Light jets

Roger Wilco said:
None of the above. Classic cart-before-the-horse, except that a horseless cart is a lot less likely to create a smoking hole in the planet. Let your buddy earn his certificates and accumulate 1500 hrs or so, advancing to more demanding aircraft as his experience grows. Then revisit the matter.
Click to expand...
He is willing to pay a pro pilot while he is gaining hours.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’d still recommend the airplane progression previously suggested. He’ll simply have a “corporate pilot” in the meantime.
Click to expand...
Obviously he isn't going to be taking his private check ride in a jet. We have a corporate pilot who is only flying 300 hours a year lately. The owner has a couple of homes throughout the US and is a huge hunter. He just doesn't want to fly commercial, and he wants a private plane that he can eventually fly.
 
Tony R said:
The owner has a couple of homes throughout the US and is a huge hunter. He just doesn't want to fly commercial, and he wants a private plane that he can eventually fly.
Click to expand...
Has he by chance looked into hiring (at a haughty high salary) a hunting scout and mentor to teach him the ways of large caliber blackpowder hunting.. one shot, one chance, and limited range…..”asking for a friend”. Lol
 
Tony R said:
He has people advising him.
Click to expand...
With all due respect - per Ricky Bobby - he needs different people advising him. Such as, telling him to get a PPL first, then instrument, then commercial, then when that day arrives figure out what he needs/wants to own. He doesn't know now, and no advisors are going to substitute for real world experience. With zero experience, he doesn't even know if he likes to fly.

I have a bad feeling about this guy, and I hope I'm wrong. I hope he doesn't have more money than sense and gets in way over his head and becomes a Hoover report.
 
Tony R said:
He has people advising him.
Click to expand...
If you have the opportunity, you might consider advising the people advising him that critical engine is only applicable to aircraft design and certification. You might go on to explain that certificated aircraft are fully controllable regardless of which engine fails. From personal observations, in light twin and turboprop airplanes that I have flown the difference is barely--if at all--noticeable.

The only real-world application for the term critical engine, that I've ever found, occurs in a little briefing room with a CFI or examiner. The examiner who issued my MEL rating, after sitting through my dissertation on all of the myriad factors that pertain to Vmc, closed the discussion with this memorable bon mot: "The critical engine [brief dramatic pause] is the one that's still running. Take good care of it--don't let it overheat and for god's sake don't run it out of gas."

Sorry for the digression. Back to your scheduled programming.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
Boy, you can cut the wealth envy here with a knife. How dare he!

Got news, this is not the first HNWI to do this and do it successfully.
Click to expand...
No wealth envy. I'm just picturing a guy who is wanting a jet today who hasn't flown a plane yet, hasn't gotten a 3rd class yet, etc. If he had a few years experience under his belt, had the Instrument, something high performance, then it would sound like he's a bit more pragmatic. I just have a picture of a guy getting a plane that is too much for him and giving into temptation and go fly it when he's not there yet.

The JFK Jr syndrome if you will. So some HNWI do it successfully, and some don't.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Boy, you can cut the wealth envy here with a knife. How dare he!

Got news, this is not the first HNWI to do this and do it successfully.
Click to expand...
My post was intended in good humor, and also as a metaphor to the risks of flying/buying beyond one’s skills/training. I think it is ill advised to purchase an airplane that you are not comfortable flying at the time of purchase without a lot of flying experience to have the knowledge of what you’re really getting yourself into (not just the pilotage, but the maintenance, storage, fuel, insurance). It’s easy for a new person to it to overlook some very substantial operating expenses.
 
I don’t think the range on some of these airplanes are what many here think.
Rockymountain said:
If he needs a pro pilot, or mentor pilot, both of which are probably a good idea, you lose one seat and probably about 200 pounds having to charter the human every flight. So the information really needed is what city pair is he flying, and how many passengers in number and weight and weight in cargo is he planning to travel. Most of the planes mentioned will not do that nonstop with anything onboard
Click to expand...
Was just going to say the same thing.
Not as much range in some of these very light jets as people think.
 
I'm trying to figure out why someone who is apparently independently wealthy would want to live in Connecticut and visit Florida. Or vice versa. I know nice people in both places, but they're both too crowded. The only explanation I can come up with is that he has family in one or both places...in which case the answer is similar to Sam Kinison's answer to starving people - he should move the family. He doesn't need an airplane, he needs a truck.
 
Tony R said:
Obviously he isn't going to be taking his private check ride in a jet. We have a corporate pilot who is only flying 300 hours a year lately. The owner has a couple of homes throughout the US and is a huge hunter. He just doesn't want to fly commercial, and he wants a private plane that he can eventually fly.
Click to expand...

The "no turboprops" is a puzzling restriction. If I had the resources, I would get a Pliatus PC-12 or TBM. If this guy is primarily in it for hunting, then it doesn't make sense to limit the destinations to long paved runways. People without an understanding of aviation often equate a a TBM to a Piper Cherokee because they both have one fan up front. I am wondering if there is a more justified reason for your friend saying "no turboprops".
 
Tony R said:
The reason for no turboprops is he wants 2 engines. The only exception is the Vision because of the chute.
Click to expand...
What? There's about three single-engine turboprops (M series, TBM, PC12) and a gazillion twin turboprops.

Tony R said:
The king air was on the list but losing the critical engine on take-off spooks him.
Click to expand...
I know you said he has people advising him, but I think he needs new people. I only have about an hour and a couple landings in a King Air, but I believe that every King Air has automatic rudder bias standard and is about as easy to fly as a single, provided you actually follow the checklist and adjust the friction locks and don't stomp on the wrong rudder pedal.

Tarheelpilot said:
pc-24
Click to expand...
Budget seems to preclude that, but it's definitely a great airplane.

James_Dean said:
Unless I'm not thinking correctly, the practical problem here is how to progress to PIC of a jet in this scenario.
Click to expand...
There are ways... But generally speaking, I agree, that is the challenge.

James_Dean said:
You can fly with the pro, but he will be PIC and you guys can't log anything in a single pilot jet.
Click to expand...
If your pro is a CFI, it's no different than training in a rental Cessna. CFI logs because he's giving instruction (61.51(e)(3)), and the student logs dual received.

James_Dean said:
I agree with the posts above that buy an SR22 and fly the hell out of it until you get your instrument rating and a few hundred hours. Then you could probably reasonably step up to a VisionJet, but I'd still have a mentor along for a good chunk of time, and you will still need that type rating and the flying ability that requires. Then after 500 hours of turbine time you can move into something with longer legs and more speed.
Click to expand...
This is the way. Cirrus has been selling SR-22s to non-pilots since day 1 and they are far better at getting people from zero to hero than anyone else. I would even suggest a conversation with them about starting this guy in the jet right away, they might even have that figured out. If not, they've done enough to get commonality between the SR22 and the Vision Jet that it's a logical step up, and they're selling these things to lower-time owner pilots and they haven't been sued into oblivion yet, which shows that they're generally doing the right stuff!

Maybe buy the SR22 *and* the Vision Jet and use the SR22 for shorter trips or trips sans family, and use the Vision Jet for longer trips or trips with family. You'll want to hire a pro who's also a CSIP, but I would bet Cirrus will help you find the right person if you don't already have someone lined up.

Albany Tom said:
I'm trying to figure out why someone who is apparently independently wealthy would want to live in Connecticut and visit Florida.
Click to expand...
This is VERY common. Lots of people with businesses in New York, but they don't want to live in NYC and they definitely don't want to live in Jersey so they live in CT. And a TON of them have places in Florida that they visit on the weekends; I don't understand it either as I think Florida is massively overrated... But, that's how it is.

sarangan said:
The "no turboprops" is a puzzling restriction. If I had the resources, I would get a Pliatus PC-12 or TBM. If this guy is primarily in it for hunting, then it doesn't make sense to limit the destinations to long paved runways. People without an understanding of aviation often equate a a TBM to a Piper Cherokee because they both have one fan up front. I am wondering if there is a more justified reason for your friend saying "no turboprops".
Click to expand...
Excellent point - It should also be pointed out that the SR22 (G7), Vision Jet (G2), and TBM (940&960) all have the Garmin emergency autoland function, and the PT-6A/E on the front of that TBM is one of the most reliable engines there is.

I'm not sure the TBM really would be attractive to this buyer anyway, though. While it's cheaper to operate than the Vision jet, and has similar (and slightly better) performance, it also costs more to purchase. I think staying in the Cirrus ecosystem and going SR22-Vision Jet just makes way more sense than any other solution if we're talking about a zero-to-hero owner pilot.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Boy, you can cut the wealth envy here with a knife. How dare he!

Got news, this is not the first HNWI to do this and do it successfully.
Click to expand...
There is something to the idea of buying your last plane first. If you have the resources it is certainly doable. I do cherish the experience that my piston twin time gave me, and flying a TP or a jet is relatively straight forward in comparison.
 
May I build on that? WHEN you buy your last plane first is important. It's also a matter of trying to fly your last pane first when you're not ready for it. And not really knowing what your first and last plane should be because you've not flown a single hour yet.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
This is VERY common. Lots of people with businesses in New York, but they don't want to live in NYC and they definitely don't want to live in Jersey so they live in CT. And a TON of them have places in Florida that they visit on the weekends; I don't understand it either as I think Florida is massively overrated... But, that's how it is.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is. But if the guy sold the business and is going to live off that windfall, then why not move rather than stay near where the business was? My bet is "comfort zone". Even if you like the NYC features, getting there from CT is a PITA.

100% agree he needs better advisers. I'd say free google AI would give him better data. As you and others have pointed out, he's worried about silly things and not considering short field performance of a king air or pc-12 vs a jet.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
….Cirrus has been selling SR-22s to non-pilots since day 1 and they are far better at getting people from zero to hero than anyone else. …
Maybe buy the SR22 *and* the Vision Jet ….
Click to expand...
The most common model I see around here is place an order for the jet and buy into an SR-22 4-way partnership that the sales center has setup for exactly this purpose. Do the CSIP zero to CSEL syllabus and, about the time you’ve flown for 12-months as a CSEL in the SR-22, the jet is ready for you to take delivery.

Go to Memphis and do the type rating, pay a stiff insurance premium for Y1 and run with it.

The naysayers of zero to turbine forget we’ve been doing this in .mil for most of the time airplanes have existed on the earth and most other nations take zero time people and put them in an airliner in 250 hours of instruction.

When your job is to train to fly, the risk decisions change and the discipline to pay someone to tell you it’s a dumb flight to take changes.
 
Last edited:
One of the partners in our 421C used to own a Beechjet and a PC12. There is a reason why he's a partner in the 421 now. It fits his mission perfectly and operating costs are half what they used to be. We can take 7 adults and baggage from PDK to the Bahamas with one quick turn fuel stop in Florida. Total time is just over 3 hours. In the jet or the PC12 he was at the 1.7 to 2.0 hour mark.

I get wanting to burn jet A but sometimes you have to do the math. A 441 or 425 would fit well and be nicer than a King Air C series.
 
Albany Tom said:
It absolutely is. But if the guy sold the business and is going to live off that windfall, then why not move rather than stay near where the business was? My bet is "comfort zone". Even if you like the NYC features, getting there from CT is a PITA.

100% agree he needs better advisers. I'd say free google AI would give him better data. As you and others have pointed out, he's worried about silly things and not considering short field performance of a king air or pc-12 vs a jet.
Click to expand...
We all still have bosses. His wife doesn't want to leave CT. CT has some very nice areas. Our airports are plentiful.

Our circle has a very experienced sovereign pilot. He flies a Sovereign. I get that a TurboProp works for your situation, but he wants a jet. Again we are not delusional about jumping into a jet with zero hours. We intend to hire a pro and take our time to learn. I'm very low time and he wants me to get typed in it too.

I'm currently flying an archer. I get it, not ready for a jet, but in 5 years I should be. What that means is he hires a pro to skoot him around. A single pilot jet should be simple enough for a 1000 hour pilot.
 
Tony R said:
We all still have bosses. His wife doesn't want to leave CT. CT has some very nice areas. Our airports are plentiful.

Our circle has a very experienced sovereign pilot. He flies a Sovereign. I get that a TurboProp works for your situation, but he wants a jet. Again we are not delusional about jumping into a jet with zero hours. We intend to hire a pro and take our time to learn. I'm very low time and he wants me to get typed in it too.

I'm currently flying an archer. I get it, not ready for a jet, but in 5 years I should be. What that means is he hires a pro to skoot him around. A single pilot jet should be simple enough for a 1000 hour pilot.
Click to expand...
I could have purchased a jet for half the price I paid for my turboprop. There’s a reason turboprops exist.

Can he articulate why he wants a “jet” other than being able to say at parties that he owns a jet? (If not, the SF50 fits the bill nicely.). Speed of a turboprop, cost of a jet.
 
dans2992 said:
I could have purchased a jet for half the price I paid for my turboprop. There’s a reason turboprops exist.

Can he articulate why he wants a “jet” other than being able to say at parties that he owns a jet? (If not, the SF50 fits the bill nicely.). Speed of a turboprop, cost of a jet.
Click to expand...

Apparently, “because he can” is good enough for the guy spending the money and that’s the only opinion that really matters.
 
Tony R said:
I'm currently flying an archer. I get it, not ready for a jet, but in 5 years I should be. What that means is he hires a pro to skoot him around. A single pilot jet should be simple enough for a 1000 hour pilot.
Click to expand...
Just to qualify that a bit, a single-pilot jet should be simple enough for a 1,000-hour jet pilot. I'm a 1,000-hour piston pilot and what I know is that I could easily fly a jet, but would run into trouble the first time I got a curveball (weather, traffic, ATC, engine problem, systems problem, etc.) because I would instantly and rapidly get behind the plane. Being behind the plane is the root cause of far too many lavish funerals.

Even with a mentor pilot for 1,000 hours, you might be insulated from curveballs enough that you don't really develop the ability to keep up with the plane in all situations. You can absolutely do this, if you have very large supplies of money and humility. But you probably do need to spend some of both of those supplies on intermediate steps between an Archer and a Citation.
 
James_Dean said:
There is something to the idea of buying your last plane first.
Click to expand...
I thought a large part of the reasoning behind that was to avoid the money "wasted" maintaining/upgrading a plane you wouldn't keep and the overhead cost of buying/selling more than one plane. That seems to be a negligible consideration in this case.
 
Tony R said:
I'm currently flying an archer. I get it, not ready for a jet, but in 5 years I should be. What that means is he hires a pro to skoot him around. A single pilot jet should be simple enough for a 1000 hour pilot.
Click to expand...
Flying an Archer around for 1000 hours will NOT make you ready for a jet.

Also, single pilot jets aren't necessarily "simple", especially the older ones. They're just barely simple enough that you don't NEED a second pilot.

I really think the Cirrus route is the way to go, as they are the only ones who have specifically designed their jet for the owner-pilot market. Maybe you could make that argument for the Mustang/M2, but Cirrus is the company that has been selling to the non-pilot/HNWI owner-pilot market the most over the course of the last 20+ years, and they know their stuff better than anyone when it comes to the unique challenges thereof.

iamtheari said:
Just to qualify that a bit, a single-pilot jet should be simple enough for a 1,000-hour jet pilot. I'm a 1,000-hour piston pilot and what I know is that I could easily fly a jet, but would run into trouble the first time I got a curveball (weather, traffic, ATC, engine problem, systems problem, etc.) because I would instantly and rapidly get behind the plane. Being behind the plane is the root cause of far too many lavish funerals.
Click to expand...
Even in the TBM, there were plenty of times where it was really nice to have an FO.

iamtheari said:
Even with a mentor pilot for 1,000 hours, you might be insulated from curveballs enough that you don't really develop the ability to keep up with the plane in all situations. You can absolutely do this, if you have very large supplies of money and humility. But you probably do need to spend some of both of those supplies on intermediate steps between an Archer and a Citation.
Click to expand...
Definitely on the humility. The combination of money and humility doesn't tend to occur often.

Doc Holliday said:
The problem with turbo props are they fly right where the worst of the weather lies. In fairness some of the light jets as well.
Click to expand...
That's quite a generalization. TBMs go to FL310, same ceiling as the Vision jet IIRC. Some King Airs go to 350, even though others will normally be down in the low 20s. It's well worth defining what performance you want or need and going from there instead of just saying "No turboprops" and that sort of thing.

k9medic said:
A vast majority of all larger aircraft are 40+ year old airframes.
Click to expand...
Huh? Larger *piston* aircraft maybe. An awful lot of the 40-year-old turbines are already on sticks or in boneyards or otherwise rotting away; tons of new ones are produced every year.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That's quite a generalization. TBMs go to FL310, same ceiling as the Vision jet IIRC. Some King Airs go to 350, even though others will normally be down in the low 20s. It's well worth defining what performance you want or need and going from there instead of just saying "No turboprops" and that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

10K to FL350 are some of the worse areas to be in during convective weather. Older turboprops like C90's and Cheyenne's place you right in the lower side from 10 to 20.

A jet with the performance to get to FL400 will keep you above most weather. None of the turboprops will get you there.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The problem with turbo props are they fly right where the worst of the weather lies. In fairness some of the light jets as well.
Click to expand...
Exactly, climbing to FL410 or 450 is a very compelling case for a jet. While all the TPs and Vision are getting bounced around the jet is on top.
 
k9medic said:
Just about any eight passenger piston or turbo prop, or jet

C series king airs
400 series cessnas
Navajo series
Cessna 500 series CJs.
Hawker
G1 Israeli jet
Westwind
Click to expand...

King Airs are still in production and are still supported.

Cessna still produces versions of the Citation. The old Citations from 40 years ago are getting difficult to support,

Not sure why you are lumping hawkers, IAI jets in with this.

But with the 400 series Cessnas, the last ones rolled out in 1986. Support is waning on these and parts are getting more difficult, that’s a fact.
 
If losing a critical engine on a king air spooks him he should probably read this.

apnews.com

Dave Shapiro, groundbreaking music executive, dies in San Diego plane crash at 42

Groundbreaking music executive Dave Shapiro has died in a San Diego plane crash. He was 42. The music agency Sound Talent Group confirmed Shapiro died in the crash.
apnews.com apnews.com

I can't imagine enough pleasure flights to remain proficient to not eventually get behind when things start to snowball. Get the ppl and pay sovereign buddy to fly and sit right seat. Or chill in the back like a true baller.

This is you don't know what you don't know territory. And I definitely don't know, but at least I know it.
 
Doc Holliday said:
King Airs are still in production and are still supported.

Cessna still produces versions of the Citation. The old Citations from 40 years ago are getting difficult to support,

Not sure why you are lumping hawkers, IAI jets in with this.

But with the 400 series Cessnas, the last ones rolled out in 1986. Support is waning on these and parts are getting more difficult, that’s a fact.
Click to expand...
As an owner of both a 300 and a 400 series airplane, I am well aware of the parts support unfortunately.


You asked what "larger aircraft" and I provided examples. Pick an 8 place airplane and for the most part you are limited to a 35-40+ year old aircraft. The C560 I fly sometimes is 36 years old for that matter.
 
Most people who take up flying never get their license. Most pilots who buy a plane are not flying 5 years later. Buying your last plane first assumes you have a crystal ball, can look around corners that life will throw at you. Comparing military pilots and their training, background, hours of ground work, constant evaluations, and washouts to successful doctors, lawyers, businessmen who can afford a jet and pay for the instructors that they feel “comfortable with” is comparing apples to oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top