Step-up Planning

I dont mind oxygen that much....as long as I can make my ceiling
requirements (mostly to get above weather). I will take a look. -Sami

Marco Leon wrote:

Haven't crunched the numbers but I remember a turbocharged Lancair 400
possibly fitting the bill--but it's not pressurized. Might be worth a look
if you don't mind oxygen.

Marco Leon


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...

I now own a PA28R201T, Piper Turbo Arrow III. It is a great plane
(although, as some of you know, I have had more than my share of
"challenges"). At altitude it cruises at 170 knots. Cost to operate is
around $90/hour (figuring maintenance and such). My range requirement
is 660nm with 45 minutes of fuel left offer. I most often fly it
single-pilot IFR. Lately, I have begun thinking about the next step up,
which I am planning for 2 years from now...but one can't start too early
to consider options. So, here are my goals.

Range: 600nm with IFR reserve
Speed: 250 knots or better
Ceiling: 25,000 or better (Pressurized Cabin)
Passengers: 4 seater
Operating Cost: Would prefer round trip, 1320nm, cost less than $1000
Budget: $500K

Suggestions would be most welcome. I would like to narrow the search
down to 2 or 3 that comes as close as possible to my requirements. Is a
turbo-prop out of the question? Thanks in advance.

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

Aviation Consumer had an interesting article on the next generation of
turbo props that shows much promise of the price coming down to the
point where they could be the norm in the future. The reliability of
those engines seems really impressive. -Sami

kontiki wrote:

dream on. In my opinion you are looking for something that doesn't yet
exist. I think a personal jet could fill the bill too bad no one
has built one yet.... and for a pirce that actual individuals could
afford.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:

Considering the requirement of 250kts or better there are no piston
airplanes to consider. No turboprop will meet the $200/hr requirement.
I doubt that a pressurized piston twin will meet the $200/hr requirment
either You can get the range, speed, load hauling and altitude if you
spend more on operating cost or you can get the stated operating and
aqusition cost if you are willing to go 200kts.instead of 250.

Well, perhaps I can back-off on the operating costs a bit. Any idea on
how far i would have to back-off to make my speed goal?

I would guess that you need to go to $500-600hr. Engine HSI and overhaul
reserve alone is going to be $50/hr per engine. Fuel burn will be at least
250pph (37GPH) each or about $100/hr for fuel per engine. There is $300/hr
and we haven't really even started! You can see that the single engine will
be cheaper to operate but will be significantly more expensive to buy since
all the turboprop singles are fairly new. If you fly 100hrs/yr your total
operating cost will be close to $1000/hr making each round trip $5-6000. If
you borrow money to buy the airplane your cost will be over $1300/hr if you
fly 100hrs/yr. It will be cheaper to charter a jet if you fly 100hrs/yr.


Keep in mind that you are going to spend about $5000 a year on training
and over $10,000 (maybe $20K) on insurance. If you fly 100hrs a year
(25,000 nm of travel, a lot), then insurance and training will cost
$150/hr.

Wow, interesting. I did not imagine insureance would be quite that much.

Insurance is largely a function of hull value. Hull insurance will be at
least 2% of hull value and liability will be about $2-3000/yr. Hull rates
could be much higher until you have a lot of time (1000+hrs) in similiar
aircraft. I know a guy who paid $60,000 the first year on a PC-12. If your
time is really in an Arrow, you won't be able to get insurance at any price
without a professional pilot (and the insurance company is not going to
accept the local CFI as a pro pilot)


There is a point of rapidly dimishing returns on going faster. The cost
goes up geometrically and the time saved goes down less than linearly
because of taxi and approach speed restrictions.

Yes, but for long trips, like mine, it seems worth it. For a 1-2 hour
trip, I can definitely see your point, but for 4-5 hour trips, it seems
that the trip time savings is significant.


You stated 600nm trips. Thirty minutes saved true, but the cost per trip
will likely be $750 greater each way which is double (2.5hrs @ $600/hr
vs.3hrs at $250). The actual difference will be greater because all the
fixed costs for the faster airplane will be higher too. Once you start
making five hour trips, the airlines start looking pretty good time and
expense wise. The five hour turboprop flight is a three hour jet flight, so
you recover all the time spent going through security ect. If you at
thinking of doing these trips regularly in one day for business, think
again. You will be getting up at 5am and getting back at night. Renting
cars, driving to the actual destination, checking weather, filing flight
plans all take time and you can't really fly very well after you have been
on the go for 16hrs. Basically you will spend all your time dealing with
the flying and not on getting any business done.

I would focus on more weather capability (two engines, radar, known ice)
and take whatever speed that comes with the package.

Yes. Good points. Known ice will be key for me. For business travel, I
need to be able to go when I need to go.

I am wrestling with all this stuff too. I was flying the MU-2 over 200
hrs/yr several years ago. Now I live twice as far from where I need to go
so the cost is at least twice and at the same time the incrementaly value to
my business of each trip has dropped by about half. The cost/benefit has
gone up 4X so I fly less and the cost/hr goes up even more. I am
contemplating getting rid of the airplane. I live in the northwest and the
only MU-2 simulator training is the the southeast so the training consumes
four days, I can't possibly save that much time. Therefore the airplane is
costing me time as well as money. I have to be certain that selling is what
I really want to do because I really don't want to start over with another
airplane. Having a 300kt/30,000'/1400nm airplane that you are totally
proficient in is a great thing but there is still a limit on how much this
great thing is worth. It was pretty simple when each dollar spent on travel
equated to two dollars in return but when it only nets a dollar you have to
question it.

I'm telling you all this not to discourage you but so that you can make an
informed choice. I have heard brokers tell people that they can fly a MU-2
for $350/hr. which is clearly not possible since fuel, engine reserve and
insurance is more than that. Then they buy the airplane and can't afford to
use it much which makes the cost per hr astronomical.

The Lancair IVP is a possible solution as pointed out be several people.but
it really has no weather capability. No radar, known ice, no lightning
hardening. It is fast, fairly simple and cheap to operate. It also has no
room inside.

Mike
MU-2


Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...

I now own a PA28R201T, Piper Turbo Arrow III. It is a great plane
(although, as some of you know, I have had more than my share of
"challenges"). At altitude it cruises at 170 knots. Cost to operate is
around $90/hour (figuring maintenance and such). My range requirement is
660nm with 45 minutes of fuel left offer. I most often fly it
single-pilot IFR. Lately, I have begun thinking about the next step up,
which I am planning for 2 years from now...but one can't start too early
to consider options. So, here are my goals.

Range: 600nm with IFR reserve
Speed: 250 knots or better
Ceiling: 25,000 or better (Pressurized Cabin)
Passengers: 4 seater
Operating Cost: Would prefer round trip, 1320nm, cost less than $1000
Budget: $500K

Suggestions would be most welcome. I would like to narrow the search
down to 2 or 3 that comes as close as possible to my requirements. Is a
turbo-prop out of the question? Thanks in advance.

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
Nathan, Yes, I looked at the specs on a Lancair IV-P. They sound too
good to be true. How can they be soo much better than the nearest
competitor in the class? Does anyone out there have direct experience
with one of these? What is the catch?

-sami

The catch? Several...

1) It is an experimental. That means the systems and airframe are not
necessarily up to certified standards.

2) You've gotta build it. Or buy one already complete (which brings up the
build quality issue).

3) It is a complex bird. Since you built it, presumably you can maintain
it. If you can't, does your A/I have the courage/discipline/whatever to
figure out a one of a kind airplane that doesn't have a maintenance manual?

4) The takeoff and landing speeds of the Lancair IV are higher than what is
allowed for certified aircraft. In an off-airport landing, higher speed
means much more risk.

These are the ones I can come up with off the top of my head at 6:50 AM.
I'm sure there are more.

By the way, I fly an experimental, so I'm not bashing experimentals, just
pointing out some of the issues you need to consider.

KB

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:39:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...


The Lancair IVP is a possible solution as pointed out be several people.but
it really has no weather capability. No radar, known ice, no lightning
hardening. It is fast, fairly simple and cheap to operate. It also has no
room inside.

Disagree with the room comment. A L-IV has a bigger cabin than most
GA 4 place singles. However, this is much smaller than any twin
cabin, and certainly the turboprop cabins.

You are dead on about the K-Ice issues. And icing is a year round
concern @ 25,000 feet.

Radar is an issue, but Nexrad links + stormscope info are a good
alternative to onboard radar.

As far as lighting protection, I think the certified composites use a
wire mesh layer between layups to allow conduction paths in the event
of a lightning strike. It is true that without this protection, a
lightning strike could be catastrophic. I am not sure if this can be
incorporated into the experimental versions.

Thanks for posting Mike. I know people who make a business giving this
kind of advice. I hope others appreciate your contributions as much as I do.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...


Mike Rapoport wrote:


Considering the requirement of 250kts or better there are no piston
airplanes to consider. No turboprop will meet the $200/hr requirement.
I doubt that a pressurized piston twin will meet the $200/hr requirment
either You can get the range, speed, load hauling and altitude if you
spend more on operating cost or you can get the stated operating and
aqusition cost if you are willing to go 200kts.instead of 250.

Well, perhaps I can back-off on the operating costs a bit. Any idea on
how far i would have to back-off to make my speed goal?


I would guess that you need to go to $500-600hr. Engine HSI and overhaul
reserve alone is going to be $50/hr per engine. Fuel burn will be at least
250pph (37GPH) each or about $100/hr for fuel per engine. There is $300/hr
and we haven't really even started! You can see that the single engine will
be cheaper to operate but will be significantly more expensive to buy since
all the turboprop singles are fairly new. If you fly 100hrs/yr your total
operating cost will be close to $1000/hr making each round trip $5-6000. If
you borrow money to buy the airplane your cost will be over $1300/hr if you
fly 100hrs/yr. It will be cheaper to charter a jet if you fly 100hrs/yr.


Keep in mind that you are going to spend about $5000 a year on training
and over $10,000 (maybe $20K) on insurance. If you fly 100hrs a year
(25,000 nm of travel, a lot), then insurance and training will cost
$150/hr.

Wow, interesting. I did not imagine insureance would be quite that much.


Insurance is largely a function of hull value. Hull insurance will be at
least 2% of hull value and liability will be about $2-3000/yr. Hull rates
could be much higher until you have a lot of time (1000+hrs) in similiar
aircraft. I know a guy who paid $60,000 the first year on a PC-12. If your
time is really in an Arrow, you won't be able to get insurance at any price
without a professional pilot (and the insurance company is not going to
accept the local CFI as a pro pilot)


There is a point of rapidly dimishing returns on going faster. The cost
goes up geometrically and the time saved goes down less than linearly
because of taxi and approach speed restrictions.

Yes, but for long trips, like mine, it seems worth it. For a 1-2 hour
trip, I can definitely see your point, but for 4-5 hour trips, it seems
that the trip time savings is significant.



You stated 600nm trips. Thirty minutes saved true, but the cost per trip
will likely be $750 greater each way which is double (2.5hrs @ $600/hr
vs.3hrs at $250). The actual difference will be greater because all the
fixed costs for the faster airplane will be higher too. Once you start
making five hour trips, the airlines start looking pretty good time and
expense wise. The five hour turboprop flight is a three hour jet flight, so
you recover all the time spent going through security ect. If you at
thinking of doing these trips regularly in one day for business, think
again. You will be getting up at 5am and getting back at night. Renting
cars, driving to the actual destination, checking weather, filing flight
plans all take time and you can't really fly very well after you have been
on the go for 16hrs. Basically you will spend all your time dealing with
the flying and not on getting any business done.


I would focus on more weather capability (two engines, radar, known ice)
and take whatever speed that comes with the package.

Yes. Good points. Known ice will be key for me. For business travel, I
need to be able to go when I need to go.


I am wrestling with all this stuff too. I was flying the MU-2 over 200
hrs/yr several years ago. Now I live twice as far from where I need to go
so the cost is at least twice and at the same time the incrementaly value to
my business of each trip has dropped by about half. The cost/benefit has
gone up 4X so I fly less and the cost/hr goes up even more. I am
contemplating getting rid of the airplane. I live in the northwest and the
only MU-2 simulator training is the the southeast so the training consumes
four days, I can't possibly save that much time. Therefore the airplane is
costing me time as well as money. I have to be certain that selling is what
I really want to do because I really don't want to start over with another
airplane. Having a 300kt/30,000'/1400nm airplane that you are totally
proficient in is a great thing but there is still a limit on how much this
great thing is worth. It was pretty simple when each dollar spent on travel
equated to two dollars in return but when it only nets a dollar you have to
question it.

I'm telling you all this not to discourage you but so that you can make an
informed choice. I have heard brokers tell people that they can fly a MU-2
for $350/hr. which is clearly not possible since fuel, engine reserve and
insurance is more than that. Then they buy the airplane and can't afford to
use it much which makes the cost per hr astronomical.

The Lancair IVP is a possible solution as pointed out be several people.but
it really has no weather capability. No radar, known ice, no lightning
hardening. It is fast, fairly simple and cheap to operate. It also has no
room inside.

Mike
MU-2



Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...


I now own a PA28R201T, Piper Turbo Arrow III. It is a great plane
(although, as some of you know, I have had more than my share of
"challenges"). At altitude it cruises at 170 knots. Cost to operate is
around $90/hour (figuring maintenance and such). My range requirement is
660nm with 45 minutes of fuel left offer. I most often fly it
single-pilot IFR. Lately, I have begun thinking about the next step up,
which I am planning for 2 years from now...but one can't start too early
to consider options. So, here are my goals.

Range: 600nm with IFR reserve
Speed: 250 knots or better
Ceiling: 25,000 or better (Pressurized Cabin)
Passengers: 4 seater
Operating Cost: Would prefer round trip, 1320nm, cost less than $1000
Budget: $500K

Suggestions would be most welcome. I would like to narrow the search
down to 2 or 3 that comes as close as possible to my requirements. Is a
turbo-prop out of the question? Thanks in advance.

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

Fly Commercial. Let someone else make the decision so you stay alive.
The have to get there mentality leads to a grave.
Michelle

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:



Mike Rapoport wrote:

Considering the requirement of 250kts or better there are no piston
airplanes to consider. No turboprop will meet the $200/hr
requirement. I doubt that a pressurized piston twin will meet the
$200/hr requirment either You can get the range, speed, load hauling
and altitude if you spend more on operating cost or you can get the
stated operating and aqusition cost if you are willing to go
200kts.instead of 250.


Well, perhaps I can back-off on the operating costs a bit. Any idea
on how far i would have to back-off to make my speed goal?


Keep in mind that you are going to spend about $5000 a year on
training and over $10,000 (maybe $20K) on insurance. If you fly
100hrs a year (25,000 nm of travel, a lot), then insurance and
training will cost $150/hr.


Wow, interesting. I did not imagine insureance would be quite that much.


There is a point of rapidly dimishing returns on going faster. The
cost goes up geometrically and the time saved goes down less than
linearly because of taxi and approach speed restrictions.


Yes, but for long trips, like mine, it seems worth it. For a 1-2 hour
trip, I can definitely see your point, but for 4-5 hour trips, it
seems that the trip time savings is significant.

I would focus on more weather capability (two engines, radar, known
ice) and take whatever speed that comes with the package.


Yes. Good points. Known ice will be key for me. For business
travel, I need to be able to go when I need to go.


Mike
MU-2


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...

I now own a PA28R201T, Piper Turbo Arrow III. It is a great plane
(although, as some of you know, I have had more than my share of
"challenges"). At altitude it cruises at 170 knots. Cost to
operate is around $90/hour (figuring maintenance and such). My
range requirement is 660nm with 45 minutes of fuel left offer. I
most often fly it single-pilot IFR. Lately, I have begun thinking
about the next step up, which I am planning for 2 years from
now...but one can't start too early to consider options. So, here
are my goals.

Range: 600nm with IFR reserve
Speed: 250 knots or better
Ceiling: 25,000 or better (Pressurized Cabin)
Passengers: 4 seater
Operating Cost: Would prefer round trip, 1320nm, cost less than $1000
Budget: $500K

Suggestions would be most welcome. I would like to narrow the
search down to 2 or 3 that comes as close as possible to my
requirements. Is a turbo-prop out of the question? Thanks in advance.

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III





--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:39:45 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...


The Lancair IVP is a possible solution as pointed out be several
people.but
it really has no weather capability. No radar, known ice, no lightning
hardening. It is fast, fairly simple and cheap to operate. It also has
no
room inside.

Disagree with the room comment. A L-IV has a bigger cabin than most
GA 4 place singles. However, this is much smaller than any twin
cabin, and certainly the turboprop cabins.

My hanger neighbor is building a beautiful (OSH Grand Champion level)
turbine IVP. All I can say is that the cabin looks smaller than a 182 to
me!


You are dead on about the K-Ice issues. And icing is a year round
concern @ 25,000 feet.

Radar is an issue, but Nexrad links + stormscope info are a good
alternative to onboard radar.

Nexrad and stormscope don't have the resolution to really fly convective
weather.


As far as lighting protection, I think the certified composites use a
wire mesh layer between layups to allow conduction paths in the event
of a lightning strike. It is true that without this protection, a
lightning strike could be catastrophic. I am not sure if this can be
incorporated into the experimental versions.

I'm pretty sure that the kits that I have seen don't have any mesh. Most
(all?) of these kits come with the major structure pretty much built.

Mike
MU-2

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Thanks for posting Mike. I know people who make a business giving this
kind of advice. I hope others appreciate your contributions as much as I
do.

I'm glad somebody finds it useful. I can deduct my flying expenses so I
keep track of them in Quicken which makes accessing the data pretty easy.
There a lot of hugely expensive components that nobody seems to take into
account when they do their cost analysis. ACM, windshields, cabin windows
all last 4-7000hrs or about 20yrs. Since the cost to overhaul or replace is
$35,000, 50,000, $30,000 respecively, the cost per hour is $16-18/hr. This
in not much in the scheme of things...BUT...most of the used turboprops are
about 20yrs old with 4-7000hrs on them and haven't had this stuff replaced.
Therefore, there is a reasonable chance that you will need to replace all
these in the next 500hrs!. You bought the airplane for $500K but now you
are into it for $600K and it is only worth $450K (with 500 more hours on
it). People should understand that this senario is not unlikely.

Mike
MU-2

I know nothing first hand about this class of plane, but I recently read an
article [1] on the Malibu Mirage, and it seems to get within shouting
distance of your requirements:

Ceiling 25,000
Top speed: 220kts
Range: 1055nm
Cost per hour: $200-$300 (direct + indirect)

http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182792-1.html