Bitching about Multi in This Area

[spiderweb]

There are something like 15 airports in a two-hour drive radius of where I live (Baltimore/Washington), yet their options for twin training and rental sucks.

An example: a local airport used to have two Seminoles, and one could rent one of them for extended periods of time, for your trips of choice. But that's all they had--two underpowered twins with just four seats. And now, they only have one Seminole, and it is ONLY available for training. Aside from wanting to get the multi as part of a professional pilot track, renting there is useless.

When I've talked to people about going into a partnership, including with a couple of MEIs I know, no one wants in.

So, we've got a lot of Corollas and Accents--whoops, sorry--Archers and C172s, and that's about it.

On another note, are we ever going to get passenger supersonic flight back? The 20-hour flight trip to Taipei gets old real fast.

 

[eman1200]

sooooo maybe 'somebody' knows where "this area" is, but I sure doesn't.

 

[spiderweb]

sooooo maybe 'somebody' knows where "this area" is, but I sure doesn't.

Sorry a bout that. I thought it was in my display thing. I'll edit to include it.

 

[Clark1961]

On another note, are we ever going to get passenger supersonic flight back? The 20-hour flight trip to Taipei gets old real fast.

Easy to fix. Just stop going to Taipei.

 

[spiderweb]

Easy to fix. Just stop going to Taipei.

Not an option.

At least most of Europe is 6-8 hours away.

 

[eman1200]

@Brad Z ? (I used @AuntPeggy 's member map)

 

[spiderweb]

@Brad Z ? (I used @AuntPeggy 's member map)

No, but lives only a few minutes away. Same area.

 

[tspear]

I got my multi instrument in one of the Seminoles at GAI just a few years ago. But yeah, there is a limited selection.
Might I suggest you buy a Baron and put it on the rental line? That would help solve the problem.

Tim

 

[spiderweb]

I got my multi instrument in one of the Seminoles at GAI just a few years ago. But yeah, there is a limited selection.
Might I suggest you buy a Baron and put it on the rental line? That would help solve the problem.

Tim

If I had the money, I would.

 

[FormerHangie]

On another note, are we ever going to get passenger supersonic flight back? The 20-hour flight trip to Taipei gets old real fast.

When exactly did you have supersonic passenger service to Taipei?

 

[spiderweb]

I got my multi instrument in one of the Seminoles at GAI just a few years ago. But yeah, there is a limited selection.
Might I suggest you buy a Baron and put it on the rental line? That would help solve the problem.

Tim

Looks like GAI currently has NO multis.

 

[spiderweb]

When exactly did you have supersonic passenger service to Taipei?

Never. Shall we all just give up then?

When I grew up in the 70s, we assumed supersonic was the next wave, after the jets took over pistons. It just died.

 

[Sac Arrow]

What? That is ridiculous. Goat penises have promoted fertility in countless third world countries.

 

[Clark1961]

What? That is ridiculous. Goat penises have promoted fertility in countless third world countries.

Wrong chat.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Wrong chat.

Oh. Yeah.

 

[kayoh190]

LOL!!!

 

[SkyDog58]

So you want to rent a twin that you can fly supersonic from the BWI area to Taipei? Sounds like fun.

 

[Clark1961]

So you want to rent a twin that you can fly supersonic from the BWI area to Taipei? Sounds like fun.

Well the SR-71 would do it but he'd need a little help along the way. An F-22 might be an option.

 

[Brad Z]

There are something like 15 airports in a two-hour drive radius of where I live (Baltimore/Washington), yet their options for twin training and rental sucks.

An example: a local airport used to have two Seminoles, and one could rent one of them for extended periods of time, for your trips of choice. But that's all they had--two underpowered twins with just four seats. And now, they only have one Seminole, and it is ONLY available for training. Aside from wanting to get the multi as part of a professional pilot track, renting there is useless.

When I've talked to people about going into a partnership, including with a couple of MEIs I know, no one wants in.

So, we've got a lot of Corollas and Accents--whoops, sorry--Archers and C172s, and that's about it.

On another note, are we ever going to get passenger supersonic flight back? The 20-hour flight trip to Taipei gets old real fast.

I did my Multi ATP last July in a Seminole at Dulles Aviation. I started at WIFA at GAI but wasn't real impressed with the airplanes. There's a Twin Comanche for rent at my home airport (VKX, was out of service at the time of my training last year). Aviation Adventures also has a few twins for rent.

Most folks don't want to get into partnerships on twins for the same reason people don't want to own twins: cost of upkeep, for relatively little operational benefit.

 

[jallen0]

Supersonic is on its way back. https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Boom-Updates-SST-Design-229165-1.html

 

[ARFlyer]

I have two options for doing my MEI in my local area. Both are the same price so I can just went the closer of the two.

Hopefully it won't cost me a fortune to do my MEI add-on...

 

[FormerHangie]

Never. Shall we all just give up then?

When I grew up in the 70s, we assumed supersonic was the next wave, after the jets took over pistons. It just died.

It is not currently practical for the missions where it would be useful.

Never. Shall we all just give up then?

When I grew up in the 70s, we assumed supersonic was the next wave, after the jets took over pistons. It just died.

IIRC, the price of a seat on the Concorde was 140% of what a first class ticket cost on a subsonic airliner. At the time, the Concorde used three times the fuel per passenger as did a 747. Since that time, turbofan engines have become vastly more fuel efficient, and have become physically much larger.

Look at the size of the engines on this (narrowbody) 707:

Here's a 787:

That's a lot of drag at Mach 2. I'd guess that a seat on a modern supersonic transport would be more like 200% of first class on a subsonic airplane. And that's for every seat on the SST, so you have to fill the entire airplane with people willing to pay 2x first class, whereas the typical 787 has 20 % of its seats set up for first class.

Don't forget, no one wants civil aircraft creating sonic booms over land, your SST will be flying over water only, or it will be doing it subsonically. So, you'd probably by leaving from LAX and flying to Tokyo-Narita and on to Taipei from there. It might be faster to get a more direct subsonic flight.

The economics of an SST just aren't there, which is why none of the companies who have the experience needed to build one are willing to do so.

 

[tspear]

It is not currently practical for the missions where it would be useful.

IIRC, the price of a seat on the Concorde was 140% of what a first class ticket cost on a subsonic airliner. At the time, the Concorde used three times the fuel per passenger as did a 747. Since that time, turbofan engines have become vastly more fuel efficient, and have become physically much larger.

Look at the size of the engines on this (narrowbody) 707:

Here's a 787:

That's a lot of drag at Mach 2. I'd guess that a seat on a modern supersonic transport would be more like 200% of first class on a subsonic airplane. And that's for every seat on the SST, so you have to fill the entire airplane with people willing to pay 2x first class, whereas the typical 787 has 20 % of its seats set up for first class.

Don't forget, no one wants civil aircraft creating sonic booms over land, your SST will be flying over water only, or it will be doing it subsonically. So, you'd probably by leaving from LAX and flying to Tokyo-Narita and on to Taipei from there. It might be faster to get a more direct subsonic flight.

The economics of an SST just aren't there, which is why none of the companies who have the experience needed to build one are willing to do so.

The point about sonic booms is interesting. I think we are more likely to get sub-orbital craft to go supersonic for travel versus a traditional SST design.

Tim

 

[spiderweb]

The point about sonic booms is interesting.

But not necessarily correct. Aerospace engineers are working on ways to deflect that boom -upwards-, in order that crossing land at supersonic speeds is practical.

 

[FormerHangie]

When I've talked to people about going into a partnership, including with a couple of MEIs I know, no one wants in.

I think you found the answer to your original question, there's not sufficient demand in the marketplace for a Baron or equivalent. Around these parts, you can rent an SR22, but the only multis available are trainers.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

I think the economics of having a twin on the rental line are pretty poor. Your best bet would be a partnership. All it takes is one to start the ball rolling.

 

[Radar Contact]

Most folks don't want to get into partnerships on twins for the same reason people don't want to own twins: cost of upkeep, for relatively little operational benefit.

I'd have to respectfully disagree a bit here. I don't want a partner in my twin the same as I wouldn't in an Ovation. In my opinion, too complex for me to be comfortable sharing. Now a 172 type plane, I wouldn't have an issue.

I will agree the cost of upkeep is more but I feel it is worth it for the operational benefit. There are no other planes at this price point that have 1700+ useful loads, can actually carry 4-6, have 1000+ mile ranges, speeds of 180+ knots, two redundant alternators, vacuum pumps, props, engines. Okay, I'm done justifying buying my twin to myself now.

 

[spiderweb]

I'd have to respectfully disagree a bit here. I don't want a partner in my twin the same as I wouldn't in an Ovation. In my opinion, too complex for me to be comfortable sharing. Now a 172 type plane, I wouldn't have an issue.

I will agree the cost of upkeep is more but I feel it is worth it for the operational benefit. There are no other planes at this price point that have 1700+ useful loads, can actually carry 4-6, have 1000+ mile ranges, speeds of 180+ knots, two redundant alternators, vacuum pumps, props, engines. Okay, I'm done justifying buying my twin to myself now.

Sounds good to me!

 

[gasfiltered]

Middle River Aviation at MTN will let you rent their GA-7 Cougar for extended periods, but again this is a 4 seater/140kt plane. It is a fantastic instrument plane, but not really a XC machine.

 

[Twin_Flyer]

I'd have to respectfully disagree a bit here. I don't want a partner in my twin the same as I wouldn't in an Ovation. In my opinion, too complex for me to be comfortable sharing. Now a 172 type plane, I wouldn't have an issue.

I will agree the cost of upkeep is more but I feel it is worth it for the operational benefit. There are no other planes at this price point that have 1700+ useful loads, can actually carry 4-6, have 1000+ mile ranges, speeds of 180+ knots, two redundant alternators, vacuum pumps, props, engines. Okay, I'm done justifying buying my twin to myself now.

Well said... I have nothing more to add...

 

[FlightofTwo]

Hopefully it won't cost me a fortune to do my MEI add-on...

The MEI itself isn't an overly expensive add-on in and of itself. Three hours checkride prep required. The problem is that you have to have at least 15 hours of PIC time in a multi--ergo after you get your initial multi--before you can take the MEI ride. How you get that 15 hours can be expensive...

 

[Salty]

Never. Shall we all just give up then?

When I grew up in the 70s, we assumed supersonic was the next wave, after the jets took over pistons. It just died.

Give up? What have you done thus far to accomplish this goal that you can now give up doing? I'm guessing the answer is "wishing someone would do it". If so, yeah, give up.

 

[Ted]

The economics of a twin on the rental line are really hard. Insurance is the primary one, as it costs a ridiculous amount of money. You then have to not only pay for the twin (which is being abused in a rental/training environment) but pay for the insurance. The best way to get a multi rating is to go to a pilot mill or buy your own. If you go to a pilot mill, you'll get the rating but not really know what you're doing. But, it gets the paperwork out of the way and you can work on the "real" training when you actually start flying a plane.

It is not currently practical for the missions where it would be useful.


IIRC, the price of a seat on the Concorde was 140% of what a first class ticket cost on a subsonic airliner. At the time, the Concorde used three times the fuel per passenger as did a 747. Since that time, turbofan engines have become vastly more fuel efficient, and have become physically much larger.

Look at the size of the engines on this (narrowbody) 707:

Here's a 787:

That's a lot of drag at Mach 2. I'd guess that a seat on a modern supersonic transport would be more like 200% of first class on a subsonic airplane. And that's for every seat on the SST, so you have to fill the entire airplane with people willing to pay 2x first class, whereas the typical 787 has 20 % of its seats set up for first class.

Don't forget, no one wants civil aircraft creating sonic booms over land, your SST will be flying over water only, or it will be doing it subsonically. So, you'd probably by leaving from LAX and flying to Tokyo-Narita and on to Taipei from there. It might be faster to get a more direct subsonic flight.

The economics of an SST just aren't there, which is why none of the companies who have the experience needed to build one are willing to do so.

You're oversimplifying the engines a bit. Engine dimensions and characteristics are chosen to optimize the specific mission while meeting regulatory requirements that include noise, emissions, and also some other ones like time to reach full power for a go around (this really is a requirement driven by single engine go-arounds, which big jets need to be able to do). Technology has also improved over time significantly. The JT3Ds in the 707 had a low bypass turbofan (1.42:1 bypass ratio). For comparison, the GEnx has a bypass ratio of 9.6:1, and future turbofans will get higher.

So why does bypass ratio matter? Well, straight turbojets basically just give you raw thrust out the back. The exhaust gasses end up traveling at a speed much, much higher than a subsonic passenger jet goes. That creates inefficient thrust, although an engine that has low drag. You ultimately want a fan pressure ratio that is really, really small, and the newer generations of engines do that. Tiny core, big fan, big efficiency. Drag is a consideration with engine design, because those big fans also have drag associated with them. So it's not free, but the trade-off works. There are a lot of other regs that get into it.

Those engines also are not optimized for going supersonic speeds, because the exhaust gasses just won't go fast enough. This is why you end up seeing fighter jets have significantly different engine designs, ones that have multiple fan stages, much smaller diameter fans, etc. But the cores don't have to be different. For example, the CFM 56 (737 engine) has the core from an F101 (B-1 bomber). Core technology has (and is continuing to) improved by leaps and bounds, and is where a good portion of the efficiency benefits come from.

Supersonic travel will be less fuel efficient than subsonic, but that doesn't mean that we're stuck with technology from the Concorde days to make it happen.

 

[ARFlyer]

The MEI itself isn't an overly expensive add-on in and of itself. Three hours checkride prep required. The problem is that you have to have at least 15 hours of PIC time in a multi--ergo after you get your initial multi--before you can take the MEI ride. How you get that 15 hours can be expensive...

61.51 has me covered. I can log PIC as SIC at my 121 job if I'm pilot flying. I also had a few hours from
flying with friends.

Before y'all get on your high horses it's ONLY good for certificate advancement and/or recency of experience. Also NO I'm not using it to say "I have xxxx TPIC time" on applications.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

61.51 has me covered. I can log PIC as SIC at my 121 job if I'm pilot flying. I also had a few hours from
flying with friends.

Before y'all get on your high horses it's ONLY good for certificate advancement and/or recency of experience. Also NO I'm not using it to say "I have xxxx TPIC time" on applications.

Andrew, are you PIC typed in that jet you are flying?

I could have logged a lot of PIC 777 time but chose not to. I thought it was kind of pointless.

 

[denverpilot]

l

The economics of an SST just aren't there, which is why none of the companies who have the experience needed to build one are willing to do so.

The start up at KAPA that's planning on building supersonic small transport jets supposedly signed a number of contracts at Paris in the last week or so.

Sounds like a number of someones have the money and want them.

 

[FormerHangie]

The start up at KAPA that's planning on building supersonic small transport jets supposedly signed a number of contracts at Paris in the last week or so.

Sounds like a number of someones have the money and want them.

We'll see. Right now it's vaporware, from a new organization that, from what I can tell, has yet to deliver anything.

 

[N747JB]

My wife and I flew on the Concorde from London to New York about 3 weeks before the accident that grounded the fleet forever. We had been in London for a couple days after crossing from NY on the QE2, we went to Dublin to spend a couple days with family. By the time we flew back to London then to NY, then back to Atlanta we could have saved several hours by flying direct from Dublin. It was a truly once in a lifetime opportunity and the pilot in me couldn't turn down a free trip on the Concorde. It was the grand prize on a Ford sales contest and it was a great experience. My friend described it best, a coach seat with a first class experience. Those seats were as small as anything in an airliner today.

It is not currently practical for the missions where it would be useful.


IIRC, the price of a seat on the Concorde was 140% of what a first class ticket cost on a subsonic airliner. At the time, the Concorde used three times the fuel per passenger as did a 747. Since that time, turbofan engines have become vastly more fuel efficient, and have become physically much larger.

Look at the size of the engines on this (narrowbody) 707:

Here's a 787:

That's a lot of drag at Mach 2. I'd guess that a seat on a modern supersonic transport would be more like 200% of first class on a subsonic airplane. And that's for every seat on the SST, so you have to fill the entire airplane with people willing to pay 2x first class, whereas the typical 787 has 20 % of its seats set up for first class.

Don't forget, no one wants civil aircraft creating sonic booms over land, your SST will be flying over water only, or it will be doing it subsonically. So, you'd probably by leaving from LAX and flying to Tokyo-Narita and on to Taipei from there. It might be faster to get a more direct subsonic flight.

The economics of an SST just aren't there, which is why none of the companies who have the experience needed to build one are willing to do so.

 

[denverpilot]

We'll see. Right now it's vaporware, from a new organization that, from what I can tell, has yet to deliver anything.

The assertion from you was there was no economics that supported it. I said there are. I didn't say there were aircraft delivered.

 

[Clark1961]

The start up at KAPA that's planning on building supersonic small transport jets supposedly signed a number of contracts at Paris in the last week or so.

Sounds like a number of someones have the money and want them.

You know there is a sultan and a prince or two who currently have a 380 or a 747. Those guys would pay to go supersonic in a heartbeat. Dunno 'bout corporations though...maybe if it said Gulfstream on the dataplate...