Am I an idiot? Low experience; high performance

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:56:38 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


Your insurance, though, might be prohibitive until you get around 300-500
hours. ITC, if your mission requires more speed, and you can justify the
expense, go for it.

When I was taking instruction for the C400, there was a guy in the class
who
had just bought a C350 and had just gotten his PPL a couple weeks earlier.
He has a total of less than 60 hours. He was, though, $$LOADED$$.


What is a C400? Cheyenne?

Columbia 400.

The fellow with the C350 was an youngish (early 30's ?, but anyone under 50
is "youngish" to me) anesthesiologist and very shape.

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

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the *******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them about
as much as I did as a teenager.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news

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

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
*******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
about
as much as I did as a teenager.

Peter

Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:22:12 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Nathan Young" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:56:38 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


Your insurance, though, might be prohibitive until you get around 300-500
hours. ITC, if your mission requires more speed, and you can justify the
expense, go for it.

When I was taking instruction for the C400, there was a guy in the class
who
had just bought a C350 and had just gotten his PPL a couple weeks earlier.
He has a total of less than 60 hours. He was, though, $$LOADED$$.


What is a C400? Cheyenne?

Columbia 400.

The fellow with the C350 was an youngish (early 30's ?, but anyone under 50
is "youngish" to me) anesthesiologist and very shape.


Gotcha... I should have have remembered that was Columbia's
designators.

-Nathan

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.

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
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?

On 2007-08-28, wrote:
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?

It depends on you.

If you're ahead of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a dream to
fly. Fast, good range, comfortable, can carry a decent load, has very
effective flaps - so you can feel happy going into not only long paved
runways but short, rough grass strips. We had one in our flying club for
a couple of years and I loved it. I hate to think how much money I spent
flying it, so I don't, and instead I remember all of the excellent trips
I took in it - especially that Texas to Florida trip where I had a nice
tailwind and had a 210 knot ground speed.

If you're behind of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a
nightmare. That's why they got called 'forked tailed doctor killers' -
mainly wealthy professionals who didn't have the time to stay current
ended up getting behind the plane and getting in trouble.

Get good instruction, fly it often, stay current - and you can enjoy
flying the Bonanza and you can be safe in it, too. You really need to
stay current. You can get away with being rusty in a C172, but in a
faster plane, especially if you're trying to go somewhere you really do
want to stay current.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article ,


It depends on you.

If you're ahead of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a dream to
fly. Fast, good range, comfortable, can carry a decent load, has very
effective flaps - so you can feel happy going into not only long paved
runways but short, rough grass strips. We had one in our flying club for
a couple of years and I loved it. I hate to think how much money I spent
flying it, so I don't, and instead I remember all of the excellent trips
I took in it - especially that Texas to Florida trip where I had a nice
tailwind and had a 210 knot ground speed.

If you're behind of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a
nightmare. That's why they got called 'forked tailed doctor killers' -
mainly wealthy professionals who didn't have the time to stay current
ended up getting behind the plane and getting in trouble.

It is also a function of your attitude toward flying. If you take a
lackadaisical approach, even a Cub is a deadly weapon in your hands. I
know high-time people who are absolutely DANGEROUS and low-time people
who are good pilots.

If, however, you take each flight as a learning opportunity, and improve
your abilities, go for it!

Learn to fly with your fingertips and toe tips and keep your head
OUTSIDE the cockpit when VFR; know your systems inside and out;
understand the mechanics of your airplane.

Get good instruction, fly it often, stay current - and you can enjoy
flying the Bonanza and you can be safe in it, too. You really need to
stay current. You can get away with being rusty in a C172, but in a
faster plane, especially if you're trying to go somewhere you really do
want to stay current.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news

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

The insurance companies are not charities. The fact that the
insurance will cost you a bundle tells you that at least the insurance
company considers you less safe at low time, even if some chat members
don't.

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
*******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
about
as much as I did as a teenager.

Peter

Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...


Yuk, yuk...

As annoying as insurance companies can be, some of the people who routinely
attribute their own decisions to insurance and/or other regulations (which
are only rarely applicable) are a far greater irritant!

For a great example, see the current thread titled: "Can the airport ban
bicycles?" on this NG.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Perhaps, and perhaps they are even correct. But I don't trust the
*******s!

I actually reached a point, in very early middle age, when I almost
believed
that all of their number crunching must obviously result in some sort
of
usefull information, in an actuarial sense. However, I now trust them
about
as much as I did as a teenager.

[Missed this the first time]

Do you understand statiscally derived actuarial data? That it's only a
estimate, and that under many current laws, it's a _haphazzard_ guess?

Maybe it's time to move away from mom and dad...


Yuk, yuk...

As annoying as insurance companies can be, some of the people who
routinely
attribute their own decisions to insurance and/or other regulations (which
are only rarely applicable) are a far greater irritant!

Welcome to reality, most commonly refered to as "Liability Law".


For a great example, see the current thread titled: "Can the airport ban
bicycles?" on this NG.

As above.

As for trust of insurance companies (some, not all, by a long stretch) that
routinely try to weasel, have you ever considered the source of our current
liabilityphobia?

On Aug 30, 9:30 pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2007-08-28, wrote:

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?

It depends on you.

If you're ahead of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a dream to
fly. Fast, good range, comfortable, can carry a decent load, has very
effective flaps - so you can feel happy going into not only long paved
runways but short, rough grass strips. We had one in our flying club for
a couple of years and I loved it. I hate to think how much money I spent
flying it, so I don't, and instead I remember all of the excellent trips
I took in it - especially that Texas to Florida trip where I had a nice
tailwind and had a 210 knot ground speed.

If you're behind of the airplane, when flying a Bonanza, it's a
nightmare. That's why they got called 'forked tailed doctor killers' -
mainly wealthy professionals who didn't have the time to stay current
ended up getting behind the plane and getting in trouble.

Get good instruction, fly it often, stay current - and you can enjoy
flying the Bonanza and you can be safe in it, too. You really need to
stay current. You can get away with being rusty in a C172, but in a
faster plane, especially if you're trying to go somewhere you really do
want to stay current.

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