Beech duchess comments?

[[email protected]]

I've contemplating buying my first plane.

C182 is almost perfect for what Iwant to do with the plane.
alas the last few flights have had some significant overwater legs.
CRQ->AVX->SBA
I also want to be able to comfortably return home after dark.

Thus I was thinking about a light twin, something like a barron or
C310 would be nice, but getting a really nice one is probably
streching my budget.

I'll usually be carrying about 400 lbs of people, pilot and bags.

I see a bunch of duchess for sale around the same price as a similarly
equipped 182.


The simple engines with 2000 TBO and no boots, hot [props etc...
should make the costs a bit lower than the 310 or B58

Any comments from people that have owned one?

Any comments from anyone that uses one in a flight school (seems to be
the most common MEL trainer)

Paul

[Huck]

Well I have to tell ya you need to justify why you want that second
engine. Personally If I was you I would be looking at a nice older
A36/F33 or 210. Less fuel burn better usefull load{than the seminole or
duchess not the barron or310} and faster. A 182 is also a great choice
all in all I have had a 182 at max gross and took off from marathon fl
on a high Density altitude day and only got like 2-3hundred FPM climb
But it took it and I made sure the cg was well with in control range.
Though a 182 is no were near as fast it is a truck. Another thing to
think about is the insurance! What is your time like do you have a
bunch of multi time already? Instrument rated? There are many factors
in this major undertaking.
If you decide that you are going to be doing a bunch of night or over
water flight then maybe a light twin would be a safer option. I know
many people that won't fly singles just because the want that back up
motor. I personally dont subscribe to such thinking I know many people
that miss manage twins and just aren't up to the higher work load. That
being said I would much rather have an older barron than a duchess,
seminole or a 310 anyday. You might want to look at an Aztec they can
be had for descent prices today and will take much more weight and that
extra power per side is so much nicer than what you get with a
duchess/seminole. They are just a much better put together aircraft.
Again that is just one mans opinion and I am sure you will get much
advise on this thread. Well if you want to talk some more and need
someone to play devils advocate just drop me a line.
or I have helped many people answer these
questions and since I am not a broker or salesman I will not try to
push you towards what they are selling!

Matt Tiberii
Com asel amel inst
CFI CFII 1500+ time
wrote:
> I've contemplating buying my first plane.
>
> C182 is almost perfect for what Iwant to do with the plane.
> alas the last few flights have had some significant overwater legs.
> CRQ->AVX->SBA
> I also want to be able to comfortably return home after dark.
>
> Thus I was thinking about a light twin, something like a barron or
> C310 would be nice, but getting a really nice one is probably
> streching my budget.
>
> I'll usually be carrying about 400 lbs of people, pilot and bags.
>
> I see a bunch of duchess for sale around the same price as a similarly
> equipped 182.
>
>
> The simple engines with 2000 TBO and no boots, hot [props etc...
> should make the costs a bit lower than the 310 or B58
>
> Any comments from people that have owned one?
>
> Any comments from anyone that uses one in a flight school (seems to be
> the most common MEL trainer)
>
> Paul

[Jim Burns]

I'll echo Matt's post.

I'll also be happy to tell you why we turned in our leased 182RG, bought an
Aztec and are willing to pay $250 per hour to operate it. I can give you
our current insurance rates and pilot times as well as reasons that we chose
the Aztec over other twins. I can also tell you what we had to do to get
rated and qualified for the insurance.

The groups have heard my story before and I'm sure they don't need a nap.
Jim
CFI/CFII/MEI

Feel free to email me... remove the nospams

[kontiki]

I would stay away from a duchess, sorry. If you really think you need a twin
I'd echo what the others have said and be thinking Aztec or maybe a Baron
(but I'd look at the Aztec first).

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

My flying buddy had a Duchess about 10 years ago. It was a great plane. He
now has a Barron, the Barron is nice real nice the only problem is fuel. I
hate going on long trips because it cost to much. I would give up the 20
knotts and fly the Bonanza. I understand your thinking flying over water and
at night. I fly at night I dont mind it to much in the Bonanza with the
autopilot I fly a Cherokee 180 also and I dont feel as comortable at night.
I was thinking maybe a twin comanche.
"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
>I would stay away from a duchess, sorry. If you really think you need a
>twin
> I'd echo what the others have said and be thinking Aztec or maybe a Baron
> (but I'd look at the Aztec first).
>

[Huck]

Hey Guys,
Well it is nice to know that there are actually a few things we agree
on out there! One more thing well actually a a few more things. Think
annual costs! Single versus Multi your probably talking a min of
500-1000 more just for the annual at a reputable shop not to mention
the fact that when you start having stuff go wrong ie 35-65 g for a new
motor 5-15g for a new prop jack and retract tests hoses. This stuff
really adds up pretty fast. Also just to help stear you clear of a
twin commanche though it is one if not the best of the group
performance wise as far as economical and fast the parts have all but
dissapeared for them. Try to stay away from any of the commanches just
for that one fact alone. Parts is parts and if you cant find any your
in a whole with no airplane not to mention if there ever was an
accident it would probably be a total loss and that is why they are so
hard to insure now!
I say A36 would more than fit your needs. I know of a few people that
have actually gone back to bonanza's and sold their barrons. just for
fuel burn alone. To be truthfull with you also the baron is just as
fast as the baby barons{55's) and not much slower than the big ones
58's. With the exception of a few special models {58p and the E55} both
are faster.
Well I could literally talk airplanes all night.{why am I not out
playing in the air right now} Have a great day all.

Matty/huck
com asel amel inst
CFI CFII 1500 TT
Aluckyguess wrote:
> My flying buddy had a Duchess about 10 years ago. It was a great plane. He
> now has a Barron, the Barron is nice real nice the only problem is fuel. I
> hate going on long trips because it cost to much. I would give up the 20
> knotts and fly the Bonanza. I understand your thinking flying over water and
> at night. I fly at night I dont mind it to much in the Bonanza with the
> autopilot I fly a Cherokee 180 also and I dont feel as comortable at night.
> I was thinking maybe a twin comanche.
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I would stay away from a duchess, sorry. If you really think you need a
> >twin
> > I'd echo what the others have said and be thinking Aztec or maybe a Baron
> > (but I'd look at the Aztec first).
> >

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Burns wrote:
> I'll echo Matt's post.
>
> I'll also be happy to tell you why we turned in our leased 182RG, bought an
> Aztec and are willing to pay $250 per hour to operate it. I can give you
> our current insurance rates and pilot times as well as reasons that we chose
> the Aztec over other twins. I can also tell you what we had to do to get
> rated and qualified for the insurance.
>
> The groups have heard my story before and I'm sure they don't need a nap.
> Jim
> CFI/CFII/MEI

I'd take an Aztec over a Duchess any day of the week. Simply put, they
just fly and land better.

[Jim Macklin]

The Duchess is a very nice handling twin, with an excellent
electrical dual bus system. It has real redundancy although
it does not have automatic load shedding. The engines are
nearly bullet-proof. Two cabin doors and good sized baggage
door make loading nice. There is no nose baggage
compartment. You can install radar. It has plenty of
elevator and rudder and is very easy to recover. Beech
actually did the full spin test series, but decided not to
certify for intentional spinning. But it will recover if
you're ham fisted enough to get into a spin.

The airplane pretty decent single-engine performance for a
non-turbo light piston twin. The engine nacelles are trim
enough it flies well on either engine. The Piper light twin
carries the fuel in gigantic nacelles tanks, Piper didn't
want to change the Cherokee much, as a result there is a lot
of drag between the nacelles and fuselage. Piper also did
not increase the size or arm on the tail, so it doesn't have
the range the Duchess has.

The Baron will be much more expensive to operate whether
you're talking insurance, fuel or maintenance.

The only bad thing about the Duchess is no nose baggage and
only four seats. The aft compartment is big.

I'd like to have two of them, one factory standard and one
on amphibious floats and 220 hp engines.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

> wrote in message
...
| I've contemplating buying my first plane.
|
| C182 is almost perfect for what Iwant to do with the
plane.
| alas the last few flights have had some significant
overwater legs.
| CRQ->AVX->SBA
| I also want to be able to comfortably return home after
dark.
|
| Thus I was thinking about a light twin, something like a
barron or
| C310 would be nice, but getting a really nice one is
probably
| streching my budget.
|
| I'll usually be carrying about 400 lbs of people, pilot
and bags.
|
| I see a bunch of duchess for sale around the same price as
a similarly
| equipped 182.
|
|
| The simple engines with 2000 TBO and no boots, hot [props
etc...
| should make the costs a bit lower than the 310 or B58
|
| Any comments from people that have owned one?
|
| Any comments from anyone that uses one in a flight school
(seems to be
| the most common MEL trainer)
|
| Paul

[Kyler Laird]

kontiki > writes:

>I would stay away from a duchess, sorry. If you really think you need a twin
>I'd echo what the others have said and be thinking Aztec or maybe a Baron
>(but I'd look at the Aztec first).

My only plane has been an Aztec and I have difficulty imagining any
other plane being as good for me but for someone only hauling 400
pounds it seems like a terribly inefficient way to travel. O.k., so
all of the old twins are going to be terribly inefficient but
*especially* the Aztec.

Wouldn't a Seneca be a bit more appropriate and less expensive than a
Baron?

--kyler

[Denny]

As a confirmed twin driver let me play spoiler here... I am always
amazed at the way we worry about the boogy man -a single over water -
and ignore the true and present danger - a single over land where the
obstructions WILL kill you... It is flying a single over trees and
cities, and junk yards, and power lines, and fence lines, and rocks,
and abutments, that scares the crap out of me... That is why I fly a
twin...
Most water landings are survived and if they die it is from being
unable to stay afloat... Simply wearing an automatic inflating PFD
while flying over water will eliminate the immediate drowning
problem... These are small, comfortable, and not horribly expensive
thanks to the volume of the boating market - unlike airplanes...

denny

[[email protected]]

>As a confirmed twin driver let me play spoiler here... I am always
>amazed at the way we worry about the boogy man -a single over water -
>and ignore the true and present danger - a single over land where the
>obstructions WILL kill you... It is flying a single over trees and
>cities, and junk yards, and power lines, and fence lines, and rocks,
>and abutments, that scares the crap out of me... That is why I fly a
>twin...
>Most water landings are survived and if they die it is from being
>unable to stay afloat... Simply wearing an automatic inflating PFD
>while flying over water will eliminate the immediate drowning
>problem... These are small, comfortable, and not horribly expensive
>thanks to the volume of the boating market - unlike airplanes...
>
In the daytime I believe that you can find somewhere to land
and miss the ground hazards,
at night I agree with you completly, and that is why I'm thinking
small twin.

Paul

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

I looked at big singles versus twins for the same reasons, and since I live
on Lake Michigan and travel east quite a bit, I chose a twin. The redundancy
goes beyond just the engines, and includes dual vacuum pumps as well as
electrical systems.

Of course, this also means that there is double the maintenance on these
items, and double the chance of something breaking. You should not buy any
airplane unless you can also afford to maintain it- patching stuff with wire
and duct tape is the first step toward having a catastrophic chain of events
occur at an inopportune time.

I did most of my training in an Aztec, and then flew a Baron. The Aztec has
bigger engines, but is slower. It did not have the solid feeling of a Beech
product, but parts are a lot less expensive. Finally decided on a B-55
Baron, and it is heavily equipped with known ice, radar, stormscope, etc. It
gives a lot of flexibility, and still has a full tank useful load of 760
pounds, with a cruise of 175 knots. The IO-470 engines are solid, but fuel
burn is around 25 gph. Even a short trip for lunch comes with a gas bill of
around $300.

Again, the most important issue is to never scrimp on maintenance- these are
complicated airplanes, and trying to save money by postponing repairs is
short sighted.

[Jim Macklin]

There are no B55 Barons certified for known ice, only the
58P and 58TC are certified, if they have the electric
windshield plate and all other required equipment.
http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1107548&guid=861412D96C4C4B2BBB9BEC805BCAF89D
lists a G58 as "known ice" for over a million and quarter.





"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
|I looked at big singles versus twins for the same reasons,
and since I live
| on Lake Michigan and travel east quite a bit, I chose a
twin. The redundancy
| goes beyond just the engines, and includes dual vacuum
pumps as well as
| electrical systems.
|
| Of course, this also means that there is double the
maintenance on these
| items, and double the chance of something breaking. You
should not buy any
| airplane unless you can also afford to maintain it-
patching stuff with wire
| and duct tape is the first step toward having a
catastrophic chain of events
| occur at an inopportune time.
|
| I did most of my training in an Aztec, and then flew a
Baron. The Aztec has
| bigger engines, but is slower. It did not have the solid
feeling of a Beech
| product, but parts are a lot less expensive. Finally
decided on a B-55
| Baron, and it is heavily equipped with known ice, radar,
stormscope, etc. It
| gives a lot of flexibility, and still has a full tank
useful load of 760
| pounds, with a cruise of 175 knots. The IO-470 engines are
solid, but fuel
| burn is around 25 gph. Even a short trip for lunch comes
with a gas bill of
| around $300.
|
| Again, the most important issue is to never scrimp on
maintenance- these are
| complicated airplanes, and trying to save money by
postponing repairs is
| short sighted.
|
|
|

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

My B-55 is certified for known ice by STC with TKS weeping wings. It does
not require the 400 series vacuum pumps, does not lose airspeed, and does
not require periodic replacement like boots.

[Jim Macklin]

And you have electric props and windshield? What is the STC
number?



"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
| My B-55 is certified for known ice by STC with TKS weeping
wings. It does
| not require the 400 series vacuum pumps, does not lose
airspeed, and does
| not require periodic replacement like boots.
|
|

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

The plane uses the prop slinger hardware for the old alcohol props, and has
a spray bar for the windshield. If you want to know the STC number you can
Google on TKS or call them (Aerospace Systems and Technologies) yourself.

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

I wish my cherokee 180 would do 160 Knots. I would put a garmin 430 and an
s-tec in it and call it good.
"Huck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hey Guys,
> Well it is nice to know that there are actually a few things we agree
> on out there! One more thing well actually a a few more things. Think
> annual costs! Single versus Multi your probably talking a min of
> 500-1000 more just for the annual at a reputable shop not to mention
> the fact that when you start having stuff go wrong ie 35-65 g for a new
> motor 5-15g for a new prop jack and retract tests hoses. This stuff
> really adds up pretty fast. Also just to help stear you clear of a
> twin commanche though it is one if not the best of the group
> performance wise as far as economical and fast the parts have all but
> dissapeared for them. Try to stay away from any of the commanches just
> for that one fact alone. Parts is parts and if you cant find any your
> in a whole with no airplane not to mention if there ever was an
> accident it would probably be a total loss and that is why they are so
> hard to insure now!
> I say A36 would more than fit your needs. I know of a few people that
> have actually gone back to bonanza's and sold their barrons. just for
> fuel burn alone. To be truthfull with you also the baron is just as
> fast as the baby barons{55's) and not much slower than the big ones
> 58's. With the exception of a few special models {58p and the E55} both
> are faster.
> Well I could literally talk airplanes all night.{why am I not out
> playing in the air right now} Have a great day all.
>
> Matty/huck
> com asel amel inst
> CFI CFII 1500 TT
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>> My flying buddy had a Duchess about 10 years ago. It was a great plane.
>> He
>> now has a Barron, the Barron is nice real nice the only problem is fuel.
>> I
>> hate going on long trips because it cost to much. I would give up the 20
>> knotts and fly the Bonanza. I understand your thinking flying over water
>> and
>> at night. I fly at night I dont mind it to much in the Bonanza with the
>> autopilot I fly a Cherokee 180 also and I dont feel as comortable at
>> night.
>> I was thinking maybe a twin comanche.
>> "kontiki" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >I would stay away from a duchess, sorry. If you really think you need a
>> >twin
>> > I'd echo what the others have said and be thinking Aztec or maybe a
>> > Baron
>> > (but I'd look at the Aztec first).
>> >
>

[kontiki]

Kyler Laird wrote:
>
> Wouldn't a Seneca be a bit more appropriate and less expensive than a
> Baron?
>
It depends on which Seneca... there are big differeneces in the different
model years of Senecas.

[Jim Macklin]

As I read their web info, only the 58 is certified as
"known" http://www.weepingwings.com/



"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
. ..
| The plane uses the prop slinger hardware for the old
alcohol props, and has
| a spray bar for the windshield. If you want to know the
STC number you can
| Google on TKS or call them (Aerospace Systems and
Technologies) yourself.
|
|
|
|

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Try looking a little harder- Flight Ice in St. Louis does the installations
on all of the Barons and I think the Caravans. Some of the installations
have known ice certification.

[Jim Burns]

It looks as if because they added (known ice) after the 58 that only the
58's are certified for known ice. But if you look at the other listings,
they itemize the models not certified for known ice by placing them in a
separate line. The way it reads to me is that the B55, C-D-E55, AND the 58
are eligible for the STC.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/bonanza/010419commentary.html says that if these
systems have dual electric pumps for redundancy, they may be eligible for
known ice certification. Flight into known-ice certification is available
when the TKS system is installed on the Commander 114B and 114TC; all of the
Cessna 210 models earlier mentioned; Aero Commander 500B, 500U, and 500S
models; Beech Baron B55, C, D, E, 55, and 58 models, and Mooney M20K, M, R,
and M20S models.

Jim Burns

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Try looking a little harder- Flight Ice in St. Louis does the
> installations on all of the Barons and I think the Caravans. Some of the
> installations have known ice certification.
>

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Jim:

Yes, the STC, placards, and POH supplement all describe the known ice
certification. As I recall, some of the requirements include an ice light,
heated stall warning device, and the redundant windshield and wing pumps.
The Flight Ice web site describes the installations in more detail. They did
a great job, and had super support.

It works great- the airframe won't pick up any ice (although antennas and
the nose along with any other unprotected areas will). It is not fool proof,
and can be overcome in severe conditions, but will provide a way out.

The major downsides are the initial cost of installation (nearly double that
of boots), as well as the cost of the fluid. However, there is no need for
the big vacuum pumps, or the need to replace boots/pumps, or maintain hot
props or hot plates.

It also makes a slimy slippery mess on the hangar floor. I collect the
overflow from filling and spray it on the plane with a garden sprayer if
there is any potential for icing after takeoff.

I use it all the time in the winter, and for me it was a better choice than
boots, particularly with the known ice certification.

[Peter R.]

Viperdoc > wrote:

> I use it all the time in the winter, and for me it was a better choice than
> boots, particularly with the known ice certification.

My Bonanza has the non-certified version of the TKS system and it works
very well. I buy a 55 gallon drum of the TKS solution from a place in
Washington state (IIRC) and so far this drum has provided three seasons'
usage of fluid. The Bonanza's fluid tank is 7.5 gallons, which translates
to about 3.5 hours at the anti-ice setting.

What is your usage and how much fluid does your Baron hold?

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

SOME Barons do, the newer 58 and the out of production 58TC
and 58P.

I looked very carefully at the Weeping wings webpages, the
FAA STC for that company and the Beech [Raytheon] TCDS for
the Baron 3A16 and only some, as you said, are certified.
Only about 120 B55 Barons are eligible for known ice.

The Cessna Caravan 208, is a new airplane built under the
latest Part 23 rules, it is certified for known ice,
otherwise FedEx would not have bought so many.

But the OP said "his Baron B55 was certified for known ice"
and if you look carefully at the company website, they
install the system only for "safety of flight." See
www.weepingwings.com on the Investment link.


"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
| Try looking a little harder- Flight Ice in St. Louis does
the installations
| on all of the Barons and I think the Caravans. Some of the
installations
| have known ice certification.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

The STC only shows that the airplane still flies OK. Old
FAA rules did not require a placard "Flight in icing
conditions prohibited" so those airplanes with that placard
limitation that get the full kit might be legal to fly under
FAR91 into forecast ice. But remember the airplanes that
are certified are using the IO 550 engine and the older
airplanes are using IO 470 and IO 520 engines. The IO550
that Beech uses are guaranteed to produce a minimum power,
but might produce 15% more than the rated power. Older
engines were certified to produce +/- 10%.

Key word in what you stated below, "may." I looked at then
FAA list of all STC for the company mentioned by the OP, and
strangely enough, they do not list the Baron. Their
approval is by following the Beech TC and only about 120
Barons other than the 58 say "known icing."


"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
| It looks as if because they added (known ice) after the 58
that only the
| 58's are certified for known ice. But if you look at the
other listings,
| they itemize the models not certified for known ice by
placing them in a
| separate line. The way it reads to me is that the B55,
C-D-E55, AND the 58
| are eligible for the STC.
|
| http://www.aopa.org/pilot/bonanza/010419commentary.html
says that if these
| systems have dual electric pumps for redundancy, they may
be eligible for
| known ice certification. Flight into known-ice
certification is available
| when the TKS system is installed on the Commander 114B and
114TC; all of the
| Cessna 210 models earlier mentioned; Aero Commander 500B,
500U, and 500S
| models; Beech Baron B55, C, D, E, 55, and 58 models, and
Mooney M20K, M, R,
| and M20S models.
|
| Jim Burns
|
| "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Try looking a little harder- Flight Ice in St. Louis
does the
| > installations on all of the Barons and I think the
Caravans. Some of the
| > installations have known ice certification.
| >
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Do me a favor, list the STC/TC number so I can find it,
couldn't anything on the company or FAA web sites and I
looked at every page.



"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
| Jim:
|
| Yes, the STC, placards, and POH supplement all describe
the known ice
| certification. As I recall, some of the requirements
include an ice light,
| heated stall warning device, and the redundant windshield
and wing pumps.
| The Flight Ice web site describes the installations in
more detail. They did
| a great job, and had super support.
|
| It works great- the airframe won't pick up any ice
(although antennas and
| the nose along with any other unprotected areas will). It
is not fool proof,
| and can be overcome in severe conditions, but will provide
a way out.
|
| The major downsides are the initial cost of installation
(nearly double that
| of boots), as well as the cost of the fluid. However,
there is no need for
| the big vacuum pumps, or the need to replace boots/pumps,
or maintain hot
| props or hot plates.
|
| It also makes a slimy slippery mess on the hangar floor. I
collect the
| overflow from filling and spray it on the plane with a
garden sprayer if
| there is any potential for icing after takeoff.
|
| I use it all the time in the winter, and for me it was a
better choice than
| boots, particularly with the known ice certification.
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

I recall that on a B55 Baron I flew had alcohol windshield
and props. If you just ran the props it was good for an
hour or two [3.0 gallons] but less than 1/2 an hour if you
ran the windshield and it was NOT a deicing fluid, it was to
be run as anti-ice and turn off before landing because you
could not see through it.



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Viperdoc > wrote:
|
| > I use it all the time in the winter, and for me it was a
better choice than
| > boots, particularly with the known ice certification.
|
| My Bonanza has the non-certified version of the TKS system
and it works
| very well. I buy a 55 gallon drum of the TKS solution
from a place in
| Washington state (IIRC) and so far this drum has provided
three seasons'
| usage of fluid. The Bonanza's fluid tank is 7.5 gallons,
which translates
| to about 3.5 hours at the anti-ice setting.
|
| What is your usage and how much fluid does your Baron
hold?
|
| --
| Peter

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

The Baron holds 6.5 gallons in a tank that replaces the old alcohol tank in
the nose. It lasts 2.5 hours.

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Did you look up and search under Flight Ice? They have locations in St.
Louis Downtown airport and Florida. All Baron installations are known ice
and are not done in Salina by AS and T, but are done in by Flight Ice. Their
web site has a better description. Keep looking.

[Jim Macklin]

I looked it up, did not see any reference to STC numbers. I
saw claims on a web site that has not been updated in nearly
3 years. But maybe there is more than one Flight Ice site?

In any case, it is the aircraft owner and the pilot who must
be sure they have the correct paperwork to do what the
salesman told /sold them.


The original post references Salina and the other company as
the STC holder. When I have more reasons to do more
research on retro-fit ice systems, I would certainly keep
TKS in mind. But there are other systems.


"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
| Did you look up and search under Flight Ice? They have
locations in St.
| Louis Downtown airport and Florida. All Baron
installations are known ice
| and are not done in Salina by AS and T, but are done in by
Flight Ice. Their
| web site has a better description. Keep looking.
|
|

[.Blueskies.]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message news:EONKg.6848$SZ3.627@dukeread04...
: The STC only shows that the airplane still flies OK. Old
: FAA rules did not require a placard "Flight in icing
: conditions prohibited" so those airplanes with that placard
: limitation that get the full kit might be legal to fly under
: FAR91 into ** forecast ** ice.

Just a nit here...anyone can fly in an area of forecast icing...it is only after a PIREP that ice is actually there is
the known icing present and therefore operations in unapproved aircraft prohibited. Not talking about judgment here...

[Huck]

Jeepers crow people!!!!
If you want to debate the package do your own friggin research. Please
this was a post trying to give a guy advise on what type of plane he
should be looking at and you two have just turned it into a ****ing
contest. It sounds like someone is fishing here anyway so watch your
remarks people. Now please get off this post and start a new one if you
feel it is necessary to continue this debate. Call tks so you dont have
to bother the guy with the 55 baron anymore. Tks will have all the info
you need.


Jim Macklin wrote:
> I looked it up, did not see any reference to STC numbers. I
> saw claims on a web site that has not been updated in nearly
> 3 years. But maybe there is more than one Flight Ice site?
>
> In any case, it is the aircraft owner and the pilot who must
> be sure they have the correct paperwork to do what the
> salesman told /sold them.
>
>
> The original post references Salina and the other company as
> the STC holder. When I have more reasons to do more
> research on retro-fit ice systems, I would certainly keep
> TKS in mind. But there are other systems.
>
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Did you look up and search under Flight Ice? They have
> locations in St.
> | Louis Downtown airport and Florida. All Baron
> installations are known ice
> | and are not done in Salina by AS and T, but are done in by
> Flight Ice. Their
> | web site has a better description. Keep looking.
> |
> |

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

You're absolutely right- my original post regarded the choice of a twin
versus a single. I was only trying to be helpful regarding the questions
about icing, and ended up being challenged and flamed.

Some drift from the OP is expected, but I should have just not responded.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Just a nit here...anyone can fly in an area of forecast icing...it is only after a PIREP that ice is actually there is
> the known icing present and therefore operations in unapproved aircraft prohibited.

Not true. Most emphatically not true.

Forecast icing is considered by the FAA to be known icing. There was a
case about it. Google it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 14:23:28 -0700, "Aluckyguess"
> > wrote:
>
>>I wish my cherokee 180 would do 160 Knots. I would put a garmin 430 and
>>an
>>s-tec in it and call it good.
>
> I feel the same for my Sundowner.
>
> But then it would be a Bonanza!
I flew a Sport 10 years ago it was a very nice plane but slow and only had
two seats.

[Jim Macklin]

The Sundowner has 4 seats and is still slow. They did make
a Musketeer Super a long time ago, fixed gear 200 hp, C/S
prop and 4 big and 2 small seats.



"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
|
| "B A R R Y" > wrote in
message
| ...
| > On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 14:23:28 -0700, "Aluckyguess"
| > > wrote:
| >
| >>I wish my cherokee 180 would do 160 Knots. I would put
a garmin 430 and
| >>an
| >>s-tec in it and call it good.
| >
| > I feel the same for my Sundowner.
| >
| > But then it would be a Bonanza!
| I flew a Sport 10 years ago it was a very nice plane but
slow and only had
| two seats.
|
|

[Ronnie]

I'm also happy to provide details about our Aztec if
you want to consider an Aztec instead of the Duchess.

Ronnie

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> I'll echo Matt's post.
>
> I'll also be happy to tell you why we turned in our leased 182RG, bought
> an Aztec and are willing to pay $250 per hour to operate it. I can give
> you our current insurance rates and pilot times as well as reasons that we
> chose the Aztec over other twins. I can also tell you what we had to do
> to get rated and qualified for the insurance.
>
> The groups have heard my story before and I'm sure they don't need a nap.
> Jim
> CFI/CFII/MEI
>
> Feel free to email me... remove the nospams
>
>
>
>