At your current stage of experience and development, there are other things that are more important than whether you have synthetic vision or not. You need to gain some experience before being to be able to judge what you really need or want. Today you are a kid in a candy store. Tomorrow you’ll understand that there are healthier foods than candy.
Valentin
I know what you mean, but I think that it is good to know what their capabilities are. Again, this is out of my experience as an aircraft owner. If something breaks on my plane, the maintenance is on a small field a few km away from my base (no more light aircraft maintenance at ZRH) but I see the logistics involved. Ferry flight for every 50 hour check e.t.c. which is just a nuissance, not a problem. When it’s AOG they come by by car, need ramp access, e.t.c My personal horror vision is that the plane gets stranded somewhere without any maintenance
If you are in a place where there is nothing which can support a plane, these logistics get more expensive and time consuming. It’s not a no-go and when you are talking planes like a TBM people WILL move fast to help you, but not with a SEP. That is why I think it would be an advantage if there is support for you at least on the same landmass…. You don’t need to make your decision dependent on this but if there is two planes you like equally it might be one criteria to put into the scale.
Valentin wrote:
As for the WAAS issue, I want to buy a plane with WAAS and synthetic vision. So I can’t imagine any reason for me to upgrade the avionics other than purchasing another aircraft.
Synthetic vision is a very easy upgrade if it is not available on an existing G1000 or Aspen, it takes exactly 2 minutes (Aspen) to unlock for an avionic store and will set you back some $ 800.-
WAAS is different and that is why I said you should look for planes which have it. However, if there is a very nice plane which does not, then it is a darn sight cheaper and easier to do on a normal GNS430 / 530 than on a G1000
Aviathor,
You probably misunderstood my statement about WAAS and synthetic vision. I did not mean that I would choose a plane with these two features for I believed that they were essential and I would need them. I was replying to the concerns of Mooney_Driver that G1000 was difficult to upgrade if I would like to add additional features (WAAS in particular). And I mentioned that it’s not the issue because I was going to buy a plane from recent years and they usually had all such features.
FWIW I’ve regularly had maintenance issues come up while traveling with my 1974 plane. But they’ve been mechanical, not avionics related, and my plane is simple enough that almost any piston maintenance shop has easily fixed the issue. However, I have had to interrupt travel and return at a later date more than once. (Weather has caused more interruptions though.)
I really don’t think you’re running a big risk with glass, as long as it has been operating problem free for a while. And if a problem arises, well, so what? Hire someone to fly in and fix it. It’s not the end of the world. If you can afford a 200K EUR used plane, I’m sure you can deal with that. That said, there are arguments in favor of glass that is not a fully integrated system. I know I would be annoyed by having a system like that ground an otherwise flyable plane, especially if I felt comfortable with the back up instrumentation.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If you are in a place where there is nothing which can support a plane, these logistics get more expensive and time consuming. It’s not a no-go and when you are talking planes like a TBM people WILL move fast to help you, but not with a SEP. That is why I think it would be an advantage if there is support for you at least on the same landmass…. You don’t need to make your decision dependent on this but if there is two planes you like equally it might be one criteria to put into the scale.
I see your point, and your posts are indeed helpful for me. Unfortunately, this is not the case that I could find two planes such that one of them had G1000 and another had 6-pack (or a mix of round dials and more modern avionics), and I liked them equally. The plane without G1000 would be about ten years older and had a less capable autopilot (KAP140). I could, of course, live with such an older plane but I got a question: what for?
First of all, you can upgrade the avionics in an older plane. Secondly, it MIGHT BE significantly cheaper without loss in utility (IF you find one that has been maintained properly, a big IF). In fact, you would probably GAIN in useful load. Finally, If you go back far enough (I believe 1975 in 182s), you can get an STC for MOGAS, which could prove useful, not just for saving money, but in providing refueling flexibility.
I would be sorely tempted by a MOGAS 182 in good mechanical condition. I would feel comfortable pouring money into state of the art avionics in such a case, something I’m reluctant to do with my Rallye, even though it’s now a well sorted plane.
I believe it’s impossible or very complicated and expensive to upgrade an older plane to GFC700 autopilot.
And if I look at literally any plane that I think I could buy as my second one (in a few years), I’ll see there Garmin G1000 or sometimes G3000. This fact makes me feel that getting used to G1000 is a good idea on its own.
I don’t know about Cyprus but mogas does exist on the Greek aeroclub scene. I don’t know whether it is what in Europe we call mogas or whether it is petrol from a petrol station. Also just because a club uses it doesn’t mean you can get it as a visitor. @petakas or @atmilatos may know more.
Avionics upgrades are highly not recommended for a novice owner. Even non-novice owners get caught out; one guy on here has had his plane stuck in the installer’s hangar for about a year now, with a dispute running over a range of things. I’ve been caught out too. A novice buyer should buy a plane which already has everything installed and working.
