Which Airplane!!! Or a plane at all??

wabower said:
The copilot in a 'G1 is one of the busiest guys in the GA fleet. No mas.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? the only reason they have a seat on that side is so the pilot doesn't have to get up reset circuit breakers on that side.

the SIC in a G-1 is there to set radio freqs and read check lists.

I know of 3 that were being flown single pilot.
 
AcroBoy said:
If we're going to help the OP, how about a reality check into what is truly available and practical for his needs?
Click to expand...

I did my first post.

Every one thinks the Cherokee 6-300 won't do the job. I think it would, there too many doing that mission in Alaska on part 135 ops to prove it.

How many time do you think the OP will be able to go DC -> SSF with out weather delays?

Remember that is Tornado alley, Only a pilot with a death wish will try to penetrate those Squall lines in any thing but heavy iron.

So the reality of the non stop flight is wishful thinking.
 
Tom-D said:
the G-2/3/4/5s go faster on less fuel.

but the G-1 and other Dart users logged well over 5 million hours with out a single on wing failure.

I don't know if that as a record, but R/R bragged a lot about it.
Click to expand...

I know 2 guys that died in one back in 1985 after an engine failure after takeoff.

Also the Marines lost one to an engine problem also.
 
Tom-D said:
but the G-1 and other Dart users logged well over 5 million hours with out a single on wing failure.

I don't know if that as a record, but R/R bragged a lot about it.
Click to expand...

Interesting....sounds like the L1011. Had probably the best safety record of any wide-body jet and while there are still plenty of DC-10's still flying, you have to really look hard to find a Tristar flying.
 
Tom-D said:
Every one thinks the Cherokee 6-300 won't do the job. I think it would, there too many doing that mission in Alaska on part 135 ops to prove it.
Click to expand...
Tom, I love Cherokee 6's, but the best I have been able to coax out of the fixed gear version is about 135 KTAS. I seriously don't think that is going to work for the OP.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Also the Marines lost one to an engine problem also.
Click to expand...

They didn't loose it, they ran it off the end of the runway, it was repaired and became VA 128's 850. It now sets in Davis Monthan in ready reserve status with a cabin full of special tools required for the G-1 R/R.

Last I saw it was 2009.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Tom, I love Cherokee 6's, but the best I have been able to coax out of the fixed gear version is about 135 KTAS. I seriously don't think that is going to work for the OP.
Click to expand...

The only thing the 6 hasn't got is speed, It will do the load, no problems and operate on a much smaller budget than any twin offered in this thread.
 
An excerpt from an article, BY MARC E. COOK (From AOPA Pilot, November 2004.)

Today there are really two kinds of 310 owners. One is the pragmatist who wants a fast, capable airplane that's not extraordinarily difficult to fly or maintain. (Baron and 310 owners debate the relative merits of this chosen brand, but word is that the Cessna, despite being out of production for more than two decades, is not any more a maintenance burden than similarly complex airplanes.) The other owner is probably best called a practical romanticist. That describes Chuck Jessen, owner of this beautiful 1954 Cessna 310. Jessen's airplane was built at the end of 1954 and just missed its acceptance flight in that year to the Christmas holidays. (Actually, there's a third kind of early 310 owner: The crass soul who sees a dead-cheap multiengine airplane that can be run on minimal maintenance until something big goes wrong. Then another magnificent machine is essentially scrapped. This kind of owner figures prominently in the world of early vintage 310s.)
 
Tom-D said:
The only thing the 6 hasn't got is speed, It will do the load, no problems and operate on a much smaller budget than any twin offered in this thread.
Click to expand...
Okay, we are in full agreement on that part!

But, I still say that the perspective airplane buyer should consider the weight vs capacity to determine whether a 210 might be a better fit. A 210 will cost a little more than a PA32 to own/operate, but may be more useful depending on the planned load.

Thing about the 210 vs PA32 is W&B. PA32 can handle alot more cubic capacity as far as luggage, but CG has to be watched closely. A 210 on the other hand may not be able to fit as much luggage, but I have found that odds are, if you can fit it in a 210, you will be within CG.

Anyway, they are both good airplanes.
 
Tom-D said:
Great old aircraft, but they like fuel, and they would do the mission with ease.

true story, (A G-1 in the military is known as a TC-4C it was a A6 bomber trainer) We overnighted at Nellis AFB and the next morning we pack a full load of JP-5 and took off for home, midway home our APU quit. (that is where we got heat and air-conditioning) so we plodded along with no heat, after we landed whidbey, we gripped the APU.

the next day we found the APU fuel filter full of water as was the fuel control for the APU, and all the fuel lines to it.
We tried to sump the main wing tanks and couldn't because of the amount of water frozen at the bottom of the wing tanks. We put it in the heated hangar and over the next few days we dumped over 150 gallons of water from the main tanks. The ice crystal formed in the fuel would come down the main engine fuel lines hit the fuel heaters and melt, and be fed to the R/R Darts and their fuel controls would feed the fuel required to get the power needed to continue to fly.
We bore scoped the hot sections and those were the cleanest engines I ever saw, those old Darts steam cleaned them selves all the way home.

I liked the G-1, it's bullet proof, you can fly that aircraft with all the electrical circuits off and no hydraulic power. all flight controls were cable driven, and all engine controls were direct linkage.
All 9 of the TC-4Cs had in excess go 50,000 cycles when the Navy ended the A6 program.
Click to expand...

Since the APU was installed to provide AC and electric to the simulator section only in the airplane, unless it was on a training mission with the instructor and student why would it have been cold? The aircraft 's regular system should have handled the heat.
 
Back on topic

With careful shopping and a good mechanic a chieftain actually may be do able with the given budget. Purchase price becomes the biggest issue.

A421 would be better but I'm not sure if the maint would fit into the needed budget
 
Skylane81E said:
Back on topic

With careful shopping and a good mechanic a chieftain actually may be do able with the given budget. Purchase price becomes the biggest issue.

A421 would be better but I'm not sure if the maint would fit into the needed budget
Click to expand...

One overlooked part of the equation, especially on cabin class pressurized airplanes is the insurance requirement for annual training. I'm sure this doesn't come cheap from any of the providers considering the small market.
 
Okay, back to the older twins.....anybody got figures on hourly op costs.....for say 100 hrs per year:
AC 500
B58 Barron
PA31
C340
C421...or any of the piston 400s

So far, I've figured the AC500 to be around 500/hr from talking to some owners. Have no clue about the others.
 
Any of the aeroplanes mentioned would work for one trip per year, assuming the family members have short memories. Trying to coax them to do that trip 6X/yr would be harder than thumping a fart out of a dead man.

Fearless Tower said:
Tom, I love Cherokee 6's, but the best I have been able to coax out of the fixed gear version is about 135 KTAS. I seriously don't think that is going to work for the OP.
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
Okay, back to the older twins.....anybody got figures on hourly op costs.....for say 100 hrs per year:
AC 500
B58 Barron
PA31
C340
C421...or any of the piston 400s
Click to expand...
You can put the 421 in a whole 'nother class. Op costs on a pressurized piston twin are driven through the roof by high maintenance costs, high engine overhaul costs, and low engine TBO's. Within the OP's stated procurement and operating budgets, they just ain't happening. Even the PA-31 Navajo series' turbocharged engines are going to push the limits.

I'm still thinking that if he wants to keep under $35K/year operating budget and fly enough hours to make the deal worth doing, the 6-seat non-turbo piston twins like the BE58, C-310, and Aztec are what fit all his bills -- especially since he's operating well east of the Rockies. The rest of you can have fun with your fantasy planes.

To stay down near $20K/year, we're talking big singles like the PA32R, C-210, and BE36 -- and the earlier editions, at that. Current production versions of the PA32 and BE36 have much smaller payloads -- as little as 550 lb with full fuel on 21st century BE36's, where full fuel is only about 4-1/2 hours and you'll need it all to make West Texas in one stop out of DC (or even two stops with a significant headwind) with IFR/alternate reserves.
 
A PA-31 is about $500/hr to operate, and as high as $700/hr if you're in Canada (higher fuel costs).
 
This has been an enlighting read and I want to thanks everyone for spending my money. :wink2:

I've been looking at the 310 vs 58's and just trying to do some reading on them. I actually like the looks of the 310 more.... now I will have go out and find someone locat that has one and talk to them about it.
 
jmp470 said:
This has been an enlighting read and I want to thanks everyone for spending my money. :wink2:

I've been looking at the 310 vs 58's and just trying to do some reading on them. I actually like the looks of the 310 more.... now I will have go out and find someone locat that has one and talk to them about it.
Click to expand...

If I was looking at 310's ( I owned a 72 Q for ten years) I wouldn't look at anything prior to 1966 model. The old ones with the over wing exhaust and augmenters can be an expensive endeavor.
 
jmp470 said:
This has been an enlighting read and I want to thanks everyone for spending my money. :wink2:
Click to expand...
Always happy to do that.:yesnod:
I've been looking at the 310 vs 58's and just trying to do some reading on them. I actually like the looks of the 310 more.... now I will have go out and find someone locat that has one and talk to them about it.
Click to expand...
...and even better, to fly each, and to do so with your intended load in the plane.;)

And then buy the one your wife likes better.:D
 
Ron Levy said:
You can put the 421 in a whole 'nother class. Op costs on a pressurized piston twin are driven through the roof by high maintenance costs, high engine overhaul costs, and low engine TBO's. Within the OP's stated procurement and operating budgets, they just ain't happening. Even the PA-31 Navajo series' turbocharged engines are going to push the limits.
Click to expand...

That's the truest statement in this thread.

his budget gets smaller each day. Thats why I suggested he buy in the low end and cope with it.

And with that I agree with R&M, I have 2 310 operators with older 310s even with my prices they are both reaching to point they won't fly their aircraft, and they have bucks.
I class the early 310s right with an apache. Only the Apache will operate at a lower cost.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Naw, it's amusing when Tom throws out one of his BS stories then can't explain his way out of it.

BTW, I'm off today. :)
Click to expand...

It's fun to see a FAA type thinking they have all the aircraft in the world under their control.

Tell me how many old G-1s the Japanese government had in service during the period.

Have you ever seen the Det support G-1 that the Japanese used to support their P3 fleet? I have, and it has 1 seat forward.
 
Tom-D said:
It's fun to see a FAA type thinking they have all the aircraft in the world under their control.

Tell me how many old G-1s the Japanese government had in service during the period.

Have you ever seen the Det support G-1 that the Japanese used to support their P3 fleet? I have, and it has 1 seat forward.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have a link or a picture? Searched a few databases and nothings coming up on that.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Perhaps you have a link or a picture? Searched a few databases and nothings coming up on that.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that the Japanese military will allow you to take pictures of the interior of their aircraft?

Every year Wing X hosts a joint ops with the Japanese, and they reciprocate. When they were here Guess who was the only one in Fleet Repair Station Northwest that had any G-1 experience?
 
Tom-D said:
Do you really think that the Japanese military will allow you to take pictures of the interior of their aircraft?

Every year Wing X hosts a joint ops with the Japanese, and they reciprocate. When they were here Guess who was the only one in Fleet Repair Station Northwest that had any G-1 experience?
Click to expand...

There's no reference anywhere to the plane you mention.

Just thought you could point us towards that. After all I don't think this is top secret.
 
FWIW, when I went through VA-128 in 19974, the Navy/USMC operated the "tick 4's" as 2-pilot aircraft, not single-pilot, usually with two multiengine pilots out of P-3's or the like, rather than A-6-type "jet" pilots. I think they let an A-6 pilot injured so he couldn't ride an ejection seat for a while get into the Toucan's right seat while his back healed, but that was a special case.

In any event, the idea of a G-I being a candidate for the OP's mission within the OP's budget is ludicrous, even if single-pilot authorization were possible.
 
Tom-D said:
I class the early 310s right with an apache. Only the Apache will operate at a lower cost.
Click to expand...
Except that the Apache will be slow as molasses. I think even a FG PA32 could outrun an early PA23-150.

I think the only market for a PA23-150 these days is as a disposable ME time builder.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A PA-31 is about $500/hr to operate, and as high as $700/hr if you're in Canada (higher fuel costs).
Click to expand...

Figures.....this thread is starting to depress me. A while back I posted about offloading the PA32RT for a Twin.....nowadays, I'm thinking it might be wiser to hold on the the Lance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top