets what is essentially a rebuild. This is why you see transport category jets with 100,000 hour airframes. ;)
 
Insurance is rarely a deciding factor (and most of the time I tell people to not make it a deciding factor, unless it's truly wild like Lancair premiums), but I'll mention that the insurance companies are really starting to show preference for the newer aircraft. This is being a bit tempered with a softening insurance market as the companies are loosening up on underwriting to hold market share. But the premiums on a $150K V-Tail and a $300K Cirrus are about equal, assuming you're instrument rated with more than 500 hours and 100 in RG aircraft.
 
Nice angle. Having a fixed gear like a Cirrus is just a bit more reliable than a retract. Add that to the mix when you tell the wife you bought the Citrus.

Next topic - what color scheme is your favorite for the Cirrus?
 
StraightnLevel said:
Either SR22 or 1/4 share of an Epic.

The engine is $70K in the crate as delivered (per discussion with Continental at Oshkosh). Then you have to pay the A&P to install it and add all the ancillary stuff that always goes with a major job. I'm guessing it's more like $120-125K all-in. Someone tell me if I'm off-base on this...

I'm mentally thinking my all-in on the Bo will be close to $250 AMU, and then it's effectively a new plane (but insurance won't treat it as such). New options are 4x that, but with an assumably higher dispatch rate, better avionics, warranty, and a much higher WAF.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I no longer have to worry about WAF, but remember, if Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
Go with a new(er) plane with a BRS.
 
Parker Woodruff said:
I'll mention that the insurance companies are really starting to show preference for the newer aircraft.
Click to expand...
Parker Woodruff said:
But the premiums on a $150K V-Tail and a $300K Cirrus are about equal, assuming you're instrument rated with more than 500 hours and 100 in RG aircraft.
Click to expand...
I think this has more to do with retract vs fixed gear than new vs old. A prop plus an engine teardown plus some new belly panels and paint is probably gonna run north of $80K these days, and it happens all too frequently.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think this has more to do with retract vs fixed gear than new vs old. A prop plus an engine teardown plus some new belly panels and paint is probably gonna run north of $80K these days, and it happens all too frequently.
Click to expand...
True, but the retract will always be faster and more efficient, all other things being equal.

The simple answer is to build the gear down action into your approach flow.

Dropping the gear creates a consistent descent rate, so if that is part of your speed/power/slope process, you'll notice that something is wrong if the gear is still up - you won't descend fast enough to get to the runway.
 
StraightnLevel said:
True, but the retract will always be faster and more efficient, all other things being equal.

The simple answer is to build the gear down action into your approach flow.

Dropping the gear creates a consistent descent rate, so if that is part of your speed/power/slope process, you'll notice that something is wrong if the gear is still up - you won't descend fast enough to get to the runway.
Click to expand...
Yes, but insurance numbers reflect that someone someplace will land gear up in a retract, and that isn’t happening to a fixed gear.

Bonus: Because if more modern design such as with the Cirrus, you can get nice speed with a fixed gear not possible with older airplanes.
 
StraightnLevel said:
The simple answer is to build the gear down action into your approach flow.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. We may develop and utilize routine procedures and flows, but we cannot rely on ourselves to reliably execute them in the real-world. Many gear-up landings occur when a competent pilot becomes briefly distracted during the approach, disrupting their established routine. This is often exacerbated when the pilot becomes task-saturated and/or fixated on a distractor.
StraightnLevel said:
Dropping the gear creates a consistent descent rate, so if that is part of your speed/power/slope process, you'll notice that something is wrong if the gear is still up - you won't descend fast enough to get to the runway.
Click to expand...
One would think so. And yet…(see above).

And then there are pilots who have habit of retracting the flaps during every landing rollout. They got to ask themselves one question (as they fumble for the flap switch while holding aileron into a stiff crosswind and trying to find the exit taxiway in the dark through a blurry rain-streaked windshield): "Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk? Those are the pilots whose airplanes go on the market with a damage history note that reads something like, “gear collapsed during rollout.” Meanwhile, everyone’s insurance premium climbs another notch.

The only foolproof* solution to the problem is a fixed-gear airplane. I reckon the Klapmeier’s came to this conclusion while developing their Cirrus and decided the performance tradeoff was worthwhile. I’m inclined to agree.

*Nothing is truly foolproof—someone could try landing inverted, earning ultimate gear-up bragging rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top