Sticker Shock

[Mcstealth]

Cessna has provisioned the three models of piston singles to accept the Max-Viz system for the last couple of years, making for easy retrofits. Retrofit systems are available for $30,051. Installations are only available through Cessna dealers. When ordered on a new airplane, the upgrade is $22,145.

 

 

The lead article online at AOPA is the night vision that is available on some of the Highwing models.

 

$22  or $30 grand for night vision attached to the glass panel. WOW is all I can say. You can field overhaul your engine for less money.

 

David

[aviatoreb]

No kidding!

 

At walmart:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Pulsar-NV-Compact-Head-Mount-Night-Vision-Accessories/20762506?findingMethod=rr

[AndyFromCB]

No kidding!

 

At walmart:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Pulsar-NV-Compact-Head-Mount-Night-Vision-Accessories/20762506?findingMethod=rr

 

Not the same technology, but I've priced the parts out for an identical system to the one Cessna sells and it's closer to 3K than 30K

[aviatoreb]

Not the same technology, but I've priced the parts out for an identical system to the one Cessna sells and it's closer to 3K than 30K

 

What device are you looking at that runs the same?

 

Would the walmart device I pointed at work though for an emergency night landing?  I always wondered.

[AndyFromCB]

The device in question is called PathFindIR camera. It's a FLIR based system. Runs about $2600 on the open market or about $800 if you can find one out of a wrecked BMW or a Caddy. You think that $30K is bad, a $2600 PathFindIR camera installed on a Pilatus PC12 is a bargain at $96K. And yes, I looked into it, same camera, 30hz, NTSC is used in PathFindIR vehicle system as in the 15K to 100K aircraft based system. You are paying a lot of money for an STC and a streamlined fiberglass shell.

[DaV8or]

The device in question is called PathFindIR camera. It's a FLIR based system. Runs about $2600 on the open market or about $800 if you can find one out of a wrecked BMW or a Caddy. You think that $30K is bad, a $2600 PathFindIR camera installed on a Pilatus PC12 is a bargain at $96K. And yes, I looked into it, same camera, 30hz, NTSC is used in PathFindIR vehicle system as in the 15K to 100K aircraft based system. You are paying a lot of money for an STC and a streamlined fiberglass shell.

 

As well as PMA certification a ridiculous amount of documentation and of course, liability insurance. All of this at low production volumes. It would be awesome to grab off the shelf tech from all sources and apply it to our airplanes, but alas, we can not do that without a load of obstacles and expenses.

[Omega703]

What device are you looking at that runs the same?

 

Would the walmart device I pointed at work though for an emergency night landing?  I always wondered.

It would not work well.

The walmart device amplifies visible light, while the PathfinderIR converts IR to visible light. IR has a longer wavelength, thus penetrates fog/dust better than visible light and is more suitable for civil aviation. To get any use out of a night vision device (walmart), you would need NVG compatible lighting in your cockpit as to not wash out your monocular and clear visibility with more NVG compatible lighting along the runway. Not to mention if you expect any sort of clarity in an NVG device you will need to spend north of 3K. An equivalent to Military NVG binoculars used in aircraft can be had for around 10k, and would come in handy for those low level, lights out runs across the Canadian border. Personally, if the runway lights won't turn on and i'm suffering an electrical failure, I'll use my flashlight, ipad and ADI to get me to the alternate.

[aviatoreb]

It would not work well.

The walmart device amplifies visible light, while the PathfinderIR converts IR to visible light. IR has a longer wavelength, thus penetrates fog/dust better than visible light and is more suitable for civil aviation. To get any use out of a night vision device (walmart), you would need NVG compatible lighting in your cockpit as to not wash out your monocular and clear visibility with more NVG compatible lighting along the runway. Not to mention if you expect any sort of clarity in an NVG device you will need to spend north of 3K. An equivalent to Military NVG binoculars used in aircraft can be had for around 10k, and would come in handy for those low level, lights out runs across the Canadian border. Personally, if the runway lights won't turn on and i'm suffering an electrical failure, I'll use my flashlight, ipad and ADI to get me to the alternate.

 

Just talking it through - would the 3k IR device work inside the cockpit through your windscreen?  

 

Not just for runway landings but for an off field landing in an emergency?

[RJBrown]

Because of onerous certification requirements we are guaranteed poor equipment and/or high prices. In an attempt to protect the airways the FAA makes them less safe through the ridiculously high cost to use new technology. The FAA makes it too expensive to use things that can make for a safer flight.

 If I wanted to put a used Cadillac IR camera system in a RV10 it would be legal. The same system in a certified plane is 10 times the costs.

[aviatoreb]

Because of onerous certification requirements we are guaranteed poor equipment and/or high prices. In an attempt to protect the airways the FAA makes them less safe through the ridiculously high cost to use new technology. The FAA makes it too expensive to use things that can make for a safer flight.

 If I wanted to put a used Cadillac IR camera system in a RV10 it would be legal. The same system in a certified plane is 10 times the costs.

 

Quite true.  And frustrating!  I want this camera and an auto land autopilot (for my nervous wife in case I go kaput at the yoke) and a bunch more stuff...and a drink holder too!

 

Supposedly and seemingly the FAA is fixing the certification rules for this very reason.

 

So why don't we all just fly experimental here?  This is a certified airplane forum?  As for me, experimental is very very tempting for just these reasons, and the designs are so many of them stunning.  Heck, I want a vans that flies a corvette engine - the new one they just released - or the wankel rotary is cool.  Or a Lancair.  But I promised myself to stay away from experimental.

[Mcstealth]

"But I promised myself to stay away from experimental."

 

This decision is based on the historically higher accident rate, I take it?

 

Why is  it safer to fly a M20a-tn, than an RV-10? I don't know. I don't see any corelation, or reason, other than a historical statistic. That is my assesment. I would fly a RV-10 in an instant, and would feel just as safe as I do in a Mooney. Would I be historically as safe, I guess not.

 

Feelings are personal

David

[1964-M20E]

The reason I do not have an RV10 is it would cost much more to obtain in dollars and time spent putting it together than what I have invested in my current plane. I'd love to build one though, I think. The quick build kit alone is more than I paid for my current plane. However, this takes us back to another thread about going cretified to experimental. Maybe it is not the FAA keeping us from putting our older planes in the experimental box but the kit aircraft industry. :-))

[aviatoreb]

"But I promised myself to stay away from experimental."

 

This decision is based on the historically higher accident rate, I take it?

 

Why is  it safer to fly a M20a-tn, than an RV-10? I don't know. I don't see any corelation, or reason, other than a historical statistic. That is my assesment. I would fly a RV-10 in an instant, and would feel just as safe as I do in a Mooney. Would I be historically as safe, I guess not.

 

Feelings are personal

David

 

I completely understand and respect the argument that experimental, especially one of the more well established model lines like vans, is really quite excellent.  I am almoooost swayed by it and I may just be fully swayed some day.

 

I have misplaced the stats, and forgive me for using stats partly in my current position as I am after all a math professor (but not a stats professor).

Note - my first airplane was a Diamond DA40.  I picked it sight unseen in large part by a statistics search.

 

The experimental stats are much much worse.  That said, remember some aircraft lines are especially worse, for example the Lancair IVP I think it was had 20 fatals with 400 in the fleet at some point when I was reading about it.  Also some much less well known airplanes than the vans or lancair, with significant build deviations from plans as well, are included in the bulk statistics for experimental.  So staying away from that model with especially difficult stall characteristics and staying with a line like vans really improves things.  Also, the time which is most dangerous by far in an experimental is flying off those first stage a hours, especially flight number one, two, three, etc.  Things are more likely to break.  Not saying why, just recalling stats I have read.

 

In part, I don't want to fly in/own some experimental that some unqualified half baked schmoe built.  Especially this schmoe (me - meaning I acknowledge that I personally know that I do not have the personality traits I want in a builder to have the patience and skill to build an airplane that I would want to as a pilot own and fly).

 

All this said, if I do go this way someday, I would be much happier with a professionally built experimental, such as for example by an AP I know and trust, or at least one with decent credentials.  I would also still work with an AP for maintenance.  ...and I would install a cadillac IR camera.  

[aviatoreb]

Separately from all that - has anyone noticed the asking price of many/most of the more popular experimental lines?  I was always struck how high asking prices are for say an RV7 - even one that is not so new anymore.  They seem especially high, and I figured it must be due in large part to the sweat and tears the builders have into it causing them to be especially attached to it when it is time to sell.  Just a guess.

[Mcstealth]

The experimental stats are much much worse.  That said, remember some aircraft lines are especially worse, for example the Lancair IVP I think it was had 20 fatals with 400 in the fleet at some point when I was reading about it.  Also some much less well known airplanes than the vans or lancair, with significant build deviations from plans as well, are included in the bulk statistics for experimental.  So staying away from that model with especially difficult stall characteristics and staying with a line like vans really improves things.  Also, the time which is most dangerous by far in an experimental is flying off those first stage a hours, especially flight number one, two, three, etc.  Things are more likely to break.  Not saying why, just recalling stats I have read.

 

That is my thinking. Take away the flaky designs, take away the fringe, etc, etc, and what do you have? Probably an accident rate much closer to certified. No I don't have the exact comparable statistics of a four place, N/A 180 or above HP, low wing retractable gear experimental or certified. I would bet that they are not significantly different.

 

As for the price of a RV's or other experimentals? Check out this RV-10 on Barnstormers.

 

RV-10 WITH GTN750 AND AFS 5600 • $229,000 • FOR SALE • RV-10 8850E 2007 with Lycoming IO-540. Approximately 450 HOURS TT engine and airframe. Panel just completely rebuilt with new AFS 5600 on left, AFS 4500 on right, Garmin GTN750 touch screen GPS Nav/Com, PS Engineering PMA8000B audio panel, Garmin SL30 2nd radio, Garmin GTX 327 transponder, and TruTrak Digiflight II Autopilot with GPSS and autotrim.

 

Now. What would this kind of performance cost on a 450 hour 2007 Ovation?

 

Lets look at this 750 Hour 2007 Ovation.

 

 

Price $314,000

 

2007 MOONEY M20R OVATION 3 GX 795 Hours Total Time Since New.Airframe:
795 Hours Total Time Since New.

Engine Specs:
795 Hours Total Time Since New.
(Continental Platinum IO-550-G, 310hp, 2000 TBO)

Prop(s):
795 Hours Total Time Since New.
3-Blade Hartzell Top Prop, Blended Airfoil Blades.

Avionics/Radios:
Garmin G-1000 Full Glass Panel.
Garmin GTX-33 Transponder with TIS (Traffic).
Garmin GDL-69 Weather Datalink.
STEC-55X Autopilot with Altitude Pre-Select.

 

 

 

So. Is this comparable? Apples to Apples enough? Which is the better deal??????????? Good darn question as to which plane is a better value. Very subjective indeed. I wish I had enough money to give Jimmy for that Ovation but the difference in price of $85,000 would go a long way in Avgas, maintenance, and Annuals for the RV-10. Is the Ovation safer? Statistics say that it is. Would I kick the 10 out of bed? Heck no.

 

David

[carusoam]

Fair comparison David,

I still prefer the factory engineered and built machine. Especially when flying in IMC.

What is the speed difference between the RV10 and the Ovation?

Best regards,

-a-

[DaV8or]

What is the speed difference between the RV10 and the Ovation?

Best regards,

-a-

 

At 75%

 

RV-10=  175kts

M20R=  190kts

 

Also, anyone that is serious about trading their Mooney for an RV-10 should go and look at one and sit in one. The difference in amenities, comfort and over all finish is kind of like Cadillac vs. Willys Jeep. Of course a builder can do what they like in the interior, but the kit doesn't come with much and you're on your own. Most builders are so sick of building at that point that the interior ends up being, well, functional shall we say. I have yet to see an RV that looks finished inside to the level of a factory built plane. It is partly how they get a higher useful load. Leave out the niceties.

[Mcstealth]

Also, anyone that is serious about trading their Mooney for an RV-10 should go and look at one and sit in one. The difference in amenities, comfort and over all finish is kind of like Cadillac vs. Willys Jeep. Of course a builder can do what they like in the interior, but the kit doesn't come with much and you're on your own. Most builders are so sick of building at that point that the interior ends up being, well, functional shall we say. I have yet to see an RV that looks finished inside to the level of a factory built plane. It is partly how they get a higher useful load

 

While I find this true in the acrobatic 6-7, and 8's. This is not the normal case in the 10's. The folks who have built the 10's know they are competing against the Cirrus, Mooneys, Columbia's, etc, etc. They know a stripped down interior will be a major weakness come time to sell. You see 10's with incredible interior finishes just for this reason. The used price for these birds prove it. You wouldn't be able to sell an experimental four place with stripped down panels and interior for over $200.000 no matter how new it is/was. 

 

David

[carusoam]

Selling a $200k home built sounds incredibly challenging. I would think that the market is smaller than small.

Best regards,

-a-

[jetdriven]

When its all said and done, you got a 200K, 155 knot 4 place airplane with a much worse safety record and that burns 14 GPH.  I'll take the 70 grand 201. Plus you dont have to assemble it.

[carusoam]

I would go with his and hers 201s, and still be comfortably under the $200k mark, Byron!

-a-

[aviatoreb]

I would go with his and hers 201s, and still be comfortably under the $200k mark, Byron!

-a-

 

Actually quite right that - according to Byron's $70K, $70K x2=$140k for 8 seats, for 18gph, 2 pilots required, but two pilots treated to their own.  Cool.

[1964-M20E]

Eight seats and two engines when you need it and 4 seats and one engine when you do not.  Sweet if your mission needs 8 seats.  I rearely need more than one but having 4 is nice.