First Post, First Question, First Plane . . .

[LoneAspen]

What's significant about the 421 that would require a pro pilot flying with you for the first year?

Would the same be true of an Aerostar?

I'm curious what the "cutoff" is for insurance companies requiring a pilot with you the first year - is it weight, horsepower, hull value, etc ???

 

[Scott@KTYR]

Given the market and shrinking pilot base, I've wondered how difficult it is to trade up in aircraft?

Looking back, have the sale/purchase cycles had acceptable pain levels with regard to financial issues and time required to sell the planes?

Thanks.

It is very hard to make money selling a plane these days. I have been lucky in most of my trade ups to brake even.

 

[Henning]

What's significant about the 421 that would require a pro pilot flying with you for the first year?

Would the same be true of an Aerostar?

I'm curious what the "cutoff" is for insurance companies requiring a pilot with you the first year - is it weight, horsepower, hull value, etc ???

Ability to insure, same for the Aerostar. Pressurization and performance.

 

[frfly172]

I'd say go with a 210 until you get some hours behind you.

 

[Kristin]

We have close family on the other side of the Rockies and Sierras. Not anticipated to be a regularly scheduled trip, however CA, ID, NV and CO will occasional destinations. Single Engine ceiling is a selection criteria.

Also, tentatively have been adding pressurization as a requirement. P Baron with extra tanks would almost meet the requirements.

Thanks.

Flying into the mountains safely in a high performance, pressurized aircraft, given all the myriad weather conditions that you can run into is more than a low time pilot should be attempting in a short period of time. Experience pays in here. I would strongly recommend that you work your way up and not get too carried away with getting a super-capable aircraft that will tempt you to bite off more than you can chew as a low time, less capable pilot.

You may have real issues with insurance jumping to a cabin-class twin. I would second the motion to look seriously at an A36/B36, perhaps turbocharged and develop your skills to utilize that aircraft fully while getting your commercial, instrument, and multi. See how that goes for a couple of years and then think about the upgrade.

 

[Henning]

Flying into the mountains safely in a high performance, pressurized aircraft, given all the myriad weather conditions that you can run into is more than a low time pilot should be attempting in a short period of time. Experience pays in here. I would strongly recommend that you work your way up and not get too carried away with getting a super-capable aircraft that will tempt you to bite off more than you can chew as a low time, less capable pilot.

You may have real issues with insurance jumping to a cabin-class twin. I would second the motion to look seriously at an A36/B36, perhaps turbocharged and develop your skills to utilize that aircraft fully while getting your commercial, instrument, and multi. See how that goes for a couple of years and then think about the upgrade.

I disagree, one is far better off and safer in having the high capability aircraft and hiring the pro to fly with. The conditions one has to fly through don't get less hazardous when one buys a less capable aircraft, in fact the inverse is true. Hiring a pro is well within his operating budget, so why not have the extra capability and get experience using it and learning it's limitations?

 

[Kristin]

If he is going to hire a pro, then that is one thing. Better budget that for a couple of years at $500 to $600 a day for trips, including the time he/she is sitting at the destination. Then you have the additional hassle of finding a pro-pilot who has the requisite experience and can also teach. It is not like these qualities in an available pilot are easy to find.

It is a misnomer that more capable aircraft are safer than less capable ones. In the hands of a less experienced pilot, they can induce said pilot into taken chances that he/she would not take otherwise. That is cited as one of the reasons that advanced aircraft do not have a better safety record. Cirrus comes to mind here.

But assuming that you find the right professional pilot who happens to be available on your schedule, to whom you do not have to pay an annual salary to, then a cabin class, pressurized twin would be great for his missions. But this is what I mean by increasing the cost exponentially to have the capability to do 100% of your missions as opposed to 90%.

Then of course, the above scenario rules out easy, spur of the moment fun flying. $100 hamburgers because $1000 hamburgers and that only works if everything is aligned. There is none of the joy of getting up on a beautiful Saturday morning and just going and boring some holes in the sky for the fun and beauty of it.

These are all trade offs that the OP needs to consider.

 

[N747JB]

Insurance companies don't like big piston twins with new pilots. An Aerostar would be the same, low time pilots in high performance twins are a nightmare for insurance companies. The big advantage of a 421 over an Aerostar is the room for eveyone, while the Aerostar will be faster, it's a much smaller cabin. I am thinking any 6 passenger turbocharged twin is going to be tough to insure in your situation.

What's significant about the 421 that would require a pro pilot flying with you for the first year?

Would the same be true of an Aerostar?

I'm curious what the "cutoff" is for insurance companies requiring a pilot with you the first year - is it weight, horsepower, hull value, etc ???

 

[Bill]

There is none of the joy of getting up on a beautiful Saturday morning and just going and boring some holes in the sky for the fun and beauty of it.

Do cabin class owners actually do that? If (BIG IF) I had a cabin class plane, I'd also hope to have a fun Citabria or simlar for weekend cow gazing.

 

[stratobee]

I had quite a few multi hours before I went to the Aerostar, but no IR. The insurance was cheaper than on the older "simpler" plane! They wanted me to do type training with an approved instructor, but otherwise no minimum requirements of hours on type. So in my experience, no, it won't cost you more to insure. But if you have very little multi time, I'm sure they'll bump it up a bit for the first year or two and probably ask for 10-25hrs in type with instructor. On my first multi, they wanted 15hrs in type.

But here's a really powerful tool - if you give up hull insurance at the start, almost no one will deny you coverage. Plus, it will be much cheaper. You can always add hull later if you feel you need it. My reasoning is: if I ding it it's probably minor and I'll pay to fix it. If someone else dings it, they'll pay to fix it. If for some reason I ding it so bad it can't be repaired, then it's likely I probably killed myself anyway.

As for what plane is best, you have to come to that conclusion yourself. All I can say is that bang for the buck the Aerostar is hard to beat. A P Baron is slower on the same fuel burn and has that 10000hr limit, plus Beech prices for spares. The cabin is also narrower in parts compared to Aerostar and they're more expensive to buy. The visibility is worse and they're not built as sturdy. I don't know much about the 421. Certainly the cabin is bigger.

As for the wisdom in going to a twin with few hours? Well, I did it and so did a few others here, but it' certainly wouldn't hurt to build some experience in a simpler plane. But, should you chose to jump in at the deep end, it's not harder to learn to fly a complex machine, really. It might take you a few hours more, but once you've learned, you've learned. Learning to fly a taildragger well is probably more complex than learning to fly an Aerostar once you know the systems.

All flying is good flying!

 

[Kristin]

Do cabin class owners actually do that? If (BIG IF) I had a cabin class plane, I'd also hope to have a fun Citabria or simlar for weekend cow gazing.

I doubt that they do much, though I don't have any statistics on it. I would agree that one might want a small fun plane to go with the twin, but then this is rapidly spiralling away.

 

[Henning]

If he is going to hire a pro, then that is one thing. Better budget that for a couple of years at $500 to $600 a day for trips, including the time he/she is sitting at the destination. Then you have the additional hassle of finding a pro-pilot who has the requisite experience and can also teach. It is not like these qualities in an available pilot are easy to find.

It is a misnomer that more capable aircraft are safer than less capable ones. In the hands of a less experienced pilot, they can induce said pilot into taken chances that he/she would not take otherwise. That is cited as one of the reasons that advanced aircraft do not have a better safety record. Cirrus comes to mind here.

But assuming that you find the right professional pilot who happens to be available on your schedule, to whom you do not have to pay an annual salary to, then a cabin class, pressurized twin would be great for his missions. But this is what I mean by increasing the cost exponentially to have the capability to do 100% of your missions as opposed to 90%.

Then of course, the above scenario rules out easy, spur of the moment fun flying. $100 hamburgers because $1000 hamburgers and that only works if everything is aligned. There is none of the joy of getting up on a beautiful Saturday morning and just going and boring some holes in the sky for the fun and beauty of it.

These are all trade offs that the OP needs to consider.

It's easy to rent a cheap hamburger plane, not so easy to rent a 3 mile a minute plane with a 1500lb useful load.

 

[stratobee]

I love the Aerostar (from afar at least). However, have two concerns:

- Too much plane, too soon.
- Parts availability and support.

A 602P/700 sure looks like it fits the bill.

Perhaps too much too soon. But you can be trained to be safe on them should you chose that route.

Aerostars are excellently supported by Aerostar Aircraft. They own the TC, they have every jig and can build almost any part you want. It's not always the cheapest, but it's available.

Aerostars are however not short field aircraft. They can't always be taken into the small town airports that are sub 3000ft unless you're very lightly loaded and have a lot of recent experience. I try to avoid anything below 3500ft when I'm fully loaded. If you need to get into shorter fields, then a different plane is probably better. P Baron is not any better at this, maybe the 421 is. Aero Commander would probably be better for that scenario. Also great planes (I used to have one), but not as fast and not pressurised.

 

[N801BH]

All,

Very close to taking my private pilot checkride. Soon after will begin the process to purchase a plane (which will likely take 6 - 8 months, given my past approach to large purchases).

My "mission" is:
- 4 people + baggage
- 900 NM
- Under 5 hours

I do understand the difficulties those criteria present for a new pilot. Discussed with my instructor and flight school owner as to how to address training needs. They are supportive that, with the proper plan and based on my demonstrated aptitude to date, I can handle it.

My inquiry to this group is related to that my situation is unlikely to be unique. How have others approached purchasing/planing/training for moving into (likely) a light twin with very low PIC hours?

I appreciate anyone who has experience to share. Thanks in advance.

First post.....

Welcome to POA.....

Hope your PP checkride goes smoothly.. Plan on a IR soon after...

With your mission profile, my inner feeling keep screaming NTSB...

 

[Kristin]

Perhaps too much too soon. But you can be trained to be safe on them should you chose that route.

Aerostars are excellently supported by Aerostar Aircraft. They own the TC, they have every jig and can build almost any part you want. It's not always the cheapest, but it's available.

Aerostars are however not short field aircraft. They can't always be taken into the small town airports that are sub 3000ft unless you're very lightly loaded and have a lot of recent experience. I try to avoid anything below 3500ft when I'm fully loaded. If you need to get into shorter fields, then a different plane is probably better. P Baron is not any better at this, maybe the 421 is. Aero Commander would probably be better for that scenario. Also great planes (I used to have one), but not as fast and not pressurised.

An Aerostar is one of the few airplanes that has been known to get a Twin Comanche owner to upgrade. I have some time in a 601P and like them alot. However, with the princess consideration, and with an added instructor pilot, I am thinking he needs more room. If he doesn't go with an intermediate airplane, then I would look at a 414, 421, or Piper Mojave for pressurized piston twins.

 

[pilotegardner]

I was told to start small and build time. My first purchase was a Cherokee 140. Easy to fly, cheaper to maintain, good on fuel and a hell of a lot of fun. I have met pilots who did what you want to do, had all the money and dreams and spiraled into a whole so deep they lost their asses. One man in particular lost $1,000,000. He had money, but who the hell has a million to throw away? Start small, be smart and safe. **** happens to new pilots. And always take an instructor up at least 3 x a year to fine tune your skills. be a safe pilot. Keep your family safe by building your skills. You have a license to learn to fly. And get a mentor.....most valuable tool in my box.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

182 has 500lbs available after full fuel.

Dunno what 182's you're looking at, but the ones I've flown are at around 750 lbs payload with full fuel.

 

[denverpilot]

Dunno what 182's you're looking at, but the ones I've flown are at around 750 lbs payload with full fuel.

Mine's 654.1 at full fuel. We have long range bladder tanks.

The new 182 is abysmal though, maybe he's looking at new 182 numbers.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Mine's 654.1 at full fuel. We have long range bladder tanks.

The new 182 is abysmal though, maybe he's looking at new 182 numbers.

I dunno, we had a '71 straight-leg that could take 747 pounds with full fuel, and our '78 RG can take even more. All the hardware for your R/STOL kit probably takes a good chunk out of it.

New Cessnas aren't nearly as bad as new Pipers. Both have gotten heavier over the years, but Cessna keeps increasing MGW whereas Piper doesn't. A new Archer, that's abysmal. IIRC, the 2006 G1000 182 I flew had around the same useful load as the old ones I normally fly. It did have more usable fuel, though - 90ish gallons vs. the 78 in the old bird.

 

[N747JB]

Do cabin class owners actually do that? If (BIG IF) I had a cabin class plane, I'd also hope to have a fun Citabria or simlar for weekend cow gazing.

I bought a 182 three years ago for my son to fly and I use it when I want to play or I'm flying by myself. I'm afraid I'm gonna take it and leave with him at school and lose my toy.

 

[N747JB]

Mine's 654.1 at full fuel. We have long range bladder tanks.

The new 182 is abysmal though, maybe he's looking at new 182 numbers.

I'm just under 700, 697 I think. But, I hardly ever fill it up.

 

[RV10flyer]

I have 686 lbs left after full fuel(60 Gal). My -10 is on the skinny side(ie painted interior/cloth seats) and will only do 700 nm in 4.5 hrs with 10 gallons remaining. That is all my family can stand anyway. I have to utilize the lil john. No, it won't fit your mission, but it is a nice efficient family hauler for us. Good luck in your search.