Am I an idiot? Low experience; high performance

All I know is I love my Bonanza. I feel way safer in that than I ever did in
my Cherokee 180. the insurance company wanted 26 hours with an instructor. I
flew by myself for the next 10. I started in a Vtail and then bought an
A36. The A36 is a nice plane. I have never had any buyers remorse.
wrote in message
oups.com...
I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
sometimes.

I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

wrote:
I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
sometimes.

I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?


I had my private at 45 hours, and I started my Arrow training at 90 hrs
TT. I had to have at least 10 before the club I was at would allow me to
solo in the Arrow. The mooney wasn't far behind.

I had a few hours in Grumman Tigers before I started the complex thing,
and that plane was the best (compared to the 150/172/warrior) for honing
attention to detail - speed management, planning ahead. A slick Tiger
prepares you for a slick Mooney.

The key will really be how thick your wallet is, and what you are
prepared to pay for insurance. You may find yourself practially
uninsurable to own a Bo or other slick fastmover at 100 hrs total time
and no Instrument rating. Or have onerous training requirements thrown
at you.

The other thing is, how proficient are you in the slow movers. If you
arent already up to par, you will be behind in a fast mover. Can you
NAIL steep turns now, to commercial standards? No.. you dont need to,
but that one maneuver, above all, indicates how well you can manage
everything (bank, rudder, power, trim - just my opinion, as learned from
my instructors). If not, go play for a bit and polish it up before
throwing money at a fast mover, complex/HP bird. Can you do an approach
stall and not sink below your target altitude. Need to be a pretty good
airman in the slow stuff before tackling airplanes that sink like bricks
when stalled.

If available, and if you have the $$.. go get 10 hours dual in the
closest to what you think you want to own. If there is a rental mooney,
bonanza or 200 hp arrow in a club or on the line somewhere you can kill
two or three birds with one stone. Get the dual, get the complex
endorsement in the process, and after the first hour or so of pattern
work, rather than burning holes, start on your instrument training. You
dont have to do ALL your time in an expensive, complex bird, but if you
are going to be burning gass in the first place, get the most for your $$.

In this process you will discover, with your instructor, if you are
ready for the plane (in the first hour, really, and can back off then if
you choose). You will also likely be learning to work with the
instructor who will likely "check you off" in your own plane, when you
get one.

These are just my opinions. Nothing more.
If you want a good cross country airplane, and can afford it, go for it.
Get the training and do it right.. And.. again, an instrument rating
will reap dividends.. even if you never fly in bad weather

Dave

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?


Some extra training and awareness goes a very long way.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

wrote:

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

Primary training has been done in Bonanzas and Cirri, you should be fine
by spending quality time with a good instructor.

Check with your insurance company, as they may have certain hourly steps
where rates might change.

On 8/28/2007 6:52:16 PM, wrote:


Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

I own and fly a turbo-normalized Bonanza primarily to commute to my customers
every week. I had about 500 hours with an instrument rating in a C172 before
making the move up to this aircraft. In my case, I spent around 12 hours with
a CFI in the right seat (and with a rented dual yoke) before becoming
comfortable with the aircraft.

As everyone else pointed out, you are wise to recognize your limitations and
address those limitations with quality CFI instruction. The Bo (and Mooney)
are faster airplanes, which require you to be thinking about and planning
your next phase of flight well before encountering it. This, in turn,
requires you to have a level of comfort with the current workload the
aircraft hands you. Get behind the workload early does not mean more time to
catch up.

Additionally, the other big issue will be that these aircraft are slippery.
Drop the nose without a throttle reduction and it won't be long before you
are at Vne. In IMC, you need to be on top of your instrument scan at all
times. I believe most complex, hi-performance aircraft these days are
equipped with an autopilot, which is a great workload reliever. Trade flying
duties with the AP to stay proficient, but allow it to do its job and give
you the breathing room you need.



--
Peter

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Faster airplanes require more planning in advance for let-downs, etc.
and the slippery airframes give you less time to recover in IMC if you
lose it for a few seconds. Lots of people would likely consider this
a cop-out, but a first class autopilot should be high on your list.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the *******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them about
as much as I did as a teenager.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
*******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
about
as much as I did as a teenager.

Peter

Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
*******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
about
as much as I did as a teenager.

Peter

Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...


Yuk, yuk...

As annoying as insurance companies can be, some of the people who routinely
attribute their own decisions to insurance and/or other regulations (which
are only rarely applicable) are a far greater irritant!

For a great example, see the current thread titled: "Can the airport ban
bicycles?" on this NG.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
*******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort
of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
about
as much as I did as a teenager.

[Missed this the first time]

Do you understand statiscally derived actuarial data? That it's only a
estimate, and that under many current laws, it's a _haphazzard_ guess?

Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...


Yuk, yuk...

As annoying as insurance companies can be, some of the people who
routinely
attribute their own decisions to insurance and/or other regulations (which
are only rarely applicable) are a far greater irritant!

Welcome to reality, most commonly refered to as "Liability Law".


For a great example, see the current thread titled: "Can the airport ban
bicycles?" on this NG.

As above.

As for trust of insurance companies (some, not all, by a long stretch) that
routinely try to weasel, have you ever considered the source of our current
liabilityphobia?