Adam A500....why?

[JimG]

Just for shyts and giggles...

I just finished reading an article in Twin & Turbine magazine on the new A500 and wondered what the reasoning would be to spend $1M for a new concept airplane that doesn't do anything better than my C340 (w/Ram VI's) does at 1/3 the cost.

Avidyne flat panels and dual G430's are nice, but I have an Avidyne and a G430 in my panel too.

The A500 has:

No deicing boots.
No heated windshield

Performance is less than the 340...I burn less fuel for higher speeds.

Pressurization is better (8,000@FL250 vs. 8,000@FL200 in the 340), but their best performance is in the low 20's where I fly anyway.

The company claims $1B in orders (which probably includes the A700's too), but I'm interested in where the order file comes from and the person who would buy one?

 

[ackattacker]

No need to use your feet. Much safer.

 

[mzaharis]

No deicing boots.
No heated windshield

From the ADAM website:

PPG Industries-Glass Windshield

The A500 will have a glass windshield with Electro-thermal deicing capability. This will allow the A500 pilot to have the protection of a heated windshield without the visibility disadvantages of peering through a hotplate. In addition, glass windshields are known to be more resilient to bird strikes than their plexiglas counterparts and will also resist scratching better.

Also, a number of articles indicate that they're going to provide known icing capability using TKS. Although they're working on it, I don't think they've gotten their known icing certification yet.

As to the value question, I think that you can always find a used aircraft with similar, or even better, performance for a third the cost, if you're willing to get something old enough. The A500 seems to compare favorably, though, with the nearest things currently on the market pricewise, such as the Baron and Malibu Meridian (at least at the brochure level). Of course, VLJs may change that performance-value equation.

 

[JimNtexas]

The Adam may be safer than a conventional twin in an engine out situation, and certainly has that new airplane smell.

 

[clickclickboom]

Adam did their market research and determined that there were many buyers out there for cabin class piston equipment. Dont get me wrong i love twin cessnas have owned a 340 and currently own a twin cessna but the reality is that with the exception of some factory leftovers that were released in 84 the newest 340 is 25 years old.. Plus the biggie here is fleet commonality.. A guy can buy the a500 build time and upgrade to a similiar model 700 and who knows maybe there will be an a500 with turbo diesels or turbines out there.

Insurance is becoming cost prohibitive for new pilots.. Have you seen what they would quote for a 340 for a 1000 pilot with mel and minimal time in type?

PS if you have factory locker tanks you better check the spar caps for corrosion.. My buddies cost over $80,000 to repair

 

[JimG]

Adam did their market research and determined that there were many buyers out there for cabin class piston equipment. Dont get me wrong i love twin cessnas have owned a 340 and currently own a twin cessna but the reality is that with the exception of some factory leftovers that were released in 84 the newest 340 is 25 years old.. Plus the biggie here is fleet commonality.. A guy can buy the a500 build time and upgrade to a similiar model 700 and who knows maybe there will be an a500 with turbo diesels or turbines out there.

Insurance is becoming cost prohibitive for new pilots.. Have you seen what they would quote for a 340 for a 1000 pilot with mel and minimal time in type?

PS if you have factory locker tanks you better check the spar caps for corrosion.. My buddies cost over $80,000 to repair

Mine's a 1978...it is getting "old", but I flew a 1960 M-model Bonanza before this one, so she feels "almost new" in comparison...lol.

As far as insurance...I know.

My first year was $15K with 1200 hours, MEI.

My second year dropped to $10K.

Hopefully, the renewal next spring will be even more good news.

But can you imagine what the premium's going to be on a $1M airplane with the same pilot experience?

I just had the spar caps and exaust AD done a couple of weeks ago....no problems.

 

[mzaharis]

and who knows maybe there will be an a500 with turbo diesels or turbines out there.

And here's the candidate for a turbodiesel Adam (which, interestingly, will also be STC'd for the 340) . . .


http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=621&L=1

 

[JimNtexas]

Mine's a 1978...it is getting "old", but I flew a 1960 M-model Bonanza before this one, so she feels "almost new" in comparison...lol.

As far as insurance...I know.

My first year was $15K with 1200 hours, MEI.

My second year dropped to $10K.

That's interesting, because I've heard similar numbers for Cirrus owner pilots with 1000 or so hours but low time in type.

 

[JimG]

That's interesting, because I've heard similar numbers for Cirrus owner pilots with 1000 or so hours but low time in type.

Is that with the ballistic chute discount?

 

[TurboAWD]

I'll take a cetified TKS system over boots any day. And if Beech can get buyers for the G58, I think the A500 could at least get a few buyers. Between the two, I know where my (fictional) money would go...

Turbo

 

[JimNtexas]

Is that with the ballistic chute discount?

I think that includes the ballaistic chute surcharge.

Cirrus guys assure me that the airplane is far safer than any other single, but I have to wonder about it. Why are premiums for the Cirrus so much more than for a Mooney or Cardinal RG, which run around $3000/year?

Maybe its just that's what guys will pay to fly a nice new airplane.

 

[clickclickboom]

I think that includes the ballaistic chute surcharge.

Cirrus guys assure me that the airplane is far safer than any other single, but I have to wonder about it. Why are premiums for the Cirrus so much more than for a Mooney or Cardinal RG, which run around $3000/year?

Maybe its just that's what guys will pay to fly a nice new airplane.

Because low time pilots fly into a cloud get scared and pop the chute.. I remember watching CNN about 3 years ago.. A guy had an engine failure and popped the chute. On the TV they had some resident expert talking about the harrowing experience he had while flying along and his rt aileron had jammed or something.. He still had the opposite aileron, rudder, and elevator he tooted his horn about his decision to pull the chute on an otherwise completely flyable aircraft

 

[FlyingFisherman]

Because low time pilots fly into a cloud get scared and pop the chute.. I remember watching CNN about 3 years ago.. A guy had an engine failure and popped the chute. On the TV they had some resident expert talking about the harrowing experience he had while flying along and his rt aileron had jammed or something.. He still had the opposite aileron, rudder, and elevator he tooted his horn about his decision to pull the chute on an otherwise completely flyable aircraft

Ever try flying an airplane with a fluttering control surface? If I had a parachute I'd pull it too.

Just recently had controls foul up in a C-560 and wish to god I had a red or yellow/black handle to pull.

Things sorted out however:

Had it been "real" where we were out of options and our options were either:

1.) attempt to land at night/imc with an airplane that's already betrayed you

or

2.) punch out and float to the ground.

I'd take #2 thanks.

Also...that guy had just had maintenance done on the aircraft. The aileron was not attached properly and fluttered. He did the right thing, but sucks for the insurance company. Your other points are exactly what a disoriented pilot's supposed to do. If they get into a cloud...pull the handle.

If you for any reason get into a spin...the only demonstrated and approved recovery technique is to pull the handle.

I'd prefer them take a flyable airplane gently under canopy to the ground and have everyone walk away than take a flyable airplane in a spiral into the ground killing everyone on board.

 

[clickclickboom]

Ever try flying an airplane with a fluttering control surface? If I had a parachute I'd pull it too.

Just recently had controls foul up in a C-560 and wish to god I had a red or yellow/black handle to pull.

Things sorted out however:

Had it been "real" where we were out of options and our options were either:

1.) attempt to land at night/imc with an airplane that's already betrayed you

or

2.) punch out and float to the ground.

I'd take #2 thanks.

Also...that guy had just had maintenance done on the aircraft. The aileron was not attached properly and fluttered. He did the right thing, but sucks for the insurance company. Your other points are exactly what a disoriented pilot's supposed to do. If they get into a cloud...pull the handle.

If you for any reason get into a spin...the only demonstrated and approved recovery technique is to pull the handle.

I'd prefer them take a flyable airplane gently under canopy to the ground and have everyone walk away than take a flyable airplane in a spiral into the ground killing everyone on board.

Which is exactly the reason why insurance on the Cirrus will continue to be out of sight..

In my opinion if you fly into a cloud and get a little spatial disorientation you should do what you learned and fly your instruments not punch out..

if you are not IFR rated you should take an extra 3 mins and look at the radar and choose to fly or not instead of the crutch of a " Golden Parachute"

Dont get me wrong the concept is amazing but the problem is that pilots are buying these planes and using the chute as an excuse for skill..

Had a guy at my airport bend one up on landing. He went out on a day where there was a frontal passage and winds were gusting 20-30kts direct xwind.. Did three go arounds and ground looped the thing damaging the gear and wing. The faa asked him why he flew and he replied that he decidied to fly that day because if he couldnt get it on the ground he would just pull the chute.

 

[clickclickboom]

I think that includes the ballaistic chute surcharge.

Cirrus guys assure me that the airplane is far safer than any other single, but I have to wonder about it. Why are premiums for the Cirrus so much more than for a Mooney or Cardinal RG, which run around $3000/year?

Maybe its just that's what guys will pay to fly a nice new airplane.

Read an interesting article about aircraft insurance in flying or one of the other mags a year or so ago..

They took a single enging guy with decent time say 1000 hrs some retract and an instrument rating. They compared actual quotes on a Cessna 182, Mooney Ovation, and Cirrus SR22

The quotes were something like $3000 for the 182, $8000 for the Mooney and $16,000 for the Cirrus !!!!

 

[Magic1872]

Isn't insurance based on hual value?

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Isn't insurance based on hual value?

Well it is based on hull value, yes. That is why a new SR22 is going to cost more to insure than a used Cardinal RG. Of course, there is also the issue of residual values and market history, etc. Cirrus' insurance premiums will come down over the next 5 to 10 years according to one agent I talked to.

-Neal

 

[FlyingFisherman]

Which is exactly the reason why insurance on the Cirrus will continue to be out of sight..

In my opinion if you fly into a cloud and get a little spatial disorientation you should do what you learned and fly your instruments not punch out..

if you are not IFR rated you should take an extra 3 mins and look at the radar and choose to fly or not instead of the crutch of a " Golden Parachute"

Dont get me wrong the concept is amazing but the problem is that pilots are buying these planes and using the chute as an excuse for skill..

Had a guy at my airport bend one up on landing. He went out on a day where there was a frontal passage and winds were gusting 20-30kts direct xwind.. Did three go arounds and ground looped the thing damaging the gear and wing. The faa asked him why he flew and he replied that he decidied to fly that day because if he couldnt get it on the ground he would just pull the chute.

as far as insurance being more than say a 182 there are 2 main reasons.

Statistics and Value. The 182 is a proven airframe with a set accident rate that the actuaries can base their rates on and pretty much take to the bank. The cirrus fleet is still new, relatively small and its growing.

The second, value, is that the cirrus simply is a very expensive airplane. Take expensive airplanes and spread the cost of replacing an unknown number of them for a relatively small fleet and you're always going to have a high premium.

The numbers quoted above seem way out of whack. My former employer was a 100hr private pilot with a fresh brand new instrument rating. He was quoted I think $6,000/yr for insurance and it was about $2000/yr for a newer 182 with a pretty high hull value as 182s go.

For grins I got a quote for myself and the cirrus was still something lke $4500/yr through I think AOPA. There are other companies out there but its going to cost regardless.



As far as giving up because you've got a parachute I don't think that's the case. It's instinctive for a pilot to want to stay with the airplane but the parachute has a limited deployment envelope. Off the top of my head I think it's something like 135kts. Hardly going to do you any good in a graveyard spiral. Again that's the "demonstrated" capability but beyond much more I don't think it'd do much good. The SR22-G2 cruises an honest 185kts. Point the nose down in a spiral and pop the chute...you're going to rip it off or at least take the attach points if it doesn't go.

It's actually better to pull it at the first sign of trouble than to let it develop into something you're probably not going to get out of. Once you've flown poorly enough to get into a spiral how likely are you going to be to fly well enough to get out?

 

[Lear60Guy]

I just finished reading an article in Twin & Turbine magazine on the new A500 and wondered what the reasoning would be to spend $1M for a new concept airplane that doesn't do anything better than my C340 (w/Ram VI's) does at 1/3 the cost.

something new and different, if you show up on the ramp in a 340 even a really nice one, it won't turn many heads, but an A500 at least for a while will have people looking... planes are a status symbol just like cars, the rich folk like things that are new and different...