boscomantico wrote:
Most of these threads where a potential buyer expresses a decent purchase budget will go down this way. People (who mostly have never had the money to be in that position) suggesting 40 year old complex heaps of piston twins, turboprops or even jets.Thing is, „rich“ people (not meant in a derogative way, plus the OP seems to have disappeared anyway) have different minds. They usually want and almost always buy new stuff. New electronics, new paint, new interior, new everything. And support. And reliability. And no, they don‘t want „projects“ either. Life is short.
The sad thing really is that there is nothing out there in terms of modern aircraft except the Cirrus and the Diamond. A small choice.
Well said. Totally agree.
boscomantico wrote:
They usually want and almost always buy new stuff.
Totally agree. Of course the requirements are often very much country dependent, so I can only speak for estonian scene.
The plane is a tool to go somewhere- fast. So ideally, the plane or heli has to be as close as possible- heli in a backyard, airport with 15min driving distance, own airstrip for those living out of capital.
We have 2x more new helicopters (usually R-44,R-66) than GA planes. Perfect for most usecases- you can visit your business in the baltics, land in the parking lot, local islands, finland, sweden – and its 95% of where you really want to go. Central Europe is too far anyway for daytrips in a GA plane- even on Meridian its at least 4 hours ( but you can hire a jet for those, its only 10k -and use your GA plane/heli to get to the jet. So we have a lot of new helis, one SR22 used for recreational trips, one guy swapped his SR22 for Mustang..The latest addition is a new RV-10..
Also, 90% of the guys with self made money are not exactly “risk-averse”.
Correct. Alternate air when you see a cloud or when icing is predicted is one of the first things you’ll learn when flying a DA42.
Operating a turbine like a Tbm has very similar pitfalls eg with the inertia separator.
Complex planes are never prone to pilot errors. Even a 182 needs to have its cowl flaps operated correctly.
Peter wrote:
A lot of twins have gone down over the years due to these “other” reasons.
I don’t think it makes sense to generalize fadec diesel engine twins vs. 40 year old avgas powered ones by saying „a lot of twins have gone down“.
My feeling is the 42 is a very simple to operate and thus safe twin. Not comparable to 6 levered legacy MEPs such as Baron etc.
The electrical supply of the 42 engines is certified and provides dual redundancy per engine.
Again, for around 1 mio USD, I don’t see a better solution offering the benefit of twin engines, simplicity, modern technology and capability (wx radar, jet A) available than a 42. You can „fun fly“ a 42 VFR lowlevel and go IFR direct in IMC with wx radar.
boscomantico wrote:
Thing is, „rich“ people (not meant in a derogative way, plus the OP seems to have disappeared anyway) have different minds.
In fact, one almost feels embarrased not to desire a 40 year old legacy piston project plane.
Funny statement that I -user of 45 year old aircraft – often hear from brand new DA owners is – “you pay so much for your fuel! Woahh!”
Then when I tell them to realise that I don’t loose half of the value within first 10 years, I can overhaul my engines partially or use them on condition as long as I don’t destroy them and than my maintenance cost is a fraction of theirs they usually become silent and don’t compare the costs any more :)
And at the end when I told one of them that I landed and took off from a 350m grass strip with 5 POB he stopped saying hello to me 
boscomantico wrote:
People (who mostly have never had the money to be in that position) suggesting 40 year old complex heaps of piston twins, turboprops or even jets.
boscomantico wrote:
The sad thing really is that there is nothing out there in terms of modern aircraft except the Cirrus and the Diamond. A small choice.
Well, you show the quagmire yourself here quite openly, almost nothing left to add.
If you suggest that people like me who are never rich enough to afford even a basic twin should not be in aviation, let alone give advice to others, you have a valid point yet again, however, very few people who even sell airplanes for a living do own or operate the same kind of plane. Not because they can’t afford to, but because most of them go for efficiency and “bang for buck”.
There is nothing at all wrong with a DA42 but as Emir puts it very correctly, the market for those mostly consist of “semi modern” airplanes which LOOK modern but in fact are approaching 20 years in age. Those people with actual DA42 experience have made the valid point that if you are buying one of them, it better be one with WAAS, 155HP Contis or Austroengines and so on. Those airplanes are in the half million or above range mostly give or take 100k.
The other thing which is very much applicable to all G1000 or similar equipped airplanes are that they do LOOK modern, yet many G1000 planes are up to 20 years old and quite a few are actually not upgradable at all or if so at ridiculous prices. That btw is a very big issue for the 2nd contender here as much as the DA42: If you come across a G1000 non WAAS system with legacy autopilots (KAP140 for the DA42 or mostly Stec 55x for the others) upgrades are subjects to STC availability and sometimes not even feasible for the lack of those.
Then comes the recommendation which most serious dealers will tell their clients: Use max 50-70% of your budget to buy and the rest for flying and upgrading if necessary. Which in the OP’s case means a budget of realistically 500k to 700k.
So where does the OP leave that?
With his budget he can most definitly choose recent DA42’s and Cirrus editions for market price in that range which have everything he should look at.
Then again it has been pointed out from several people here who do have experience on those planes that they have their limitations in terms of speed, cabin size and payload. In other terms, you either accept that or look elsewhere.
I don’t really look at a G1000 or Avidyne equipped Seneca V as an old heap, nor is it very complex. And if jet fuel is desirable, then a Jetprop or similar can be found in that price category as well. I have had people who started out with an SR22 and moved onto a Golden Eagle. In the end, all of this has to be the buyer’s choice, but I think it is important to point out that modern does not really always mean modern nor is it by default the best choice.
Someone has to say it – why not a PA46 Malibu Mirage?
You can buy a good used one for well under $1 million. And if you want to tour Europe sometimes that means going high and pressurisation is way more fun than cannulas up the nose.Yes, I know it is more complex (rectractable), but having flown 500 hours in each of an SR22 and a PA46 I firmly believe the latter is easier to fly and land. You have pressurisation, deicing boots (no messy liquids), cabin class seating in the back (looks cool!), better protection from the sun’s rays, same speed as an SR22, no airways charges etc. And the wife LOVES it!
Having said that, my only aviation regret is that I didn’t buy a Jetprop – jet fuel and better climb rate. One day.
one almost feels embarrased not to desire a 40 year old legacy piston project plane.
If you are advising a prospective owner who just wants a plane that “just works” and has proper support which doesn’t require days or weeks spent digging for help on type specific forums, than you make one choice.
If you are publishing a magazine and want to avoid a torrent of complaints from people saying “I don’t want to read a magazine which keeps on reviewing $1M planes” then you have to feature “traditional types” nearly the whole time.
A Jetprop is a good choice in the 1M price bracket but you will get “interesting avionics” in it, from an era around 20 years ago. That’s OK, if you accept the limitations and the “interesting” procedures for fixing or replacing various items.
