1200 nm Every 2 wks.

[mn_voyageur]

Joe,

I did not identify either, since I did not have a firm grasp on what I needed. That was part of the reason for posting with out limitations. I doubt that we would have digressed into discussing turboprops if I had capped my purchase price. However, I am glad that we did, since I had no idea as to the trade-offs.

Since I will be flying 600-1200 nm flights, I am leaning towards a turbo. However, flying an NA a/c would mean more hours in the air! Four place is enough for now. My kids are small and most of my flying will be alone or with one in the right seat.

How much I can spend is really tough, since I do not know what I want. I am leaning towards buying and selling in a year or two, when I have a better idea as to what I want. Right now, I am torn between buying a single or a twin. It would be nice to buy a twin and accumulate hours, but with limited experience, I am a little skittish.

Whether a single or a twin, any suggestions on "gotta haves" and "nice to haves." So far:

IFR a/c with IFR GPS
Couple A/P w/Alt Hold*
Oxygen
6 hour tanks @ 150 kts.​

Nice to haves:

Hot Prop
Stormscope
430/530​

* - What exactly is Coupled A/P? It is always listed with Altitude Hold.

MarkN

 

[jesse]

* - What exactly is Coupled A/P? It is always listed with Altitude Hold.

It generally means the auto-pilot can "couple" to a navigation signal and fly that signal. For example, it might be able to couple on an ILS and hold both the localizer and glideslope. It may be able to fly a VOR signal. It might be able to fly a GPS course. Fancier installations will include GPS roll steering which will allow the autopilot to fly GPS approaches well (the gps can signal the autopilot to make a turn proactively to maintain a course instead of just blowing through it and reactively coming back to intercept)

"Coupled" can really mean a lot, it really depends on the rest of the equipment in the airplane.

 

[Areeda]

* - What exactly is Coupled A/P? It is always listed with Altitude Hold.

Well I'm not very sure about what uncoupled autopilots are but here's my 25¢ intro to autopilots.

Autopilots come in 1, 2 and 3 axis controls. The #1 is bank, #2 is pitch, and #3 is yaw.

With a 1 axis autopilot you can have a wing level that basically flies straight or at a particular bank, or you can follow a heading, or if it's coupled to a nav system like a VOR or GPS it can track a radial/course. If you have GPSS (GPS Steering) the GPS unit can send heading commands to the autopilot allowing it to fly a flight plan, holding pattern, or instrument approach (lateral part).

For the 2 axis autopilot, there are a couple of levels. Altitude Hold will keep the plane at a particular (pressure) altitude. Others with preset altitude will maintain a constant rate of climb until the desired altitude and then level off and hold that altitude. Newest APs like the GFC700 will maintain a constant airspeed until the desired altitude.

The 3rd axis is not very common in small planes, it controls the rudder and uses coordinated turns (in the others the pilot still controls the rudders).

A much better intro to autopilots can be found at http://www.s-tec.com/pdf/AutoPilotBook.pdf

Joe

 

[Areeda]

"Coupled" can really mean a lot, it really depends on the rest of the equipment in the airplane.

Very true.
If you are in the soup asking yourself "why is it doing THAT" it can even mean the same thing as it does when people are "coupled".

Joe

 

[Ted]

Mark, one thing to remember is that the purchase price is only the price of entry. Once you buy the plane, you still have to pay sales tax and insurance (figure another $10k) plus any additional repairs that you want to do on it immediately.

If you purchase well (i.e. find a good deal) you can fly the plane for a year or two and then sell it.

As to single or twin, if you get a twin and start building up some multi hours then you will be much more insurable in a P-Baron, 340, etc. when you get a couple hundred hours. If you buy a single, then when you get to that same hour point they'll probably still want you to have a few hundred hours of multi time. Looking at it like that, you'd basically be adding a step on the way to what you want.

Slower might mean more hours faster (interesting logic there), but there are advantages to dealing with more speed, and it's not just getting where you're going faster. Getting used to things happening at 150 kts (up to 200 with good tailwinds) is good. When you step up to a 200 kt plane then that will be easier. Remember that the more advanced plane you get, the more instruction you'll both want and need before you solo it. I don't see an issue with that, though. When I bought my Aztec it was about 3 months before I flew it solo. That was a good thing, and I got a lot of good training with it.

A few things I'd edit:

1) You don't need an airplane with oxygen built in. You can purchase (or make your own) oxygen setup. I made my own .It's portable, cheap, easy to refill, and last a long time. Plus then you can take it with you when you use different planes.

2) A hot prop (or alcohol prop) is, to me, useless without full de-ice. Either get full de-ice or get nothing. Just the prop will do nothing for the ice accumulating on your wings, but it will add to your maintenance costs.

3) Stormscope or radar is a nice to have. A lot of twins have on-board radar on them

4) I'd put the coupled A/P with altitude hold in the "nice to have" category. You definitely want an autopilot of some sort, but even a wing leveler that just flies a heading is worth a lot. You can trim your airplane to pretty much not require any altitude input. If you're planning on upgrading in a few years anyway, at that point I would say you definitely want it. My Aztec came with a non-functioning Altimatic IIIB, which is actually a nice coupled autopilot with altitude hold. I put some money into making it work.

5) A 430/530 is nice, but any IFR GPS will do the job just fine. I have a KLN94 in my Aztec which works well. The Mooney I used to fly had an Apollo IFR GPS. So long as it gets you where you're going and can keep you out of the mountains on an approach, you're pretty much good to go.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

How much I can spend is really tough, since I do not know what I want. I am leaning towards buying and selling in a year or two, when I have a better idea as to what I want.

In that case, I'd (once again) recommend that you go with the 182RG. It's fairly familiar, fast enough, and a great bird for long trips. If you get the turbo, it'll introduce you to the joys of operating and maintaining turbos when you only have to pay for one and you may even decide that the TR182 is the bird you want to keep.

If you want to get into a nice twin later, the insurance company will be looking for 3 things: Total time, Retract time, and multi time. The TR182 won't get you the multi time (you may not be insurable in a multi for a reasonable price yet anyway) but when you get to 500 hours total time with half of it in a retract, you'll be in a much better position to get insurance on a twin.

 

[dmccormack]

In that case, I'd (once again) recommend that you go with the 182RG. It's fairly familiar, fast enough, and a great bird for long trips. If you get the turbo, it'll introduce you to the joys of operating and maintaining turbos when you only have to pay for one and you may even decide that the TR182 is the bird you want to keep.

If you want to get into a nice twin later, the insurance company will be looking for 3 things: Total time, Retract time, and multi time. The TR182 won't get you the multi time (you may not be insurable in a multi for a reasonable price yet anyway) but when you get to 500 hours total time with half of it in a retract, you'll be in a much better position to get insurance on a twin.

I only have some ferry time in a T182RG, and even though it's not a head turner, the speed and interior size were impressive.

Lack of presurization would make the turbo less attractive, though, wouldn't it?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I only have some ferry time in a T182RG, and even though it's not a head turner, the speed and interior size were impressive.

It's a nice, comfy cross country machine for sure.

Lack of presurization would make the turbo less attractive, though, wouldn't it?

Well, since there isn't a pressurized 182... I guess a P210 would fit the bill quite well too. However, while a lack of pressurization makes the turbo less attractive, it sure makes the price a lot MORE attractive!

 

[Areeda]

I do not have aircraft models for the 182RG, but using standard models for fixed gear 182, here is a comparison for the LBB->CPK flight with today's forecast winds at 20Z.

Normal Aspirated:

Turbo:

 

[Ted]

If you want to get into a nice twin later, the insurance company will be looking for 3 things: Total time, Retract time, and multi time. The TR182 won't get you the multi time (you may not be insurable in a multi for a reasonable price yet anyway) but when you get to 500 hours total time with half of it in a retract, you'll be in a much better position to get insurance on a twin.

They'll also be looking for time in type. Don't forget it depends on what you consider a reasonable price. I was pretty happy with the insurance quote I got in the Aztec with similar time last year. The first year in a plane like that when you're low time is always going to be high. As you build up more time in type, it'll go down accordingly. I'll be very interested to see what my rate is for the Aztec this year. By that point I'll have likey 400 in type (or more), which makes me pretty attractive on the insurance.

Lack of presurization would make the turbo less attractive, though, wouldn't it?

Certainly full use of a turbo is realized with pressurization, but that isn't to say there aren't a number of advantages. Taking off from high elevation airports and maintaining performance (both climb and cruise) up to the mid-teens (or even above 10,000 ft) are two big advantages. In the Aztec, for example, you really start to notice the power drop off above the 8-9,000 ft range. This impacts both climb and cruise. Having turbos would allow me to more comfortable operate in the 10-15,000 ft range. For the stated mission, turbos would be god things. I have found myself really wishing I had them, even without any intention of hitting the flight levels.

Plus, he is profoundly uninsurable in a pressurized aircraft right now.

Well, since there isn't a pressurized 182... I guess a P210 would fit the bill quite well too. However, while a lack of pressurization makes the turbo less attractive, it sure makes the price a lot MORE attractive!

The P210 would fit the bill just fine, but see above issue about being profoundly uninsurable. If a pressurized single (P210 or Malibu) seems sufficient, then going to a 182RG in preparation for the upgrade would work. The problem, though, is that without multi time it will be more difficult to insure a multi aircraft. Of course, this isn't a problem if you're happy with having one engine.

 

[Ted]

There's something reliable I was thinking about with regards to which path one chooses to take.

In my case, I took the path of going from the Mooney (which was for me what the 182 seems to have been for you) to the Aztec, which I was insurable in, and have gotten a couple hundred hours in it. Now the insurance companies would be willing to insure me in a pressurized piston twin, but I'll need a couple hundred more hours before being insurable in a turbine twin. Some 340/414/421 time would probably help on insurance for, say, an MU-2, but that part I don't know about for sure. The insurance company told me to expect about 1,000 TT minimum before being insurable in a turbine twin, even with a lot of multi time, but that the pressurized piston twin I'd be good for now.

If I'd stuck with a single and didn't have a couple hundred multi hours, I'm thinking I'd probably not be elegible for the pressurized piston twin at this point. But Tony probably has a better idea on requirements for that than me.

Maybe I'm way off base, it's just some rambling and observations that are interesting to me. You are likely to have a direction to choose, and if you choose single it'll likely be more difficult to go to a twin. If you choose twin and decide you want a P210, Malibu, etc., it would be a lot easier to go "down" to that.

 

[Trapper John]

...profoundly uninsurable...

I like that!


Trapper John

 

[tonycondon]

If I'd stuck with a single and didn't have a couple hundred multi hours, I'm thinking I'd probably not be elegible for the pressurized piston twin at this point. But Tony probably has a better idea on requirements for that than me.

I've never been able to really figure out the way insurance companies think. When I starte flying the 421 I was technically uninsurable thanks to low multi time, but a high percentage of my multi time was in 421's and most of that was instruction received from the chief pilot, so the insurance company went along with it.

 

[Everskyward]

Plus, he is profoundly uninsurable in a pressurized aircraft right now.

He isn't even legal in a twin.

My thought is that when someone has 200-300 hours and a new instrument rating and is looking to buy a first airplane that it should be on the simple side, neither a twin nor a pressurized airplane and for sure not turbine, especially if he is willing to trade up in a few years. I'm saying this not only from the perspective of flying it but from the perspective of keeping up with the cost of maintenance.

 

[Areeda]

He isn't even legal in a twin.

My thought is that when someone has 200-300 hours and a new instrument rating and is looking to buy a first airplane that it should be on the simple side, neither a twin nor a pressurized airplane and for sure not turbine, especially if he is willing to trade up in a few years. I'm saying this not only from the perspective of flying it but from the perspective of keeping up with the cost of maintenance.

I agree and would like to add this mission is going to be a long day in anything under 300 or 400 kts. Therefore he's not going to be on top of his game when it comes to doing the last instrument approach of the day.

So simplicity to be sure he can handle the workload when tired, plus comfort and automation to be less tired are safety issues in my mind.


Joe

 

[dmccormack]

I agree and would like to add this mission is going to be a long day in anything under 300 or 400 kts. Therefore he's not going to be on top of his game when it comes to doing the last instrument approach of the day.

So simplicity to be sure he can handle the workload when tired, plus comfort and automation to be less tired are safety issues in my mind.


Joe

Then an A36 with tip tanks is the ticket...

 

[Amelia]

Just for comparison, my numbers for flying my 30-year-old Mooney 231 from LBB to CPK this afternoon:

If I went at 17,000 feet- the highest east-bound altitude I can legally use my nasal cannula O2, it would take me 6:40, and 75 gallons of fuel. Not a bad trip at all, on top in the sunshine, autopilot doing the hard part, with a stop midway for a top-off and coffee refill. If I stayed at say, 11,000, it would be more like 7.4 hours, 89 gallons, but no oxygen needed. I've found these numbers to be a little conservative- it's often faster than I expected, with less fuel.

I don't mean to sound partisan-- I've enjoyed my C-182 hours, but if you don't need to haul a lot of cargo, you might at some point compare the sheer fingertip-fun of flying a Mooney with almost any other four-seater. Since you're not that faraway, you ought to stop over at the factory in Kerrville sometime and get them to demonstrate their latest and greatest. The new ones have to be seen/flown to be believed. Gorgeous, luxurious, comfortable, well-equipped, and they claim, the fastest production singles. (If I won the lottery, my name would sure be on their 2010-model reservation list!)

 

[Ted]

I like that!

Sometimes they'll just laugh at you.

I've never been able to really figure out the way insurance companies think. When I starte flying the 421 I was technically uninsurable thanks to low multi time, but a high percentage of my multi time was in 421's and most of that was instruction received from the chief pilot, so the insurance company went along with it.

Right. I also asked regarding the SimCom thing for me, and one thing that came up was that on a 135 operation you're required to have a training program, so the insurance will sometimes substitute the approved training program for SimCom. If I upgraded, I'd need to take SimCom most likely being Part 91.

He isn't even legal in a twin.

But he would be legal in a P210 or a Malibu! My point was he'd be difficult to insure or uninsurable in some aircraft, but profoundly uninsurable in any pressurized aircraft.

My thought is that when someone has 200-300 hours and a new instrument rating and is looking to buy a first airplane that it should be on the simple side, neither a twin nor a pressurized airplane and for sure not turbine, especially if he is willing to trade up in a few years. I'm saying this not only from the perspective of flying it but from the perspective of keeping up with the cost of maintenance.

And that's the standard philosophy which has merit for most people. That's also the opposite of what I did, and it's worked out pretty well for me. I know I'm a rare case (some might even say "special"), but I also know I'm not the only person for whom this worked. I likely would have started out with a 340 if the insurance company hadn't laughed at me.

During the first several months I had the Aztec but was still doing training in it, I continued to fly the Mooney a whole bunch. If he still has a 182 available, there's no reason he can't fly it while he's transitioning into some more complicated twin. Taking off into bad weather is a bad idea, but it sounds like he's already done some long trips in the 182 VFR, in which case he knows what a long day in a plane is like.

Now, if the money isn't there to keep up with maintenance (PM me if you want some more details on my first year with a twin), then I'd agree it's a bad idea. This comes down to he needs to decide.

 

[Everskyward]

And that's the standard philosophy which has merit for most people. That's also the opposite of what I did, and it's worked out pretty well for me. I know I'm a rare case (some might even say "special"), but I also know I'm not the only person for whom this worked. I likely would have started out with a 340 if the insurance company hadn't laughed at me.

But you don't have a family and are apparently willing to devote every spare minute and dollar to aviation. Not everyone is like that, not even most pilots. I'll have to admit I also have this bias against older piston twins as being maintenance hogs because most of the ones I've been around have ended up that way. If I was going to own an airplane I would rather have one of the newer singles even though I am insurable in a twin.

Of course if money was no object I would probably have a King Air or maybe a Mustang.

 

[mn_voyageur]

I never had a problems flying the 182 cross-country. Yes, it took time. Yes, I would like to fly faster. However, it is a learning curve for me.

Amelia: Having an a/c that could make the trip in seven hours would be great. Although, I try to stay away from the coffee while flying.

I have already called for twin insurance. Although it was high, I budgeted for it. Also, I love to fly with my instructor. It is never dull. Although he probably wishes for more excitement. (He teaches aerobatics, too.) Once I pasted my check ride, my instructor suggested we take the 150 up. Once in the air .... "We are going to do whaaaaat?!"

Okay, so we have now eliminated turbines and pressurized. (I was thinking along the lines of the P210.) If I keep the turbos and look at T182RG's and Twin Comanches, does anyone have any operating expenses? Educated estimates would be welcome.

I know what the 182 overhaul would cost. How much would a pair of Comanche engines cost? TBO? (2,000 hrs?)

MarkN

 

[flyersfan31]

I have about 25-30hrs in the TR182. Really like the plane. With all the aero cleanup, however, a post 2002 T182T straight-leg trues within a knot or two, and no crazy Cessna landing gear crap to deal with.

Don't dismiss Kevin's suggestion of a Malibu out of hand. Late 80's model, with the improved landing gear, one with the 550 upgrade? LOP of 16gph, 200kts at altitude is no joke. Get a fiki version and you have one heckuva travelling machine. Yes, mx will be more than on a TR182, but with pressurization, power, range and capacity, you won't care. Plus, most will have radar, something I'd rather have for a routine long distance flight. $300k would take care of that.

I don't recall your flight experience. I would ballpark $7-8k for 1mm/100k coverage for your first year. With the hours you'll rack up, I'd bet you could get $1mm smooth for maybe $5k ongoing.

You just can't compare a Malibu with a Bonanza. Spacious vs not. OTOH, Bo's are built soundly and Piper, well, as someone I know says, nobody is better than Piper at making cheap seem expensive.

 

[mn_voyageur]

Hey Ali G,

Gimme some respek. You be dissin' the Malibu and then you be on it.

My first question is whether you have actually flown a Malibu. Secondly, I appreciate the recommendation, I think. (Are you recommending the Malibu? Kinda hard to tell there at the end.)

I am beginning to think that a Turbo Twin Comanche might be the best idea. Within a year, my insurance should be more reasonable. I spoke with a Bonanza pilot who liked his turbo because it kept him "out of indian country." He said that the middle teens were quiet since most GA a/c couldn't fly that high and the commercial pilots would climb past.

With all of the concerns people have about turbos and how they were taken care of, is there a way to inspect them? Like taking a compression test on the cylinders tells you about the engine. (I am told.)

If I buy an a/c with plenty of time left before overhaul, what should I expect to budget for maintenance? Oil changes, Annuals, hanger, fuel, and insurance are easy. I also consider flying with an instructor to be a monthly, if not weekly, expense. (Especially at my level of experience.)

Ted - If I buy a turbo Aztec, you won't be mad at me, will you? What is your gph/speed/alt in your Aztec?

MarkN

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They'll also be looking for time in type.

Yes, and that is actually their primary consideration, but I think Mark is going to be at zero time in type for any of the airplanes being considered for now or the future. Actually, he might do best in the 182RG since he's got 182 time.

Plus, he is profoundly uninsurable in a pressurized aircraft right now.

Are you sure? What's the difference between a pressurized aircraft and a non-pressurized aircraft? Say, a T210 vs. a P210?

 

[mn_voyageur]

Are you sure? What's the difference between a pressurized aircraft and a non-pressurized aircraft? Say, a T210 vs. a P210?

Kent,

I need to call my insurance agent on Monday, I will add that to my list of questions. I have asked about the T210 and they said that it would be higher, since it has six seats.

Zero time in a twin is $6,500. My rates drop after 100 Hours and then after an additional 250 hours. So, after a year of flying a twin, my rate would be around $4,000.

MarkN

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I need to call my insurance agent on Monday, I will add that to my list of questions. I have asked about the T210 and they said that it would be higher, since it has six seats.

The other issue: Avemco told me they've raised rates quite a bit on 210's and won't insure them at all except single owners or ownership groups of 5 or less people due to a rash of landing gear failures the last couple of years.

 

[mn_voyageur]

Is it because of mechanical failures or failure to pay attention?

No disrespect to the pilot in this video, but my instructor always taught me that no one is to talk once in the pattern. (As in conversations unrelated to landing the a/c.)

MarkN

 

[RotorAndWing]

Is it because of mechanical failures or failure to pay attention?

MarkN

Both.

As far as the mechanical aspect that's usually attributed to lack of required maintenance. These airplanes as well as any complex airplane requires scheduled maintenance and for the landing gear it can be quite detailed. If the maintenance manual is followed the landing gear can give years of trouble free service.

However owners wanting to save money or mechanics too lazy to follow approved procedures will simply place the planes on jacks, swing the gear and call that a "gear check".

As far as the pilot error side, simply follow a before landing checklist and verify gear handle down and down indications. In my airplane when I turn final and go to flaps down I verify gear down. I also verify gear down at the 100 ' AFE.

 

[mn_voyageur]

So, why do you wait until final to drop the gear? Most of the retract pilots that I know drop the gear at mid-field on the downwind.

 

[Areeda]

So, why do you wait until final to drop the gear? Most of the retract pilots that I know drop the gear at mid-field on the downwind.

In the traffic pattern, I drop the gear abeam the numbers when I start my descent. On an instrument approach I put it down at FAF. Gear down to go down. I also check gear down on final and again as crossing the fence. (yes, I'm paranoid of D'oh type gear up landing).

My reasoning is that earlier is drag I don't need that limits my options with an engine problem.

Joe

 

[gprellwitz]

I don't know who we're insured with, but our club/FBO 210 is definitely covered for more than 5. It just came back online after an overhaul.

The other issue: Avemco told me they've raised rates quite a bit on 210's and won't insure them at all except single owners or ownership groups of 5 or less people due to a rash of landing gear failures the last couple of years.

 

[gismo]

So, why do you wait until final to drop the gear? Most of the retract pilots that I know drop the gear at mid-field on the downwind.

What post does this reference? R&W never said he waits until final to drop the gear, just that he confirms it to be down at that point.

 

[Pauljsmith]

How about a single engine commanche, a pretty fast economical airplane, of course it all depends what sort of airports you are using, are you based on tarmac or grass, and it also depends on the average distance for each leg. If you anticapate a lot of IFR a good autopilot is advisable as single pilot IFR is hard work. Best of luck Paul

 

[flyersfan31]

I fly a Malibu Matrix, so I know the airframe. The dissin' is due to personal experience. THey are mighty expensive airplanes. There are obvious shortcuts in the mfg and assembly process, little things like gluing down interior pieces, paint quality, fit/finish that are not commensurate with the price. They are decent planes, but not built to the same standards as the Bonanza. If I were looking for a go-places piston at a good price, I would still go with a late 80s Malibu with a Conti, add the cooling mod, maybe a dual Aspen setup. That would be a fantastic XC machine.

 

[mn_voyageur]

In my airplane when I turn final and go to flaps down I verify gear down. I also verify gear down at the 100 ' AFE.

Gismo

"I turn final and go to flaps down I verify gear down" - Caused me to think that he was adding flaps and gear on final. This made no sense to me, since I was always told to lower gear at mid-field and first notch of flaps at the numbers. I am in no position challenge Rotor&Wing, but I would like to know why he makes those decisions.

Having all of 2.5 hours in a complex a/c .... I'm not an expert. (Heck, I'm not even signed off!)

I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm just trying to learn.

MarkN

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't know who we're insured with, but our club/FBO 210 is definitely covered for more than 5. It just came back online after an overhaul.

It's always easier to keep insurance than it is to get insurance... And I don't think Avemco insures FBO's at all any more.

 

[Ted]

1) If you buy a turbo Aztec that's your plane, I don't hate anyone for their plane of choice

2) Your insurance quote is higher than mine was by about 50%

3) Piper's new quality may be bad, but the older ones? They're pretty darn good in my opinion. I do find the apparrently quality of Beechcraft products seems better, but I have little experience around them.

4) The insurance companies I talked to consider pressurization to be a big deal. Apparently the pressurized piston singles have given them enough expensive claims that they're higher cost to insure. It makes sense to me. It's more capable, which therefore gets people into situations that can get them into more trouble.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Gismo

"I turn final and go to flaps down I verify gear down" - Caused me to think that he was adding flaps and gear on final. This made no sense to me, since I was always told to lower gear at mid-field and first notch of flaps at the numbers. I am in no position challenge Rotor&Wing, but I would like to know why he makes those decisions.

Having all of 2.5 hours in a complex a/c .... I'm not an expert. (Heck, I'm not even signed off!)

I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm just trying to learn.

MarkN

You're missing the point, on final I verify that the gear is down after selecting flaps down.

Verification of an event I accomplished earlier. Verification is looking at the gear handle (down) and looking at the gear indicator (down, green) and in my airplane looking out to see a gear leg extended.

Different airplanes are configured at different times depending upon an IFR approach or a VFR traffic pattern. Typically in my airplane I select 1/3 flaps before entering the traffic pattern, then gear down on the downwind. Flaps 2/3 on the base and flaps down on final.

 

[gismo]

Gismo

"I turn final and go to flaps down I verify gear down" - Caused me to think that he was adding flaps and gear on final. This made no sense to me, since I was always told to lower gear at mid-field and first notch of flaps at the numbers. I am in no position challenge Rotor&Wing, but I would like to know why he makes those decisions.

Having all of 2.5 hours in a complex a/c .... I'm not an expert. (Heck, I'm not even signed off!)

I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm just trying to learn.

MarkN

Again, I'm pretty certain that "verify" means to check it and that the gear was actually lowered earlier. It's a common practice to confirm that the gear is showing "three green" multiple times during an approach to land. This helps mitigate the strong likelihood that a distraction can cause a pilot to miss a single check. Each check needs to be tied to some specific occurrence in the landing sequence so that the subconscious mind will be triggered to make the check. For most of us, short final (or "crossing the fence") is the final check.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Fast, pressurized, and it's only $99,000!

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ALBATROS/1980-AERO-L-39C-ALBATROS/1166625.htm

 

[mn_voyageur]

And it is a Single Engine Land, Less that 12,500. All I need is my Complex and High Altitude sign-offs and she's mine! Or does a turbine engine require another sign off?

Let's see ...Mortgage the house and sell the cars. Pay cash and I don't need to worry about insurance.

Do they make a STOL kit for it?

MarkN

PS - Did you notice the Garmin on top?!