Some more positive GA News

"Larry Dighera" wrote
I don't know about that. We just scrapped a business trip via GA due to
cost differential - going GA would have been $1,300 just in fuel, via the
airlines the same two people could go for $500 total and not have to
worry
about potential delays due to winter weather.

Perhaps if you had been able amortize the cost of that flight over
four seats instead of two (as is possible in the PA28-235/6) it might
have worked out better.

We have six seats as well (light twin), but only two people needed to go on
this trip which is typical of most of our trips (1 or 2 people). We have
considered getting a fast single, but we also occasionally need the
load-carrying capacity, room, and speed of a light twin.

It has always been the case for us that airline travel was cheaper than
travel by GA, but in the past we could justify the differential due to
convenience and traveling on our own schedule. The gap is getting so
wide
now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify anymore.

I hope you're not intimating that airline travel is getting easier for
passengers. Given the security indignity and delay, and other airline
delays, the cost of GA travel is becoming more attractive, IMO.

No, you're right - airline travel is certainly not getting easier and I
agree that those issues are worth something, just not $800 in direct costs
in the case of this trip.

We do have trips that involve bringing delicate test equipment or
transporting our products for demos, and in those cases going via airlines
is impractical or out of the question entirely in the post-9/11 environment.
Those trips are just not the norm anymore.

BDS

On Feb 1, 6:39*am, "BDS" wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote

I don't know about that. *We just scrapped a business trip via GA due to
cost differential - going GA would have been $1,300 just in fuel, via the
airlines the same two people could go for $500 total and not have to
worry
about potential delays due to winter weather.

Perhaps if you had been able amortize the cost of that flight over
four seats instead of two (as is possible in the PA28-235/6) it might
have worked out better.

We have six seats as well (light twin), but only two people needed to go on
this trip which is typical of most of our trips (1 or 2 people). *We have
considered getting a fast single, but we also occasionally need the
load-carrying capacity, room, and speed of a light twin.



It might be that using a modern fast single can meet 90% of your needs
and will save a lot on fuel while not giving up much speed. If you
need more seats and cargo, fly two planes :-)

Cheers

We have six seats as well (light twin), but only two people needed to go
on
this trip which is typical of most of our trips (1 or 2 people). We have
considered getting a fast single, but we also occasionally need the
load-carrying capacity, room, and speed of a light twin.

Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything
but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance
expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.

The new plane market and resale values reflect that. A friend of mine owns
a beautiful Aerostar that has lost 50% of its value in just the last few
years. Every time fuel goes up, the price of twins go down.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything
but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance
expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.

If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra
engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of
easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the
country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in
the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the
years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the
back it would barely all fit into the rental car.

The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the
years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine
failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your
engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another
completely good one still making noise.

However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since
the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a
fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment
into, and easy to get it back out.

BDS

BDS wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote

Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything
but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance
expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.

If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra
engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of
easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the
country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in
the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the
years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the
back it would barely all fit into the rental car.

The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of
an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.


The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the
years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine
failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your
engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another
completely good one still making noise.

Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
(other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.

However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since
the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a
fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment
into, and easy to get it back out.

Yes, it is probably almost as cheap to operate a single turbine engine
as it is two piston engines.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
news
BDS wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote

Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for
anything but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and
maintenance expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.

If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the
extra engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and
the big plus of easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower
home from across the country in the back of ours a few years ago -
try fitting one of those in the back of any single - and have
transported lots of equipment over the years. We went to a trade
show a few years back and had so much gear in the back it would
barely all fit into the rental car.

The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk
of an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

Depends on proficiency, mostly.


And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.


The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over
the years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one
complete engine failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump
failures. When your engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV
it's nice to have another completely good one still making noise.

Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
(other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.

mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?


However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate
since the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need
to find a fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly
demo equipment into, and easy to get it back out.

Yes, it is probably almost as cheap to operate a single turbine engine
as it is two piston engines.


Depends on the pistons 1

Bertie

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
(other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.

mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?

The Malibu has two alternators.

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
(other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.

mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?

The Malibu has two alternators.


OK, did not know that..

Still, if I was doing serious work in weather and at night, it'd have to be
a twin.


Bertie

Peter Clark wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
(other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.
mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?

The Malibu has two alternators.

Peter, you had to go and respond to the Buttnip after my filter had no
nicely automatically deleted his ignorant response. Now why did you go
and do that? :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote

The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of
an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

Taken as a whole I realize the statistics say this is true. Whether those
statistics will apply to a given pilot may depend somewhat on proficiency
and recent experience, recurrency training, and how that individual
approaches his/her flying. Lack of proficiency in any aircraft can get you
killed just as easily as having a lackadaisical attitude towards flying can
when the chips are down.

And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.

The rear seating area of a Seneca has its own door as does the luggage area.
Those rear seats can be taken out in less than a minute, which leaves you
with a massive space that is very easy to access. I realize the Saratoga
has the same fuselage, but the Saratoga isn't exactly fast.

OTOH, neither is a Seneca which reminds me of a radio exchange I had one
evening going through Patuxent airspace. The female controller asked for my
airspeed and then told me not to exceed 170 knots. I told her that
unfortunately that wasn't going to be a problem. :)

BDS