Time to come back home

[kwmoore]

Just placed an order with Todd for my 3rd 260se! There may be 1 or 2 folks ahead of me in the queue, so we're looking at late summer or fall delivery most likely.

I'm really excited and will post updates as things of substance happen. For now I'm certain about the following:

Millenium Edition
BRS (Senior Management insists, and I prefer it too)
New extended baggage a la the Katmai
Regular landing gear with speed kit
...and for sure, leak-proof tubes in the tires! :o

And reasonably certain about avionics:

Garmin or PSE audio panel
GNS430 or 530 as #1, interfaced to a GPSMAP496 on the yoke
KX155 or SL30 as #2
GTX330 transponder interfaced to #1 and the 496
STEC30 or STEC50 with GPSS
EDM700 with tachometer readout
FS450 fuel flow interfaced to #1 for "fuel required to destination" information
Metal panel with internally lit instruments etc.
All updated wiring, antennas, cooling fan

Not sure about the X-STOL wing extensions. Clearly I don't need them, so it's a matter of "want." Sometime in the next weeks I'll make the pilgrimage to EQA and see how the Katmai handles. If I like it, then we'll make it a full-fledged Katmai.

:) :) :)

[breaktime]

Welcome back Kevin (though you never really left). I know you will be happy to be back in the saddle again :) . Has your job changed that now allows you this opportunity? As I recall, that's why you had to go to renting.

George

[kwmoore]

In late 2003 I took early retirement from a company I'd been with for 22 years (DNAX, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough). Schering-Plough was struggling financially at the time--only now beginning to emerge from the difficulties--and offered voluntary early retirement packages to US-based employees aged 50 or older (that would be me). It was a fair but not hugely enticing offer, and I took it because I found something else (a biotech start-up).

However I lost all my accumulated vacation time, took a salary cut, and began to work 12 hour days instead of 9-10 hour days (I'm sure many of you have been there). Thus not much time available for flying.

Fortunately the company was acquired by Amgen this fall, and even more fortunately, I was asked to stay on. Given the more stable work environment--and nearly two years' worth of unused vacation time!--the time seems right to try aircraft ownership again! :)

[LEVON HOPKINS]

Kevin, so glad for you. Can't wait to see your plane. Levon

[morrisond]

Hi Kevin,

Any idea of what the new panel and all the avionics will cost?

When you say all new wiring etc.. Does that mean all the old wiring stripped out? Is that normal when Todd does a plane? Does Todd do the electrical work himself?

What does interfacing the 496 with the 430 do?

What is the market like for used 182's now, have you found a plane? What year are you going to use?

Does Todd do the BRS install?

Sounds like It will be fun.

[kwmoore]

Hi Kevin,

Any idea of what the new panel and all the avionics will cost?

When you say all new wiring etc.. Does that mean all the old wiring stripped out? Is that normal when Todd does a plane? Does Todd do the electrical work himself?

What does interfacing the 496 with the 430 do?

What is the market like for used 182's now, have you found a plane? What year are you going to use?

Does Todd do the BRS install?

Sounds like It will be fun.
So many questions, grasshopper... :)

Avionics cost depends on what's already in the plane. Many used 182's now have at least a GNS430 and/or KX155 in the panel. If it were all new stuff, I'd guess around $35-40K.

Yes, I'd want the ancient wiring replaced, and new antennas too. I have heard many stories of vexing avionics glitches that were ultimately not equipment problems but were traced to the jury-rigged use of old wiring/antennas. This would all be done by an avionics shop TBD (for example, see the thread on building Norm's Katmai). I know a couple of good ones here in CA; there are also some that Todd knows in KS, including Bevan.

The 496 would provide nearly all the functionality of a GMX200 at 1/3 the price, with XM Weather thrown in for free. You can read about its capabilities here. (http://www.garmin.com/products/gpsmap496/) When interfaced to the GNS430 or 530, a flightplan or approach entered into the 430/530 is automatically downloaded into the 496. When interfaced to the GTX330, TIS traffic can be displayed on the 496. When interfaced to the SL30, the 496 can download frequencies from its database into the standby frequency slots of the SL30. It also has a faux panel display that updates 5 times/sec and can be used as a backup in case of vacuum or electrical failure. IMHO the 496 is an amazing value.

Todd has started looking for a clean, straight 182P or 182Q. He's the best judge of the market, but from my limited perspective it looks like airframe prices are about what they were when I started the 812KT project in 2001.

I believe Todd would do the BRS install, but he can chime in if that's not correct.

[nworth]

Kevin,

I thought that, with all your involvement with the Cirrus folks, that you would end up with the wrong plane.... Glad to see you have come to your senses.

I think you know that Todd and Chris installed the BRS chute in my plane and they did an extraordinary job. Frankly, they were originally my second choice -- I was going to go with the recommendation of the BRS people and use their affiiated installer in Minnesota but delays and weather upset that plan. In retrospect, I am glad it did because the installation done by Peterson was superb. Not only was it a very clean installation but Todd coordinated with my interior shop to get proper replacement carpet and paint so that the box now matches the interior paint colors. It's a great install.

I was concerned about the loss of baggage space but, with the extended baggage kit, it's not really too bad. I would say that, effectively, there is at least as much volume (though somewhat diminished load capacity) now as there would be in a standard baggage area.

On a useful load basis, I still have a 500 mile (LOP) with 1 hour reserve airplane capable of filling all four seats and carrying some luggage. Couldn't ask for more.

Until I got the chute, my thinking about it had been theoretical. Now, with the handle on the floor, just behind the fuel lever, clearly in sight, it forces the issue of seriously considering just when would I use it. It's kind of like when I got my handgun carry permit. If you're gonna have it, you better have thought about when you are going to use it because it's a very critical decision.

The more my experience and confidence with the 260se grows, the more convinced I am that there would be almost no cases where I would use the chute in a power out scenario. The ones usually cited -- over mountains at night or low ceiling IMC are cases I would be trying to avoid anyway before I take off.

Some people say that it would be best, if ditching, to use the chute but I am convinced that, unless you would be flying into very high (>8 foot) waves, the 260se will serve you well to fly in slow and try to do a stall landing.

So, that leaves pilot incapacitation, collision and/or engine separation, complete control surface loss, unrecoverable spin and impossible flight situation.

There have been two cases I am aware of where pilot incapacitation, real or perceived, resulted in a successful chute pull. The first was a pilot who awoke from a seizure, in a spiral dive above redline and who was unsure of his and his plane's fitness to continue so he pulled power, popped the chute, and landed. Turns out he had an undiagnosed brain tumor. The second was a pilot who, with his family on board, suffered a fatal stroke on departure and his son, not a pilot, sitting right seat, pulled the chute. The family survived. These are two clear instances, I believe, that demonstrate the true value of the BRS system.

With collision or engine separation resulting in an unflyable plane, you have another clear case where the BRS system is the only way of getting safely on the ground.

With control surface loss, in a 260se, it's less clear. A 182 is notable for it's ability to still fly reasonably with any one control surface gone. Rudder (or open doors!) can substitute for loss of aileron (or vice versa). Trim can substitute for loss of elevator. So, it's not clear whether it would make sense to use the BRS then.

An unrecoverable spin is something that would be hard to do in a 260se. More likely you might find yourself in a stall with incipient spin low to the ground. While the BRS system must officially be deployed at relatively high altitudes, I was told that those figures were based off of the maximum deployment speed (135kts). If going slower (as you are likely to be in a 260se!), the system will deploy much more quickly and might be effective as low as a hundred feet ASL. So, there might be some value there, though good training and technique is probably the better answer for this problem.

Finally, the "impossible flight situation". I am thinking of the Cory Lidle situation or a box canyon scenario where, after some bad judgement you find yourself faced with the reality that your only option is to proceed onward into an immovable object. I think the chute, if you could pull it quickly enough, might just save your bacon there.

Some "anti-BRS" or anti-Cirrus (I'm not one of those; I like the Cirrus, I just don't think it's much fun to fly) folks say the Cirrus would be much safer without the BRS because it's useful load would increase and this would result in far fewer "out of spec" departures. This criticism is much less apt for a 260se because our useful load is significantly higher to begin with and the Peterson improvements add so much additional lift and controllability that the safety margins are vastly higher.

Thinking about all of this made me realize that I really need to do some "chair flying" to sort this all out. I am really pleased to have the parachute installed on my plane. While I realize that my own stupidity or bad judgment is far more likely to get me into trouble than any situation the chute can fix, there are a few of those rare -- but invariably fatal cases -- where there is no way out except for the chute. Knowing it's aboard gives me a warm feeling but I need to prepare myself for the situation where I might need to pull that handle.

[nworth]

Kevin,

I couldn't let mention of an avonics shopping list go uncommented upon. :)

Overall I think your choices are excellent ones. The 496 is a vastly superior method of displaying weather and of providing overall situational awareness qua a typical MFD. Much cheaper too! In retrospect, I would dump my Avidyne EX500 and swap in a 530 for one of the 430's.

I would put in the 530 in lieu of the 430. The morse ID feature alone is worth it (though the SL30 has it too if you go that route).

I would strongly consider getting the Avidyne (nee Ryan) TCAS in lieu of the 330. TIS is being phased out as you know but, more importantly in my view, I have found the latency, inconsistency and plain failures of the TIS system to be major problems. The onboard system works great and, with Avidyne's new pricing structure, it makes some sort of economic sense.

Two things not mentioned are: 1.) an electric backup AI (I have the Sporty's and like it) and 2.) BAS seatbelts. Both are major safety upgrades and well worth the cost.

[morrisond]

Don't you need the 330(Mode S) Transponder for the active Traffic? Will the Ryan pull the extra info out of other People's Mode S, so as kind of a courtesy isn't the Mode S a better idea?

Will the active Traffic be displayed on the 496?

Do the 530's not have enough displau detail and that is why the 496 or MX200 is preferred?

[kwmoore]

Don't you need the 330(Mode S) Transponder for the active Traffic? Will the Ryan pull the extra info out of other People's Mode S, so as kind of a courtesy isn't the Mode S a better idea?

No, the Ryan and Skywatch systems do not involve TIS or mode S.

Will the active Traffic be displayed on the 496?
I don't know if the 496 can be made to display Skywatch or RYAN TCAD traffic data. Norm?

Do the 530's not have enough display detail and that is why the 496 or MX200 is preferred?
The GNS430/530 displays are far less detailed than the 496, GMX200, Avidyne EX500 or other dedicated MFDs. The latter units can display maps in a variety of different formats, e.g. like a sectional chart, like an IFR enroute chart (or even split screen for the GMX200), and overlay traffic, radar, NEXRAD, terrain, etc.

[kwmoore]

Kevin,

I thought that, with all your involvement with the Cirrus folks, that you would end up with the wrong plane.... Glad to see you have come to your senses.

"Father, I know there's still good in you. I can sense it..." :) :)

I do like the Cirrus--it's a great transportation tool and passengers love it for its comfort and visibility, and of course the parachute. I can still rent one when the spirit moves. But for versatility, safety, and pure joy of flying, I never wavered from the 260se.

Good points about thinking through in advance when you will pull the red handle. This subject has been discussed extensively on the COPA forum. A number of members have tried the Cirrus simulators and gone through emergency drills in them. They uniformly reported that, as they became fixated on (a) the emergency situation(s) and (b) trying to regain control of the plane, the thought of activating the BRS (CAPS) did not even occur to them until it was too late. And these guys were experienced Cirrus pilots! No doubt, one needs to think through a plan in advance to the point where it's almost automatic, an "SOP."

I will also prepare a "passenger emergency procedures" card for Senior Management et al. with pictures and instructions on how to call for help, activate and fly the autopilot, squawk 7700, and yes, activate the BRS.

Question for the group: If you were going to teach a non-pilot how to land the 260se safely, what configuration would you recommend? I was thinking 20 flaps, 16" mp, trim for 60 KIAS. This should be safe even in inadvertent steep turns. Then control all altitude changes with throttle only. Get ATC to vector you to a long, wide runway, and everything should turn out OK, eh?

[nworth]

I don't know if the 496 can be made to display Skywatch or RYAN TCAD traffic data. Norm?
Negative on displaying the Ryan or Skywatch output on the 496. It can display on the 530/430, an MFD or its own display head. For me this was the justification for a couple extra AUs in getting the second 430. It's part of my before takeoff checklist to put the #2 430 on page 3 of Nav to display targets.

My setup also includes the Sandel HSI which displays, as a rule, the Stormscope (a *REALLY* important instrument here in Thunderstorm Central).

My default setup is #1 430 on page 2 of Nav (the little moving map page), #2 430 on Traffic, Sandel with Stormscope, weather on the 396 on the yoke. The Avidyne shows all three but frankly does it more poorly than any of these separates. I really like this setup and, as I wrote above, find the Avidyne EX500 superfluous and not really useful.

Kevin may find that, flying mainly in California, that TIS works well for him. Also, if you mainly or only fly IFR, it presumably is less necessary.

The active TCAS systems from Ryan or Skywatch are active transponder interrogators. They literally send out a request to all aircraft with switched on Mode C or better transponders to respond. From this, the device can tell who is flying and can calculate closure rates and liklihood of collision. It's realtime and not dependent on a ground link as is TIS. The Ryan system is really good in that it announces imminent risk verbally so you do not need to look at the panel at exactly the moment you need to be looking out of the window. I can't exactly say the Ryan system has saved me but it has alerted me to nearby aircraft that I probably would not have detected absent the alert. I like it a lot.

[kwmoore]

Kevin may find that, flying mainly in California, that TIS works well for him.
This was my experience flying 812KT. Coverage was great from north of Sacramento over to the coast, all the way down to Salinas. Most of the Central Valley from Sacramento to Bakersfield had it too. Southbound coverage resumed near Santa Barbara and was solid all the way to San Diego. Thus in the most busy airspace I had service and IMHO the GTX330 was worthwhile for the flying I do. Compared to Skywatch or Ryan TCAD available at the time, I figure I got 75% of the utility for about 1/4 the price.

Of course Ryan's TAS-600 is cheaper now, and I will ask the avionics folks about the price differential between the GTX330 and the GTX327/TAS-600. My notion had been to use the GTX330 until (if?) ADS-B becomes available out here.

I will likely put in a back-up electric AI and will strongly consider the new seatbelts, at least in the front.

[nworth]

I ... will strongly consider the new seatbelts, at least in the front.
Go here: http://www.basinc-aeromod.com/

and click on the photo to seem some really spectacular crashes in which the occupants walked away. Gotta get those seat belts.

Also, little know fact: The BRS STC requires shoulder belts (3 point) in the rear seats so you will have to get those at least. Might as well get the matched set and go for the inertial reels up front. :eek: :eek:

[Brian]

Those pics are tremendous.
Thanks!
And KW, thanks for getting me on here.

[jjbely]

Hi Kevin and others,

I am a 4 years Cirrus owner that you managed to pull to the other side :) I read quite a few of your posts on the Cirrus forum about the 260 SE and this forum as well. You convinced me that the 260 would be the best aircraft for me here in Singapore. I have contacted Todd to get a conversion slot as well. Thanks for keeping us informed of your avionics choices that happen to be close to mine. I also agree with your logic for the BRS. I will be looking also at long range tanks on mine. Do you know where I can get the following information on the board or elsewhere?

V Speeds after the conversion, curious about VA and VMO.
Typical Basic Empty Weight and MTOW after the conversion.

Cheers,

JJ

[kwmoore]

Welcome to the 260SE family! Yes I remember you from the COPA forums, I think we had a post exchange a while back when I asked some questions about flying in your area.

Todd is the final authority on the answers to your questions. I don't think Va changes. Vne is lower if you have the wingtip extensions. I'm blanking out on "VMO," do you mean Vno? It doesn't change either. For BRS, Vpd is the same as Cirrus I believe.

Typical useful loads are around 1100 lb, with full fuel (80 gal) payloads in the ~650 lb range; subtract 80 lb if you install BRS.

You'll love the plane!

We look forward to your posts here. It's definitely not as contentious a group as on COPA. :) :)

[nworth]

I don't think Va changes.
See this thread for a discussion of Va re. the 260se:

http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=347

The 260se was certfied, however, to the original specs for a 182 -- in other words, the official Va doesn't change from the POH (or manual for older specimens) of the original airframe.

Theoretically, Va should be even lower with the XStol (Katmai) extensions installed but there is no such limitation listed.

The issue with Va is accelerative stress that could potentially deform or "remove" the wings and other airframe sections like overloaded baggage compartments or weak engine mounts!. As a practical matter, this is a real issue on some planes but not on others. The Cessna 210, a somewhat similar high-wing design but with a cantilevered wing (no struts), has a demonstrated history of coming apart in severe turbulence. Scott Crossfield, renowned test pilot, seems to have suffered this fate a few months ago. Though the reports are not completely in, it appears there have been a few SR22's lost this way recently (by pilots who frankly blundered into severe icing and turbulence).

By contrast, so far as I can tell (and I did some research on this), no 182 has EVER lost a wing unless it contacted something harder than air. There have been some close calls with loose or corroded spar fasteners (another reason you want Todd involved in the selection and inspection of your airframe) but no actual breakups. This is remarkable given the number of 182's flying and the number of years they have been doing so.

So, as a practical matter, I don't think it really matters (though you should observe Va and be aware that Va *declines* as gross weight declines).

I don't mind IMC, flying around the bases of CBs, night flying, flying over vast expanses of water (at high altitudes with adequate glide range) but turbulence freaks me out. So, in anything beyond light bumpys, I automatically slow down, way down, and then figure out how to get out of the area.

Vpd is, as with Cirrus, 135kts. There are a couple of differences to consider, however. "Landing" with the parachute is the equivalent of about a 20mph vertical crash (like jumping from an 11 ft ledge). Spinal compression fracture is a serious issue at about double that velocity. The Cirrus designed for this with special seats and "breakaway" landing gear. The 182 does not have these seats; the landing gear, though not designed for this purpose will spring and, interestingly -- at a few hundred pounds below gross weight -- would be expected to *survive* such a "landing". This is good and bad: good if you walk away with no injury, bad if the springy gear leaves you with an injured back.

Since the landing would be "firm", I asked my interior people to install 100% temper foam, rather than the combination of closed cell and temper foam. Temper foam was originally designed by NASA for similar reasons. I was warned that this might not be as comfortable as a regular seat but I and my passengers have found just the opposite to be true. In fact, one pilot friend suffers from sciatica and can't sit comfortably for more than a few hours in other planes but has no problem at all in mine. So, you might want to consider this "trick".

Also, again as a practical matter, the effective useful deployment height for the chute is highly dependent on speed. The slower you go, the lower you can go and still have the parachute deploy. This is due to the patented "reefing" system BRS uses to slowly open the chute at high speeds so that the plane is decelerated slowly. If the plane is already slow, the chute can open almost immediately. There are a few scenarios where this fact comes into play vis a vis a SR22 (which can't fly nearly as slow as a 260se).

I have always felt that "full fuel" loads were a poor way of measuring carrying capacity since it penalizes planes with capacious fuel tanks. The better way to make these kinds of comparisons is with 500 mile payload (or similar). On my plane, I can run LOP all the way down to about 50 degrees LOP without any missing or sputtering. This is into the 9 gal/hr range (all on the factory injectors, by the way, no GAMIs required).

When running LOP, I actually usually run about 15 degrees LOP and plan for 11 gal/hr block to block (assumes > 200 miles total distance) at 130kts in this regime. So, taking 500 miles as a trip distance and allowing an additional hour (add more for IMC flying) fuel requires 42 gallons + 11 gals which I round up to 55 gallons. That's 330 lbs. Useful load in my plane with chute is about 1050 so I get a payload of 720 lbs. That's four 180lb passengers, at least one of whom I know will be wanting to get on the ground by the time I have traversed that 500 miles. :rolleyes:

So, practical, full seat transport is really possible in this plane. However, the really cool thing is if I fill the tanks on my 182Q (88 usable gallons). Now, I have about 1000 mile range (minimal reserve) running LOP. This proves very useful when travelling to the Bahamas where there are many airstrips but very few fueling stations. I am planning a trip next week to Chub Cay and back to Sarasota and I will end up with nearly a half tank on the RT. Very cool and another example of the versatility of this plane.

[jjbely]

Kevin,

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I guess , I will have to learn to fly and descend a bit slower than with the Cirrus and enjoy the view. Good to know that the engine can run LOP without Gami injectors. I allways fly Lop in the sr22 and get about 165 tas on 13 gph. Getting 140 LOP at a density altitude of 9000 on 11 gph is good enough for my usual trip .I also rarely fly with all four seats occupied. Because alternate airports are few and avgas is not allways available, I tend to carry more fuel than passengers. This A/C has really good load carrying capacity.

You indicate a maximum of 88 usable gallons. I assume this is with some type of extra tank(s), is it of the type installed on the floor behind the seats or in the wings ?

Thanks and regards.

JJ

[LEVON HOPKINS]

88 gallons is standard useable on 79 and 80 182 Levon

[kwmoore]

See this thread for a discussion of Va re. the 260se:

http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=347

The 260se was certfied, however, to the original specs for a 182 -- in other words, the official Va doesn't change from the POH (or manual for older specimens) of the original airframe.

Theoretically, Va should be even lower with the XStol (Katmai) extensions installed but there is no such limitation listed.
Norm is correct--in my haste to reply yesterday morning I wasn't very clear about this! :rolleyes:

[jjbely]

88 gallons is standard useable on 79 and 80 182 Levon

Thanks Levon,

That's already a very good fuel capacity. If someone wants to add an extra 20/25 gallons, do you have any idea which system is better between the luggage compartment tank made by O&N or some wing tip tanks like the one used on the 210 , I think they are called Flint tanks ?

Thanks

JJ

[LEVON HOPKINS]

I'm in way too much turbulence to add any additional loading to either wings or general air frame and, of course, absolutely no need because: 1. with the Peterson Canard, Xstol wing extensions with HID Droop Tips 2" I believe I can fly for over 8 or 9 hrs loitering at 100K and going with a new fuel injection IO470 that time can climb past 11 hrs so why carry more and stress the structure. I've read in the Cessna Pilots Owner Forum where those tips were causing some problems. Levon

[jjbely]

Hi Levon,

Thanks for your reply, I also got other negative views about tip tanks and am giving up the idea of the extra tank all together. 88 gallons should be plenty enough. I did work on the fuel/range figures and discovered that the 260 when flown LOP has about the same efficiency as the SR 22 running LOP, 12.5 to 13 nautical milles per gallon at 6/8 thousand feet. That's pretty good considering the weight and speed are not that far apart.

JJ

[kwmoore]

I did work on the fuel/range figures and discovered that the 260 when flown LOP has about the same efficiency as the SR 22 running LOP, 12.5 to 13 nautical milles per gallon at 6/8 thousand feet. That's pretty good considering the weight and speed are not that far apart.
You're quite right (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=207).

It's quite remarkable that a comparatively "draggy" airframe like the 182 can be made competitively efficient with a modern design like the '22. :cool:

[kwmoore]

Not only is the 260se extraordinary in terms of safety, versatility, comfort, and "joy of flying," it is surprisingly less expensive to own and operate than other aircraft that a prospective 260se customer might consider owning.

While pondering returning to the ownership fold, I updated an earlier analysis (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=187) I had done of ownership costs. Before deciding for sure on a 3rd 260se, I also considered a 2004-2005 vintage used SR22 and a 1/4 share of a professionally managed new SR22-GTS. The cost analysis was as comprehensive as I could make it and included "income lost on capital investment" and depreciation. These latter two items can be real whoppers that aircraft owners often ignore. I figured 200 hr/year for the solely owned SR22 and 260se, and 150 hr/year for the 1/4 share of the fractional SR22, for a five year period. Insurance premiums were derived from actual quotes obtained from brokers. The results were:

260se/stol $245/hr
SR22-G2 $343/hr
1/4 share SR22 $263/hr

The main drivers of the increased cost of the solely owned or fractional SR22 were insurance and depreciation. The 2004 SR22-G2 would be expected to depreciate by $90-100K (~$90/hr!) over a five year period, based on the current price of 2001-2002 SR22's on the used market. The 1/4 share of the SR22-GTS is projected to depreciate $50K (~$67/hr)! This is what happens when there are many planes on the used market and many more new ones are being turned out by the manufacturer. This money is just plain gone.

In contrast, based on my previous experience, I expected the 260se to depreciate little or not at all; nonetheless I allowed for $50K depreciation over 5 years. Not too many 260se's are being produced and very few are on the market at any given time, so that supply and demand thing keeps values up. :D

I apparently cannot attach the spreadsheet as the forum software does not accept .xls files, but I wil be happy to e-mail it to anyone who requests it by Private Message through the forum and provides an e-mail address.

The main lesson I learned is that one should never do this calculation! Flying is a strikingly expensive pursuit and can never be "justified" outside of a putative business use (and even then...?). Nonetheless it is difficult to put a price on the pleasure and satisfaction I get from committing aviation, especially in one of Todd's creations. :)

[morrisond]

Hi Kevin,

Please don't take this as a bash, but from what I have learned it seems to me that the depreciation is a lot more than the $50,000.

It's a very limited sample but I have seen one 260se listed at about $180,000 and I know of another one that traded for around the same price. Both had updated avionics, but both also had about 700-800 hours since conversion. I know that those planes probably cost a lot less initially than a current 260se, but to build a new one you are looking at close to $300,000 by the time you upgrade avionics, and that's with not that extensive avionics upgrades or a chute. I would have a hard time believing that 5 years from now I could get $250,000 for it when the market from what I know is significantly less than that.

If I get one it means I want to be sure I will keep it for a long time(10+years) as to me you are really probably talking about an $100,000 hit, in line with the Cirrus of the world. At probably 100 hours per year for me, that is about $200 per hour just of depreciation over 5 years.

Please correct me If I am wrong, can you give other examples of what used 260se's have traded for and when?

Thanks

[kwmoore]

Please don't take this as a bash, but from what I have learned it seems to me that the depreciation is a lot more than the $50,000.
...Please correct me If I am wrong, can you give other examples of what used 260se's have traded for and when?
In contrast, based on my previous experience, I expected the 260se to depreciate little or not at all; nonetheless I allowed for $50K depreciation over 5 years. Not too many 260se's are being produced and very few are on the market at any given time, so that supply and demand thing keeps values up.
My dataset may be limited too, but here it is from my own experience. I flew each plane a little over 300 hr before selling:

First 260se, May 2000-March 2002: $195K invested (including ~$22K avionics); sold for $212K. Replacement value--cost to get a new one from Todd with comparable equipment--at time of sale ~$225K.

Second 260se, June 2002-July 2004: $285K invested ($55K avionics); sold for $262K. Replacement value at time of sale ~$290K. Note that depreciation was about equivalent to 40% of the cost of the avionics package.

I know at least one other regular forum participant who bought a 260SE Millenium Edition a few years ago and sold just recently; he may respond or not as he wishes.

Note that during this period the cost of a new one from Peterson's Performance Plus increased. When I put my used planes on the market they were calibrated against the cost of a new one, not against what a new one had cost two years earlier when they were built.

If I get one it means I want to be sure I will keep it for a long time(10+years) as to me you are really probably talking about an $100,000 hit, in line with the Cirrus of the world. At probably 100 hours per year for me, that is about $200 per hour just of depreciation over 5 years.
$100K depreciation over 10 years is not an unreasonable expectation in my view, about $50/hr if flown 200 hr/year. Based on the cost of a new SR22 ($400-460K) and the current market value of 2001-2002-vintage SR22's ($215-250K), I think it's a fair assumption that depreciation on a new '22 bought today would be at east $200K over 10 years, maybe more.

I have observed the 260se market for a little over seven years. Several interesting aspects emerge:

There are two "strata" in the market. The first consists of older used planes, with many hundreds of hours since conversion, which may or may not be fully refurbished "Millenium Edition"-type aircraft. The second are more recent fully refurbished "Millenium Editions" that had the full treatment: new paint/interior, glass, overhauled instruments, fuel tanks raplaced etc., with comparatively low time. Most of the latter have been kept in top shape by their owners and are appealing alternatives for customers considering a new 260se but who don't want to wait 6 months or longer to get one.

There are two types of customers. The first is in the market primarily for a top quality used 1970s-80s 182. This person may hear about the 260se and be interested to buy one if the price is only a few 10's of kilobucks higher than a stock used 182. The first category of 260se described above fits this customer well. The second customer is interested in a new plane from Todd but may not particularly want to wait for one to be made. If a used one is available of like-new quality with an avionics suite that fits the customer's needs or can be built upon, this customer will strongly consider buying it.

Overall I would characterize the market for the 260se as "small but intense." Most pilots don't want or need what it has to offer. Those that do, especially in the second customer category, really want it. This market values quality in the used planes too. I invested a lot of time and a fair amount of money--perhaps more than many others would--keeping my planes in top shape, both mechanically and cosmetically. This paid dividends at resale time: both planes showed as well in Todd's hangar as a brand new one. And they were available right now. This is a motivating combination for a potential customer.

In the end it's all about supply and demand. While it's a niche market and demand is not huge, the available supply is small--often zero. So long as PPP is the only source of new ones and customers like and keep them, I don't see that changing a whole lot in the future. :)