Best Single Pilot IFR Plane
Charles Talleyrand
IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These people
don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
My question is for these people ...
What sort of planes are you flying?
Mike Rapoport
11,500lb
1552hp
Preasurized
Radar
Known Ice
300kts
31,000'
Mike
MU-2
"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message
news:vso5a71...@corp.supernews.com...
Stuart King
Stuart
"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message
news:vso5a71...@corp.supernews.com...
rip
Ron Natalie
"rip" <r*nospam*qui...@snet.net> wrote in message news:xp1zb.33338$hz4....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> Amen, Stuart! A Navion.
>
Sounds good to me...and an autopilot is being added to mine.
Windecks
OBTW, what's the fuel burn at cruise, and range of your MU2??
"Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5eVyb.24325$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Mike Rapoport
temperature, but typical fuel burn at cruise in the mid 20s is 85GPH. No
wind range with IFR reserves is listed as 1395nm but this is unachievable in
practice. A more realistic range number is 1200nm. Coast to coast requires
one fuel stop going east and two (rarely three) going westbound.
The original poster said that he wanted to be able to get places on a
schedule. What that requires depends on where you are and where you are
going, but to me it requires radar, known ice, high altitude capability and
range.
Mike
MU-2
"Windecks" <windecks%%SP...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8o3zb.30514$ft.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
gwengler
Best as IFR airplane for me personally means safest.
As far as single engine goes, the Cessna Caravan comes to mind. For
pistons:
TURBO SKYLANE
- very stable
- enough power (turbo) to get out of/over all kind of weather
- very forgiving re: over-weight and wing contamination (ice)
- slow, which in some ways is safer
- to my knowledge there has never been an in-flight break-up
- landing and take-off possible at pretty much every airport in
existence
Gerd
T182 C-FDOW
PS: Just to pre-empty some of the comments to come; yes, I know it's
a truck but that's the way I like it.
markjen
> schedule. What that requires depends on where you are and where you are
> going, but to me it requires radar, known ice, high altitude capability
and
> range.
I think there are two issues here: suitability for single-pilot use and
capability to tackle weather. The two sorta work against one another -
probably the easiest to fly plane IFR is something like an 182, but you're
not going to be tackling much weather. Conversely, a plane like Mike's MU-2
is very capable, but you've got to ante up to very high proficiency
standards. (Mike, are your insurers Ok with you flying alone in clouds?
I've heard they're starting to get very sticky about turbines twins being
flown single-pilot.)
In reality, we don't choose planes that are good for single-pilot IFR - we
choose planes that suit our mission (and constraints, particularly costs)
and then ante up what it takes to fly them safely IFR. For me, a
non-professional IFR pilot who gets maybe 5 hours a year actual in my
non-iced heavy single, this means scrubbing a lot of flights.
I think that is the big fallacy with new instrument pilots - that they can
truly fly in any weather and can meet hard schedule committments. It takes
a lot of airplane and a lot of training/experience to be able to
consistently tackle IFR weather with reasonable risk. I'd guess that on any
given mission, I can make it VFR 80% of the time. IFR cuts my scrubs in
half so I can go 890% of the time, but I still have a 10% scrub rate even
with the the ticket. Ice is the big issue for me.
In reality, I use IFR more for flying security and convenience rather that
tackling weather. It's just a lot easier to file IFR and follow ATC's
instructions rather than keeping track of everything yourself, especially
with all the airspace restrictions these days.
- Mark
Roy Smith
> I think that is the big fallacy with new instrument pilots - that they can
> truly fly in any weather and can meet hard schedule committments. It takes
> a lot of airplane and a lot of training/experience to be able to
> consistently tackle IFR weather with reasonable risk. I'd guess that on any
> given mission, I can make it VFR 80% of the time. IFR cuts my scrubs in
There's a lot of truth in that.
I've completed a lot of trips VFR that I wouldn't have dared taken if I
didn't have the IFR option in my pocket. That means both getting a
pop-up if conditions change in flight, and the ability to file IFR the
next day or a few days later for a return flight.
Mike Rapoport
one of two places. Other than that requirement, there are no restrictions.
Mike
MU-2
"markjen" <mark.je...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Et4zb.200680$Dw6.744902@attbi_s02...
Jeff
check out what John Travoltas flies
http://www.ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=42554#42554
markjen
Yes, 90%, sorry.
- Mark
Kevin
> maybe you should list a price range you was wanting answers for :)
> check out what John Travoltas flies
> http://www.ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=42554#42554
>
Teacherjh
> check out what John Travoltas flies
> http://www.ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=42554#42554
>
You bet, lots in the airpark he lives in start at $350K.
<<
Had an interesting experience with jumbolair - I was going to visit my brother
who had a dog show right near the runway. I called ahead and got permssion to
use the (private) airport with my spam can and was all set to go, but my
brother also called to get permission for me, and that was vehemently denied.
Apparantly there is some discord among the owners, and my brother sent me an
urgent Email to stay away.
I never got to see him that trip.
Jose
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
Tom S.
Citation CJ1!!
It ain't cheap, but it is the BEST.
Jeff
is that just the land or the house also?
Kevin
> starts at 350k?
> is that just the land or the house also?
>
Mike Rapoport
share) . With the two pilots and two average size passengers and a Labrador
it can't go from San Diego to Sun Valley without refueling in a modest
headwind if its warm. The problem is that at FL350 it will only go about
350kts and even a modest headwind at that altitude is well over 100kts. I
forget which engines the CJ1 uses but the engines in the CitationJet cycled
out pretty fast so if you weren't flying long legs the engines would cycle
out well before overhaul. Piaggio and Premier are much better.
Mike
MU-2
"Tom S." <tom...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:768zb.1000$ZC6....@news.uswest.net...
Paul Sengupta
news:_d9zb.282817$9E1.1469781@attbi_s52...
> Jeff wrote:
> > starts at 350k?
Or you could get a plane.
Paul
Jeff
board hers at a stable and she does not like doing it.
Land in vegas is way way over priced. So 350k for 2.5 acres, if it had a house
on it, would not be bad at all. 2.5 acres with nothing on it...not a chance.
Jeff
since my airplane was more then her horse, she feels that she should be
able to get another horse, as soon as we get some land to put it on that
is (and moving to the midwest where its cheaper is out of the question).
Jeff
http://www.turboarrow3.com
Tom S.
> Not even close to the best. I have a friend with part of one (Netjets
> share) . With the two pilots and two average size passengers and a
Labrador
> it can't go from San Diego to Sun Valley without refueling in a modest
> headwind if its warm.
Wrong.
> The problem is that at FL350 it will only go about
> 350kts and even a modest headwind at that altitude is well over 100kts.
At FL350, it does 371 to 385, depending on weight.
> I
> forget which engines the CJ1 uses but the engines in the CitationJet
cycled
> out pretty fast so if you weren't flying long legs the engines would cycle
> out well before overhaul.
Geez...since you're so omniscient, I think you'd know that data. The engines
in the CJ/CJ1 are VERY different from the old 500 series.
http://www.williams-int.com/product/1a.htm
>Piaggio and Premier are much better.
One a vibrator, the other isn't SP certified.
Geez!!!
Craig Prouse
> Land in vegas is way way over priced. So 350k for 2.5 acres, if it had a house
> on it, would not be bad at all. 2.5 acres with nothing on it...not a chance.
Overpriced?
$350,000 around here gets you about 950 sq ft upstairs of a one car garage
on no land whatsoever.
The assessed value of my assigned tiedown location at PAO is $4413. Mind
you this is (generously) 1200 sq ft of some of the most undesirable land
around, on a flood plain between a swamp and a garbage dump. I get to pay
property tax on it even though I rent it month to month. Do the math, and
that's over $400,000 for 2.5 acres of PAO tiedown space. No house, just a
thin layer of asphalt and 90 sets of tiedown ropes.
Jeff
are expensive there no doubt, thats a reason we never moved to california. Plus I
dont speak spanish. Only english.
Also Nevada does not have corporate income taxes so its a desirable place to
incorporate (I have an s-corp) nor do we have state taxes. So there is a reason
california seems to be moving to nevada and arizona.
I was not able to see the math you did on the 400k , you pay taxes on your tiedown
spot, but you didnt say how much yearly.
Your tie down spot for your airplane is different then someone who is purchasing a
home or land. Just like the tiedown I pay for monthly and the boarding for my wife's
horse (which is more then my airplane).
Craig Prouse
> I was not able to see the math you did on the 400k , you pay taxes on your
> tiedown spot, but you didnt say how much yearly.
Schools fail to emphasize that without the facility to solve "story
problems," there is not really any point in teaching arithmetic.
You don't need to know the size of my tax bill to figure the value of the
land. You just need to figure out how many of my tiedown spots would fit in
2.5 acres, then multiply by the value of the tiedown spot. I hinted at that
when I specified the number of sets of tiedowns.
> Your tie down spot for your airplane is different then someone who is
> purchasing a home or land.
That's not to say that the other two "R"s have not suffered as well.
B S D Chapman
> I already have an airplane, Turbo Arrow III
> since my airplane was more then her horse, she feels that she should be
> able to get another horse, as soon as we get some land to put it on that
> is (and moving to the midwest where its cheaper is out of the question).
>
Doesn't sound good... until you consider the oppotunities that come with
the extra land... like your own runway :o)
> Jeff
> http://www.turboarrow3.com
>
>
> Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
>> "Kevin" <Ke...@el.net> wrote in message
>> news:_d9zb.282817$9E1.1469781@attbi_s52...
>> > Jeff wrote:
>> > > starts at 350k?
>> > That would buy you a nice bird !
>>
>> Or you could get a plane.
>>
>> Paul
>
--
...And so as the little andrex puppy of time scampers onto the busy
dual-carriage way of destiny, and the extra-strong meet vindaloo of fate
confronts the toilet Out Of Order sign of eternity...
Dan Truesdell
we do have to deal with New England weather, I don't think you can buy a
house for $350K. You'd have to get a house, a bunch of land, and maybe
another small house. As for the airport, fuel is self-serve at $2.45
something, and T-hangar space is $120/month (that's not a typo). I
share a 172 with 4 others. Can't fly for much cheaper than that. (Of
course, a nicer/faster/better plane would always be a good thing.)
Dan
--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
Mike Rapoport
>
> "Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:D8azb.25064$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Not even close to the best. I have a friend with part of one (Netjets
> > share) . With the two pilots and two average size passengers and a
> Labrador
> > it can't go from San Diego to Sun Valley without refueling in a modest
> > headwind if its warm.
>
> Wrong.
It is a fact.
>
> > The problem is that at FL350 it will only go about
> > 350kts and even a modest headwind at that altitude is well over 100kts.
>
> At FL350, it does 371 to 385, depending on weight.
>
Its pretty obvious that you are getting your info from their marketing
materials and have never owned or flown a turbine plane. The Cessna
marketing data is all based on ISA temperatures and the real temperatures in
the US are ISA +10C to ISA +20C extracting a huge performance penalty.
> > I
> > forget which engines the CJ1 uses but the engines in the CitationJet
> cycled
> > out pretty fast so if you weren't flying long legs the engines would
cycle
> > out well before overhaul.
>
> Geez...since you're so omniscient, I think you'd know that data. The
engines
> in the CJ/CJ1 are VERY different from the old 500 series.
Again you seem to be operating from total ignorance. The CitationJet uses
F44-1A engines
> http://www.williams-int.com/product/1a.htm
>
> >Piaggio and Premier are much better.
>
> One a vibrator,
The Avanti is considerably quieter than the CJ1/2
the other isn't SP certified.
>
It isn't? Check again
Mike
MU-2
Michael
> IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
> and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These people
> don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
> My question is for these people ...
>
> What sort of planes are you flying?
Well, I'm flying a Twin Comanche. This works for me because most of
my flying happens in the Gulf Coast region. If I'm outside that
region, I'm on a vacation trip and have significant flexibility.
The reason this works in the Gulf Coast - it's flat (MEA's are well
below the single engine service ceiling of my airplane) so turbos are
not necessary and combined IMC and icing down to the MEA's is
extremely rare (maybe once every few years) so deice capability is not
necessary. Embedded thunderstorms are the norm for IMC most of the
year, so weather avoidance is necessary. I have a stormscope for
that.
You have to realize that in a different part of the country, the
answer changes. In the Rockies, you probably need turbos, boots, and
RADAR to make it work. Also, there just are not that many people
using a personal airplane in this manner.
Michael
Roger Halstead
>starts at 350k?
>is that just the land or the house also?
Many years ago... Actually it was over 30 years ago... My ex wife's
cousin moved to California. He was near the ocean and paid more than
that for a house on a lot that was so small it didn't hardly have a
yard. (Remember this was 30 plus years ago.)
You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead
<rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote:
>There must be people on the newsgroup that fly single pilot
>IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
>and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These people
>don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
>My question is for these people ...
>
>What sort of planes are you flying?
My preference would be and I know this covers a wide range:
1. TBM 700 (almost purchased one)
2. MU-2 (fast, plenty of range, capable)
or
3. P 210 Fast(for a single), stable, and handles like a truck.
4. any number of the smaller pressurized twins.
I don't fly all that much IFR any more, but when I did I was severely
limited by "no known ice" and no storm scope.
In the Fall and Spring a fully equipped twin turboprop would still be
severely limited at times due to the icing conditions in the Great
Lakes area. However if you could set your schedule with some
flexibility you'd probably reach the 90 plus percent range.
Snowbird
> There must be people on the newsgroup that fly single pilot
> IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
> and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These people
> don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
> My question is for these people ...
> What sort of planes are you flying?
Charles,
I think you have two separate issues here.
1) single pilot IFR (subsidiary issue for a low time pilot)
2) schedule to make
A plane which is good for 1), especially for a low time pilot,
will be stable and relatively forgiving. Something like a
C182, maybe a C182TR.
A plane which is good for 2) will have known ice capability,
weather detection such as radar, service ceiling to climb above
some wx, and two engines.
A plane which will allow 2) may not be good for 1), especially
for a low time pilot.
A plane which will allow for 1) (especially for a low time
pilot) may not be good for 2)
FWIW,
Sydney
Maule Driver
> After reading this thread, I'm glad I live where I do (CNH). Although
> we do have to deal with New England weather, I don't think you can buy a
> house for $350K. You'd have to get a house, a bunch of land, and maybe
> another small house. As for the airport, fuel is self-serve at $2.45
> something, and T-hangar space is $120/month (that's not a typo). I
> share a 172 with 4 others. Can't fly for much cheaper than that.
I'm glad I'm where I am too... hopefully most of us are. I'm at 8nc8. No
NE weather but we have summer. Grass but the price is right. <$350k put me
on the runway with a home and a 2500' hangar on 3 acres. Only expense is
low property taxes and a nominal homeowners fee. Our private fuel is up to
about $2.35 now and we have JetA (!!). Sometimes we forget how nice it is.
But the cost of flying real estate is all about location. Ironically, life
on an airport offers more mobility and locational independence than any
other kind of living.
Nice thing about our location is that is is a 15 min auto commute to work,
an 18 min cab ride from my ILS at RDU, and truly 1.5 hours to the mountains
(Asheville) or the shore (Ocracoke). Florida and NYC seemed a bit far for
casual travel in our slow plane, at least until 9/11. Now it's a valued
luxury to be able to fly ourselves.
pool...@dl.org
41,000 Feet
390 knots high speed Cruise - but normally about 360-365
Known Ice
Weather radar -
Pressurized to 4,000 feet w/ 9 psi max differential
1700 + nm Range --
Can land on a 2300 foot runway if you're good ;)
Single Pilot Certified
Paul P
"Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5eVyb.24325$sb4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise.
>
> 11,500lb
> 1552hp
> Preasurized
> Radar
> Known Ice
> 300kts
> 31,000'
>
>
> Mike
> MU-2
pool...@dl.org
41,000 Feet
390 knots high speed Cruise - but normally about 360-365 at 330
Known Ice
Weather radar -
Pressurized to 4,000 feet w/ 9 psi max differential
1700 + nm Range w/ IFR reserves
Burns around 280/side at altitude (410)
We can do SF or L. Angeles to NJ non-stop with a nice tailwind...
Can land on a 2300 foot runway if you're good ;)
Single Pilot Certified
Perfect safety record - Never an injury or fatality -
pool...@dl.org
41,000 Feet
390 knots high speed Cruise - but normally about 360-365 at 330
Known Ice
Weather radar -
Pressurized to 4,000 feet w/ 9 psi max differential
1700 + nm Range w/ IFR reserves
Burns around 280/side at altitude (410)
We can do SF or L. Angeles to NJ non-stop with a nice tailwind...
Can land on a 2300 foot runway if you're good ;)
Single Pilot Certified
Perfect safety record - Never an injury or fatality -
VERY VERY quiet with almost 6-foot headroom (ok, maybe 5'9" or so...but I',m
6'2" and never in the back)
Paul P
"Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iRmzb.26653$n56....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Paul Sengupta
news:57arsv0cmb6b1oru6...@4ax.com...
>
> "Paul Sengupta" <paul.s...@killspam.etl.ericsson.se> wrote
>
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> > starts at 350k?
> >> That would buy you a nice bird !
> >
> >Or you could get a plane.
>
> better, and a new top-end Merc is said to be the most effective...
>
> Is the budget 350k US$? This thread is crossposted to the American
> rec.aviation.* newsgroups.
It started there. I cross posted it here for "or you could get a plane"
quote!
I find plane ownership is cheaper. :-)
Paul
Paul Sengupta
Paul
"Jeff" <je...@turboarrow3.com> wrote in message
news:3FCD4908...@turboarrow3.com...
David Megginson
> There must be people on the newsgroup that fly single pilot
> IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
> and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These people
> don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
> My question is for these people ...
>
> What sort of planes are you flying?
I fly a Warrior II, but I have a few special factors:
1. The meetings are not too frequent, and are never more than a few hours away.
2. I'm self-employed, so I can leave a day early and stay a day late if
necessary.
3. I live close to a major airport, where I can get a last-minute full-fare
flight when I need one.
Considering these conditions, along with the fact that I have under 250
hours' flying time, it makes sense for me to fly a very inexpensive plane
and just pay for the occasional commercial airline ticket when the weather
turns on me. So far, I've had to do that once this fall (New York, during
heavy icing). The difference in operating cost between a single-engine
Cherokee (< USD 10K/year) and a pressurized twin with known ice and radar
(>USD 40K/year) will pay for an awful lot of full-fare airline tickets.
On the other hand, if you have the experience and ratings and you travel to
a lot of meetings (more than one/week), your meetings are far away, you
cannot spare the occasional extra day, or you are flying between places not
well-served by commercial air service, then the high-end plane starts to
make a lot more sense. Just try putting dollar values on it: how much would
it cost you (money down and opportunity cost) to fly yourself 90% of the
time and fly commercial the remaining 10%, vs. paying the extra money to
operate a plane where you can fly yourself 99% of the time? It all depends
on how much your business time is worth.
Of course, if the goal is simply to think of reasons to buy an expensive
plane and write it off against your taxes, then feel free to disregard the
preceeding part of this posting, and have fun: you know we'll all be envying
you.
All the best,
David
Jeff
So comparing an airport or just the tiedown area to empty vacent land is not the
same. 2 different animals even without the story book problems. It was also
confusing because you only mentioned one tiedown spot, but now you sound like
you own the entire ramp (all 60 spots). If you do not own all 60 tiedowns then
trying to figure out how many would fit in a 2.5 acre's still does not make
sense because it really has nothing to do with buying land since its not for
commericial purposes.
Jeff
remainder $90,000 due upon completion. you have to buy the damn things, surprised
the hell out of me. I didnt need a hanger that bad.
Jeff
thats a really good price for all that.
Jeff
Maule Driver wrote:
\
Dan Truesdell
and 1 community hanger with space for 6 airplanes. The city owns the
airport, and does not wish to fund any new hangars (even though they
would pay for themselves in 6 or 7 years). One could lease a spot on
the airport fairly cheaply and build a privately-owned hangar, but New
Hampshire unfortunately is stuck in the dark ages, and almost all of the
city's funds come from property tax. (The state taxes your property,
too. It's a mentality from the 19th century, and why we pay our state
reps $100/year. All 400 of them.) So a nice $300K set of T-hangars
will cost you about $10K per year just in taxes. I know that sounds
cheap to someone in LA, NY or BOS, but that's a lot to swallow here.
It's a bit frustrating as any addition to the airport would be
beneficial. I happy to have our hangar, but I can see why others are a
bit put off by the situation.
Roger Halstead
wrote:
>"Charles Talleyrand" <rapp...@nmu.edu> wrote in message news:<vso5a71...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> There must be people on the newsgroup that fly single pilot
>> IFR on a regular basis. These people have a schedule to make
>> and would rather not miss that schedule unless necessary. These people
>> don't have the need to carry many passengers, but just themselves.
>> My question is for these people ...
>
>> What sort of planes are you flying?
>
>Charles,
>
>I think you have two separate issues here.
>
>1) single pilot IFR (subsidiary issue for a low time pilot)
>
>2) schedule to make
>
>A plane which is good for 1), especially for a low time pilot,
>will be stable and relatively forgiving. Something like a
>C182, maybe a C182TR.
>
>A plane which is good for 2) will have known ice capability,
>weather detection such as radar, service ceiling to climb above
>some wx, and two engines.
There are a couple of singles that will do this, but they cost way
more than a light pressurized twin.
One is the TBM-700 at a bit over 2 million (as I recall) and there is
another, not quite a pretty, but very capable. It and the TBM-700 are
very much alike.
Single pilot, capable, reliable, long range, and speed in the 300 knot
range.
and in the $2 million dollar plus range.
>
>A plane which will allow 2) may not be good for 1), especially
>for a low time pilot.
I'd change that "may not be" to "most likely won't be" <:-))
It doesn't matter what they are flying, it would be a very rare low
time pilot who could keep any kind of scheduled series of IFR
flights.. I just don't think it'd be practical.
You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
Mike Rapoport
<pool...@dl.org> wrote in message
news:cNszb.17329$N.88...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Piaggio Avanti P180 -
>
> 41,000 Feet
>
> 390 knots high speed Cruise - but normally about 360-365 at 330
>
If its cold
>
> 1700 + nm Range w/ IFR reserves
>
Not likely. NBAA IFR range is listed at 1400nm and again only at ISA.
> Burns around 280/side at altitude (410)
But you can't reach 410 very often because it is usually ISA+10
> We can do SF or L. Angeles to NJ non-stop with a nice tailwind...
No way.
> Can land on a 2300 foot runway if you're good ;)
Piaggio claims 3000' at sea level and 77F (ISA+10) anyway you couldn't take
off again.
>
> Perfect safety record - Never an injury or fatality -
>
Only a few ezamples flying
>
> Paul P
In spite of the above, it is one of the best from a number of standpoints.
I have come close to buying one twice.
Mike
MU-2
John Clonts
> Jeff wrote:
> > maybe you should list a price range you was wanting answers for :)
> > check out what John Travoltas flies
> > http://www.ipilot.com/forum/message.aspx?pid=42554#42554
> >
> You bet, lots in the airpark he lives in start at $350K.
>
> /www.jumbolair.com/
>
Yeah, and check out who owns the development-- the original "nautilus babe"
and revlon model, who's also type-rated in 707 and 747! (IIRC)
I posted pix of Travolta's house over on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation...
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
Tom S.
> I had been wanting to get a hanger, they told me the deposit was $10,000
with the
> remainder $90,000 due upon completion. you have to buy the damn things,
surprised
> the hell out of me. I didnt need a hanger that bad.
>
Venus
yrs old!
Aaron Coolidge
: Cheaper than marriage? Certainly. Very hard to combine the two at any
: decent level (of aircraft) because a wife likes to have a similar
: amount spent on her, thus doubling the cost of flying. Unless you can
: find a flying wife, or a wife with a substantial independent income -
: very rare!
This is so true. A friend of mine has a non-flying wife. He just had his
plane painted (by Keyson, at KASH, very nice job). When asked how much
it cost, his reply is "Oh, a living room set, first floor bathroom
remodeled, new drapes, ..."
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)
Paul Mennen
part that is). Jeff's question was "how much do you pay in taxes on
your tiedown spot?" Nothing in your original post or reply gave
any hint on that.
BTW Jeff, the answer is about $52.00/year. (I'm also based at PAO).
And yes it is different than the property taxes on land that you own.
It's called a "possessory interest" tax. The sad thing is that it
barely makes any money for the county. The amount collected is mostly
used up by the costs involved with collecting the money and answering
all the questions from the incredulous pilots who don't understand
why they should have to pay such a ridiculous tax.
Back to the original question however (best single pilot IFR plane),
it is a Cessna 185 (of course - because that's what I fly!)
I've got a turbonormalized IO550 in it, so I can fly over almost
all the weather. It is light enough and has enough excess HP that
it can haul its empty weight, and is tolerant of a little ice build-up
here an there as one quickly climbs thru the icing layers to the
wonderful wx on top. (25K is as high as I've gone so far, but I
see no problem with going higher). It's fast enough that I can take
my family of 4 across the country without any complaints yet
miserly enough on the fuel that it doesn't break the bank. Unlike
some other airplanes I've flown it is stable enough that when
you look down at your chart and tune a radio, the airplane is still
flying in the same direction when you look up, even if the auto
pilot is off. And best of all its got the third wheel at the back
where it belongs. I'll probably get arguments on that one, but I
like the flexibility to land just about anywhere I find a flat spot.
I don't have to worry about those flimsy nosewheel thingies that
can get ripped off just by dropping into a minor gopher hole.
Pretty much if you find a spot that any fixed wing airplane has
landed, I'm going to be able to make it in and out of there safely.
As you can see, I'm supporting the earlier poster who said that
the answer depends on your mission.
~Paul Mennen
"Craig Prouse" wrote
Craig Prouse
> Sorry Craig but it is you who is lacking in schooling (the reading
> part that is). Jeff's question was "how much do you pay in taxes on
> your tiedown spot?" Nothing in your original post or reply gave
> any hint on that.
My schooling is just fine, thank you. Read the thread again and quote with
integrity. Jeff never asked anything, much less "how much do you pay in
taxes on your tiedown spot?" Jeff stated, omitting several sics, "I was not
able to see the math you did on the 400k , you pay taxes on your tiedown
spot, but you didnt say how much yearly."
My original post, which you must not have read, said in essence that 2.5
acres of PAO real estate must be worth over $400,000 based on my 1200 sq ft
being worth $4413. Pretty simple, right? Jeff responded that he could not
understand how I came to that figure, particularly without knowing what I
paid in property tax. The amount you and I pay in possessory interest taxes
is no big secret, but it was never relevant to the discussion, which is why
I never stated it.
Jeff
what size engine does that thing have in it?
Is your turbo an after market?
Mark Mallory
Jeff wrote:
>
>I was not able to see the math you did on the 400k, you pay taxes on your
The taxes aren't relevant to the $400k calculation. Since you appear to be
somewhat math-challenged, here's some help:
One acre contains 43,560 square feet. This means that 2.5 acres will contain
108,900 square feet. He stated that his tiedown space is 1200 square feet; this
means that there are (108,900/1200) = 90.75 tiedown spaces in 2.5 acres.
He stated that his tiedown space is VALUED at $4413; therefore, 2.5 acres (90.75
tiedown spaces) would be VALUED at ($4413 x 90.75) = $400,479.75.
Simple, no?
Paul Mennen
> Jeff never asked anything, much less "how much do you pay in
> taxes on your tiedown spot?" Jeff stated, omitting several sics, "I was
not
> able to see the math you did on the 400k , you pay taxes on your tiedown
> spot, but you didnt say how much yearly."
I quoted precisely. You have a contradiction in even the short paragraph
above. What words in "you didn't say how much yearly" don't you understand?
Doesn't that mean he wishes to know how much you pay yearly?
In any case, this has little to do with the subject of the thread,
so perhaps we should drop it.
~Paul
Craig Prouse
> What words in "you didn't say how much yearly" don't you understand?
> Doesn't that mean he wishes to know how much you pay yearly?
As a matter of fact, I don't think that's what it means at all.
The full sentence was, again:
"I was not able to see the math you did on the 400k , you pay taxes
on your tiedown spot, but you didnt say how much yearly."
This is a bit fractured, so before my brain can process it, I have to
translate it as follows:
"I was not able to see the math you did (to arrive at $400K because
although) you pay taxes on your tiedown spot, ... you didn't say how
much yearly."
This is to what I was responding. My response is that the amount I pay in
taxes is irrelevant to how I arrived at $400K.
I suppose that there is another possible interpretation to which you
subscribe:
"I was not able to see the math you did (to arrive at $400K)."
"Say, by the way, you pay taxes on your tiedown spot, but you
didn't say how much yearly. Would you mind sharing that info?"
It's unfortunate that we're left to guess and debate the actual meaning.
That's what punctuation is for.
> In any case, this has little to do with the subject of the thread,
> so perhaps we should drop it.
I suppose I'll have to swallow my pride and allow that my schooling in the
art of reading is inadequate to allow me to divine what the heck Jeff is
talking about. Perhaps this indicates a lack of creativity on my part.
Bonza
A Beech A36 Bonanza suits my missions nicely. I am in the midwest,
fly on business and personal trips ranging from 100 to 1000 NM. I
have a good avionics suite, stormscope, and avoid ice. I do not mind
a thin strip of rime decending or climbing through a thin cloud deck,
but that is about where I draw the line. Always have a way out.
Costs are reasonable as long as you do your research and are willing
to get your hands dirty. My name is on the registration, no one
else's so I (and mom nature) can call the shots.
Bob
paul k. sanchez
light pressurized twin.
>
>One is the TBM-700 at a bit over 2 million (as I recall) and there is another,
not quite a pretty, but very capable. It and the TBM-700 are very much alike.
>
>Single pilot, capable, reliable, long range, and speed in the 300 knot range.
>
>and in the $2 million dollar plus range.
>
>>
>>A plane which will allow 2) may not be good for 1), especially
>>for a low time pilot.
>
>I'd change that "may not be" to "most likely won't be" <:-)) It doesn't matter
what they are flying, it would be a very rare low time pilot who could keep any
kind of scheduled series of IFR flights.. I just don't think it'd be
practical.
>
>You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
Good morning Roger:
If I can make a slight correction on your posting. TBM700 C2 model is currently
$2.6, we don't use the "m" word. 300 ktas is available only at FL260 ISA @ 100%
torque, and quite honestly with a lot of antennas not present. Generaly we fly
the ship at normal cruise FL280, FL290, and FL310. Torque is 85% at FL280, 83%
at FL290, and 79% at FL310, all at ISA of course. Speeds that we see are 265 to
285 ktas. Fuel flow 47 to 41 gph.
Range and endurance is quite good, the payload after full fuel (281 us gallons)
is 915 lbs, or about 162 lbs/seat.
I have gotten people qualified on the tbm700 who's previous aircraft was a
C182. However they were not underwriter approved until after 1 year of policy,
which meant they had to have a named instructor on the policy.
Wish you well.
paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
on eagles’ wings
2011 south perimeter road, suite g
fort lauderdale, florida 33309-7135
305-389-1742 wireless
954-776-0527 fax
954-345-4276 home/fax
sanche...@aol.com
Roger Halstead
wrote:
>
>Good morning Roger:
>
>If I can make a slight correction on your posting. TBM700 C2 model is currently
>$2.6, we don't use the "m" word. 300 ktas is available only at FL260 ISA @ 100%
<:-))
>torque, and quite honestly with a lot of antennas not present. Generaly we fly
>the ship at normal cruise FL280, FL290, and FL310. Torque is 85% at FL280, 83%
>at FL290, and 79% at FL310, all at ISA of course. Speeds that we see are 265 to
>285 ktas. Fuel flow 47 to 41 gph.
Hummm...with a turbocharged IO-540 I could get that out of my G-III
(as in glasair, not gulfstream), but in the G-III it's a tad more
difficult to get up and stretch your legs, or take a "potty break".
<:-))
>
>Range and endurance is quite good, the payload after full fuel (281 us gallons)
>is 915 lbs, or about 162 lbs/seat.
As I usually fly alone or with just my wife we'd be on the light side.
I was quoted 200 hours with a qualified "co-pilot" and 25,000 for
insurance the first year as I have no turbine time. With the schedule
it looked like I'd do that well within the first year.
Considering the hull value it's cheaper than I pay on the Debonair and
I figured I had a good deal on that.
>
>I have gotten people qualified on the tbm700 who's previous aircraft was a
>C182. However they were not underwriter approved until after 1 year of policy,
>which meant they had to have a named instructor on the policy.
From my little acquaintance with the plane, it's easy to fly and well
behaved, but there is a lot to learn on the systems. Except for the
turbine, flying the pattern, approaches, or landing is little
different than most any high performance single. Maybe a bit simpler.
(different temperatures to watch)
You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
Mike Rapoport
"Roger Halstead" <myne...@rogerhalsteaddot.com> wrote in message
news:jmd8tv4eev3qblbu1...@4ax.com...
currently
> >$2.6, we don't use the "m" word. 300 ktas is available only at FL260 ISA
@ 100%
>
> <:-))
>
> >torque, and quite honestly with a lot of antennas not present. Generaly
we fly
> >the ship at normal cruise FL280, FL290, and FL310. Torque is 85% at
FL280, 83%
> >at FL290, and 79% at FL310, all at ISA of course. Speeds that we see are
265 to
> >285 ktas. Fuel flow 47 to 41 gph.
>
> Hummm...with a turbocharged IO-540 I could get that out of my G-III
> (as in glasair, not gulfstream), but in the G-III it's a tad more
> difficult to get up and stretch your legs, or take a "potty break".
> <:-))
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> >Wish you well.
> >
> >paul k. sanchez, cfii-mei
265 to 285 in a Glasair III?
Mike
MU-2
Roger Halstead
Yup! Course thats MPH and not knots.
POH lists 282 at 8,000 using a stock 300 HP K1A5 Lycombing at 75%
That's pretty close to the figures I was seeing when I flew N540HP at
Oshkosh.
OTOH the turbocharged version will cruise at something like 360 plus
MPH at 25,000.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
Mike Rapoport
I'm not doubting the numbers but I thought that a Lancair IV was the fastest
and could reach a maxmium of 295kts but *cruised* at about 240kts.
Mike
MU-2
Jon Carlson
but in reality probably 280ish. Still not bad for 16-18 GPH. 'Course
the turbines'll go faster. But they're realistically a 2 seat
airplane.
-Jon C.
"Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JWlBb.6974>
Roger Halstead
<rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> >
>> >265 to 285 in a Glasair III?
>> Yup! Course thats MPH and not knots.
>> POH lists 282 at 8,000 using a stock 300 HP K1A5, or K1H5 Lycombing at 75%
>> That's pretty close to the figures I was seeing when I flew N540HP at
>> Oshkosh.
>> OTOH the turbocharged version will cruise at something like 360 plus
>> MPH at 25,000.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>> Return address modified due to dumb virus checkers
>>
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >MU-2
>> >
>>
>
>I'm not doubting the numbers but I thought that a Lancair IV was the fastest
>and could reach a maxmium of 295kts but *cruised* at about 240kts.
The normally aspirated G-III cruises at something close to 260 MPH, or
226 knots at roughly 8000 feet. The turbocharged G-III, with the 2
foot wingtip extensions for the high aspect ratio, is considerably
faster at altitude. BUT and it's a really big but... there have only
been couple built and I don't believe it's offered as part of the kit.
It is also quite different than the standard G-III fire wall forward
(including the firewall), at least the one being built just north of
me is. One owner (see the builders group www.glasair.org ) says he
gets 228 knots at 8,000 and 75%
The turbocharged version of the G-III runs the same HP as the IV-P,
but is smaller and unpressurized. That sucker will really haul at
altitude, if the pilot and passenger can stand it.
Even sucking on Oxygen, I don't like to go that high.
But, to redress... if you count currently offered models and versions
then yes, the IV-P would be the fastest model offered as the
turbocharged G-III (as far as I can determine) is now a builder mod
rather than a factory option.
I'm going to have to ask if anyone on there is flying a turbocharged
model and what they get for speeds.
Mike Rapoport
Thanks for the education. I have a Murphy Moose fast build kit on order
that will only go about 145mph but will get off the ground in 600' with
1400lbs of fuel and people.
Mike
MU-2