The Extra 500 addressed that market. A very nice aircraft and very economical but not a success.
While it’s probably a good aircraft, it’s also ugly. And that’s the reason why it didn’t sell well, I think.
And that’s the reason why it didn’t sell well, I think.
Another reason might be it’s accident history (as already the piston predecessor EA400 of which less than 30 have been sold in 10 years or so).
The figures would support that if you just want something that will “fly” but not everybody wants to fly a 30 year old airframe which looks and smells like a 30 year old airframe, which has endless little airframe issues (and some big ones like the SIDs) and which will have endless avionics issues (unless you spent more than the purchase price on re-doing it all).
There are huge differences between old airplanes and old heaps as you care to name them. The fact is, a well cared for or well restored 50 year old airframe will give you a lot more bang for your buck than if you invest three to four times the amount just for it to smell new. That is not even remotely taking into account depreciation.
Pal of mine is doing just that right now. He bought an Arrow III off a flight school, is redoing the cabin which was in dear need of overhaul, beefs up the panel and has an airplane which leaves a better than new impression in the cabin and will deliver the same performance than a newer plane of the same kind or performance but for 1/3rd of the price.
The SID was another attempt of interested circle to ground a lot of their pet hatred airplanes. It went wrong because not all EASA went with it. Yet, it is one typical political thing which aptly describes why GA is in the state it is in Europe. And it can hit anyone. Everywhere. Cessna must have learnt their lesson with it, as their reputation in Europe suffered massively. Lots of people I know today won’t touch even pristine Cessnas with a barge pole because they are afraid of “what might come next”. That is nonsense of course, but it is true that in Europe one never knows what the anti airplane mafia will come up with next.
The downtime on an old heap like that will be far more than the downtime on say a half-engine-life TBM700 which can be had for $1M.
Not my experience at all.
Otherwise, everybody who flies a TP would buy a 421C and tart it up, and get free avgas for the rest of their life.
The primary reason why that is not the case is the Avgas price and availaibiliy as well as Eurocontrol taxing. Why do you think a lot of people downgrade their valuable planes to realisticalln y 2 seaters just to save on those charges? People can be astonishingly petty, even if they could afford it. These big piston twins just are way too thirsty for what they deliver, but I have hardly ever come across one which has been neglected to the point where it becomes what you describe.
If you acquire an older airframe and do your homework properly, that is a good pre-buy, a generous first annual and are willing to spend some money in upgrading where needed, then you get a very nice airframe which will run without more trouble than newer ones. And you can indeed fly for a long time with what you saved. If I see some of the stuff G1000 owners are going through (WAAS Upgrade) or other issues I’ve come across re engine problems e.t.c. they can happen to anyone.
And to get that new smell: Leather seats are not that expensive, neither is a new all leather interior. And that accounts for a lot of the new smell those shiny new planes I had a look at in Friedrichshafen.
The primary reason why that is not the case is the Avgas price and availaibiliy as well as Eurocontrol taxing. Why do you think a lot of people downgrade their valuable planes to realisticalln y 2 seaters just to save on those charges? People can be astonishingly petty, even if they could afford it. These big piston twins just are way too thirsty for what they deliver, but I have hardly ever come across one which has been neglected to the point where it becomes what you describe.
Same here. I have flown on wonderfully refurbished 30 year old C421s that would put quite a few five year old bizjets to shame. A guy at our airport has a C340 that has flown for less than 1000 hours, never spent a night outside the hangar and looks and smells as if it comes right out of the factory. And still it will not fetch much more than 200,000 Euros if he ever sells it. One quarter of the cheapest SET.
And just like Mooney Driver, I will never undestand how someone doesn’t hesitate a moment to put out a million Euros for a small aeroplane and then tries to avoid a few hundred Euros of airway fees per month thereby reducing his aircraft to near uselessness.
Piston twins barely make sense in the US, so in Europe they certainly don’t. You could probably run an old TP cheaper than a piston twin there.
Heard about the EA500 and that the program had been sold. I always rooted for it and actually liked the design. Looked rugged. I hope it can come back one day, hopefully with a little Honeywell H80 engine or something.
In many ways aviation is its own worst enemy. They try to dazzle with new panels and interiors, but what’s really needed are the basics:
1. Long range. Today, no matter how much money you’re willing to spend, there is no way of going NY to LA direct singe pilot. Or Northern Europe to Southern Europe. Why?
2. You pay $4 million yet still can’t get a lavatory. Doesn’t matter that it’s messy – our passengers want a lavatory. Give them one fer chrissakes.
3. All weather capability. It seems like getting the duo of pressurization and all wx capability in one package is almost impossible. Look at the DA62. Why isn’t it pressurized? Look at the single turborpop they’re developing at Diamond – again, not pressurized? Pressurization is pretty easy to do and has very few moving parts and few malfunctions. Just add it.
So, the summary is that old aircraft, from the golden era of aviation still are very compatible. Not only are they cheaper, they outperform the new ones. Wanna go long distances direct? Well an old Merlin IIIB or Turbo Commander still rule that world, etc, etc. Aviation is not doing itself any favors.
Favors? Remember the outcry when Mooney introduced the PFM. “It needs two batteries”. “It’s too complicated”. “What if fuel injection fails”. While not perfect it could have been perfected save for the adamant opposition of the white-socks-cum-birkenstock brigade… same brigade that is now buying the Acclaim (two batteries, half hearted effort at fuel injection) for three times the price.
Pressurization, long range, porta(flying)potty… the equivalent of a pipe dream for GA. How could you have an efficient long range capable aircraft that is not made of tube and rag and piano wire? Heresy. Next thing you know people are going to ask for (shock, horror) modern planes as if it were somehow “normal”. We simply cannot have that.
Pressurization is pretty easy to do and has very few moving parts and few malfunctions. Just add it.
I would say the contrary: Pressurisation is the most complicated system in most aeroplanes that has lots of abnormal and emergency procedures connected to it. And additional systems like monitoring, alerting and emergency oxygen for crew and passengers. The fuselage needs to be built much stronger and heavier, Doors, windows and emergency hatches are a lot more complicated. You need normal systems and backup systems and automatic control and emergency manual control and pressure dump. Emergency procedures for rapid descents, smoke removal, …. You name it. On “my” aeroplane, “pressurisation” is by far the longest chapter in the manual, about twice as thick as “powerplants”.
Just look at the market for 19-seat commuters: Once there were BAe Jetstrams, Metroliners, Bandeirantes, the Beech 1900 and maybe some more. Which one is still manufactured? The Dornier (now RUAG) 228. Unpressurised. Maybe also the Let410. Unpressurised.
Wasn’t the issue with the PFM Mooney 200 lbs extra weight, 5 kts slower cruise, and $100K greater price than a 201 with four cylinder Lycoming? If so, it’s hard for me to imagine developing out those issues.
