At Least He's Honest. Would This Attitude Have 'Saved' Light Airplane Business??

On 22 Dec 2004 11:38:42 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
factory built planes.

How many homebuilts out there with more than 1000 hours on them?
Lots but what does this have to do with anything
If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
I think you'll be amazed at the choices

I think you're the one who is going to be amazed. Here are my
requirements (which are actually less that what I currently have):

Twin engine, with a single engine absolute ceiling at gross not less
than 5000 ft (not negotiable - not interested in singles)

150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't
like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
my spam can does better in every respect.
Does it burn coal and natural gas too
5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel
(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.

Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
whatever experience requirements they want).
I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Michael

I guess I was Wrong I can't think of a single homebuilt that is worthy
of you. What kind of magic carpet are you flying?

On 22 Dec 2004 11:38:42 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

snip

150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't

I'm firm believer in running those big engines at 75% and don't
believe running them less is doing them any favors.

like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
my spam can does better in every respect.

5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel

You said 4 full size adults. Today that is 4 X 170 = 680# (if you are
lucky to find 4 trim adults) plus at least 20# each for baggage makes
760# after fuel.

At 9 GPH at 65% you are pretty much talking 4 cylinder engines. Even
an IO-470N will run about 12 GPH at 65%.

But figuring your optimistic 18 GPH @ 5 hours plus a half hour reserve
= 99 gallons useable so figure at least 110 to 120 gallons @ 6#/gal =
660 to 720# plus 760# for pax and baggage means about 1500# useful
load.

The hard part is going to be getting it all together. The hardest
part is the speed at 65% at low altitude loaded and that fuel burn.

(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.

Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Now you are talking bigger engines and more fuel burn which means long
range tanks in something like a Baron. According to the specs the
Aztec will do it all except for the fuel burn. At 65% you are still
looking at least at 22 to 24 GPH, but they are docile and the panel
can always be upgraded. Anything smaller has miserable single engine
performance.

I can't think of any recent/new small twin that can match the Aztec
for useful load and it comes the closest to your specs.


Anything newer that I can remember will burn a lot of fuel to meet
your specs.

Get the Geronimo conversion, put 70 grand into a new panel...well
maybe 80 grand and you'll have your machine...except for the fuel burn
and easy to find parts.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
whatever experience requirements they want).
I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Michael

Roger wrote:
150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph
(don't

I'm firm believer in running those big engines at 75% and don't
believe running them less is doing them any favors.

Then we'll agree to disagree. I think 65% or less and LOP is the way
to go. 1500+ hours, and only replaced 1 of 8 jugs.

You said 4 full size adults. Today that is 4 X 170 = 680# (if you
are
lucky to find 4 trim adults) plus at least 20# each for baggage makes
760# after fuel.

A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill the
tanks has tanks that are too small. My normal mission is 2 full sized
adults, bags, and full fuel for long range flight. My alternate
mission is 3-4 adults, light baggage, short range. I adjust fuel load
accordingly.

My normal launch states are full tanks (allowing me 600+ lbs of payload
and a 5 hour endurance) and mains only (allowing me 800 lbs of payload
and 3 hour endurance).

At 9 GPH at 65% you are pretty much talking 4 cylinder engines. Even
an IO-470N will run about 12 GPH at 65%.

No argument. Both my certified choices feature small fours.

But figuring your optimistic 18 GPH @ 5 hours plus a half hour
reserve
= 99 gallons useable so figure at least 110 to 120 gallons @ 6#/gal =
660 to 720# plus 760# for pax and baggage means about 1500# useful
load.

Remember I said my plane does better in all respects. For me, 150 kts
happens at 15 gph at 8000, so my 90 gallon load is plenty. Also given
that with full fuel I only need to carry 2 adults and bags, we're down
to about 1200 lbs useful load. But of course with less efficient
airframe/bigger engines it might need to be more.

The hard part is going to be getting it all together. The hardest
part is the speed at 65% at low altitude loaded and that fuel burn.

Not hard at all. There are two certified twins that meet my
requiremens, and either can be had in very good condition for less than
$100K. Those twins are the Beech Travel-Air and the Piper Twin
Comanche. The Twin Comanche is somewhat more efficient and has cheaper
parts, but is more demanding to fly.

Anything smaller has miserable single engine
performance.

I only need a 5000 ft absolute ceiling on one engine at gross - my
flying is almost all in the lowlands. Therefore, I am not concerned
about the miserable single engine performance. Actually, when you
compare light twins at full gross, they all do just about the same
until you get into the cabin class.

Get the Geronimo conversion, put 70 grand into a new panel...well
maybe 80 grand and you'll have your machine...except for the fuel
burn
and easy to find parts.

I already have my machine - and it meets all my specs and then some.
Unfortunately, it is certified. If I could have an experimental I
could buy (not build) to meet those specs, I would pay up to 50% more
up front to buy it than I paid for the certified airplane.
Unfortunately, it's not there at any price.

Michael

I guess I was Wrong I can't think of a single homebuilt that is worthy
of you.

You know, I find it amazing that proponents of homebuilts seem to get
defensive when you point out that the homebuilt is not the be-all and
end-all. It's not a matter of being worthy, it's a matter of meeting
mission requirements. In this case I can't find a homenuilt to meet my
mission requirements.

I'm not against homebuilts. In fact, I own and fly a homebuilt glider
(HP-11T). I love it. It gives me performance that no certified glider
can match at anything less than twice the price. It meets my mission
requirements and saves me money and hassle.

If I could find a homebuilt to meet the mission requirements of my twin
(long range, overwater, night&IFR) I would own it. I hate dealing with
the FAA any time I want to upgrade, and I hate being locked into
obsolete and expensive parts. But there's nothing out there. I've
looked before. I would have been genuinely happy if you found
something I had missed the first time around. I would have bought it.
If someone comes up with something that meets those requirements (I
might even bend on the insurable-for-hull bit) I'll write him a check
for $100K tomorrow. That is substantially more than I have in my
existing twin.

What kind of magic carpet are you flying?

I'm flying a Twin Comanche, but a Beech Travel-Air would also work for
me.

Michael

On 23 Dec 2004 13:08:26 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill the
tanks has tanks that are too small.


Not true. I can put 4 full sized adults and full fuel, and still have
over 500 pounds left for baggage! All this and I can fly 6 hours
without stopping!

The 235 is a wonderful plane....and a 182 can do it too, among many
others.

z

LGHarlan wrote:

My _grandchildren_? How about me. If I could earn a decent living driving
rivets, I would never have went to law school. Think about it.
^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like you need to go back to grammar school and learn how to
write.

Just as outlawing abortion will hapen when Republican legislators no longer
have teenage daughters, effective tort reform will happen when Republican
administrations and legislators can do without highly motivated attorneys-the
kind who play for blood more than money.

You poor brainwashed fool. It's the bloody trial lawyers giving all that
money to Democrats (www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A) that's
holding up tort reform as much as anything.

The tripe emanating from your fingers in every post you've made in this
thread is a modern-day version of the big lie. Like nobody has ever done
in any of the rec.aviation.* newsgroups, you really do make me want to
puke. Sorry to say, but people like you epitomize so much of what is bad
about this country.

Jim Rosinski

zatatime wrote:
A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill
the
tanks has tanks that are too small.

Not true. I can put 4 full sized adults and full fuel, and still
have
over 500 pounds left for baggage! All this and I can fly 6 hours
without stopping!

VFR. Now try flying when the weather is widespread IFR with an iffy
forecast. Your nearest solid gold alternate might be 2+ hours away -
and all of a sudden, when it's just you and maybe one other guy in the
plane, you start wishing you could carry more fuel. Or maybe you
wouldn't but I know I would. More than once I've had to make an extra
fuel stop I really didn't want to make not because I couldn't make my
destination but because I didn't have enough reserve fuel to miss at my
destination and then make an alternate I was sure of.

Of course I suppose this is the sort of attitude that might lead others
to believe I should never fly anything but a kerosene-burner with a
crew, but to me it just seems like a reasonable plan for staying alive
while flying in crappy weather.

The 235 is a wonderful plane....and a 182 can do it too, among many
others.

Actually, I like both of those planes - but there are at least a few
people who agree with me that the tanks are sometimes too small, since
extended range tanks are available for both.

Remember - just because the tanks are there does NOT mean you have to
fill them for every flight. On my airplane you can fill every seat
with a full sized adult and carry bags and still make 500 mile legs
with reserves - but not by filling all the tanks.

Michael

"Denny" wrote in message
ups.com...
Of course, a big ticket manufacturer is in a different ball game... Non
the less, if more businesse in the Untied States were structured so
that there are no deep pockets to go after, there would be a marked
diminishment in frivolous suits, including against the big guys...

It could be solved just as easily by changing the law as it is in the U.K.
Loser Pays.

There are attorneys who make a career out of looking for deep pockets
to sue - for a huge chunk of the judgement of course - knowing that
they will lose 9 suits out of every 10... But, that tenth suit is like
winning the lottery, Christmas, and having your rich uncle leave you
everything, all rolled into one... If the first nine deep pockets
aren't there the tenth suit is going to be fewer and farther between...
Grin right back at ya... Denny

California just had a ballot initiative to get rid of a law that the hippies
in Sacramento wouldn't repeal. It allowed lawyers to on behalf of the
public, while all they really did was line their own pockets. One firm, The
Trevor Law Group was put out of business and it's lawyers disbarred because
of the way they used this law to go after small businesses and threaten them
with a law suit for some minor infraction or other. Is it any wonder so
many politicians are lawyers and that the Trial Lawyers are such big
contributors to the Democrats?