Am I an idiot? Low experience; high performance

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 Aug 28, 3:52 pm, 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?

I got about 20 hours in a Bo back when I only had about 120 TT logged.
A few hours with a CFI and you'll be OK. Bonanza's are big airplanes,
so the big engine is "tamed" a little bit, if you will, by the heavier
airframe. If you wanted to get a Eclipse or a TMB, then there would be
some concern. Turbine and larger multi-engine airplanes should only be
attempted by higher time pilots (600 TT and above, I'd say).

Any single (P51's and similar not withstanding) should be no problem
as long as you spend a little time getting used to the (relatively
simple) landing gear system, prop governor, autopilot, etc.

On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, 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?

I did a private for a student in a Mooney last summer. The guy took
his checkride in his Mooney with all his time in the Mooney. Low time
will just mean that you will need more CFI time to get ready for the
Mooney than a more experienced pilot but its certainly not a
limitation.

-Robert, CFII

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:05:58 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

On Aug 28, 3:52 pm, 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?

I did a private for a student in a Mooney last summer. The guy took
his checkride in his Mooney with all his time in the Mooney. Low time
will just mean that you will need more CFI time to get ready for the
Mooney than a more experienced pilot but its certainly not a
limitation.

Don't forget $$Insurance$$ for a low time pilot in a complex retract.
That being said, I know of several pilots who earned their PPL in an
A36 Bo and one in a Glasair III. They could afford the insurance.
:-))

I know of one nearby who was flying a Piper Twin Comanche with under
100 hours.

Roger

-Robert, CFII

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?

A complex, high performance airplane will be more demanding than a Skyhawk,
but why buy an airplane that may dissapoint you with its suitability for the
missions you fly? Don't buy an airplane you can't really use.

There's no reason a 100-hour pilot cannot operate a Bonanza or Mooney safely
if he gets enough training to be proficient.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

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?


A complex, high performance airplane will be more demanding than a Skyhawk,
but why buy an airplane that may dissapoint you with its suitability for the
missions you fly? Don't buy an airplane you can't really use.

There's no reason a 100-hour pilot cannot operate a Bonanza or Mooney safely
if he gets enough training to be proficient.


An more in insurance costs with low time. My opinion only.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, 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?

Hello:

The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
happen faster at 300...

The question you (and your insurance company) will have to answer is
what kind of pilot are you? Are you methodical, flow/checklist, and
precision oriented or are you "just do it as it works out" kind of
pilot.

Here is a measure of that...when you are flying "mostly" do you do the
same things with the plane the same way at the same time and use the
checklist? a well trained pilot starts the walkaround the same place
and does the checks the same way every fracken time. The joke is "He/
she is three minutes into the walkaround, if everything is OK he/she
is at blank". Flying along coming into an airport do you start the
descent and approach at the same distance from the plane and do the
landing at the same place (like turning final) or is it a different
place every time.

If there is no "rhythum" to itthen youj are in trouble. One of the
things I do back home is take any primary students I have to the local
Walmart. It is under the approach lanes of one of the major airport.
We watch the Boeings come over...after about 20 minutes I ask them
"what do you see?" and the answer from the people who have a clue is
"the gear and flaps are coming down on all of them just about
here"...thats "Gear Down Flaps 15 Before landing checklist I have the
brake".

A well trained pilot should be like that. If you are not, then
"you" (generic) are a meanace saved from the rest of us by the slow
speed and airspace protection. If you are then with good training and
transition help, you want have any problem.

The insurance cost will be "higher".

Robert

On Aug 28, 4:08 pm, Luke Skywalker wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:


The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
happen faster at 300...

If you read Richard Collins he has long shown stasticial correlations
between accident rates and speed in owner flown GA. For instance the
Mooney has more accidents than the nearly identical (but slower)
Arrow. Richard's theory is that the more speed the plane has the more
weather systems and variety of environments you encounter. I tend to
agree with him.

The insurance cost will be "higher".

Yea, my student had a similar model Mooney to mine and he paid an
extra $4K per year for insurance.

On Aug 28, 6:56 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:08 pm, Luke Skywalker wrote:

On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, wrote:

The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
happen faster at 300...

If you read Richard Collins he has long shown stasticial correlations
between accident rates and speed in owner flown GA. For instance the
Mooney has more accidents than the nearly identical (but slower)
Arrow. Richard's theory is that the more speed the plane has the more
weather systems and variety of environments you encounter. I tend to
agree with him.

The insurance cost will be "higher".

Yea, my student had a similar model Mooney to mine and he paid an
extra $4K per year for insurance.

Hello

I've read Richard Collins for a long time and who the heck am I to
disagree with him....but I do and I dont.

I do in that I think that the faster the airplane flies, the more
complex etc the more likely flaws in the decision making process are
going to be exposed...but I disagree in that I think that the flaws
are still the same wheather it is an ultralight or a B-757. It is
just the issue of when the error chain starts backing up fast enough
so that it is unrecoverable and then finally fatal.

My take is that I dont have a very good view on "MOST" of the private
pilot training programs that are out there. They are not very
"rigorized" meaning that methods and procedures are not stressed from
day 1 and drilled into students. Hence very quickly after the private
people start originating with little competence their own methods.
My first, non government but he was a product of government and
airline training programs, instructor was methodical about "inspiring"
Into me a "rhythum" of procedures and that was when we were just
flying the Cub. There was nothing that was "seat of the pants".

I dont see that in a lot of people, even when they get ready to go for
the commuter airline ranks. Now most of them will put that into the
folks or the folks leave......but my experience is that the speed
(velocity) of the plane while important pales behind getting a method
down and using it.

Robert

In article . com,
says...


On Aug 28, 5:52 pm, 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?

Hello:

The "speed" of the airplane is largely irrelevant to safety. It is a
part of it, one has to think faster at 300 knts then at 100...but my
experience is that the same mistakes that happen at 100 knots just
happen faster at 300...

The question you (and your insurance company) will have to answer is
what kind of pilot are you? Are you methodical, flow/checklist, and
precision oriented or are you "just do it as it works out" kind of
pilot.


How does your insurance company determine this?
Do they attempt to "profile" individuals beyond the basic numbers (e.g.
100hr/high perf/complex acft/age/sex)?