Getting back in to flying and aircraft selection

Alexb2000 said:
Agreed cabin class helps.... A LOT!. Still the general public views an ERJ-145 as a teeny tiny puddle jumper. Only marginally better than a turbo prop. Anything smaller is just.... well.... suicidal.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I'm fully aware of that. Mom at least flew on small planes in the 60s when my grandfather was an executive at General Foods. My guess is they had a Twin Bonanza or something, maybe a Queen Air or Commander. Anyway, they had stairs, so she was happy and expected that any plane I flew should have stairs. Climbing on the wing is just barbaric.

DavidWhite said:
I have the opposite problem. All of my passengers typically love flying with me, and everytime I sent out the mass "Im flying to the beach" text to my group of friends it's first come first serve because the plane fills up too fast. It make me still wish I had the fleet.
Click to expand...

I think you've got a few differences. For one, your friends are mostly high school/college age kids. They're the sort more interested in the fun/adventure aspect that many adults have gotten too boring to enjoy. Plus, dude! It's the beach! And only 45 minute flight helps.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I know your Mooney is fast, but, 4 hours at 70 MPH is 280 miles. How are you doing that in 40 minutes?
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried to drive from Austin to Port A on the weekend during the summer? It's 200 or so road miles and you need to wait for the ferry. That can take an hour by itself.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh yes, I'm fully aware of that. Mom at least flew on small planes in the 60s when my grandfather was an executive at General Foods. My guess is they had a Twin Bonanza or something, maybe a Queen Air or Commander.
Click to expand...

If avgas showed the least sign of returning to say $3 I'd buy a Twin Bonanza with an air stair. I LOVE that couch and those huge seats. Reminds me of a 57 chevy, classic aircraft.

Clearly your mom flying in the past helps a lot. Maybe she is sending you a signal that you NEED cabin class.:dunno:
 
I take my dad down to the valley occasionally for his work, and he always complains about his back hurting. I have made the reccomendation of a Meridian however my sincerity was met with a dirty look.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Climbing on the wing is just barbaric.
Click to expand...

That gave me a chuckle, thanks.

See my thread on the Aerostar. They look fast sitting on the ground, has a fold down hatch with built in stairs, and goes like stink. More than one has been misfueled with JP.

There is a perception from the gen pop that anything with the fans on the outside of the engine is just death in a metal can(or -- gulp, fabric). I had a lady once that was pretty well read, and kind of worldly ask me once who I called to get permission to take my plane from TX to CO. Did I have to call the TX authorities, or CO, or both, or NM too, or was it federal, or how did that work. I told her I go to the airport, get in my plane, start the engine and go wherever and whenever I want. She was as my English friend says - gobsmacked.
 
Alexb2000 said:
If avgas showed the least sign of returning to say $3 I'd buy a Twin Bonanza with an air stair. I LOVE that couch and those huge seats. Reminds me of a 57 chevy, classic aircraft.
Click to expand...

Definitely one of the coolest aircraft ever produced. Actually, if you found one with GO-480s you could probably run it on auto fuel.

Clearly your mom flying in the past helps a lot. Maybe she is sending you a signal that you NEED cabin class.:dunno:
Click to expand...

I should point out shenot been a happy flier and I she's somewhat avoided flying with me, even though she thinks I'm good at it since I have an instrument rating. More than anything, GA airports are harder to get to from Manhatttan than commercial, doubly so since she can't drive. A cabin class wouldn't help there much.

I've told her that if she wanted to buy me a 421 I wouldn't complain. She has made it clear I have a better chance of getting struck by lightning. Since she used to fly with me about once a year and I see that dropping to 0, that makes even less point.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would sell a P180 to replace it with about anything that's not a P180. It has a lot of issues - KA200 or Citation definitely.

But its interior is really nice, I will admit.
Click to expand...

Theirs performs well regularly seeing air speeds over 400 knots, on the same fuel burn as a KA. The only way a KA is going to experience 400 knot air speed is if it is disassembled and shipped to the destination via Fed-Ex. Avantair is putting up some impressive numbers with their fleet of Piaggios as well. However, the $7M entrance fee does not represent a value proposition I can understand.
 
DavidWhite said:
Have you ever tried to drive from Austin to Port A on the weekend during the summer? It's 200 or so road miles and you need to wait for the ferry. That can take an hour by itself.
Click to expand...

OK, I understand now. My question, with a Mooney, why Port A? How about Mexico or Florida? Somewhere the water doesn't smell like S.

Just don't let Ted tell you a twin is required:)
 
docmirror said:
That gave me a chuckle, thanks.

See my thread on the Aerostar. They look fast sitting on the ground, has a fold down hatch with built in stairs, and goes like stink. More than one has been misfueled with JP.
Click to expand...

When my mom says "stairs" she means "cabin class." An Aerostar would definitely not be sufficient.

A 340 would have been. I thought about 340s when I bought the Aztec, partially for that reason. Of course, the Aztec was cheap (relatively), reliable (sort of) and great for hauling dogs, and the 340 would have been less reliable and great for hauling mom. Since I hauled far more dogs than mom, seems I made the right choice.

Although turning the pressurization knob up to 14k just long enough for mom to fall asleep...
 
Alexb2000 said:
OK, I understand now. My question, with a Mooney, why Port A? How about Mexico or Florida? Somewhere the water doesn't smell like S.

Just don't let Ted tell you a twin is required:)
Click to expand...

My parents have forbade me from flying to Mexico, and Florida is kids far for a day trip.
 
Trimup said:
Theirs performs well regularly seeing air speeds over 400 knots, on the same fuel burn as a KA. The only way a KA is going to experience 400 knot air speed is if it is disassembled and shipped to the destination via Fed-Ex. Avantair is putting up some impressive numbers with their fleet of Piaggios as well. However, the $7M entrance fee does not represent a value proposition I can understand.
Click to expand...

They are fast. The charter outfit I used to fly for operated one for an owner. Negative characteristics included:

-Purchase price
-Breaks a lot
-Low fuel capacity
-Longer block times than the Commander 1000 it replaced despite higher speeds (see low fuel capacity)
-$300k+ gear overhaul every 10ish years (I forget specifics)
-"Different" in crosswinds

They said after owning it a month or two, the owner said "Why did I buy this piece of ****?" The pilots responded "We were wondering the same thing."

Alexb2000 said:
OK, I understand now. My question, with a Mooney, why Port A? How about Mexico or Florida? Somewhere the water doesn't smell like S.

Just don't let Ted tell you a twin is required:)
Click to expand...

A twin is always required! :D
 
I've represented numerous clients who expressed interest in P-180's until they reviewed the pro-forma. Many of them subsequently bought King Airs or Citations, but none have ever been able to gag down the purchase price spread for the Pasta Rocket. The last such search was when new B-200's were ~$5.4MM and P's were ~$7.5MM.

Trimup said:
Theirs performs well regularly seeing air speeds over 400 knots, on the same fuel burn as a KA. The only way a KA is going to experience 400 knot air speed is if it is disassembled and shipped to the destination via Fed-Ex. Avantair is putting up some impressive numbers with their fleet of Piaggios as well. However, the $7M entrance fee does not represent a value proposition I can understand.
Click to expand...
 
I would like a twin, but almost tripling the fuel burn for an extra 20-30 knots is difficult to justify.
 
DavidWhite said:
I would like a twin, but almost tripling the fuel burn for an extra 20-30 knots is difficult to justify.
Click to expand...

If you're doing that, you're doing it wrong. Twinkie is 50% more fuel for similar speed and cabin to the Mooney.
 
DavidWhite said:
Well I was thinking 310 or Baron. Twinkies never have really tickled my fancy.
Click to expand...

In that case yes, 2-2.5x fuel burn for 15-25 kts faster.

But, you're getting way more airplane. So compared to an A36, 206, or Lance...
 
Problem is I don't need anything bigger space wise, if I upgraded it would be because of speed. Although my next airplane will be something with a little wheel in back.
 
I actually am thoroughly pleased with the Mooney speed. I have been lusting after super cubs and regular cubs with tundra tires lately.
 
DavidWhite said:
I have been lusting after super cubs and regular cubs with tundra tires lately.
Click to expand...

Yup. Me too. Looks like a whole lot of fun and something different every time you fly. I am looking at the non-cub cubs, the real ones are crazy expensive. I guess because they have commercial applications in AK.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Yup. Me too. Looks like a whole lot of fun and something different every time you fly. I am looking at the non-cub cubs, the real ones are crazy expensive. I guess because they have commercial applications in AK.
Click to expand...

Yeah the experimental ones are cheaper because they can't use them for commercial ops.
 
wabower said:
I've represented numerous clients who expressed interest in P-180's until they reviewed the pro-forma. Many of them subsequently bought King Airs or Citations, but none have ever been able to gag down the purchase price spread for the Pasta Rocket. The last such search was when new B-200's were ~$5.4MM and P's were ~$7.5MM.
Click to expand...

I think they are emulating Ferrari's wacky pricing, 150% of a comparable Porsche.
 
Trimup said:
I think they are emulating Ferrari's wacky pricing, 150% of a comparable Porsche.
Click to expand...

Ferrari's are priced to demand. Every car produced in Maranello is sold before it leaves the factory, more often before it's even produced. Ferrari does not build cars on speculation or quota, Porsche does.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Ferrari's are priced to demand. Every car produced in Maranello is sold before it leaves the factory, more often before it's even produced. Ferrari does not build cars on speculation or quota, Porsche does.
Click to expand...

I am aware of Ferrari's marketing model and spin. I was speaking to the objective part of the purchase equation IE a 458 Italia and 911 Turbo S offer essentially equivalent levels of performance. A Turbo S costs about $150K while a 458 Italia is about $230K. I am well aware that value of anything is precisely what an arms length transaction reveals a buyer will pay but there is no way the marginal utility of a 458 Italia is 150% greater than the Turbo S hence my assertion that the Ferrari pricing model is irrational or wacky. Another obvious example of pricing that dramatically deviates from any objective measure of marginal utility is Harley and Honda.
 
Trimup said:
The Tuesday after Easter the FBOs 182T and I have a date with a CFI, so not left in the dust entirely, but looking less and less like it makes sense to buy one.
Click to expand...

Well, rusty does not come close to describing what a sorry excuse I was for a pilot out there today. I knew it wasn't going to be pretty after 20 years and it surely wasn't, instructor is a good guy so we will just work through it. I found the G1000 falling down simple to operate and probably the area I best acquitted myself.
 
Trimup said:
Well, rusty does not come close to describing what a sorry excuse I was for a pilot out there today. I knew it wasn't going to be pretty after 20 years and it surely wasn't, instructor is a good guy so we will just work through it. I found the G1000 falling down simple to operate and probably the area I best acquitted myself.
Click to expand...

I would've been beyond surprised if, after 20 years, a single flight got you back up to snuff.

Keep at it, you'll be ready again soon. In the mean time, you can decide what color you want your King Air 200 to be. ;)
 
Trimup said:
Well, rusty does not come close to describing what a sorry excuse I was for a pilot out there today. I knew it wasn't going to be pretty after 20 years and it surely wasn't, instructor is a good guy so we will just work through it. I found the G1000 falling down simple to operate and probably the area I best acquitted myself.
Click to expand...

But it felt goooooood anyway - right?

I'm a bit surprised that you grabbed up the G1000 so quick. I"m an old fart from the analog days and never played much video games so I have a lot more trouble mastering those new gizmos. But - on the other hand, when I laid off flying for 16 years, I got back in a Grumman Tiger, and made some of the best takeoffs and landings ever. The CFI couldn't believe I hadn't touched a plane in so long. I'm a stick and rudder guy, not a gizmo guy. :D
 
If I had the money I would have two planes, one with two seats for putzing around in, and one with two engines for traveling around in...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would've been beyond surprised if, after 20 years, a single flight got you back up to snuff.

Keep at it, you'll be ready again soon. In the mean time, you can decide what color you want your King Air 200 to be. ;)
Click to expand...

Going to pull the trigger on a Super Decathlon as soon as I can find the right one. Wife says we are staying at the lake from July until school starts so Silver Eagle may be out and a turbine powered 206/207 on some floats may be in. I wasn't going to complicate things with floats this early in the process but given an hour to the strip or walk down the dock I think floats win.
 
Trimup said:
Going to pull the trigger on a Super Decathlon as soon as I can find the right one. Wife says we are staying at the lake from July until school starts so Silver Eagle may be out and a turbine powered 206/207 on some floats may be in. I wasn't going to complicate things with floats this early in the process but given an hour to the strip or walk down the dock I think floats win.
Click to expand...

Goose...
 
Trimup said:
Turbine Beaver would probably be easier to buy and/or resell but they really don't make sense for my mission.
Click to expand...

Obviously I can have an instructor fly with me in my Part 91 aircraft. I can also let let my instructor fly my Part 91 aircraft without me as long as I don't charge him. So lets say I let him use my Super Decathlon without charge and he instructs me without charge will this arrangment violate Part 91 or invoke Part 135 operation? The aircraft will be owned by a foreign entity via a trust and be self insured. I have specialized personal liability for when I am onboard and the instructor has his own instructors liability policy that covers him on both Part 91 and Part 135 aircraft. I am going to ask an aviation lawyer as well as soon as I can find one to hire that isn't a complete jerk, but figured you guys could give me a solid indication.
 
There's nothing that says your instructor has to charge you. I know plenty of instructors who instruct for free.
 
With 105 hours I would be talking with my insurance before I bought anything. I imagine they might have some input on qualification for any turbine seaplane. That assumes you want to be able to fly it on your own without having to have an instructor aboard. If not... shouldn't be a problem for any of the aircraft you listed.

How about a Caravan on floats? Factory turbine (much better than any conversion IMO). EASY to resell, EASY. Non-pressurized so no flight safety and high time requirements. Hauls a lot of bodies. Some of the other aircraft you listed might be easy to buy, but they also might be slow sellers when you are ready to move on to something else. Also, the Caravan is an easy aircraft to fly with low hours and not a lot of complexity.
 
Alexb2000 said:
With 105 hours I would be talking with my insurance before I bought anything. I imagine they might have some input on qualification for any turbine seaplane.
Click to expand...

Trimup said:
The aircraft will be owned by a foreign entity via a trust and be self insured. I have specialized personal liability for when I am onboard
Click to expand...

After running the numbers it makes financial sense for me to self insure any hull worth $1M or less. My personal liability insurance only requires operation in compliance with FAA regulations.



Alexb2000 said:
How about a Caravan on floats? Factory turbine (much better than any conversion IMO). EASY to resell, EASY. Non-pressurized so no flight safety and high time requirements. Hauls a lot of bodies. Some of the other aircraft you listed might be easy to buy, but they also might be slow sellers when you are ready to move on to something else. Also, the Caravan is an easy aircraft to fly with low hours and not a lot of complexity
Click to expand...

wabower said:
the amount of purchase money at risk is so much different that you'd be likely to "spill more" during the ownership period
Click to expand...

Wayne was answering about specific examples but I think one can extrapolate to say that the financial risk related to a limited ownership period is always going to be higher on more expensive airframes.

Solid Caravan on floats costs about as much as a Beaver and unless they have the Texas Turbines engine conversion they don't exactly jump off the water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMDPuqUqOOI

Our lake can be busy so a shorter takeoff run is better. This cub represents the extreme, it could takeoff on the fourth of July. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7WtLOy9Cik

My mission for the floatplane is the same as it would be for the Silver Eagle; safely build time while I figure out what I want to eventually own and fly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There's nothing that says your instructor has to charge you. I know plenty of instructors who instruct for free.
Click to expand...

So the FAA has no history of taking issue with quid pro quo arrangements as long as dollars are not exchanged?
 
Trimup said:
So the FAA has no history of taking issue with quid pro quo arrangements as long as dollars are not exchanged?
Click to expand...

First, I could be reading this whole thread wrongly, so let me start with what I understand you to be asking:
"I have / am going to get a big fancy plane. I want to arrange with a CFI to instruct for no cash payment. In return, I'll let him fly my big fancy plane (without me) once in a while.
1. Would anybody ever find out?
2. Would this count as paying my CFI?
3. Is there anything wrong/illegal about this kind of quid pro quo

I'm no expert on any of this, but my understanding is that:
1. Who knows; probably not?
2. Yes, for the purposes of the courts, your CFI's income tax, etc., this would count as you paying your CFI. And this kind of an agreement would probably be a contract (verbal or otherwise) that could be enforced by a court (if, for example, you took instruction but then refused to allow your CFI to fly the plane by whatever were the agreed-upon terms).
3. There's nothing wrong with any of this that I can see. Unless your CFI is one of those rare ones who don't hold a commercial ticket (in which case I don't know how that works) or has some other reason for not being allowed to accept payment, there's nothing wrong with paying them through use of your plane. That doesn't take you out of CFR 91/61, doesn't suddenly mean you need 100-hour inspections (as it's your plane, not the CFI's), etc...

Am I missing something here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top