Help me choose too

flyingcheesehead said:
I easily found a route that can be flown at 7,000. It's going to add 72nm to the trip, but it still beats the hell out of driving.

77S EUG OTH V27 ENI ENI.PYE1

All it takes is some planning.
Click to expand...

That's good, but it's still icing altitude for several months of the year there.
 
What are they using as a primary trainer at the AF academy to prepare their '"brightest and best" for military service?





Henning said:
Yep, I'll put a newb in pert'near anything. He may need more training off the bat going direct into one, but he'll learn it better and in less overall training time than if he steps up to it in 3 100hr incremental aircraft. Look what the military uses for their Ab Initio training, it's not impossible, it just requires a committed student and an apt instructor. It never ceases to amaze me the low standards of ability the pilot community holds forth.

If you start someones training in a Lanceair 360 and train them to PTS proficiency in 70 hrs vs 40 hrs (and I don't want to hear how 40 hrs isn't realistic, because it is very realistic, the majority of PPL certificates are issued to pilots who had 40-41hrs in their log books) in a 152 then spending the next 200 hrs getting proficient in subsequentially higher performance aircraft until he is finally PTS proficient in the Lancair 360, how would they be worse off? Learning IFR as well, you already have 70 hrs in type, you know the airplane, you can concentrate on the procedures rather than learning the airplane (and unlearning habits instilled in slower planes). You're also learning at a faster speed which pays off down the road as well as during training because you can do more training procedures in a given amount of time. Maybe it takes you a few more hours to get to PTS standards. In the end though, you can be a competent and insurable PP-IR pilot in a Lancair 360 in 120 hrs if you start there ab initio. Always remember the rule of primacy, what you learn first, you learn best, so start in your last airplane first. There are only a scant few recip SE airplanes that are truly "High Performance". Real high performance starts when you cruise faster than five miles a minute and can't go slower than two. Three miles a minute is not that difficult to learn to deal with nor are minimums of less than one and a half.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
That's good, but it's still icing altitude for several months of the year there.
Click to expand...

I'm just sayin', turbo isn't required for IFR.

And I still think a 182 or something similar can still be used a lot of the time - It's not like the entirety of the western coastal states get socked in in October and don't see the sun again until May. I think the OP can get by with a reasonably-priced airplane combined with a willingness to drive or go by airline when weather dictates that as the best choice.
 
Henning said:
That's good, but it's still icing altitude for several months of the year there.
Click to expand...
Yep. Which means that October - April or so is not flyable if you're on any sort of schedule. The Pacific Northwest winter is not a place for singles.
 
wabower said:
What are they using as a primary trainer at the AF academy to prepare their '"brightest and best" for military service?
Click to expand...

I never really equated the AF Academy with "Best and Brightest" more like "Fortunate Sons", but regardless, that small percentage stars in DA-20s. Now, what do the majority of the NATO AF people who start their training at Sheppard AFB start in? It used to be T-37s though I suspect they've transitioned into T-6 Texan IIs by now, and then they go into T-38s.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm just sayin', turbo isn't required for IFR.

And I still think a 182 or something similar can still be used a lot of the time - It's not like the entirety of the western coastal states get socked in in October and don't see the sun again until May. I think the OP can get by with a reasonably-priced airplane combined with a willingness to drive or go by airline when weather dictates that as the best choice.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with either statement. As long as he has 3 days on either side of the trip that he can sit out, it's doable. For most people though, that isn't a possibility with "business trips", it may be for him though. I still think that rationalizing a non deiced single engine plane by saying "I need it for 600 mile business trips" on that route is a setup for disappointment. My point was use the "Joy of flight/ownership" as the justification and if you manage to get in some of the business trips, they are a bonus.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm just sayin', turbo isn't required for IFR.

And I still think a 182 or something similar can still be used a lot of the time - It's not like the entirety of the western coastal states get socked in in October and don't see the sun again until May. I think the OP can get by with a reasonably-priced airplane combined with a willingness to drive or go by airline when weather dictates that as the best choice.
Click to expand...


I watched this guy for a little while. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N182MC/history/20100917/2304Z/LMT328049/KTIW/tracklog
It was during a pretty strong low and lots of clouds on radar. I was somewhat amazed by him going straight through the weather. I was thinking it was IMC almost all the way. But, then this was Sept. Not likely to do that in Oct-Mar?
 
It's only who they think are the brightest and best when promotion time comes.

And do these NATO pilots enjoy any advantages over the typical aircraft owner that might differentiate their ability to successfully learn to fly in these airplanes? Things like age, condition, aptitude, sims, FTD's/training aids, full-time availability, schedule, etc: What's the wash-out rate? If this is such a good method of teaching new pilots, why does the USAF use Diamonds instead?


Henning said:
I never really equated the AF Academy with "Best and Brightest" more like "Fortunate Sons", but regardless, that small percentage stars in DA-20s. Now, what do the majority of the NATO AF people who start their training at Sheppard AFB start in? It used to be T-37s though I suspect they've transitioned into T-6 Texan IIs by now, and then they go into T-38s.
Click to expand...
 
Due to weather I think Jim really only has a couple of choices:

TKS protected 520 or 550 powered Mooney.
Late FIKI Centurion
Seneca II (FIKI).

I chose the latter, he needs to figure on $200/hour and he will still have to drive a few trips in winter. I've gotten ice in the Cascades at FL 230 even in the summer, so even in a turbo'd FIKI twin, you have to be careful.....
 
Jim Logajan said:
Looked through the "Help me choose" thread and while there were some interesting planes mentioned, my desired characteristics don't quite match the original criteria. I'm looking for something that meets the following:

Just 2 seats; ideally side-by-side.
Pilot and passenger weigh no more than 340 lbs together.
Baggage to 100 lbs.
Cruises at 120 kts+ @ <6000 ft for at least 4 hrs (i.e. range 480+ nm) with above stated baggage and people on board.

The problem is actually one of narrowing down the possibilities since the criteria are met by too many planes - and I have knowledge of only a small number of models. Naturally expense should be as low as safely possible (i.e. it'll be "pre-owned".) Experimentals are OK too. No preference for high or low wing - but should have a nose gear.

Replies that contain only make and model that meet the criteria would be quite all right - I should be able to take it from there - so long as I can find more info on the web using that ID info.

Actually if anyone knows of a web site where you can plug the above criteria into search fields and have it pop out a list of aircraft models that meet the requested criteria that would be great!
Click to expand...

Jabiru j-250 or 230
Great planes, all glass, good autopilot, great usefull load, 120kts at 4.5 gph, roomy, cheap to operate, huge baggage area b/c it is 4 seater in europe but back seats out for lsa rules
I loved mine, I had one for over year before i needed a 4 seater. Any questions i can tell you who to contact or I can answer some of the for you.
Denny
 
skidoo said:
I watched this guy for a little while. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N182MC/history/20100917/2304Z/LMT328049/KTIW/tracklog
It was during a pretty strong low and lots of clouds on radar. I was somewhat amazed by him going straight through the weather. I was thinking it was IMC almost all the way. But, then this was Sept. Not likely to do that in Oct-Mar?
Click to expand...
Very unlikely on most days. Of course, right now the frz level is still pretty high, so it's a different story.
 
Lots of useful responses - much appreciated to all. Learning some useful things I didn't expect - such as:

I had not realized that icing was more probable in the U.S. Pacific northwest than even the midwest. So I did some web research and found the following (for anyone interested in aviation AIRMET-derived climate statistics):

"AVIATION ADVISORY CLIMATOLOGIES"
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/103801.pdf

Figure 13 provides a nice graphical depiction of probabilities of icing at several flight levels over the continental U.S. based on issued AIRMETs.

Another related link:

"AN INFERRED ICING CLIMATOLOGY. PART III: ICING AIRMETS AND IIDA"
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/38757.pdf
 
Jim Logajan said:
Lots of useful responses - much appreciated to all. Learning some useful things I didn't expect - such as:

I had not realized that icing was more probable in the U.S. Pacific northwest than even the midwest. So I did some web research and found the following (for anyone interested in aviation AIRMET-derived climate statistics):

"AVIATION ADVISORY CLIMATOLOGIES"
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/103801.pdf

Figure 13 provides a nice graphical depiction of probabilities of icing at several flight levels over the continental U.S. based on issued AIRMETs.

Another related link:

"AN INFERRED ICING CLIMATOLOGY. PART III: ICING AIRMETS AND IIDA"
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/38757.pdf
Click to expand...
Interesting find. Thanks.
Figures 13a-d shows the frequency of moderate
icing at various flight levels for December through February of 2002 to 2004. Two regions that consistently had the highest frequencies are in the Northwest and the Great Lakes region, although the Great Lakes region area migrates to the southeast with increasingly higher altitudes. At 3000 feet MSL (Fig. 13a), the highest frequency area extended from the upper Mid-West southeastward into the Northeast with highest frequencies of around 40 to 50 percent in the lee of the Great Lakes. The far Northwest had frequencies as high as 25 percent. At 9000 feet MSL (Fig. 13b), the geographical distribution of the area in the Great Lakes region had not changed but the frequencies are slightly less while the frequencies in the Northwest have increased substantially. At 15,000 feet MSL (Fig. 13c), the Great Lakes region had migrated to the southeast centered over the central Appalachians as higher altitude temperatures had become too cold to support ice in the upper Mid-West and the highest frequencies have decreased to around 30 percent. The area in the Northwest had further expanded to cover much of the West except for the desert Southwest and peak frequencies are in western Oregon and Washington ranging from 50 to 60 percent. At 21,000 feet MSL (Fig. 13d), temperatures were frequently too cold to support ice across the CONUS, so a significant decrease in frequencies had occurred with peak frequencies of 10 to 15 percent in the West and Southeast. The former Great Lakes icing region in the lower altitudes has shifted to the Southeast where freezing levels are higher.
Click to expand...
 
sba55 said:
Yep. Which means that October - April or so is not flyable if you're on any sort of schedule. The Pacific Northwest winter is not a place for singles.
Click to expand...

The last time I picked up ice I wasn't anywhere near 7000 MSL. That issue is NOT to be underestimated in these parts.
 
wabower said:
It's only who they think are the brightest and best when promotion time comes.

And do these NATO pilots enjoy any advantages over the typical aircraft owner that might differentiate their ability to successfully learn to fly in these airplanes? Things like age, condition, aptitude, sims, FTD's/training aids, full-time availability, schedule, etc: What's the wash-out rate? If this is such a good method of teaching new pilots, why does the USAF use Diamonds instead?
Click to expand...

The US AF Academy uses DA-20s due to budgetary constraints, and it is probably the best of the low cost trainers to use for the cadets. Not all of them will be pilots, it's a cheap way to weed them out. I met quite a few who came through Sheppard as well who the AF payed for them to solo in a GA plane somewhere in the past, and some were new arrivals and do it at Wichita Valley which I was flying out of as well. This program is not without its detractors though at the AF training facility with some "bad habits being unlearned" complaints. Mind you my experience was from 10 years ago there. Many of them were ROTC, but some OCS as well. I also met, sold cars to and played golf (I worked on the SAFB golf course as a Course Marshal.:cornut: Free Golf! only cost me a very near miss with a T-38) with hundreds of pilots being trained there from the US and all over the world, including peoples that we look upon as being backwards and wonder if they are evolved enough to fly, and the first plane they had ever taken control of was a T-37. I've seen a lot of them graduate out of there getting out of T-38s and into F15s, F-16s, A-10s...Transport... a few months later. By the time they have 250hrs, they are starting to learn how to fight with the aircraft. I'll let you in on something though... It's not just "the best and brightest" there. Interesting thing about humans, no matter where you go, they have their version of "good ole boy", and there's a fair showing of "good ole boys", and jocks going through there as well.

As for the first line, come on, you and I both know that that is a straight up protectionist "Old Boys' Network" racket that wreeks of the aristocracy and nobility ruling class the country was built to defy. You can defend it if you want, that's neither here nor there, but lets be honest about why it still exists. Besides, it doesn't hold absolutely true either. There are Flags in all the services that have come there outside the Academy ranks, and that goes for all services.

My contention in these discussions has always been that if you train adequately and properly and are willing to dedicate what it takes, the average person can train to fly in most any GA aircraft, and I'll take that into the Citations. I also contend they will be a better more proficient pilot in that plane sooner and at a lower cost and lower effort because you only had to learn it once.

The difference in why the military gets away with it is the training. It is intense, it is focused, it is your job, no distractions and fully funded.

If the average intelligence person had the motivation and the cash to buy a C-90 King Air, G-1000 and all, could train from zero time in 1 1/2 months split in the class room, sim and the plane into being a competent and safe pilot. I'd even bet you'd have more success with them than with a 250hr fresh CFI. You do need to have an excellent instructional team and they have to live it sleep it 18 hrs a day for a month and a half with a bit of time off on the weekends. Someone who is sharp could get a commercial in that time. If you did a program like that, your insurance rates would be base rate right out of the box. 250 hrs and 3 ratings in type (or rated sim) in the last 45 or even 90 days...? They give you the low rate.

Same goes for learning in a Bonanza, Mooney, Matrix, 210 or even the light twins. If you know what plane you want to be buried in, buy it first, learn in it. At the end of a couple of years, you'll be $$$s ahead over the cost of "moving up" in planes. If you just rent, you'll never fly enough to get better anyway so it doesn't matter.
 
The problem with all this is most GA pilots train in dribs and drabs over time. If you go in for intensive training where is takes as long as it takes, then I agree with this. But if you go in for training a bit here and there, as time and economic circumstances allow, then the more complex aircraft also have more to forget between sessions. Moreover, finding CFIs proficient in the "hotter" aircraft that are likely to stick around for training could be problematic. Constantly changing CFIs can make for hazardous training in a more capable aircraft (especially since most of them fly little more than Skyhawks most of the time). As in most things, what can work and what is more likely to work are two very different things.
 
$35k.

I don't mean to be rude, but :rofl:

For potential business travel? NFW.

Maybe, MAYBE, a Turbo Aztec (e or F) model might be a "discount" choice, but it's going to be at least 2x your budget for acquisition, plus 2x fuel.

35k will buy you something that'll get you around the patch. You can fly a 1000mi business trip in a Cherokee 140 (more or less the min XC aircraft that will fit in your budget) but it will take a while, it will take a few stops, and it won't be very comfortable. Plus it won't do ice and you really don't want to be near wx.

I was thinking Remos or one of the new LSAs, except for the budget line item.

I say define the mission more tightly. Budget may dictate the kind of GA flying you do.
 
flyersfan31 said:
$35k.

I don't mean to be rude, but :rofl:

For potential business travel? NFW.
Click to expand...

Not possible under $35k - I'm shocked! :skeptical:

Seriously though, my first inclination was to reply with a number like $55k, but hope springs eternal, so I figured I may as well use the approximate cost to build from a Sonex kit and see if anyone was privy to any astounding deals. Clearly the members of this forum aren't also members of the super secret clubs that know where one can buy $35k twin engine aircraft with deicing capabilities.:wink2:

At this point I've come to the conclusion that I would not quite be able to justify buying a plane for the projected amount of business travel possible when geography and utilization fraction are included (i.e. probably ~75% of the time: ~55% for about 6 months and 95% the other 6 months.)

But non-monetary considerations might eventually lead me to buy an airplane anyway - but not for quite a while.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Clearly the members of this forum aren't also members of the super secret clubs that know where one can buy $35k twin engine aircraft with deicing capabilities.:wink2:
Click to expand...

Oh come on. That's easy. Here's a $35K twin engine aircraft with deicing capabilities: http://greatvehicles.chooseyouritem.com/airplanes/files/14190500/14190567.html

You sure as hell aren't gonna be running it for $80/hr, though. That probably won't even buy your fuel. :no:

Here's another Aztec that is newer, looks nicer, has nice Garmin avionics, low time engines, and is plumbed for boots but the owner didn't put 'em back on after painting it - And it's only $2,000! I'm guessing that's a typo, unless they REALLY wanted to get out from under it! :eek: http://www.acmp.com/listingdetail.php?aircraftid=8481
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Here's another Aztec that is newer, looks nicer, has nice Garmin avionics, low time engines, and is plumbed for boots but the owner didn't put 'em back on after painting it - And it's only $2,000! I'm guessing that's a typo, unless they REALLY wanted to get out from under it! :eek: http://www.acmp.com/listingdetail.php?aircraftid=8481
Click to expand...

Hah. I knew it. I found a different listing for it, and 2,000 is the TTAF. Price not listed. Nice-looking airplane, but I decided long ago that a cheap Aztec would not really be cheap enough - That's too thirsty of a bird for me. http://www.controller.com/listingsd.../PIPER-AZTEC-F/1980-PIPER-AZTEC-F/1125193.htm
 
Jim Logajan said:
Not possible under $35k - I'm shocked! :skeptical:

Seriously though, my first inclination was to reply with a number like $55k, but hope springs eternal, so I figured I may as well use the approximate cost to build from a Sonex kit and see if anyone was privy to any astounding deals. Clearly the members of this forum aren't also members of the super secret clubs that know where one can buy $35k twin engine aircraft with deicing capabilities.:wink2:
Click to expand...

Nice $35k twins are readily available, I just bought one, but it is not deiced, maybe it will become.... Twins are cheap to purchase because the operational cost delta is near triple. Old 310s like the one I bought have always been cheap, but then I had one 3.5 hr flight in it and spent that and more on a panel upgrade and some engine instrumentation I want.
 
You might be able to find a twin for $35k but you better have a *BIG* pile of money to keep it running. Five years down the rode that initial $35k will seem like pocket change compared to your operating costs.
 
steingar said:
The problem with all this is most GA pilots train in dribs and drabs over time. If you go in for intensive training where is takes as long as it takes, then I agree with this. But if you go in for training a bit here and there, as time and economic circumstances allow, then the more complex aircraft also have more to forget between sessions. Moreover, finding CFIs proficient in the "hotter" aircraft that are likely to stick around for training could be problematic. Constantly changing CFIs can make for hazardous training in a more capable aircraft (especially since most of them fly little more than Skyhawks most of the time). As in most things, what can work and what is more likely to work are two very different things.
Click to expand...

As I said, the problem is the training, not the aircraft. If one does not strive to be average and is willing to put forth real effort, then there is no reason not to train in the plane you want for the next 10 years.
 
Henning said:
As I said, the problem is the training, not the aircraft. If one does not strive to be average and is willing to put forth real effort, then there is no reason not to train in the plane you want for the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

Some of us have regular jobs, dude.
 
steingar said:
Some of us have regular jobs, dude.
Click to expand...
That there is the main problem. Immersing yourself in flying a complex airplane which would be necessary in Henning's scenario takes quite a bit of money. It also takes a large commitment of time. There are very few people who have an excess of both.
 
Everskyward said:
That there is the main problem. Immersing yourself in flying a complex airplane which would be necessary in Henning's scenario takes quite a bit of money. It also takes a large commitment of time. There are very few people who have an excess of both.
Click to expand...
And even fewer who also have the yearning to be the best pilot they can be.
 
gprellwitz said:
And even fewer who also have the yearning to be the best pilot they can be.
Click to expand...
Very true. People use the military as an example of this sort of thing but in that case you are going to be gone from the flying program if you don't meet the standards.
 
There are more people out there than you think with both the money and time available to do whatever it is they wish to do. My point is that the notion and advice of "can't be done" is false. It can be done. Negating the aircraft cost from the equation, one needs $10k and 6 weeks to dedicate. There are many people who especially now with modern communications can do what they need to do business wise in a couple hours a day on the computer or phone. There are also a lot of people who can take a 6 week vacation as long as they are contactable. Will it take a bit of extra effort and maybe sacrifice? Yes, that is part of the extra commitment and effort you have to put in to make the best case scenario work out. It's always a trade off, the simple way is typically more expensive in the long run. That's an average of flying 25 hrs a week to get to 150hrs and a PPw/IR, that is definitely doable averaging less than 4 hrs a day. You add another 4 hrs a day in studying ground material and you have an 8hr work day. Obviously the flight/ground proportions will shift from ground heavy early to flight intensive at the end.
 
Everskyward said:
Very true. People use the military as an example of this sort of thing but in that case you are going to be gone from the flying program if you don't meet the standards.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't hurt to have civilians uphold the same standards really....
 
Ron Levy said:
Like not flying under active thunderstorms, or into icing requiring them to land on a road to knock it off? Yeah, I'd buy that.
Click to expand...

Always the dreamer, Ron. :wink2:
 
Ron Levy said:
Like not flying under active thunderstorms, or into icing requiring them to land on a road to knock it off? Yeah, I'd buy that.
Click to expand...

Hey Ronnie,

Did you get your BS detector fixed or just buy a new one?:wink2:

Your friend,

Wayne
 
steingar said:
The OP is in Portland and wants to fly to the City. I recall a bunch of mountains with lots of icing between where he is and where he wants to go. What works in the Midwest don't work everywhere.
Click to expand...
He's going to go around the coast. I worked with a dude who commuted to work in San Jose area in a C-177 Cardinal from Eureka. It was before I thought about flying so I don't remember if ocean produced a bad icing.
-- Pete
 
zaitcev said:
He's going to go around the coast. I worked with a dude who commuted to work in San Jose area in a C-177 Cardinal from Eureka. It was before I thought about flying so I don't remember if ocean produced a bad icing.
-- Pete
Click to expand...


Depends on what altitude you want to fly along the coast. If you like watching the surf break right out your window, you'll be good except for a couple winter storms, however he said Central OR so that means getting to the coast over the coastal range. Along the coast in normal winter weather I'd be expecting freezing levels to be between 3000' and 7000' with a lot of moisture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top