1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
OP, soooo you are a highly refined day trader?.
Integrating Initial Training & Time Building
- Thread starter DR750S
- Start date
Understood.
Landing Fees
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
- Messages
- 387
- Display Name
Display name:
Landing Fees
I'd just get an R182. Good enough for me, not good enough for Nate, he likes his sticks sticking out all the time.
And, then there was one (1)! You were right about the Piper Malibu/Matrix. Both the Lyco and Conti engines for that particular OEM and airframe combination have a notorious history. Going back to the 80s, things look bleak for the powerplant and they apparently had hydraulic and nose gear issues as well. There were some system wide improvements that got added between Malibu and Matrix, however. They also cleaned up the nose gear and hydraulics issues. But, from what I can glean from a distance, they still had engine related issues even switching from Conti to Lyco. From the 90s through the early 00s, it looks like some of the problems were worked out.
Outside of engine related issues that lead to frequent repairs and bloated annual maintenance costs, the aircraft does seem to sit in a class all by itself, or with very little company in terms of its performance. Don't find many pilots online writing about how the aircraft is easily upset in the pattern, won't climb very well at altitude, is too slow in the cruise phase, or is somehow lacking in power. Most who write about it and who came from Cessna 182s and P210s, say the Piper Malibu/Matrix performance is noticeably a cut above in the SEL class. However, not many will say that its maintenance cost is lower. I found a handful who said that there ownership experience has been near flawless - but precious few say that. So, it does look like you were right about this airplane.
The Mirage?
Having said that (I guess you can tell I really like this thing), what would you conclude about a much later model year Mirage? I'm talking something later than 2010? For example, I found a 2014 Mirage for $499. That's not a bad price. What would you think about a low time, very late model year, no engine pre-buy squawks Mirage? It would come out of the chute with G1000 and Conventional back-up.
It is a very capable and gorgeous little airplane. A shame that Piper and Conti did not work better together at conception to design a reliable engine for it. If you could find one without the looming engine problems (the compression ratio is only 7.5:1 which is relatively low) and do normal preventative maintenance checks, would that be sufficient to make it worthwhile in your mind. Or, does its organic history simply cause you to pass on it regardless? In other words, are you completely done with Piper "Mirage" or is there still hope. (Yes, I like this bird!)
So, back to the Bonanza. When you say you "don't want cross-linked yokes" I assume you mean the kind where the yokes are connected in front of the panel instead of behind it (most planes connect behind the panel)? I mean, they're all cross-linked.But I can't say I blame you there, those do tend to eat up a lot of space in front of the panel IMO.
Well, I knew they were 'mechanically connected' as they both move at the time.
Yes, I did mean that I don't like the visible connection in the cockpit. I've read however, where some people are the exact opposite. They love the physical connection across both yokes to be visible. Reported sometimes times as "nostalgic" in look and feel, some like it.Turbo Normalization (I would think) is probably the better (best) alternative for GA engines given their constant power output requirements in normal operations. What do you think about either Tornado Alley systems turbo normalization for the Bonanza A36/G36? Either of them with GAMI Injectors and a goo CHT monitor to keep things optimized for lean of peak would appear to be a nice arrangement for the Bonanza, no? Found a nice 1996 B36TC with Whirlwhind III TN on a 300hp IO 550 w/GAMI fuel injectors. Garmin G500/GTN750/GTN650 plus conventional back-ups. 1933 TT since new. 361 TT since major overhaul on engine. Asking $389. Does not seem like a bad deal, if the Pre-Buy concurs with seller's statement of condition.
No. I design the algorithms that drive them in the currency markets. What do you do?
That's a very good isolation: "For the first plane." You clearly understand the challenge. This has been a big function of learning what will be required of me as an IFR pilot in IMC downrange in the jet. I've been trying to balance the need to not cut tradition short by ignoring the fundamentals of conventional instruments during initial training, while also making sure I don't get hit with having to unlearn what I've learned merely in making a latter transition to Glass. The VLJ will obviously be Glass. But, I want to know what's going on underneath the Glass at root cause fundamental level as well. It is not so much because I fear Glass failure as you hear constantly talked about. But, because sometimes Glass will mask root causation and the need to understand and appreciate the output from fundamental (conventional) instruments. There is also the function of market availability, too.
So, I've given a ton of thought to this question and I'm still exploring both options, including the third option, a hybrid cockpit with both fully arrayed Glass and fully arrayed Conventional. What I mean by "fully arrayed" is the ability to fly IFR/IMC using all on-board Glass only, or all on-board Conventional only. Now, that package of avionics would either need to already exist in a Bonanza or bogey free Mirage (meaning one that is not prone to legacy engine problems). Or, I would have to retrofit such a hybrid cockpit after purchase. I'm ok with doing that. This way, I could tailor my Initial Time Building phase in the single engine to swing back and forth between Conventional only and Glass only IFR/IMC work. Getting the best of both world's until moving on to the twin turbine.
One question that comes to my mind at least is: When is enough, enough? When is it ok to release myself from Conventional instruments and allow myself to wholeheartedly engage and embrace Glass. I'm sure the answer will in part have a lot to do with Conventional Proficiency, but I don't know (yet) whether there are other considerations that need addressing at this level.
I'm seeing a fair amount of Bonanza B36 and A36 cira 1980s with either G500 or G600 and some (but not a lot) with GTN750 or GTN650. A few with the older GNS530 and GNS530W. I'm not seeing many people who have taken their Bonanza A36 or B36 circa 1980s and upgraded it to G1000, for example. I'm sure there has to be one or two out there - I just have not seen one (yet). I've seen a few Avidyne Bonanza systems out there, but again - very rarely. It seems to be all about Garmin these days with light aircraft in GA. Apparently, this is not a market that Honeywell or Collins wish to contribute to - though I wish there was a Honeywell Primus Apex Light Aircraft version. That would be astonishing to see something like that.
I'm going to be in the SEL for a minimum of 300hrs (bare minimum) before moving on to the twin turboprop. That gives me 25 hours per month after the Private to start developing some VFR skill while simulating as much Instrument as legal restrictions and common sense dictate. If I get the twin turboprop next, then I'll train Multi-Engine before the Instrument then work with my twin turboprop Mentor to meet the insurance requirements. That sounds like the long route to obtaining a Multi-Engine given the length of time I'd need to fly with a Mentor before being insurable enough to do the Multi-Engine solo. However, that's not a concern for me, because it gets me flying a twin turboprop which is necessary to prep for the VLJ. On the other hand, if I don't get the twin turboprop after finishing 300hrs of VFR skills development, then I remain in the SEL and use it to finish the Instrument Rating. I'd then use the SEL for the 300+hrs Instrument Time Building phase. That would give me 600+ TT in the SEL (300 VFR/300 IFR). That's 50 hours per month in time building split between VFR and IFR. From there, on to the next phase with the twin turboprop training & ME rating/mentor & insurance time building (whatever the insurance company wants). After the ME rating and insurance requirement with the Mentor, I'll begin the twin turboprop Time Building phase for 2,000+ hours That's about 83 hours per month for two years.
Plan A: 300+ in the SEL (Private) and roughly 2,700+ in the Twin Turboprop (ME and Instrument) as prep for VLJ
Plan B: 600+ in the SEL (Private & Instrument) and roughly 2,100+ in the twin turboprop (ME) as prep for VLJ
Plan C: 40+ in Rented SEL (Private) and roughly 3,000+ Twin Turboprop (ME and Instrument) with heavy Mentor injections until fit for full-time solo as prep for VLJ
Any changes to your original thoughts now based on these three potential plans?
I would suggest you should buy the turboprop already equipped with glass or put it in.[/quote]
Yes, no doubt. The 441 or 90 will definitely be Glassed. I want to simulate as much as possible the VLJ avionics. That probably means G1000 or G3000, if I can get it. I have not seen either a 441 or 90 with G3000, however. But, Garmin says that its G3000 is ready for the King Air. If I go with Plan C, that leaves a full $1m to "spurge" on the Twin Turboprop. That would bring either a
And, then there is this little gem for $175K installed. The Sandel Avilon EFIS for the King Air:
The $185 installed makes room for either an F90 or B200. Both would be rather high time airframes, however. But, for King Air, I'm told that "high time" has a slightly different meaning as the airframe itself is very robust and tolerates higher cycles.
That's just about how I'm leaning right now, but will remain flexible until the last day of the decision.
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,805
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Did I miss what the end goal was, why that goal was chosen, and how the end result will be utilized?
Last edited:
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
It is irrelevant. I believe this account is a BOT! Notice, way, way to wordy. And never actually acts on anything but rather talks around things, redirects questions, follows up too often, etc. I challenged him to start a new thread citing progress...nada. A person cites progress, a bot just tries to keep things spinning around collecting reactions and learning while tooling really people around.
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Sinistar, I actually know a few people that are just like the OP, doubt he is a BOT.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Hey, the landing gear stays down because it gets used. If you have to tuck it away, you must not be making enough landings!
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
I have my doubts that someone with such an upside down view of how to accomplish such a challenging task could have such a successful career. If he is for real, I expect him to quit pretty early on when he realizes how boring sitting in a plane for so many hours is. Grinding hours getting qualified to fly a jet is not something a highly aggressive person is going to be able to do.
Then there’s the shocking realization of how much time will be required to stay current, and the reality that flying a light jet through weather isn’t going to get you to your destination fresh and ready to go. It’s a Full time job with max limits of flight time for a reason.
Then there’s the shocking realization of how much time will be required to stay current, and the reality that flying a light jet through weather isn’t going to get you to your destination fresh and ready to go. It’s a Full time job with max limits of flight time for a reason.
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
Okay guys I'm actually serious.
Look at post #45 and then look at post #47. They are only 2 minutes apart. Now look at the amount of content in post #47, many, many paragraphs and even figures included.
How many people out there could produce post #47 in just 2 minutes???
Has this guy just driven me insane
Look at post #45 and then look at post #47. They are only 2 minutes apart. Now look at the amount of content in post #47, many, many paragraphs and even figures included.
How many people out there could produce post #47 in just 2 minutes???
Has this guy just driven me insane
denverpilot
Tied Down
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Not commenting on your sanity which may or may not be in-. That said, the guy is a troll. Why on Earth does it take folks so many posts to recognize it?Okay guys I'm actually serious.
Look at post #45 and then look at post #47. They are only 2 minutes apart. Now look at the amount of content in post #47, many, many paragraphs and even figures included.
How many people out there could produce post #47 in just 2 minutes???
Has this guy just driven me insane
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,712
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
The weird thing is you know its a troll but even that feels off/wrong. No one can write that much generic, useless fact so quickly.
If it is some AI, let's turn it into the FBI...maybe it's the "enemy" learning how to be pilots via POA
If it is some AI, let's turn it into the FBI...maybe it's the "enemy" learning how to be pilots via POA
1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Okay guys I'm actually serious.
Look at post #45 and then look at post #47. They are only 2 minutes apart. Now look at the amount of content in post #47, many, many paragraphs and even figures included.
How many people out there could produce post #47 in just 2 minutes???
Has this guy just driven me insane
Like I said, doubt he is a BOT, no way a bot can respond to questions like he does.. Trolling us, YES
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Okay guys I'm actually serious.
Look at post #45 and then look at post #47. They are only 2 minutes apart. Now look at the amount of content in post #47, many, many paragraphs and even figures included.
How many people out there could produce post #47 in just 2 minutes???
Has this guy just driven me insane
I've done the same thing on one of these threads - I wrote a giant post and when I hit "post reply" I hit a limit I've never seen before - PoA apparently has a 10,000 (character/word?) limit, and I exceeded it. So I cut the second half, hit Post, created a new post, pasted, hit Post again, got bumped by the timeout between posts for a couple seconds, hit Post a third time, and voila - Two giant posts a couple minutes apart.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
The issue is that you do NOT want to be doing training in an airplane with a turbo. Get a normally aspirated one for training.
I wouldn't even do a turbonormalizer on a plane I was going to use for training. The TN Bonanzas are very popular, but that's because very few people train in a Bonanza. They train in a Cessna and THEN buy the Bonanza to go places, which is what a turbo is good for.
Remember that throughout your training, you'll rarely go above maybe 5000 feet AGL. Ground reference maneuvers, airwork, takeoffs and landings, instrument approaches, they all happen close to the ground. It takes a lot of time and distance to climb above 10,000 feet, and below 10,000 feet all the turbo will do is wear out and slow you down. You really need to be doing 300nm+ legs on a regular basis for the turbo to be worthwhile, and you won't be doing that in training.
Save the "turbo" for the turboprop.
I wouldn't bother with conventional if I were in your position.
I would normally advise people to do the instrument rating with conventional instruments, because it is WAY easier to go from steam to glass than the other way around: Flying on steam gauges helps you build the picture in your head, while glass feeds a lot to you. Going from steam to glass can happen in an hour. Going from glass to steam is easily a 20-hour process if you're really doing it right.
In your case, though, you're going to end up on glass so there really isn't much point to doing anything with steam. The only reason people fly steam gauge airplanes any more is that they can't afford glass! (Okay, there's plenty of old curmudgeons around who'll say otherwise, but they probably haven't flown glass enough to appreciate it.)
So, skip the steam. Go with glass.
Another thing - If you want to do both, you're talking about switching seats at a minimum. There are planes that have glass on the left side and the full six-pack of steam gauges on the right side, but flying from the right seat is different too, so you don't necessarily want to switch seats. If you want to do both from the left seat, that means you're buying two airplanes. There is no airplane with room for both a glass panel and a full six-pack on the same side, and even if there were they'd be in the wrong places. Closest you might come is that I think there might be an experimental glass cockpit setup (ie for experimental airplanes) that lets you depict the six-pack on the screen.
Nope - It can't be done. There is no G1000 retrofit available for anything smaller than a King Air. If you want G1000 in a Bonanza, you buy a G36 Bonanza (2006+ model years), which came from the factory with the G1000.
G3000 for the King Air? Where? I'd be surprised to see that, since it's been less than two years since the G1000 NXi got certified and they'd probably like to sell a few of those to recoup their R&D and certification costs. They may have piggybacked the certification on the G1000 STCs which would help somewhat, though.
Also, they don't really have much competition in the King Air full-glass retrofit market, though maybe they're feeling the pressure now that the Bendix/King Aerovue is certified. I don't really expect those to sell, though.
And, then there is this little gem for $175K installed. The Sandel Avilon EFIS for the King Air:
The $185 installed makes room for either an F90 or B200. Both would be rather high time airframes, however. But, for King Air, I'm told that "high time" has a slightly different meaning as the airframe itself is very robust and tolerates higher cycles.
Looks cool, but you'll probably have the jet before it gets certified, if it ever does! They announced it in 2015, it's still not certified, and there aren't any estimates or even rumors about when it will be. So, pretty much vaporware.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,419
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Fast Eddie B
I checked in early with some recommendations as to initial training aircraft, which apparently were not taken to heart.
Let me stipulate that keeping a "big picture" as to future goals and training requirements may serve one well.
But if the OP came to me as a student, I would do my best to get him to focus.
Instructors learn about "building blocks" of knowledge. I would do my best to get the OP to set aside dreams of turboprops and pondering about VDP's and concentrate on the matter at hand - learning to fly.
If I were teaching "the effect of power and pitch on performance" or "adverse yaw in turns" or "left turning tendencies in a propeller driven plane", I would want the focus to be right there on those building blocks - not in some future about how things might be different in a turboprop or jet or whatever.
But it's the student's dime. If he insisted on integrating each and every building block into the "big picture", I would insist that this be segregated into oral sessions devoted to that, separate from the job at hand.
In addition, I would encourage the student to focus on the Private Pilot ACS. There is plenty of stuff to learn there as a foundation, without needing to jump ahead.
To be fair, the OP has recently said this: "I've been trying to balance the need to not cut tradition short by ignoring the fundamentals of conventional instruments during initial training...". But his posts seem to give lie to that attempt at balance by focusing so heavily on technology and future plans.
My advice to him is to put his thumb on the scale so as to get back to basics. A lot of this other stuff strikes me as a lot of thrashing around. It may work, but I've seen it before and it often does not end with the desired result.
Let me stipulate that keeping a "big picture" as to future goals and training requirements may serve one well.
But if the OP came to me as a student, I would do my best to get him to focus.
Instructors learn about "building blocks" of knowledge. I would do my best to get the OP to set aside dreams of turboprops and pondering about VDP's and concentrate on the matter at hand - learning to fly.
If I were teaching "the effect of power and pitch on performance" or "adverse yaw in turns" or "left turning tendencies in a propeller driven plane", I would want the focus to be right there on those building blocks - not in some future about how things might be different in a turboprop or jet or whatever.
But it's the student's dime. If he insisted on integrating each and every building block into the "big picture", I would insist that this be segregated into oral sessions devoted to that, separate from the job at hand.
In addition, I would encourage the student to focus on the Private Pilot ACS. There is plenty of stuff to learn there as a foundation, without needing to jump ahead.
To be fair, the OP has recently said this: "I've been trying to balance the need to not cut tradition short by ignoring the fundamentals of conventional instruments during initial training...". But his posts seem to give lie to that attempt at balance by focusing so heavily on technology and future plans.
My advice to him is to put his thumb on the scale so as to get back to basics. A lot of this other stuff strikes me as a lot of thrashing around. It may work, but I've seen it before and it often does not end with the desired result.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
LOL. Ya think?
That’s the basis for my assessment that he’ll never make it to the airport. Walter Mitty.
In the timeframe since the first post, at any good accelerated program he’d already be Private certificated and could have even done it in a twin at some of them by now, since budget isn’t a problem. And been starting on the Instrument rating.