If I won the Lottery

[Kyle Boatright]

I don't buy lottery tickets, but let's just say I came up with a bunch of
money. Enough to satisfy my aviation needs and wants. One of the airplanes
on my list would be something like a Pilatus PC-12 - a big, pressurized,
turboprop single which would be an outstanding X/C aircraft for any
destination in N. America.

As background, I've got about 1,000 total hours. All VFR, with a bunch of
X/C trips. I currently fly an RV-6 which has a lot of dyamic performance,
but is a very simple airplane. It and rental Cessnas, my old Tomahawk, and
a few other similar aircraft are the limits of my experience.

Beyond the obvious ratings issues (Complex, High performance, IFR, etc),
what would a logical step-up sequence be for moving up to something like the
Pilatus? Gain proficiency in an Arrow, then move on to a Malibu, then....

Just curious about what additonal training/experience it would take to
effectively transition to something like the Pilatus.

[Blueskies]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message ...
>I don't buy lottery tickets, but let's just say I came up with a bunch of money. Enough to satisfy my aviation needs
>and wants. One of the airplanes on my list would be something like a Pilatus PC-12 - a big, pressurized, turboprop
>single which would be an outstanding X/C aircraft for any destination in N. America.
>
> As background, I've got about 1,000 total hours. All VFR, with a bunch of X/C trips. I currently fly an RV-6 which
> has a lot of dyamic performance, but is a very simple airplane. It and rental Cessnas, my old Tomahawk, and a few
> other similar aircraft are the limits of my experience.
>
> Beyond the obvious ratings issues (Complex, High performance, IFR, etc), what would a logical step-up sequence be for
> moving up to something like the Pilatus? Gain proficiency in an Arrow, then move on to a Malibu, then....
>
> Just curious about what additonal training/experience it would take to effectively transition to something like the
> Pilatus.
>
>

Instrument rating...Arrow, Malibu...sure.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

> Beyond the obvious ratings issues (Complex, High performance, IFR, etc),
> what would a logical step-up sequence be for moving up to something like
> the Pilatus? Gain proficiency in an Arrow, then move on to a Malibu,
> then....
>
> Just curious about what additonal training/experience it would take to
> effectively transition to something like the Pilatus.

Why bother with step ups?

Since you had just come into all of this money, with 1,000 hours, perhaps
the best thing would be to get a good instructor that has plenty of time and
experience in a big pressurized turboprop, and do a lot of flying with him.
Do a bunch of intensive training, then take him along on some challenging
trips. Fly in the mountains, fly in the bad weather, fly into short and
high strips, fly in the busy complex airspaces, and expand your capabilities
with your new mount.

Make sense? I would not think that their could be many step ups that could
truly prepare you for a Pilatus.
--
Jim in NC

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

"Kyle Boatright" > writes:
> I don't buy lottery tickets, but let's just say I came up with a bunch
> of money. Enough to satisfy my aviation needs and wants. One of the
> airplanes on my list would be something like a Pilatus PC-12 - a big,
> pressurized, turboprop single which would be an outstanding X/C
> aircraft for any destination in N. America.

My understanding (from talking to those who fly them) is that
something like a Citation II, faster, cheaper, quieter and goes
further -- as long as your flight hours per year are not too high.
(Aka, the Citation has a low fixed cost and high hourly cost, while
the Pilatus has a high purchase price but a much lower hourly cost.)

Chris

[Kyle Boatright]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> I don't buy lottery tickets, but let's just say I came up with a bunch of
>> money. Enough to satisfy my aviation needs and wants. One of the
>> airplanes on my list would be something like a Pilatus PC-12 - a big,
>> pressurized, turboprop single which would be an outstanding X/C aircraft
>> for any destination in N. America.
>
> How about a Kodiak?

The issue isn't really the airplane. Shoot, if I got enough $, I'd just buy
one of each. Of course, I'd need a lot of hangar space, but with all that
money I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. ;-)

The question is/was what I would need to do to become a proficient pilot in
a substantially more complex, systems dependant airplane...

[Jeff[_1_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>I don't buy lottery tickets, but let's just say I came up with a bunch of
>money. Enough to satisfy my aviation needs and wants. One of the
>airplanes on my list would be something like a Pilatus PC-12 - a big,
>pressurized, turboprop single which would be an outstanding X/C aircraft
>for any destination in N. America.

Seems like I remember that this scenario actually happened to one of our
posters a few years back...I was just getting into the group then. Any one
remember the fella that hit the jackpot and was trying to figure out which
planes (plural) to buy?

jf

[Robert M. Gary]

On Dec 17, 5:07 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> I don't buy lottery tickets, but let's just say I came up with a bunch of
> money. Enough to satisfy my aviation needs and wants. One of the airplanes
> on my list would be something like a Pilatus PC-12 - a big, pressurized,
> turboprop single which would be an outstanding X/C aircraft for any
> destination in N. America.
>
> As background, I've got about 1,000 total hours. All VFR, with a bunch of
> X/C trips. I currently fly an RV-6 which has a lot of dyamic performance,
> but is a very simple airplane. It and rental Cessnas, my old Tomahawk, and
> a few other similar aircraft are the limits of my experience.
>
> Beyond the obvious ratings issues (Complex, High performance, IFR, etc),
> what would a logical step-up sequence be for moving up to something like the
> Pilatus? Gain proficiency in an Arrow, then move on to a Malibu, then....
>
> Just curious about what additonal training/experience it would take to
> effectively transition to something like the Pilatus.

Boeing Business Jet.

[Jay Honeck]

> Beyond the obvious ratings issues (Complex, High performance, IFR, etc),
> what would a logical step-up sequence be for moving up to something like the
> Pilatus? Gain proficiency in an Arrow, then move on to a Malibu, then....

Hell, if you've got all that money, who cares about a "step-up
sequence"? Just buy one of each of the following, and fly 'em every
day:

- Cub (fun)
- Maule (funner)
- Helio Courier (funner yet!)

- Columbia/Cessna 400 (cool)
- Malibu Meridian (cooler)
- Pilatus PC12 (coolest!)

- Eclipse Jet (fast)
- Cessna Mustang (faster)
- Falcon (fastest)

While you're at it, how 'bout some warbirds?

- P-39 Airacobra
- P-51 Mustang
- F-86 Sabre
- F-4 Phantom II
- F-16 Viper

Dang, this is fun, spending all your money!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> - F-16 Viper


I've noticed this elsewhere. When did they stop calling the F16 the Falcon?

[Jay Honeck]

> > - F-16 Viper
>
> I've noticed this elsewhere. When did they stop calling the F16 the Falcon?

I don't know anyone who calls it by its proper name, "Fighting
Falcon". I have no idea why the name "Falcon" didn't catch on....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig601XLBuilder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> - F-16 Viper
>> I've noticed this elsewhere. When did they stop calling the F16 the Falcon?
>
> I don't know anyone who calls it by its proper name, "Fighting
> Falcon". I have no idea why the name "Falcon" didn't catch on....


But it did catch on. A Google of the terms...
"F-16 Fighting Falcon" = 353,000
"F-16 Falcon" = 186,000
"F-16 Viper" = 48,100

It is just recently (last year or so) that I've heard the term Viper
used. I saw a high school friend of mine in 2001. He knows I fly and I
knew he was in the NG flying. When I asked him what he flew now he said,
"Falcons."

[Jay Honeck]

> It is just recently (last year or so) that I've heard the term Viper
> used. I saw a high school friend of mine in 2001. He knows I fly and I
> knew he was in the NG flying. When I asked him what he flew now he said,
> "Falcons."

Makes me glad to hear that. I've always liked the "Falcon" name
better.

Maybe "ViperDoc" can chime in here as to why the two names?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[F. Baum]

On Dec 18, 1:32 pm, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>
> It is just recently (last year or so) that I've heard the term Viper
> used. I saw a high school friend of mine in 2001. He knows I fly and I
> knew he was in the NG flying. When I asked him what he flew now he said,
> "Falcons."

Did you tell him about your retirement "Plan" ;)
FB

[Gig601XLBuilder]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:32 pm, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
>> It is just recently (last year or so) that I've heard the term Viper
>> used. I saw a high school friend of mine in 2001. He knows I fly and I
>> knew he was in the NG flying. When I asked him what he flew now he said,
>> "Falcons."
>
> Did you tell him about your retirement "Plan" ;)
> FB
>

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 17, 8:30 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>
> The issue isn't really the airplane. Shoot, if I got enough $, I'd just buy
> one of each. Of course, I'd need a lot of hangar space, but with all that
> money I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. ;-)
>
> The question is/was what I would need to do to become a proficient pilot in
> a substantially more complex, systems dependant airplane...

Advanced ratings are always a plus. You would need an insrument rating
because you wouldnt want to fly one of these down low. Other than that
its just time in type. These turboprops are not that hard to fly, and
most of them are geared toward single pilot operation. Some provide
factory checkouts and training.

[F. Baum]

On Dec 19, 9:39 am, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 1:32 pm, Gig601XLBuilder > wrote:
> >> It is just recently (last year or so) that I've heard the term Viper
> >> used. I saw a high school friend of mine in 2001. He knows I fly and I
> >> knew he was in the NG flying. When I asked him what he flew now he said,
> >> "Falcons."
>
> > Did you tell him about your retirement "Plan" ;)
> > FB
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes you do.)- Its about your make believe benifits package from
another thead.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Dec 18, 9:34 pm, john smith > wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder wrote:
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >> - F-16 Viper
>
> > I've noticed this elsewhere. When did they stop calling the F16 the Falcon?
>
> As the story was told to me... around the time the original Battlestar
> GALACTICA series was popular on television, the first F-16's began to be
> deployed. One of the squadrons deployed to Europe/Germany were the ones
> who coined the VIPER moniker on aircraft.

Has this migrated from "If I won the Lottery" to "dear Santa"

In that case I want my Mighty Matilda back.


Bertie

[Don Byrer]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:27:11 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>Boeing Business Jet.

Okay...since ya HAD to go there...I counter with a C-130.

IMHO, a bit slower, noisier, but a LOT more fun...especially after
watching the Youngstown OH (YNG) guys land on the tactical strip,
short, unpaved...very cool.
WAY more useful for me. AND I can take my car along.. so thhpppt. :)

(yeah, I know I been away awhile)

--Don

Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[John Clear]

In article >,
Don Byrer > wrote:
>
>Okay...since ya HAD to go there...I counter with a C-130.
>
>IMHO, a bit slower, noisier, but a LOT more fun...especially after
>watching the Youngstown OH (YNG) guys land on the tactical strip,
>short, unpaved...very cool.
>WAY more useful for me. AND I can take my car along.. so thhpppt. :)

Since you had to go there, I'd go for a LC-130 instead. All the benefits
of a standard C-130, plus you can land on snow.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/lc-130.htm

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Jim Macklin]

I'd get an AC130, if available. Could be handy along the southern border.


"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| Don Byrer > wrote:
| >
| >Okay...since ya HAD to go there...I counter with a C-130.
| >
| >IMHO, a bit slower, noisier, but a LOT more fun...especially after
| >watching the Youngstown OH (YNG) guys land on the tactical strip,
| >short, unpaved...very cool.
| >WAY more useful for me. AND I can take my car along.. so thhpppt. :)
|
| Since you had to go there, I'd go for a LC-130 instead. All the benefits
| of a standard C-130, plus you can land on snow.
|
| http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/lc-130.htm
|
| John
| --
| John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/
|

[www.guyvan.com]

Hello,
there is a brand new screen saver available on http://www.guyvan.com/telechargements/
Its about Florennes Belgian air force base with vintage planes. and of
course some pano view of F16
AND OF COURSE Its FREE