If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:52:29 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote: "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... Since price was one of the requirements (probably the only critical one), nothing fits. Yup..."Beer budget with champagne tastes", or should I say "requirements"?. There are several on trade-a-plane in my budget without run-out engines (at least by the numbers) and wouldn't fall into the AD for several years of flying. John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I think that you need to start with the budget and see what is availible.
I'm not sure what the relevance of some of the other items is. What is magical about 200kts? Why do you care if it will go fast at low altitudes? If you are going any distance, you will be high and if you are only going a short distance a faster cruising speed won't matter much. Often, making an intersection departure will save more time than and additional 20kts. 190kts or 210kts won't make much difference on even the longest flight. Why do you want a potty? They stink and YOU have to empty them. I have had potty in my airplane for 6 yrs and it has never been used. Why does it need to be "cabin class" unless it is eight seats or greater? Your specs add up to a big, heavy airplane with a lot of frontal area. It is going to require big, powerful, thirsty engines to pull it through the air. All this is going to cost multiples of the proposed budget. You may have great reasons for every spec but you need to narrow it down quite a bit. Mike MU-2 "john szpara" wrote in message s.com... On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:11:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport" wrote: I don't think anything fits all those requirements. Those are best case scenario. I figure I will have to give up one or more things. But I may as well lay all the cards on the table, and hope for the best hand. John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
If his exposure is covered somehow then why wouldn't he? :-)
Mike MU-2 "Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message ... Gee Mike, if I point this out to my banker will he spring for a C-90 loan? denny "Mike Rapoport" The real point of my post was that turbine engine failures are so rare that even if every one resulted in a fatal accident, they would still have a lower fatal accident rate then piston twins. It doesn't matter what happens after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place. So, from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a King Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator training. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Those trips to FlightSafety will eat up a lot of that 20-30K per year
budget. It is a real commitment once you get an airplane that requires simulator training unless you are fortunate enough to live near the sim facility. If you go for two days at a time it will take at least four including getting there and back. Twice a year is eight days which is a lot of *estra* time to carve out of your annual schedule. Mike MU-2 "john szpara" wrote in message s.com... Seems to me that in this class of used airplane the primary cost issue isn't purchase price but rather annual insurance and maintenance costs. Any pressurized, cabin class twin you buy for $150K will probably require a LOT of maintenance! How much are you willing to spend annually to keep your bird flying at peak safety levels? Are you willing to devote maybe a week I'm figuring $20-30k/year for 100 hours flying. Extra money would be available for the (inevitable) unexpected. I won't even attempt to buy unless the revenue stream is in place for it. I would also be using it partly for my business. (and several thousand dollars) every year for recurrent training? Absolutely. I'm figuring one or two trips a year to Flightsafety. Recurring training will be a given. I don't want to be a hack, weekend pilot. I take it very seriously. John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"john szpara" wrote in message s.com... On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:11:44 GMT, "Mike Rapoport" wrote: I don't think anything fits all those requirements. Those are best case scenario. I figure I will have to give up one or more things. But I may as well lay all the cards on the table, and hope for the best hand. The one that'll kick it into the higher price bracket is the potty, since only the 421 has that feature available. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
Mike Rapoport wrote: It doesn't matter what happens after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place. So, from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a King Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator training. Or a turbine single like a TBM-700 or PC12. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
What is magical about 200kts? Why do you care if it will go fast at low
altitudes? If you are going any distance, you will be high and if you are only going a short distance a faster cruising speed won't matter much. Often, making an intersection departure will save more time than and additional 20kts. 190kts or 210kts won't make much difference on even the longest flight. I don't know what is magical about 200kts. Just a target, I suppose, for being able to travel longer distances in a reasonable period of time. You make good points about speed, though. Why do you want a potty? They stink and YOU have to empty them. I have had potty in my airplane for 6 yrs and it has never been used. You've never been on a long trip with my wife. When we're driving, we have to stop every hour for the restroom. That's tough to do on a long flight, especially if you're at the flight levels and she tells you she "has to go". Not such a big deal for me, if I have a relief tube, but for her its a different story. Why does it need to be "cabin class" unless it is eight seats or greater? So the passengers don't have to climb over seats to get in and out? Your specs add up to a big, heavy airplane with a lot of frontal area. It is going to require big, powerful, thirsty engines to pull it through the air. All this is going to cost multiples of the proposed budget. OK, so some things will have to be sacrificed. My list is only stuff I'd like to have. Reality (and pocketbook) will dictate what I *can* have. You may have great reasons for every spec but you need to narrow it down quite a bit. That's why I'm here. Ask the questions now, before I write a big check. John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
The one that'll kick it into the higher price bracket is the potty, since only the 421 has that feature available. I've seen 414s with them. You might even be able to do it with a 340, if you do a 4 seat config. John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:41:16 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote: Those trips to FlightSafety will eat up a lot of that 20-30K per year budget. It is a real commitment once you get an airplane that requires simulator training unless you are fortunate enough to live near the sim facility. If you go for two days at a time it will take at least four including getting there and back. Twice a year is eight days which is a lot of *estra* time to carve out of your annual schedule. Sorry, I should have said that the $20-30k was for insurance, maintenance, gas, and tiedown. It didn't include the training. Again, if some of this is tax deductable, due to business expense, then it's a whole different ballgame than a hobby. Also, I'm self employed, and will have the time to spend on the training. John Szpara Affordable Satellite Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:07:22 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote: The real point of my post was that turbine engine failures are so rare that even if every one resulted in a fatal accident, they would still have a lower fatal accident rate then piston twins. It doesn't matter what happens after an engine failure if the engine doesn't fail in the first place. So, from an engine failure standpoint, you would probably be safer flying a King Air 90 without a multi rating than flying a Baron with annual simulator training. Creative thinking, and probably true. -Nathan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|