Peter wrote:
But if you really don’t want to go the DA42 route, and the cost is not a major issue, then since you are new to the ownership game I would strongly recommend buying a nice new plane with a warranty. That’s what I did in 2002.
I must be very confident in my choice of plane to buy it new. Otherwise, I would lose a bunch of money if I decide to change it shortly (it works like this with cars, is it the same for planes?).
How quick would it be to buy a new aeroplane? Is there a lot of them in stock or I need to make an order and wait months (or years?) for delivery?
Flyingfish wrote:
I like the way this thread has shifted from the original question (what avionics) to the fundamental question of picking the right aircraft for a new pilot operating out of an island. Here my contribution:
Valentin you need to think about safety first and in your case it means dealing with engine issues over water.
I fully agree that it may be too risky to get a twin right away, but a twin is the only way you can eliminate the risk of ditching resulting from engine failure.
That or a turbine, I suppose:
Valentin wrote:
Ultimately, it could be TBM900/930 or even PC-12. There is no way I could fly them in the nearest future.
It’s true that starting out in too complex of an aircraft can be a recipe for disaster, but so can ditching in the ocean, and the former can probably be more easily mitigated by training. I’m low time myself, and have never flown anything more complex than a bit of dual in a TB10, so I’m curious too where the break-even point would be for either a SET or a MEP like the aforementioned types. I keep hearing the DA42 is fairly easy as twins go, I have no idea about the cabin-class singles.
Aviathor wrote:
Peter wrote:If the ATPL student is taking the integrated MPL course then the 70 hr requirement doesn’t apply.
Do the ATPL students really rent a school plane for 70hrs and fly around?
I believe they do rent the cheapest plane they can get their hands on and “fly around”
Indeed; that was why I asked. I see loads of FTO customers training in DA42s but I don’t see them flying “GA” as we know it.
On the wider topic, yes, Valentin, you want to buy your last plane first, as the old saying goes 
I recommend reading my linked writeup; it should illuminate a few issues.
And it doesn’t matter if it is “too complex” to start with, because you will learn it, and you have to do that only once, but you will get the benefit for ever afterwards.
BUT, and this is a big BUT, and I can’t tell from your posts, and if I could I would not say it but much depends on your mental aptitude. There are positively loads of PPLs who can fly a C152 or a PA28 safely, a 50nm run in CAVOK conditions to get the £200 burger, but they struggle with any “IT” (they get mostly baffled by e.g. Skydemon and its config options) and many of them don’t even do email. Some of these have loads of money however. I used to know one such who worked his way up the food chain, eventually buying a jet, flying it with an old ATPL everywhere in the RHS, and after failing every checkride he is back to the piston world and doing little local trips again. Maybe £5M shorter… At the other end of the spectrum you get whizzo people who are instantly up to speed on any avionics, any IT really (that’s why you get so many IT and engineering people in GA), and some of these are good pilots too. One of these can just buy a Jetprop or whatever… Then you get a load of pilots who are rubbish on advanced systems but make great aerobatic pilots. I am somewhere between the two ends, avoiding glass and keeping things simple, but that is also driven by having zero suitable maintenance facilities (for a complex plane that is, especially any not completely trivial avionics) at my base or anywhere near, so I have to be very careful to not bite off what I can’t chew (maybe not so different to your situation, but I don’t know what you have).
Also remember that once you get into the turboprop world you are looking at a purely A-to-B travelling machine, partly because the low level fuel burn is so heavy and partly because you will not get many half usable photos through the windows of any pressurised cabin. So a lot of fun is lost immediately.
Peter wrote:
On the wider topic, yes, Valentin, you want to buy your last plane first, as the old saying goes I recommend reading my linked writeup; it should illuminate a few issues.And it doesn’t matter if it is “too complex” to start with, because you will learn it, and you have to do that only once, but you will get the benefit for ever afterwards.
I cannot buy a TBM first, however. So I need to buy something else.
As for “IT”, I don’t struggle with it, I’m an IT guy.
Peter wrote:
Also remember that once you get into the turboprop world you are looking at a purely A-to-B travelling machine, partly because the low level fuel burn is so heavy and partly because you will not get many half usable photos through the windows of any pressurised cabin. So a lot of fun is lost immediately.
So I can enjoy the way to my goal (flying a turboprop).
Peter wrote:
Also remember that once you get into the turboprop world you are looking at a purely A-to-B travelling machine
Only if you are looking for an A to B travelling machine. There are other stuff such as these (but not exactly light on fuel burn, or particularly cheap, though )
Why not buy the turboprop straight away and buy the necessary training on type along with it?
@Valentin, one thing missing from your posts is the WHY. Why do you want/need a TBM or Pilatus? Is this for fun (hey, nothing wrong with that!) or because you need it for work / business, IOW: what’s you mission profile. I would think that an answer to this would inform your choice(s) of airplane quite a bit.
Re: steam vs glass, I always like to do training the difficult way then enjoy flying on something easier tough some will suggest to train on what you will fly but I found those painful transitions useful if you want to keep yourself ahead of “any” aircraft.
I have limited time on glass cockpits, so no idea what it takes to use them in emergency, but for normal flying I found them far easier to fly compared to steam (the information is right there in front of you),
I would say you don’t need more than 2h to learn glass cockpit basics you need for day to day normal VFR/IFR flying but for sure it will take you more than 50h to cover all the configs.However, most of it can be done on the ground or will come once you start to understanding the underlying software/system “design patterns” and given the price tag you pay for those luxury pieces of avionics you better have a full read of their manuals and make full use of them
Ibra wrote:
I would say you don’t need more than 2h to learn glass cockpit basics you need for day to day normal VFR/IFR flying
For VFR, probably. For IFR I would say it will take quite a bit longer, at least if we are talking about the G1000/G2000. You’ll need to spend quite a bit of time studying the pilot’s guide, and then more time on the simulator in order to be comfortable with the system in all phases of flight. If you have prior experience with the GNS boxes, you will already be familiar with some of the Garmin navigation features, displaying the various screens, flight plan entry, selection of a leg, selection of a procedure etc. which will lower the threshold. In that case what will not be familiar will be the hot-key navigation.
After more than 250 hrs of experience with the G1000, I was still sometimes discovering new featuers. Now I seldom fly with G1000 and I feel rusty every time.
If you already know the navigators, an Avidyne system is much easier to learn than the G1000.
