Am I an idiot? Low experience; high performance

"george" wrote in message
oups.com...

Remember the first time you ever flew a high performance machine and
how circuits were so rushed as you went through all the drills?.
And, after an hour or so suddenly it all came together, you could
enjoy the experience

IIRC, they call that becoming "velocitized".

Then to climb back into a C150 and fly a circuit :-)

Analogy: Pull off a freeway after doing 75MPH, the get on a side street
where you have to do 20-25.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:05:58 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, wrote:
I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
sometimes.

I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

I did a private for a student in a Mooney last summer. The guy took
his checkride in his Mooney with all his time in the Mooney. Low time
will just mean that you will need more CFI time to get ready for the
Mooney than a more experienced pilot but its certainly not a
limitation.

Don't forget $$Insurance$$ for a low time pilot in a complex retract.
That being said, I know of several pilots who earned their PPL in an
A36 Bo and one in a Glasair III. They could afford the insurance.
:-))

I know of one nearby who was flying a Piper Twin Comanche with under
100 hours.

Roger

-Robert, CFII

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:08:03 -0700, Luke Skywalker
wrote:

On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:
I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
sometimes.

I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

Hello:

The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
happen faster at 300...

You do have to think farther ahead and that takes time to get used to
even if they are the same mistakes. There is also a big difference
between 130 MPH and 200 MPH when flying in marginal weather.
The 100 MPH mind in a 200 MPH airplane is an accident waiting to
happen, particularly if that pilot has always flown stabilized
patterns.

The question you (and your insurance company) will have to answer is
what kind of pilot are you? Are you methodical, flow/checklist, and
precision oriented or are you "just do it as it works out" kind of
pilot.

Here is a measure of that...when you are flying "mostly" do you do the
same things with the plane the same way at the same time and use the

Doing the same things at the same time in high performance implies
inflexibility. With checklists I agree, to a point.

checklist? a well trained pilot starts the walkaround the same place
and does the checks the same way every fracken time. The joke is "He/
she is three minutes into the walkaround, if everything is OK he/she
is at blank". Flying along coming into an airport do you start the
descent and approach at the same distance from the plane and do the
landing at the same place (like turning final) or is it a different
place every time.

It virtually has to be different just to take into account the winds
as the length of downwind, base and final will be different.
The stabilized pattern is the best way to learn. It is a bad thing if
it's the only way the pilot can land. I've seen that at Oshkosh.
Reguardless of how the pilot normally flys, they tell them when to
turn base, trun final, and where to put it down on the runway. They
are also likely to tell the pilot to slow up or speed up. All pilots
should learn this kind of flexibility. I've seen the ones who haven't
really mess up the pattern over there. The pilot who stalled the one
in when told to land farther down is an excellent example of always
doing things the same and not having the flexibility to change.

It's not, "do they do it the same every time", but can they put the
plane on a specific spot on the runway reguardless of the pattern.
A good pilot knows their airplane well enough that when told to turn,
where to turn and where to put it down can do so without having to
think about it. They also know whether it's within the capabilities of
the airplane.


If there is no "rhythum" to itthen youj are in trouble. One of the

Again, I disagree. A good pilot has to be flexible, know the
characteristics of their aircraft and its limits thouroughtly . You
have to be able to fit into a traffic pattern that may have planes far
slower than you. You may end up in a pattern where the pattern is a
steep down wind into a U-turn base to the runway. There may be traffic
that requires an extended downwind. I've had ATC tell me to keep the
speed up. I normally intercept the GS at 120 and dump the gear at
that point. It depends on the wind whether I'm running no flaps or 15
to 20 degrees of flaps at that point. I've hit the GS at 180 and not
put the gear down until I could hear the MM start. I had added just
enough flaps to slow to the gear down speed at that point. When I hit
the gear switch I hit the flap switch to full as well. It landed right
on the touch down zone. This happened to be with a Mooney pilot riding
in the right seat as a safety pilot. He remarked he'd have stopped the
Mooney some where in the bean field off the other end of that 8,000
foot runway.

I parctice tight patterns, wide patterns, slow patterns, fast
patterns, base way out, base in close, base a slipping u-turn to the
touch down zone, and all with spot landings at various points on the
runway. I practice engine out landings which are considerably faster
than normal VFR landings. Normal is 80 MPH minus 1 MPH for each 100#
under gross and I fly those numbers. Power out is 90 MPH, BUT if you
are on downwind you get the speed up to 120 and do not put the gear or
flaps down until the runway is made. I probably spend more than half
my non cross country time as practice. I like the maneuvers and I
like spot landing. I'll make one pattern stabilized, the rest will be
anything but. Landings are short field, soft field, and with various
flap settings from none to full, although normal is full reguardless
of conditions.

things I do back home is take any primary students I have to the local
Walmart. It is under the approach lanes of one of the major airport.
We watch the Boeings come over...after about 20 minutes I ask them
"what do you see?" and the answer from the people who have a clue is
"the gear and flaps are coming down on all of them just about
here"...thats "Gear Down Flaps 15 Before landing checklist I have the
brake".

A well trained pilot should be like that. If you are not, then
"you" (generic) are a meanace saved from the rest of us by the slow
speed and airspace protection. If you are then with good training and
transition help, you want have any problem.

Here I view the pilot who always does things the same as an accident
looking for a place to happen in variable conditions which is almost
always and particularly when changing to a much higher performance
aircraft. Not sutdents as they've not progressed beyond that point,
but this is a pilot's group, not student. Sure, I put the gear down at
the end of the runway outbound on the downwind every time, but that is
the same place, not the same way and I do it to make sure I remember
to do it. I may be doing 140 , or I may be doing 100. I do the
landing checklist in the same order as well as downwind, base, and
final changes and checks. I do the preflight the same way every time
too unless I find something wrong, then I may have to start over.

The Deb and moat F33s have pretty much the same wing loading as a
Cherokee 180 or around 17# per sq ft yet the Beech with the gear up
has twice the glide ratio of a 172 while the Cherokee has less. With
the gear down and full flaps it makes a Cherokee 180 with the Hershey
bar wing look like a sail plane... Well, maybe not quite:-)) but it
comes down fast and steep.

There are far too many pilots who never do stalls or steep turns once
they get their PPL. Doing them on a BFR (if they do them) is not the
same are regularly practicing them. From my observations over the
years most pilots are still flying mechanically rather than by feel
and instinct.

How many of these pilots when confronted by an oncoming plane out of a
blind spot can stand it on end and recover without making a mistake?
How many can recover when a gust of wind (wind shear) causes a sall
close to the ground? What do they do in the case of an engien failure
be it on landing or take off? Been there and done that. It was over
before I had to stop and even think about what I was going to do. All
of the actions were ingrained due to a very good Air Safety Foundation
instructor.

Proficient does not mean always doing things the same, it means easily
arriving at the same result under varying conditions.


The insurance cost will be "higher".

Robert

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:59:15 -0700, cjcampbell
wrote:

On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, wrote:
I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
sometimes.

I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am
setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

You might be an idiot, but no worse than a lot of the rest of us. :-)

Seriously, a lot of people do their primary training in Bonanzas and
Mooneys. Insurance companies are more tolerant if you own the plane,
but they will probably require that you get some minimum number of
hours of training in the aircraft before you fly it by yourself.

I had 375 hours in a Cherokee 180. They required 25 hours of dual.
About the first half of that was getting used to the speed difference.


That said, the Bonanza is called the "fork-tailed doctor killer" for a
reason. Fast planes can get you into trouble in a hurry. They are less

One reason is because pilots land them too fast. Land a Bo like a
Cherokee and it'll probably do well. Other than the Bo is easier to
land.

tolerant of incompetence. If and when they do go down, survivability

That it is. I think the airplane is sentient and knows when to dish
out a dose of humility.

is much lower because of the higher stall speeds. If you do not fly it

Now what do you suppose the stall speed of an F33 might be?
It's far lower than most think. The way I fly mine it's around 57 MPH
with gear and flaps down. 63 *MPH* at gross. With the tip tanks and
gaps seals it's actually lower than that.

enough to stay sharp, a fast airplane just might end up being a
suicide machine.

The only difference is the Bo is a slippery airplane. Not that it has
a high stall speed. From a stall with power on and the nose let drop
it'll accelerate around 20 MPH per second. That means if you don't get
it straightened out soon, or get it slowed down it's not considered a
good thing.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?



My Dear Mr. Barrow:

Within the current thread, I have stated that I no longer trust insurance
company statistics for the determination of individual policy risks--which
was stated in the context of a pilot's experience and insurance premiums for
a higher performance aircraft. Later in this thread, I stated that, in my
personal experience, many of the people and entities who cite insurance
rules as their reasons for various regulations are not being truthful.

My opinion of the underlying reasons for what you call " liabilityphobia"
has not changed in many years, and you can search if you care to do so. It
was not the isurance companies, although they are not a source of any
solution--for reasons which should be mathematically obvious.

Peter

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
LOL. I had the same experience after an extended period of flying
nothing but Seminoles. It is a real hoot sometimes checking out
airline pilots in a Cessna 172.

I heard a story of an instructor who let an airline pilot fly his 172
without a checkout. He overran the runway and rolled it up in a ball. He
walked away, but the plane was a total loss.

No insurance on the plane, so the owner saw no reason to tell the FAA or
NTSB about it.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:05:55 -0500, Bush
wrote:

That's the killer, I guy I know just picked up a really, really nice
V35 Bonanza for 50K since the owner was getting premium quotes of
14-18K. I ran my numbers though AOPA and came up with $930 per year,
hull and liability.

Mine runs about $1600 for 80 grand with Hull, liability, and medical.
However it takes 750 TT (up 50 since last year), 200 retract, 20 or 25
make and model, and an instrument rating (also new) for some one else
to fly it unless they are a named pilot. Adding a named pilot with
1800 TT with no (fender benders) and instrument rated, but only 20 in
retract was nearly $500


Bush

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:52:20 -0700, wrote:

I am contemplating buying an airplane mostly for business trips, but I
know a 172 or something like that will not stand the test of time
since I frequently travel to Wichita and the headwinds are brutal
sometimes.

I have been thinking about a Mooney or Bonanza but I wonder if I am

The Mooney is much more efficient, but the Bo is more comfortable with
seats setting up high like chairs.

setting myself up for trouble since I have less than 100 hours logged.

Do you think I would be less safe in such an airplane, or would some
extra training be sufficient?

That is determined by attitude and training. With a good attitude and
training (take the American Bonanza Society and Air Safety Pilot
Proficiency course) if you go that route. I'd bet there is something
similar for the Mooney.

Good Luck,

Roger

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?



My Dear Mr. Barrow:

Within the current thread, I have stated that I no longer trust insurance
company statistics for the determination of individual policy risks--which
was stated in the context of a pilot's experience and insurance premiums
for
a higher performance aircraft. Later in this thread, I stated that, in my
personal experience, many of the people and entities who cite insurance
rules as their reasons for various regulations are not being truthful.

Dear Mr. Dohm,

Sounds like your comprehension of statistics is lacking; here's a couple key
words: 1) population, and 2) sample.

Also, it sounds like your grasp of the current state of liability is, shall
we say, stunted?


My opinion of the underlying reasons for what you call " liabilityphobia"
has not changed in many years, and you can search if you care to do so.
It
was not the isurance companies, although they are not a source of any
solution--for reasons which should be mathematically obvious.

Seems your math skills are on par with your statistical skills and your
grasp of legal liability as well.

Get a clue (and maybe get on medication for your paranoia).