Any sailplane pilots?

Like what?

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...



Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html


There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I noticed
is
that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to
know
that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per flight
hour
and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
inaccurate..

Maybe they're taking more into account than YOU are.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
Like what?

Mike
MU-2


Post a detailed breakout of how you arrived at your conclusion, then we can
retrieve their numbers and track the differences.

("I'm a pilot, Jim, not a mind-reader").

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...



Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html


There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I
noticed
is
that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to
know
that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per flight
hour
and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
inaccurate..

Maybe they're taking more into account than YOU are.

They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is also
larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is on
MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex to
maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the maitenance
hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the same,
so the reserves are identical.

So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more maitenance
AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.

There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The Cheyenne
400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It burns
MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher reserves.

The chart is worthless.

Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
Like what?

Mike
MU-2


Post a detailed breakout of how you arrived at your conclusion, then we
can
retrieve their numbers and track the differences.

("I'm a pilot, Jim, not a mind-reader").

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...



Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html


There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I
noticed
is
that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to
know
that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per
flight
hour
and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
inaccurate..

Maybe they're taking more into account than YOU are.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is
also
larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is on
MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex to
maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the maitenance
hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the
same,
so the reserves are identical.

So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more maitenance
AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.

There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The Cheyenne
400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It burns
MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher reserves.

I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595 to
$635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip props.

The chart is worthless.

Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?

I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.

BTW, are you always so pompous?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.

That's unfortunate. You should apply some of that skepticism to other
self-proclaimed experts as well.

BTW, are you always so pompous?

"Pompous"? Mike has been simply forthright about his KNOWLEDGE regarding
the topic at hand. He has first-hand experience with the Marquise model,
and you and I have no reason to doubt the investigation he did regarding the
Merlin prior to his purchase of his airplane.

If Mike says the Merlin costs more to operate than the Marquise, you'd be a
fool to disagree if you have no personal, first-hand experience to show
otherwise. As far as "pompous" goes, seems to me you're the one behaving
pompously, if anyone is. You are basing your entire argument with Mike on
numbers published by unverified sources, and yet you refuse to believe that
he might have a point. That's arrogance at its finest.

Yes, you should question EVERYTHING you read on the Internet (and
elsewhere), but in this case, you are giving the benefit of the doubt to
exactly the wrong source of information. If you wish to doubt both, fine.
But if you're only going to doubt one, you picked the wrong horse.

Pete

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is
also
larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is on
MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex
to
maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the maitenance
hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the
same,
so the reserves are identical.

So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more
maitenance
AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.

There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The Cheyenne
400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It burns
MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher
reserves.

I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595 to
$635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip props.

The chart is worthless.

Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?

I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.

BTW, are you always so pompous?


Why are you so arrogant? You argue about things that you know nothing
about. How long have you owned a Commander 1000?


Mike
MU-2

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:30:39 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Why are you so arrogant?

Probably because he just killed a six-pack. :-)

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is
also
larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is
on
MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex
to
maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the
maitenance
hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the
same,
so the reserves are identical.

So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more
maitenance
AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.

There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The
Cheyenne
400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It
burns
MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher
reserves.

I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595 to
$635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip
props.

The chart is worthless.

Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?

I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.

BTW, are you always so pompous?


Why are you so arrogant?


You answer first...especially since you're the one who
s arrogant. I raise a question and you start patronizing.

You argue about things that you know nothing
about. How long have you owned a Commander 1000?

I don't..I manage one. So, answer the question -- why are YOU so arrogant,
patronizing, condescending...

How many people did you have to screwover to get your MU-2?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
.net...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and
overhaul
reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I
was
considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin
is
also
larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both
airplanes.
Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is
on
MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more
complex
to
maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the
maitenance
hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are
the
same,
so the reserves are identical.

So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more
maitenance
AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.

There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The
Cheyenne
400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It
burns
MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher
reserves.

I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595
to
$635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip
props.

The chart is worthless.

Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?

I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.

BTW, are you always so pompous?


Why are you so arrogant?


You answer first...especially since you're the one who
s arrogant. I raise a question and you start patronizing.


I'll be glad to answer if you can explain what is arrogant about what I have
said. You challenged me with bad information. I called you and presented
an argument based on verifyable facts and simple logic. You can't refute my
argument and so you called me pompus.


You argue about things that you know nothing
about. How long have you owned a Commander 1000?

I don't..I manage one.

IF that is true, THEN it should have been obvious that the data you
referenced was flawed. So, are you lying about managing somebody's
Commander or did you post information that you knew to be flawed just to
pick a fight with me? Either one makes you a pretty impressive individual

So, answer the question -- why are YOU so arrogant,
patronizing, condescending...

..
If, by arogant, patronizing and condescending you mean that I will challenge
incorrect information presented as facts, then I would say that it is just
my nature. If you are referring to the Webster's definitions of those
words, then I would argue that you couldn't know if I am any of those things
based on the limited information of me that you have availible.


How many people did you have to screwover to get your MU-2?


No idea. I guess that I am just barely smart enough that I don't have to
manage other people's airplanes for a living.

Mike
MU-2