Jojo wrote:
Pilots – and wives – ho hum….oh why do I bother? Why don’t you cut the sexist crap….
Sorry Jojo, that is probably my fault this came up.
And no, sorry, this has nothing to do with being sexist but is a simple fact of life. I don’t know if you have ever tried to sell airplanes to people who are “standard” family men, married, with or without childern, with wifes who have no closer connection to aviation. It has been my experience since ever I have been doing this (since 1983 first with a company, now consulting) that at some stage at the process either I get the call that the project is off because the wife put a stop to it or that I will eventually have to meet and consult with the said persons to give them information they might want. I would have to say that a huge percentage of female partners with a flying male have HUGE reservations against small airplanes, the expense and time involved and the safety of the family member flying it. That has nothing to do with being sexist in the least, but simply comes from experience. Add to that that most men in relationships are often very reluctant to even discuss the proposition of flying with their wifes and then think that if they present them with a ready project or worse, a fait acompli, they can get away with it. In my experience, that never works. That is why one of the first questions I ask a prospective buyer is whether his family is on board with this and give them ample warning if not, for their own interest.
For the matter of safety and security, the shute has been known to be a M A Y O R factor in the sales process. Incidently, and we do talk about non aviation people here, I do get asked about ejection seats even or whether parashutes are standard equipment on these small planes. Obviously, if one can sell an anxious person on the idea that in case of cases all you have to do is pull a handle and the thing comes down benignly on a shute, it will do a lot to calm nerves. That does not only go for Cirrus but also for other planes who have a system like that.
It has to be admitted without envy that Cirrus and the ecolights e.t.c. which have the shutes have changed the ballgame fundamentally when it comes to how single engine airplane safety is viewed by non aviation persons in the position to take decisions about yes or no (and even within the community). That is why Cirrus basically owns the SEP market with the other makes more and more disappearing. My prediction in that regard is that a system like that will in the mid term future be standard with all new designs and those who don’t have it will most probably fail. I have, as an example, made a very clear statement to the folks at Mooney about the M10 in this regard and I do hear it is being looked at, as obviously I am not the only one with that concern.
When it comes to female aviators, I do see a lot dedicated women like yourself who love flying and often enough have their own licenses, couples who fly together and have a great time, great aviation people like Jolie Lucas of AOPA and many more. And the work of people who promote this is one I wholeheartedly support. Myself being lucky enough tto be married to a wonderful wife who is in aviation herself, I do however appreciate the problems of those who do face fierce opposition.
Flyer59 wrote:
I just got this via COPA. It’s not a Cirrus, but still impressive. A Pipistrel Ultralight lost both wings inside a thunderstorm and both occunpants escaped unharmed.
Loss of control in IMC – in a UL. So unnecessary.
Flyer59 wrote:
A Robinson helicopter would not be the alternative for me. I have flown them a couple of hours, but they scare me and I don’t trust them. I also don’t see their value, for travelling they’re too slow, no autopilot … and simply too expensive.
I don’t care for Robinson either but the beauty is that it’s much easier to park in your backyard. Even if one could build a strip it’s not ideal to base IFR machine on a VFR-only strip. Downside is that a car will beat them on short trips and an aeroplane on long trips. Also, as you wrote, they are quite expensive.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
for a private individual buying a new aircraft a Diamond has never had the ramp and interior appeal of a Cirrus.
Frankly, that was never my issue with the DA40 (granted, I haven’t seen early versions). Well, I would like a retractable undercarriage, but Cirrus doesn’t score points there either. As for the diesel, the avgas version came first (the first prototype was even Rotax powered) and is still on offer. No, my issue is that the thing is underpowered and the avgas version still, AFAIK, doesn’t have factory airconditioning. Premier in the US has STC for that. It’s a factory option for the diesel these days. The plane offers beautiful views but it’s a flying greenhouse.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
It is easy to underestimate whats involved in moving from that market to go head on with the leaders in the IFR certified market
There was a proposal for a sort of “light” IFR for VLA. I don’t know where it is, if it was shot down. It was based on a positive experience with night VFR. That could make a nice stepping stone.
Peter wrote:
VFR-only planes have to be sold at much lower prices – of the order of 1/5.
You must be surely joking. Not even TMGs are that cheap. Maybe pure (= no engine) sailplanes. Unless your baseline is M350.
When it comes to new piston IFR machines, I would consider SR22, TTx, DA42 VI and PA-46 Mirage. Coincidentally that is the order I would put them in (from least likely to most likely “winner”). The last two offer a weather radar, Diamond has two jet fuel burning engines and Piper is pressurized. It would be nice to have it all but then one might just as well upgrade to a turboprop.
@Mooney_Driver There is a bright side to this. If your partner prefers to drive to the destination (or fly commercial), you can throw practicality out the window and just buy something fun, something just for you. As long as you can comfortably afford it.
I have nowhere near as much experience as you but what seems to help is getting the other party involved in aviation. Fear comes for a large part from not understanding, not feeling in control etc. For me, the bigger issue is that is shows lack of trust.
Commander wrote:
I wonder what will happen when Cirrus comes out with a high performance (300+) diesel engine…
When that day comes, I will be much more interested in the Cirrus than I am today.
You must be surely joking. Not even TMGs are that cheap. Maybe pure (= no engine) sailplanes. Unless your baseline is M350.
My baseline was the fully loaded $750k SR22, which seems to be selling OK.
The Pipistrel Virus is a popular VFR-only aircraft – price lists
OK, we know the Panthera is not yet available:
So my “of the order of 1/5” comment was not too far off.
Obviously there is a massive difference in payload and other aspects, but you get that elsewhere e.g. turboprops are also loaded up with stuff to prop up the high price of the engine. Even if TP engines had as good an SFC as e.g. the Lycos we would still get pressurisation, €6000 CD players and you name it…
A fully loaded SR22T-G5 is rather around $ 950.000 ….
Diesel: I really hope that the V6 engine is out with an STC by the time my IO-550N reaches TBO. That engine will give the SR22 very good range, even more safety (i think) … but i guess it will not be cheap.
Would a diesel engine be safer?
An interesting question!
So unnecessary.
I think an aviation writer covering this area of GA will have that phrase assigned to a function key 
That statement is of course as controversial as suggesting that the chute is attractive to pilots’ wives
If I had a PhD in philosophy (which I don’t but my GF does) I would point out that “pilots’ wives” does not in itself make a statement on the proportions of the two sexes in GA. It merely refers to the fact that there are pilots who have wives, which is obviously true. The statement may be provocative to those who would like to change the proportions (i.e. bring more women into GA) and we can have a discussion on how to do that (a different thread) but popping up and firing off a torpedo and then submerging again is not going to achieve that.
Knowing the base engine for the TCM V6 i would like to think that the diesel will have an even lower failure rate than the IO-550.
Unnecessary: I was just going to say. Show me one crash in the last 100 that was “necessary” … 75 percent are really complete stupidity, many others could have easily been avoided, some few accidents are tragic but could also have been avoided. It’s really only one in 1000 in which the pilot had no chance, like a midair from behind, a catastrophic failure of the engine or (very rare) a fire…
@Peter Virus might be popular (relatively low price probably has something to do with it) but there are much more expensive (sort of) VFR-only toys. And the difference between the Cirrus and a Virus is much bigger than IFR vs. (N)VFR-only, it’s not even CS-23. So it doesn’t really illustrate how much are people willing to pay for IFR capability as such. I can only guess that the demand for IFR capability is large enough to warrant certifying for it when going to the trouble of CS-23 certification in the first place. The only CS-23 VFR-only (actually NVFR) machine I can think of right now is the DA20.
You like to say that homebuilds/ experimental machines can’t fly IFR so that Panthera must be in your view VFR-only… at 400k. 
