Now I love my aircraft, I seriously do and it is a very good example of a stock 112B. It cost me £45,000 ($71,000) at the peak of the market. It has been resprayed, there have been some minor upgrades in the panel and it already has the 3 blade prop (just overhauled).
However, I can't, for the life of me, understand how I could justify spending $100,000 on it. Not just from the fuel availability perspective but for that sort of money I could have a significantly better aircraft with a low compression engine, probably no more than 15 years old.
For what it is, my 112B is an excellent aircraft, better than a 200hp Arrow of the same age by far but it isn't a modern aircraft and no amount of money spent on it will make it one.
From a European perspective, right now the only conversion running AVGAS which makes any sense is one which burns UL91. As things stand, the last thing I need is to go faster, if I wanted to do that I'd buy a 114, they are going for not much more than I paid for mine. Just keeping a 112 of any variety in the air at all is the only priority in Europe and putting another high compression engine into it doesn't add up.
Actually, there is a gain of useful load of approx 40 lbs if also installing the MT prop...
Hi Willem,
I'll have to disagree... in my mind, there has been no fantastic plastic airplane yet... as a point of comparison: the SR22 is nearly as heavy as our aluminum Commanders, so no weight saved at least in that design ($100M+ spent).. the SR22 streamlining is nice but we can copy most of that with fairings.. the main tradeoff was lift for speed, which is NOT a tradeoff I would personally make... also let me point out that even Airbus does not have the "plastic" part perfected yet, with 3 Airbus fins in the drink thus far (that we know about)... no, I'll stick with our strong high-lift AC11, and am reminded of why whenever I deal with the weather gods (most recently last weekend).
With that said, and even though fuel is still the cheapest part of safe flying for most of us, I know we do need to find an engine/fuel alternative for you guys already facing unreasonable AVGAS prices.
Jim
Hi Paul,
Actually, there is a gain of useful load of approx 40 lbs if also installing the MT prop, or a gain of 20 lbs useful load if changing only engine.
Jim
Hi Willem,
I'll have to disagree... in my mind, there has been no fantastic plastic airplane yet... as a point of comparison: the SR22 is nearly as heavy as our aluminum Commanders, so no weight saved at least in that design ($100M+ spent).. the SR22 streamlining is nice but we can copy most of that with fairings.. the main tradeoff was lift for speed, which is NOT a tradeoff I would personally make... also let me point out that even Airbus does not have the "plastic" part perfected yet, with 3 Airbus fins in the drink thus far (that we know about)... no, I'll stick with our strong high-lift AC11, and am reminded of why whenever I deal with the weather gods (most recently last weekend).
With that said, and even though fuel is still the cheapest part of safe flying for most of us, I know we do need to find an engine/fuel alternative for you guys already facing unreasonable AVGAS prices.
Jim