Best Single Pilot IFR Plane

Nice plane!! If envy is indeed one the 7 deadly sins, then damn me!!

OBTW, what's the fuel burn at cruise, and range of your MU2??

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise.

11,500lb
1552hp
Preasurized
Radar
Known Ice
300kts
31,000'


Mike
MU-2


"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...
There must be people on the newsgroup that fly single pilot
IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These people
don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
My question is for these people ...

What sort of planes are you flying?

Thanks. Range, speed and fuel burn vary a lot with altitude and
temperature, but typical fuel burn at cruise in the mid 20s is 85GPH. No
wind range with IFR reserves is listed as 1395nm but this is unachievable in
practice. A more realistic range number is 1200nm. Coast to coast requires
one fuel stop going east and two (rarely three) going westbound.

The original poster said that he wanted to be able to get places on a
schedule. What that requires depends on where you are and where you are
going, but to me it requires radar, known ice, high altitude capability and
range.

Mike
MU-2


"Windecks" wrote in message
om...
Nice plane!! If envy is indeed one the 7 deadly sins, then damn me!!

OBTW, what's the fuel burn at cruise, and range of your MU2??

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise.

11,500lb
1552hp
Preasurized
Radar
Known Ice
300kts
31,000'


Mike
MU-2


"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...
There must be people on the newsgroup that fly single pilot
IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These
people
don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
My question is for these people ...

What sort of planes are you flying?

The original poster said that he wanted to be able to get places on a
schedule. What that requires depends on where you are and where you are
going, but to me it requires radar, known ice, high altitude capability
and
range.

I think there are two issues he suitability for single-pilot use and
capability to tackle weather. The two sorta work against one another -
probably the easiest to fly plane IFR is something like an 182, but you're
not going to be tackling much weather. Conversely, a plane like Mike's MU-2
is very capable, but you've got to ante up to very high proficiency
standards. (Mike, are your insurers Ok with you flying alone in clouds?
I've heard they're starting to get very sticky about turbines twins being
flown single-pilot.)

In reality, we don't choose planes that are good for single-pilot IFR - we
choose planes that suit our mission (and constraints, particularly costs)
and then ante up what it takes to fly them safely IFR. For me, a
non-professional IFR pilot who gets maybe 5 hours a year actual in my
non-iced heavy single, this means scrubbing a lot of flights.

I think that is the big fallacy with new instrument pilots - that they can
truly fly in any weather and can meet hard schedule committments. It takes
a lot of airplane and a lot of training/experience to be able to
consistently tackle IFR weather with reasonable risk. I'd guess that on any
given mission, I can make it VFR 80% of the time. IFR cuts my scrubs in
half so I can go 890% of the time, but I still have a 10% scrub rate even
with the the ticket. Ice is the big issue for me.

In reality, I use IFR more for flying security and convenience rather that
tackling weather. It's just a lot easier to file IFR and follow ATC's
instructions rather than keeping track of everything yourself, especially
with all the airspace restrictions these days.

- Mark

"markjen" wrote:
I think that is the big fallacy with new instrument pilots - that they can
truly fly in any weather and can meet hard schedule committments. It takes
a lot of airplane and a lot of training/experience to be able to
consistently tackle IFR weather with reasonable risk. I'd guess that on any
given mission, I can make it VFR 80% of the time. IFR cuts my scrubs in
half so I can go 890% [I assume you meant 90%?] of the time

There's a lot of truth in that.

I've completed a lot of trips VFR that I wouldn't have dared taken if I
didn't have the IFR option in my pocket. That means both getting a
pop-up if conditions change in flight, and the ability to file IFR the
next day or a few days later for a return flight.

half so I can go 890% [I assume you meant 90%?] of the time

Yes, 90%, sorry.

- Mark

My insurance doesn't require anything except annual recurrent training at
one of two places. Other than that requirement, there are no restrictions.

Mike
MU-2






"markjen" wrote in message
news:Et4zb.200680$Dw6.744902@attbi_s02...
The original poster said that he wanted to be able to get places on a
schedule. What that requires depends on where you are and where you are
going, but to me it requires radar, known ice, high altitude capability
and
range.

I think there are two issues he suitability for single-pilot use and
capability to tackle weather. The two sorta work against one another -
probably the easiest to fly plane IFR is something like an 182, but you're
not going to be tackling much weather. Conversely, a plane like Mike's
MU-2
is very capable, but you've got to ante up to very high proficiency
standards. (Mike, are your insurers Ok with you flying alone in clouds?
I've heard they're starting to get very sticky about turbines twins being
flown single-pilot.)

In reality, we don't choose planes that are good for single-pilot IFR - we
choose planes that suit our mission (and constraints, particularly costs)
and then ante up what it takes to fly them safely IFR. For me, a
non-professional IFR pilot who gets maybe 5 hours a year actual in my
non-iced heavy single, this means scrubbing a lot of flights.

I think that is the big fallacy with new instrument pilots - that they can
truly fly in any weather and can meet hard schedule committments. It
takes
a lot of airplane and a lot of training/experience to be able to
consistently tackle IFR weather with reasonable risk. I'd guess that on
any
given mission, I can make it VFR 80% of the time. IFR cuts my scrubs in
half so I can go 890% of the time, but I still have a 10% scrub rate even
with the the ticket. Ice is the big issue for me.

In reality, I use IFR more for flying security and convenience rather that

tackling weather. It's just a lot easier to file IFR and follow ATC's
instructions rather than keeping track of everything yourself, especially
with all the airspace restrictions these days.

- Mark

Citation CJ1!!

It ain't cheap, but it is the BEST.

Not even close to the best. I have a friend with part of one (Netjets
share) . With the two pilots and two average size passengers and a Labrador
it can't go from San Diego to Sun Valley without refueling in a modest
headwind if its warm. The problem is that at FL350 it will only go about
350kts and even a modest headwind at that altitude is well over 100kts. I
forget which engines the CJ1 uses but the engines in the CitationJet cycled
out pretty fast so if you weren't flying long legs the engines would cycle
out well before overhaul. Piaggio and Premier are much better.

Mike
MU-2

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

Citation CJ1!!

It ain't cheap, but it is the BEST.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news
Not even close to the best. I have a friend with part of one (Netjets
share) . With the two pilots and two average size passengers and a
Labrador
it can't go from San Diego to Sun Valley without refueling in a modest
headwind if its warm.

Wrong.

The problem is that at FL350 it will only go about
350kts and even a modest headwind at that altitude is well over 100kts.

At FL350, it does 371 to 385, depending on weight.

I
forget which engines the CJ1 uses but the engines in the CitationJet
cycled
out pretty fast so if you weren't flying long legs the engines would cycle
out well before overhaul.

Geez...since you're so omniscient, I think you'd know that data. The engines
in the CJ/CJ1 are VERY different from the old 500 series.

http://www.williams-int.com/product/1a.htm

Piaggio and Premier are much better.

One a vibrator, the other isn't SP certified.

Geez!!!

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news
Not even close to the best. I have a friend with part of one (Netjets
share) . With the two pilots and two average size passengers and a
Labrador
it can't go from San Diego to Sun Valley without refueling in a modest
headwind if its warm.

Wrong.

It is a fact.


The problem is that at FL350 it will only go about
350kts and even a modest headwind at that altitude is well over 100kts.

At FL350, it does 371 to 385, depending on weight.

Its pretty obvious that you are getting your info from their marketing
materials and have never owned or flown a turbine plane. The Cessna
marketing data is all based on ISA temperatures and the real temperatures in
the US are ISA +10C to ISA +20C extracting a huge performance penalty.

I
forget which engines the CJ1 uses but the engines in the CitationJet
cycled
out pretty fast so if you weren't flying long legs the engines would
cycle
out well before overhaul.

Geez...since you're so omniscient, I think you'd know that data. The
engines
in the CJ/CJ1 are VERY different from the old 500 series.

Again you seem to be operating from total ignorance. The CitationJet uses
F44-1A engines


http://www.williams-int.com/product/1a.htm

Piaggio and Premier are much better.

One a vibrator,
The Avanti is considerably quieter than the CJ1/2


the other isn't SP certified.

It isn't? Check again

Mike
MU-2