Getting back in to flying and aircraft selection

T

Trimup

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
69
Display Name
Display name:
BL
Situation: I earned a ticket and amassed about 105hrs in 150, 172, 210 as part of a university club 20 years ago, haven't flown as PIC since. I spent the last fifteen years nurturing a startup waiting for technology to advance enough to support the vision. I am currently selling to a Fortune 500. I have become reengaged and enamored with GA through the use of their corporate aircraft. I was hoping to negotiate for continued use of their flight program after the sale but increased scrutiny of corporate aviation, thanks to the halfwits from Chrysler and GM, means nobody gets access for anything other than business use.

I can probably afford to buy most anything but I have a drive myself not ride in the back of a limousine personality. I am not in a location that supports a fractional solution nor do I wish to be in situation of having to request access ahead of time. My current usual missions are 200 and 700 miles with two adults and two kids, so say 500lbs plus 100lbs of baggage. Ultimately I want to expand this to six or eight adults.

I am by training an ME specializing in combustion science, and as such am all too familiar with the realities of moving parts and especially the intrinsically tenuous nature of the 60 year old design that is a free air cooled GA engine. My father was an ER physician and as such could barely tolerate being in the presence of motorcycles. Piston GA engines make me feel the same way, I can not make myself even get in a piston helicopter so as soon as is prudent I need to move into a turboprop.

My plan while still quite fluid is to buy a couple year old Turbo 182T and start by doing around 50 hours with an instructor. I then plan to secure an instrument rating and do another 300-500 hours before I start hauling the valuables, I expect this phase to take about 18 months. Around that point I am thinking a Silver Eagle might make the most sense as I can gain both turbine operation and retract experience with a familiar Cessna airframe. Beyond that I don't yet know as I am unsure if the optimum solution looks more like a TBM/PC12, a King Air/Conquest, or a Mustang/Eclipse/Phenom.

I am interested in hearing others thoughts on both timing and aircraft.
 
MAKG1 said:
Are there any turbine aircraft that can be flown single-pilot?
Click to expand...
yes, most of them. And as my old mentor was fond of saying, "you can sure pay a premium for airplanes that are supposed to be cheaper than a king air"

If you're financially in a position to do it I'd say buy the airplane you want and then hire a pilot to fly it with you for the first 12-24 months.
 
Inspiring story of sitting on the side lines with confidence that your business would get to where it is today!
 
I guess the only comment I have is that, if you are building some time towards flying a TBM or the like, you might as well be doing it in a turbo retract. Sounds like you are a Cessna fan. You might consider a turbo 210.

It is a little bit more than just a knob that cycles gear up and down - the 182 is a lot more draggy with the struts and gear. You'll get used to planning descents - and flying approaches where you must plan carefully to be on-altitude and below gear speed at the right time, and then dropping gear and reconfiguring while in IMC.

However if a 182T is what you want, go for that. You might pay a little more of a premium in insurance and more time with an instructor when you transition to a TBM with very little retract time, but it won't be that much. I've only flown piston singles so I can't comment from experience.

Have Fun :)
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
yes, most of them. And as my old mentor was fond of saying, "you can sure pay a premium for airplanes that are supposed to be cheaper than a king air"

If you're financially in a position to do it I'd say buy the airplane you want and then hire a pilot to fly it with you for the first 12-24 months.
Click to expand...

I have heard the buy your last plane first, mantra from others but I think I need a progression to become a safe pilot.

One of the two CFIs I trust really thinks I should buy a Super Decathlon and learn basic aerobatics to ensure stick and rudder mastery and improve my spatial orientation before moving on.
 
Trimup said:
I have heard the buy your last plane first, mantra from others but I think I need a progression to become a safe pilot.
Click to expand...
Wise thinking.

One of the two CFIs I trust really thinks I should buy a Super Decathlon and learn basic aerobatics to ensure stick and rudder mastery and improve my spatial orientation before moving on.
Click to expand...
I think that's unnecessary -- first question comes to mind is whether that CFI likes giving aerobatic instruction. ;)
 
Trimup said:
I have heard the buy your last plane first, mantra from others but I think I need a progression to become a safe pilot.

One of the two CFIs I trust really thinks I should buy a Super Decathlon and learn basic aerobatics to ensure stick and rudder mastery and improve my spatial orientation before moving on.
Click to expand...

Well, unless you intend on doing aerobatics in your king air I don't think buying a Super D will help you at all.

The last airplane first mantra works well for smaller airplanes, but a king air I would NOT buy first. I think your progression idea is good.
 
Ron Levy said:
Wise thinking.

I think that's unnecessary -- first question comes to mind is whether that CFI likes giving aerobatic instruction. ;)
Click to expand...

Cap'n Ron beat me to it. Great minds and all that jazz.
 
I'd do a 210 first honestly. Build your retract time for insurance up. Then grab a TBM or Meridian (or King Air if that's really what you want). It may have been awhile but you've flown 210's before so with your (excellent I might add) plans to fly with a CFI I think it would serve you quite well. Not to mention, you'll be able to start flying much closer to your ideal loads with it. 182's are great airplanes (I own an RG myself) but to me it seems like the 210 may suit you best right now. Good luck!
 
I'll be the opposing guy and suggest that a Decathlon is the exact right place to start. I learned in the military so I am prejudiced, but then I read about the high rate of ILOC and RLOC accidents. So, if you can afford it, learn how to FLY. That requires something other than a Cessna. Flame suit on.

Ernie
 
Trimup said:
I have heard the buy your last plane first, mantra from others but I think I need a progression to become a safe pilot.

One of the two CFIs I trust really thinks I should buy a Super Decathlon and learn basic aerobatics to ensure stick and rudder mastery and improve my spatial orientation before moving on.
Click to expand...

Its not necessary but it will be a LOT of fun. I have about 10hrs in a nice super decathlon, and regularly fly a clipped cub.

Yeah it will also teach you how to really fly a plane. But if the only thing you care about is point A to point B in a turbine, you don't need that type of training to be able to do it safely.

I am instrument rated and I really enjoy traveling and the challenge of IFR flight planning, flying and weather knowledge. But I enjoy horsing around in a taildragger just as much.
 
Trimup said:
I have heard the buy your last plane first, mantra from others but I think I need a progression to become a safe pilot.

One of the two CFIs I trust really thinks I should buy a Super Decathlon and learn basic aerobatics to ensure stick and rudder mastery and improve my spatial orientation before moving on.
Click to expand...
i think that's a great idea, but no need to buy one. Find one to rent for a couple weekends.
 
Ron Levy said:
Wise thinking.

I think that's unnecessary -- first question comes to mind is whether that CFI likes giving aerobatic instruction. ;)
Click to expand...

He definitely does. He does tons of proficiency checks and he firmly believes current training regiments leave pilots lacking the stick and rudder control they may need in an emergency. The other CFI I trust is of the careful planning and appropriate respect for the activity can ensure one stays out of situations where emergencies can happen. I am inclined to think the answer for me is between these two camps. My best driving analogy would be something like: Yes I want to know how to avoid getting myself in to a situation where a skid on a slippery road is likely, but I also want to have sufficient practice managing actual skids so that if it happens I can deal with it. I don't want to be one of these pilots I read about in NTSB reports that the first time they likely ever experienced a snap roll was when they or a passenger mistakenly input cross control inputs in the pattern.

Good gravy now I'm talking myself into the super D!
 
You can talk yourself into all sorts of things, but there is no reason to let this turn into a full time job. There are plenty of airplanes you can use for both pseudo-primary training and family travel. Beech A36 and cessna 210 are good examples. You can get your ownership feet wet in something practical and after a few years you'll have the knowledge to pursue something bigger and faster. or then again, maybe not. I know a lot of people who never owned anything more than a bonanza and they charter a king air or citation for the infrequent times they need something more.
 
Trimup said:
I don't want to be one of these pilots I read about in NTSB reports that the first time they likely ever experienced a snap roll was when they or a passenger mistakenly input cross control inputs in the pattern.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a spin. Fortunately they are not quite that easy to get into.

I'm in line with your way of thinking, spins and other mild aerobatic training make a much better pilot. There are a lot of pilots who do a good job of flying their airplanes but don't fully understand G load and its relationship to angle of attack and that you can stall at any airspeed. A good instructor and some time in a decathlon will make sure you are not one of those guys.

As mentioned earlier if your goal is transportation and you just want the extra training, rent a decathlon/instructor. You might love it and end up buying one anyway. You can probably fit it in the same hangar as your King air :)
 
Last edited:
I like to hear guys that say they are going to build 3-500 hours from their start with 105 hours long ago. Wise move.

I also like to hear guys getting acro instruction, even though their mission doesn't generally require it. I've flown with guys that have 500 hours of 'take off, set A/P, switch tanks, select descent, kill A/P, land'. If you do the same thing for 4/500 hours, have you really learned anything? The proof if this in a very vivid sense is the US Airways in the Hudson where the pilot had a glider rating. I don't think that was the totality of the positive outcome, but it surely didn't hurt. Training has benefit when things aren't going the way we expect.

As for aircraft selection, that's way out of my league. I think I would forgo the 182 of any vintage and start with a TAA, much that I personally loathe them, for your future goals an SR22 with all digital/glass panel is likely more suited to moving up into the next-gen type aircraft you will be flying in the coming decade.
 
docmirror said:
As for aircraft selection, that's way out of my league. I think I would forgo the 182 of any vintage and start with a TAA, much that I personally loathe them, for your future goals an SR22 with all digital/glass panel is likely more suited to moving up into the next-gen type aircraft you will be flying in the coming decade.
Click to expand...

You make a very good point, however just because he wants a turbine does not necessarily mean he'll be flying the latest and greatest whiz bang glass cockpit.
 
If you start flying a piston single today, it will be old hat in about three days. If you start flying a turbine single today, it will be old hat in about the same period of time.

The planes fly the same, the only difference is getting comfortable with the presentation of engine information and the slight differences in the power levers.

I see no benefit to the step-up strategy in piston-powered aircraft insofar as achieving the safety and reliability you seek. If money were no object, nobody would be flying pistons now.

I've been doing buyer-rep work for turbine and jet buyers for 25 years and have watched numerous pilots move from simple pistons to complex turbines. It's not all that difficult and the only significant difference is which truck pulls up in front of you plane for refueling. Having a safety-pilot ride along while you get comfortable (and insurable) in the turbine is much more beneficial and much less expensive than trading airplanes a time or two to get where you want to be.
 
Trimup said:
Situation: I earned a ticket and amassed about 105hrs in 150, 172, 210 as part of a university club 20 years ago, haven't flown as PIC since. I spent the last fifteen years nurturing a startup waiting for technology to advance enough to support the vision. I am currently selling to a Fortune 500. I have become reengaged and enamored with GA through the use of their corporate aircraft. I was hoping to negotiate for continued use of their flight program after the sale but increased scrutiny of corporate aviation, thanks to the halfwits from Chrysler and GM, means nobody gets access for anything other than business use.

I can probably afford to buy most anything but I have a drive myself not ride in the back of a limousine personality. I am not in a location that supports a fractional solution nor do I wish to be in situation of having to request access ahead of time. My current usual missions are 200 and 700 miles with two adults and two kids, so say 500lbs plus 100lbs of baggage. Ultimately I want to expand this to six or eight adults.

I am by training an ME specializing in combustion science, and as such am all too familiar with the realities of moving parts and especially the intrinsically tenuous nature of the 60 year old design that is a free air cooled GA engine. My father was an ER physician and as such could barely tolerate being in the presence of motorcycles. Piston GA engines make me feel the same way, I can not make myself even get in a piston helicopter so as soon as is prudent I need to move into a turboprop.

My plan while still quite fluid is to buy a couple year old Turbo 182T and start by doing around 50 hours with an instructor. I then plan to secure an instrument rating and do another 300-500 hours before I start hauling the valuables, I expect this phase to take about 18 months. Around that point I am thinking a Silver Eagle might make the most sense as I can gain both turbine operation and retract experience with a familiar Cessna airframe. Beyond that I don't yet know as I am unsure if the optimum solution looks more like a TBM/PC12, a King Air/Conquest, or a Mustang/Eclipse/Phenom.

I am interested in hearing others thoughts on both timing and aircraft.
Click to expand...
I don't see any fatal flaws in your plans except that IMO you will need a very specific and intensive training program to prepare yourself for flying a pressurized turbine single or twin in 300-500 hrs. I do question your inflated concern over the innards of aircraft piston engines. Yes they are based on fairly ancient technology but the failure rate is comfortably low and the statistics for safe off airport landings suggest that such a concern is misplaced. I suspect that a proper study would confirm that most 500 hr TBM or King Air pilots are statistically more likely to be hurt due to their lack of experience and knowledge than similar pilots flying a Bonanza would come to harm as the result of an engine failure.
 
dell30rb said:
You're talking about a spin. Fortunately they are not quite that easy to get into.

I'm in line with your way of thinking, spins and other mild aerobatic training make a much better pilot. There are a lot of pilots who do a good job of flying their airplanes but don't fully understand G load and its relationship to angle of attack and that you can stall at any airspeed. A good instructor and some time in a decathlon will make sure you are not one of those guys.

As mentioned earlier if your goal is transportation and you just want the extra training, rent a decathlon/instructor. You might love it and end up buying one anyway. You can probably fit it in the same hangar as your King air :)
Click to expand...

Snap roll in the pattern. Poor planning and other mistakes lead up to that point of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nm_hoHhbFo

I had a friend who spent many years in the Navy and he likes to say: one must train for emergencies because they refuse all attempts at being scheduled.
 
dell30rb said:
You make a very good point, however just because he wants a turbine does not necessarily mean he'll be flying the latest and greatest whiz bang glass cockpit.
Click to expand...

A. I admitted my limitations as it being out of my price range.

B. If he's looking at stuff with steam gauges, except for the stand-alone FD, he's already got training in steam now, so go get something new.

C. Steam is a dinosaur. Glass is coming(not that I care), if it's not already here, it'll be here in a few years on his target market.

D. A few hours refresher in the Super-D will make steam gauge recognition click rapidly, but do nothing should he look at TAA planes of the future.

E. It's far easier and cheaper to rent a steam gauge plane than a glass one.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
The proof if this in a very vivid sense is the US Airways in the Hudson where the pilot had a glider rating. I don't think that was the totality of the positive outcome, but it surely didn't hurt. Training has benefit when things aren't going the way we expect.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Sully made the Hudson because of what his glider experience had taught him about energy management.
 
gismo said:
I don't see any fatal flaws in your plans except that IMO you will need a very specific and intensive training program to prepare yourself for flying a pressurized turbine single or twin in 300-500 hrs. I do question your inflated concern over the innards of aircraft piston engines. Yes they are based on fairly ancient technology but the failure rate is comfortably low and the statistics for safe off airport landings suggest that such a concern is misplaced. I suspect that a proper study would confirm that most 500 hr TBM or King Air pilots are statistically more likely to be hurt due to their lack of experience and knowledge than similar pilots flying a Bonanza would come to harm as the result of an engine failure.
Click to expand...

As stated my thought is to switch from 182 to Silver Eagle turbine powered 210 after I have about 500 hours. No way no how am I single piloting a King Air with my family onboard at 500 hours.
 
wabower said:
If you start flying a piston single today, it will be old hat in about three days. If you start flying a turbine single today, it will be old hat in about the same period of time.

The planes fly the same, the only difference is getting comfortable with the presentation of engine information and the slight differences in the power levers.

I see no benefit to the step-up strategy in piston-powered aircraft insofar as achieving the safety and reliability you seek. If money were no object, nobody would be flying pistons now.

I've been doing buyer-rep work for turbine and jet buyers for 25 years and have watched numerous pilots move from simple pistons to complex turbines. It's not all that difficult and the only significant difference is which truck pulls up in front of you plane for refueling. Having a safety-pilot ride along while you get comfortable (and insurable) in the turbine is much more beneficial and much less expensive than trading airplanes a time or two to get where you want to be.
Click to expand...

So skip the 182 and go right to a Silver Eagle?
 
Absolutely. In addition to the performance, the creature comforts are sufficient to tip the scales.


Trimup said:
So skip the 182 and go right to a Silver Eagle?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Absolutely. In addition to the performance, the creature comforts are sufficient to tip the scales.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked in to the insurance specifics but was under the impression I would have to self insure if I didn't build enough time before moving into a Silver Eagle, Jetprop, TurbineAir, Meridian, etc. I don't know if I want to take that risk.
 
The insurance requirement will have a CFII sitting next to you for the next +100 hours unless you self-insure. With the asset portfolio you're talking about, self-insurance is a bad, bad plan. But - we are getting out of the realm of aviation discussion here.
 
Insurance is available. You won't be able to fly as PIC until your training is complete, but much of the training you need can easily be incorporated into the usage you specified. In any event, it won't take long and is by far the slickest-quickest way to get where you want to be in the shortest time with the least risk.

Trimup said:
I haven't looked in to the insurance specifics but was under the impression I would have to self insure if I didn't build enough time before moving into a Silver Eagle, Jetprop, TurbineAir, Meridian, etc. I don't know if I want to take that risk.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
I see no benefit to the step-up strategy...

...much less expensive than trading airplanes a time or two to get where you want to be.
Click to expand...

So please disabuse me if I am wrong but I was thinking I could buy a nice used couple year old T182T put 300-500 hours on it and then resell it for say $25-50K less then I paid. If not what kind of number is more realistic?
 
docmirror said:
The insurance requirement will have a CFII sitting next to you for the next +100 hours unless you self-insure. With the asset portfolio you're talking about, self-insurance is a bad, bad plan. But - we are getting out of the realm of aviation discussion here.
Click to expand...

A trust yet to be created will own the aircraft, and I have confirmed my personal liability and umbrella insurance is unaffected by any decision I make to fly aircraft, (but not if I buy a pitbull or dig a swimming pool go figure) so the hull is what is at risk if I self insure.
 
Trimup said:
So please disabuse me if I am wrong but I was thinking I could buy a nice used couple year old T182T put 300-500 hours on it and then resell it for say $25-50K less then I paid. If not what kind of number is more realistic?
Click to expand...
What is the goal of that exercise rather than getting the airplane you want, and putting the person in the right seat that you need to initially insure it ?
 
Trimup said:
A trust yet to be created will own the aircraft, and I have confirmed my personal liability and umbrella insurance is unaffected by any decision I make to fly aircraft, (but not if I buy a pitbull or dig a swimming pool go figure) so the hull is what is at risk if I self insure.
Click to expand...

Ooooooookkkkkkaaaaayyyyyyyy. You found better umbrella than I ever could. Each time I asked if I was specifically covered for liability while flying(operating) the plane the answer was always 'maybe, but maybe not, I don't know, I'll look into it, there is a problem, no you aren't and we now want to increase your premiums because we found out you have a PPL'. YMMV
 
During the past 15 years there are periods when you could probably have done better than your estimates, and times when you might have done much worse. The used airplane market is much more volatile than most people think, which is why "staying power" is so important during down-turns.

The question I'd ask is why you would want to bump around in a 182 for all that time if it's not necessary. The time required for IR training and proficiency in the Eagle won't be much different than the equivalent times in a 182, but you'll have a much better ride from the get-go. The differences in capability/comfort to cost between the two airplanes are staggering.

Trimup said:
So please disabuse me if I am wrong but I was thinking I could buy a nice used couple year old T182T put 300-500 hours on it and then resell it for say $25-50K less then I paid. If not what kind of number is more realistic?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If you have specific questions about the Eagles, the shop where I spend most days maintains three of them.
 
I really wouldn't call that a snap roll.... this is a snap roll http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgD9-faefiI

The biggest difference is that a snap is accomplished at a relatively high airspeed. Note the pilot quickly pulls back firmly initially to get the wings at stalling AoA, then he kicks rudder which makes one wing stall and the other one not so much.

The typical term for that type of lower speed accident is a stall/spin.. here's an article on it. http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/cit-bourque.html A spin shares some characteristics with a snap roll but when I hear accidental snap roll I don't think of a cirrus at low speed in the pattern.

The 182 is probably your fastest way to get current and start logging PIC again. But Wayne has a good point - when you factor in the total instruction time of getting current again, getting instrument rated and then getting some additional 'grad school' instruction in weather and real cross country flying, there wont be much difference between a silver eagle vs getting a 182 and then stepping up. By the time you finish all that you'll be around 100 hours in-type which will make the insurance situation easier.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top