Step-up Planning

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:10:11 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


"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!

Cabin size comparisons:
L-IV: 46 inches in front, 43 in rear, 48 tall
C172: 39.5", 39.5", 48"
C182: 42", 42", 48.5"

Mike, majorly helpful advice. Thanks. -Sami

Mike Rapoport wrote:

"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

Sami,

I got into this hunt late, but I read a lot of the posts, and our resident
Mu 2 jockey is spot on.Especially with the suggestion to go for more weather
gear and altitude and less speed. I see you are ready to drop
pressurization, and thats good for several reasons.

If you like everything about the Arrow except speed, you might look into a
Mooney Bravo with TKS. It gets higher, goes faster, and you know how to use
the turbo already, so it will be a natural step up. Not 250, but I believe
220 plus is in the cards.

The Lancair 400 is also a sweet ride. Haven't flown one, but people I trust
are raving about it. Only problem, you cannot get one at any price, gotta
wait.

Any turbo powered Beech might be a good idea.

Lastly, if you really feel the need for speed, the modded planes like the
Rileys could work out, but I am not that familiar with how well they
dispatch. I would try to stick with more conventional power plants if its
for business.

If you could spend more and wait, the D-Jet comes the closest to meeting
your wants. Unfortunately, they haven't even flown a prototype yet. This
plane and its competitors are throwing a lot of FUD into the old turbo prop
market, so waiting to step into that morass would likely be a wise idea.

Thanks. More good advice. All of the posts have been helpful. This is
exactly why I wanted to start thinking about the next step early.
Everyone's ideas really help me understand what realistic expectations
are, and what the trade-offs are. My timeframe for the next step is
about 24-30 months. From what you say and what I have been reading,
some really interesting changes can happen in that time. The Lancair
400 should be available by then as well.

-Sami


Dude wrote:

Sami,

I got into this hunt late, but I read a lot of the posts, and our resident
Mu 2 jockey is spot on.Especially with the suggestion to go for more weather
gear and altitude and less speed. I see you are ready to drop
pressurization, and thats good for several reasons.

If you like everything about the Arrow except speed, you might look into a
Mooney Bravo with TKS. It gets higher, goes faster, and you know how to use
the turbo already, so it will be a natural step up. Not 250, but I believe
220 plus is in the cards.

The Lancair 400 is also a sweet ride. Haven't flown one, but people I trust
are raving about it. Only problem, you cannot get one at any price, gotta
wait.

Any turbo powered Beech might be a good idea.

Lastly, if you really feel the need for speed, the modded planes like the
Rileys could work out, but I am not that familiar with how well they
dispatch. I would try to stick with more conventional power plants if its
for business.

If you could spend more and wait, the D-Jet comes the closest to meeting
your wants. Unfortunately, they haven't even flown a prototype yet. This
plane and its competitors are throwing a lot of FUD into the old turbo prop
market, so waiting to step into that morass would likely be a wise idea.

Michelle, Agreed. I always have a commercial back-up ticket for every
flight I take. I have been quite conservative in my no-go decisions so
far. I am just looking to expand the percentage of "gos" that I can
make and looking to make my trips a bit shorter. -Sami

Michelle P wrote:

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