Integrating Initial Training & Time Building

DR750S

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Messages
135
Display Name

Display name:
DR750S
Hello All!

I thought I'd come out of the gate running with my first post, so here goes.

Preparing to start actual Part 61 training (private/instrument/multi-engine). Because I'll be training full-time, I don't want issues with aircraft availability throughout the week - that's why I'll be buying my training and time building aircraft.

I'm looking for a single-engine aircraft that would be good for both initial training (private/instrument) and which would also making for a good transition platform into a twin turboprop for completion of the multi-engine rating. I'll spend about 300 hours in the single engine aircraft after the instrument rating, introducing myself to real world cross-country flying in IMC (200-500 nm legs minimum). Once I'm comfortable in IMC conditions flying IFR both day and night SEL, I'll make the transition into the twin turboprop, complete the ME rating and proceed onward with more real world IMC cross country flying by increasing the range out to 1,000+ nm legs.

What SEL aircraft would be a better choice on the used market for such purposes?

The reason I ask this question has to do with the twin turboprop and its performance and my concern about migrating from an SEL that's too low in performance. I'm concerned about the gap in performance between the SEL and twin turboprop. Part 141 training won't work for me, for a variety of reasons. So, the training path will need to be Part 61 with a career CFI in a one-on-one instruction mode and within a flexible schedule.

I'm looking to flight train and study a combined total of 6-8 hours per day until completed (private/instrument/multi-engine).

Thanks!
 
One of my first two thoughts were the Piper Malibu and the Beechcraft Bonanza for their higher performance and because I've heard (through the grapevine) about their 'trainer0like' handling in the White Arc. Don't know if any of that is true, but what do you think about those two candidates as trainers and transition paths into a twin turboprop?

Thanks!
 
What do I think? I think you’re a good daydreamer full of pipe dreams like the rest of us. :)
 
Welcome,you have set a lofty goal,I wish you luck in obtaining your goals.
 
What do I think? I think you’re a good daydreamer full of pipe dreams like the rest of us. :)

I'm a private proprietary money manager which basically means, I manage my own capital in my own firm. No third-party capital. Just in the interest of full disclosure. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with dreaming! That's typically how it all begins for those willing to work hard enough to turn them into reality. :) Does my question make more sense now?

How about those two aircraft choices. Or, do you have others in mind that make more sense?
 
I'm a private proprietary money manager which basically means, I manage my own capital in my own firm. No third-party capital. Just in the interest of full disclosure. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with dreaming! That's typically how it all begins for those willing to work hard enough to turn them into reality. :) Does my question make more sense now?

How about those two aircraft choices. Or, do you have others in mind that make more sense?
I see. I would recommend a Cirrus SR22 G6 for PPL and Instrument and then once completed, sell that and upgrade to a King Air 90, 200 or 350 (which would satisfy the twin turboprop desire) depending on how many passengers you anticipate flying on those 1,000nm+ cross country flights.

My 2c.
Good luck! :D
 
Last edited:
If you want your transition from SEL to MEL to be more seamless, why not start in a TBM930 and then the King Air....yeah that :)
 
Oops, probably better with a PC-12 vs TBM if you're going to do some actual soft fields for your PPL. But I'm pretty sure the TBM might have the avionics package you're after. Damn I hate conundrums.
 
I see. I would recommend a Cirrus SR22 G6 for PPL and Instrument and then once completed, sell that and upgrade to a King Air 90, 200 or 350 (which would satisfy the twin turboprop desire) depending on how many passengers you anticipate flying on those 1,000nm+ cross country flights.

My 2c.
Good luck! :D


Thanks. According to Trade-A-Plane the Cirrus SR22 G6 would put me over budget when the Twin Turboprop is added to the fold for the time building portion. I want to keep all training and time building costs below $1M total. This Cirrus would blow-up such a budget when adding a twin turboprop later plus all the operational/maintenance costs for 2-3 years, or up to about 3,000 hours TT. Besides, after the Private and Instrument plus 300hrs, I'd be selling the SEL back to the used market and the Twin Turboprop would be kept for 2-3 years or so:

vVjxrltvQELMLd98R3TBO0KAiCM1Ya.png


The King Air C90, 100 or even 200, I've seen for prices that would work, but none of them have the kind of Avionics that world work. I'd have to add G1000 or G3000 and that would again blow-up the budget when adding the SEL. Got any other Twin Turboprop ideas? Much appreciated.
 
Man im jealous, I will be struggling just to afford the Private Pilot ticket with a wife and two kids and all. I would love to get a Archer or something for my initial training, but ya im dreaming. Cant wait to see what you get so I can live through you, it's exciting.
 
@DR750S - being serious for a minute - how serious are you and will you sign a blood oath promising you're not tooling us around?
 
Man, I miss the days of Capt.Levy and a few others.... this sort of thread always made good fodder for them.
 
My daughter was learning to surf. After a few lessons on the rental longboard, she went out and spent a boatload on a high tech composite short board. She got so frustrated trying to master it she gave up surfing for several years. Now she has a low tech longboard.

Multiply that by a thousand.

What you are proposing is doable, but you are a bit too focused on the end result, IMO. Do your initial landing practice in a rental. Don't need to beat up a Bonanza landing gear. Do not even think about purchase until post solo. You don't know what you don't know, and much of it you can only learn by doing. No amount of internet research or discussion board dialog will tell you if you are cut out to fly.

More than one student pilot has abandoned training after finding out the idea of GA flying was totally different from the reality.
 
If those Cirrus' are too expensive, an earlier model can be had for around $200k. Buy it right and when done, you should be able to get a lot of your money back out of it. On newer Cirrus', depreciation is huge.

But for training, a Cessna 172 or a Piper Warrior or a Grumman Tiger or the like would leave a lot more of your budget intact, and hours are hours. Same as above - buy right and you should be able to sell on the other side for not a lot less than you paid for it.
 
I guess one question is ask
Thanks. According to Trade-A-Plane the Cirrus SR22 G6 would put me over budget when the Twin Turboprop is added to the fold for the time building portion. I want to keep all training and time building costs below $1M total. This Cirrus would blow-up such a budget when adding a twin turboprop later plus all the operational/maintenance costs for 2-3 years, or up to about 3,000 hours TT. Besides, after the Private and Instrument plus 300hrs, I'd be selling the SEL back to the used market and the Twin Turboprop would be kept for 2-3 years or so:

vVjxrltvQELMLd98R3TBO0KAiCM1Ya.png


The King Air C90, 100 or even 200, I've seen for prices that would work, but none of them have the kind of Avionics that world work. I'd have to add G1000 or G3000 and that would again blow-up the budget when adding the SEL. Got any other Twin Turboprop ideas? Much appreciated.

I'd do some serious math on "operational costs" for a twin turboprop if I were you...dropping $100k on an inspection isn't difficult.
 
This guy isn't coming back. Either he is very naïve and not willing to listen/answer questions or he's a trolling. Too bad if he's naïve and run away since he seemed pretty motivated and had been researching planes.

Image if you had $1M to go towards flying. Start off by spending no more than $50K on a 172 or Archer with GPS instrument stack. Continue to invest the rest, take the earnings each year and put towards flight training? If you were making 6% and keeping 1/2 after taxes you could spend around $30K per year and still have your $1M in the bank. Wouldn't $35K in the first year cover PPL, IR and maybe start/finish Commercial? During year # 2, knock out more ratings and just fly that plane as much as possible - its about hours, not speed.

Since the plane is owned, he'll have maximum access to it. He could probably negotiate a decent instructor rate as well. Locate someplace where the wx is favorable as close to year round as possible. At any point if he bails, he just sells the plane and is out a years worth of earnings.

Probably still have well over $900K left when all is said and done.
 
1 mil is not a budget to obtain, learn to fly, and continue to fly a turboprop twin.

bob
 
Between the odd “Why so many navigation types” post and this one, I’m inclined to say this is some trolling with excellent bait.

If the OP is serious about all of this, there’s CFIs who specialize in taking wealthy folks from zero to hero in their own aircraft in a fairly short timeframe but they’re not going to say “buy the airplane” at first.

They’ll have access to well maintained aircraft of various sorts and will set a schedule and start working on it, if they think the person is serious. Or at least get you on their schedule.

So if this is real, my advice is to ask around about this sort of thing amongst some of your business associates and you’ll find the instructor who specializes in this sort of thing. Then meet with them immediately as discuss this “plan”. They’ll They’ll tell you what’s realistic.

If no business contacts have a reference, talk to a business who’s already using large business aircraft. Someone there will know who to refer you to.
 
So... What are you building time towards? Most of the time, the phrase "time building" is used in reference to getting enough time to get a flying job.

So, what's the end game? Owning your own jet? Are you aware of the operating costs of turboprops and jets? All I can gather so far is that you want to fly, you have a lot of money, and you want to have less money. :goofy:

I would suggest you start with a Cessna 182. It isn't sexy, it isn't fast (though it is faster than most trainers), it'll do anything you want to do and it'll still be forgiving enough that you can learn a few things the hard way (like we all do) without killing yourself.

Or, if you want sexy, a Diamond DA40 would be a great plane to start with. Also pretty forgiving but definitely sexier than the 182. It won't haul as much of a load, and it's not particularly good for grass strips, but it's more fun to fly than the 182. There's also a twin-engine version, the DA42, which would make an easy transition (and your insurance company will like that). They also have a DA62 that's larger and faster than the DA42, since it seems you want to jump up to bigger/higher/farther/faster pretty quickly. If you get a slightly older DA40 (I'd recommend at least a 2007 "XL" model, or newer XLS) you won't take much of a hit on depreciation.

You may find that you enjoy other kinds of flying besides point-somewhere-and-fly-1000-miles as well, so don't be too dead-set on your end goal. If I had all the money in the world, I'd have a turboprop or jet to go places (Pilatus PC24 is on top of my list), but I'd have some "fun" airplanes as well. I'd probably buy a vacation house with a hangar on an airpark somewhere out west, not too overly far from KMYL, and have something amphibious, something to fly into the backcountry like a 185, and probably an Extra to go carve up the sky.
 
OP, how many times have you been in a small airplane?

Have you obtained your Medical?

Have you talked to an insurance broker re insuring an $800K airplane without a PPL (solo)?

Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a legacy twin turboprop (be prepared to fly with a mentor for a loooong time)?

How much do you expect to fly eventually?

How does one become a "private proprietary money manager"?
 
If you want your transition from SEL to MEL to be more seamless, why not start in a TBM930 and then the King Air....yeah that :)

I'd like to have the initial training part not be so overwhelming. A TBM 930 for all practical purposes would be close enough to the Texan T-6 II, which is essentially a PC-9. That works for the USAF and their type of primary flight training, but I won't be able to replicate that in a Part 61 training environment. Besides, a TBM 930 would blow the budget allocated for Training and Time Building platform initial acquisition costs. But, it sure is a nice bird indeed. :)
 
Oops, probably better with a PC-12 vs TBM if you're going to do some actual soft fields for your PPL. But I'm pretty sure the TBM might have the avionics package you're after. Damn I hate conundrums.

Way too much airplane for an initial trainer, way too soon and way over budget. No conundrum. That one was an easy decision. ;)
 
Man im jealous, I will be struggling just to afford the Private Pilot ticket with a wife and two kids and all. I would love to get a Archer or something for my initial training, but ya im dreaming. Cant wait to see what you get so I can live through you, it's exciting.


Thank you, Skyking! It has been a very long time coming with a lot of sacrifices in the wake. But, well worth it, I think. I will keep the forum updated on my progress (setbacks and recoveries) as time passes. :)
 
@DR750S - being serious for a minute - how serious are you and will you sign a blood oath promising you're not tooling us around?


I don't do blood oaths. I stopped doing those in the 90s.... just kidding, LOL!

Yep, I'm real. My journey is real and I'll be doing some real flight training in the very near future! Stay tuned. ;)
 
Man, I miss the days of Capt.Levy and a few others.... this sort of thread always made good fodder for them.


Call'em up and tell them to hop on board for the ride. ;)
 
My daughter was learning to surf. After a few lessons on the rental longboard, she went out and spent a boatload on a high tech composite short board. She got so frustrated trying to master it she gave up surfing for several years. Now she has a low tech longboard.

Multiply that by a thousand.

What you are proposing is doable, but you are a bit too focused on the end result, IMO. Do your initial landing practice in a rental. Don't need to beat up a Bonanza landing gear. Do not even think about purchase until post solo. You don't know what you don't know, and much of it you can only learn by doing. No amount of internet research or discussion board dialog will tell you if you are cut out to fly.

More than one student pilot has abandoned training after finding out the idea of GA flying was totally different from the reality.


The "end result" is a Very Light Jet for personal and business use, flying IFR in IMC at HDA airports, around Mountains and at Night - with and without souls on-board other than my own. Starting from near zero hours and getting to RVSM in a VLJ flying those kinds of missions is probably something I should take seriously enough to do the homework before jumping in with both feet. That's the phase of development I'm in right now. Homework and Research. However, if its any consolation, I'll be picking a Flight Instructor (finally) next week, it looks like. That wraps up a more than 1 year long Research Phase. I had to work on this in my spare time.

When I begin, I'll shift into Full-Time Training and work Part-Time. There are a lot of pieces of this journey that need to come together and be put in place before hand - and that don't have anything to do with initial flight training. For me, it won't be a matter of just going out and getting a Private Pilots License and I can't imagine trying to tackle this kind of project absent a plan of action and a bid picture view of the whole. There is too much riding on this not to structure it properly at the outset.

There will be no abandoning GA here. I've been waiting for this for a very long time and have plenty of energy to burn. Hope that helps. :)
 
A Grumman AA1 is a good initial trainer and leads well to higher performance aircraft.
 
If those Cirrus' are too expensive, an earlier model can be had for around $200k. Buy it right and when done, you should be able to get a lot of your money back out of it. On newer Cirrus', depreciation is huge.

But for training, a Cessna 172 or a Piper Warrior or a Grumman Tiger or the like would leave a lot more of your budget intact, and hours are hours. Same as above - buy right and you should be able to sell on the other side for not a lot less than you paid for it.

I do indeed see what you mean. I'm just not a big fan of Cirrus. There's something about the side mounted stick that oddly triggers some strange feeling about the airplane. I don't know exactly why, but I have a hard time getting into buying mode for a Cirrus. I will go out and make sure that at least one of my CFI candidate rides is done in a Cirrus, but I can't make any guarantees. Now, if you take the Embraer Legacy 450 and its side mounted stick - suddenly, that negative feeling goes away. I can't explain it to you. I love the Legacy 450, but not so much for the Cirrus. Unfortunately, Embraer did not certified the 450 to be single pilot, even though it has all of the Flight Envelope Protection the Phenom 300 is missing, which the FAA concludes is what makes a good platform for a single pilot jet in the first place. Of course, it is a little bigger and significantly heavier (though not much faster) which could be the reason.

However, for a while now, I've been trying to figure out whether I should sacrifice some budget for a higher performance initial trainer, or secure tightly the budget with a lower performance initial trainer. I think I've come to the conclusion that making the transition up to the twin turboprop would be less unsettling, if I were coming from a higher performing SEL. The speed differential is the main factor followed by aircraft complexity and weight. So, a Bonanza or Malibu Matrix (hereinafter MaliMatrix) is a closer surrogate in speed than a C-182 or Piper Arrow, and they both have retractable landing gear, electric flaps and a constant speed prop - adding to the complexity and making me more prepared to handle it.

Moving much closer to a decision on the Bonanza or a Malibu/Matrix, after more research and exploration. Both are considered "High Performance Single Engine" aircraft. However, both would still work as good "initial" primary trainers while not being Texan T-6 II and/or TBM 930 type of "high performance." Not saying you can't train in either group. The Bonanza or MaliMatrix (play on words) opens up a wider pool of initial CFI candidates as well. The Bonanza in particular also offers some additional advantages as well. The twin turboprop comes into play here and alters things a bit financially - again, making the Bonanza an ever bigger standout candidate for Initial Primary Training and Initial Time Building Phase I (The VFR Time Building Phase).

I'm leaning Bonanza. I just have to figure out the Variant to pick. Beechcraft designed a number of these things. I don't want a "V-Tail" and I don't want cross-linked yokes. On the other hands, there is not much at all I don't like about the MaliMatrix. I'll be in the training platform for upwards of 300-400 hours before pushing up to the twin turboprop Conquest II or King Air 90-something. So, using the upper limit for TT, that would be 1.6 hrs per day, flying 20 days per month for the entire year. That gives 400 hrs in Bonanza/MaliMatrix. A 48 minute outbound time building leg coupled to a 48 minute inbound time building leg - Monday through Friday. That's easily done when working full-time on the project.

So, I may bump the Initial VFR Time Building Phase I, up to 500 hours, which is 41 hours per month, 10 hours per week and 2 hours per day (roughly). 1hr outbound + 1hr inbound. 2 hours for VFR flight planning the old fashion way by hand (studying charts, POH aircraft performance, terrain, weather and flying the new approach in the simulator first). 30 min for commuting to the airport x 2 (accounting for traffic). 30 minutes for fuel service. 15 minute preflight. 2 hours of additional study and research on topics related to VFR flying. 1 hour for lunch. That yields a near 8 hour day of work during the Initial VFR Time Building Phase I, which is a full-time schedule. If I start at 6am, I can reduce it a bit as there won't be much freeway traffic to deal with going and coming. Done by 2pm with the rest of the day for other things.
 
I guess one question is ask
I'd do some serious math on "operational costs" for a twin turboprop if I were you...dropping $100k on an inspection isn't difficult.

True. It also the experience of owning, insuring, housing, maintaining, etc., a Twin Turbine that I'm going after as well. I don't the first complex ownership experience to be a VLJ. So, it both Flight Experience and Ownership Experience that I'm going after before getting into the VLJ.
 
This guy isn't coming back. Either he is very naïve and not willing to listen/answer questions or he's a trolling.

I run a business full-time. I won't be full-time training until training begins. The plan is not as simple as getting a Private Pilots License. If it were that simple, I would not be asking such questions. My goals go far beyond the Private Pilots License and far beyond VFR fair weather flying. On any given day, I may need to depart or land IFR/IMC sunlight or sundown. That's going to require a different approach to Training and Time Building that someone only seeking a Private Pilots License might consider sufficient. I also spend time replying in other threads that I created as well. There could be a myriad reasons why I have not been able to keep up on all threads every day.
 
1 mil is not a budget to obtain, learn to fly, and continue to fly a turboprop twin.

bob


Correct, it is not. Its a budget to acquire the aircraft for the Training and Time Building.
 
So... What are you building time towards? Most of the time, the phrase "time building" is used in reference to getting enough time to get a flying job.

Yep, and thanks. For me, Training includes Private through Multi-Engine. Time Building includes getting prepared for a VLJ. Everything starts from near zero flight hours. So, there needs to be a plan of action at the foundation of such a goal. I estimate a 2-3 year Training & Time Building program on a scheduled (daily to weekly) full-time basis. Flying 5 days per week through initial private, instrument and multi-engine training. 3-5 days per week during twin turboprop time building phase out to about 3,000hr TT (estimated). However, I have no problem expanding that timeline. Whatever it takes to become proficient and safe in the VLJ is what matters most. These are just outlines for the Training & Time Building program.


So, what's the end game?

VLJ. CJ4, or Phenom 300 or PC-24.



I would suggest you start with a Cessna 182. It isn't sexy, it isn't fast (though it is faster than most trainers), it'll do anything you want to do and it'll still be forgiving enough that you can learn a few things the hard way (like we all do) without killing yourself.

No absolutely rock solid final decision has been made on the initial trainer yet. However, I have been leaning Bonanza or Malibu/Matrix. Though, the 182 was front and center for a long time in my thoughts as an initial trainer. The balancing act was to not make the transition into the twin turboprop such an exaggerated one, while still providing for a good initial training platform and keeping things around the proposed budget.


Or, if you want sexy, a Diamond DA40 would be a great plane to start with. Also pretty forgiving but definitely sexier than the 182. It won't haul as much of a load, and it's not particularly good for grass strips, but it's more fun to fly than the 182. There's also a twin-engine version, the DA42, which would make an easy transition (and your insurance company will like that). They also have a DA62 that's larger and faster than the DA42, since it seems you want to jump up to bigger/higher/farther/faster pretty quickly. If you get a slightly older DA40 (I'd recommend at least a 2007 "XL" model, or newer XLS) you won't take much of a hit on depreciation.

I looked at and considered Diamond. It turns out that their single engine make for a great Private Pilot Trainer, just not a good transition platform into a twin turboprop. The DA42/DA62 would be challenged by the Conquest II and King Air 90 series and when compared, neither of them stack up in terms of being a better VLJ transition platform.

The balancing act is putting together a pack of Training, Time Building and Aircraft platforms that make for the best transition into a VLJ. That has been a very large portion of my research before I came to this forum. My question here was get the opinion of others, so I can have other dialogue in my head to bounce around as I make the absolute final decision.



You may find that you enjoy other kinds of flying besides point-somewhere-and-fly-1000-miles as well, so don't be too dead-set on your end goal. If I had all the money in the world, I'd have a turboprop or jet to go places (Pilatus PC24 is on top of my list), but I'd have some "fun" airplanes as well. I'd probably buy a vacation house with a hangar on an airpark somewhere out west, not too overly far from KMYL, and have something amphibious, something to fly into the backcountry like a 185, and probably an Extra to go carve up the sky.

Sounds really interesting! :) I think I would enjoy Helicopter flying, gliders and aerobatic aircraft as well at some point. Admittedly, those would be "hobbies" and no doubt purely VFR. The bulk of the flying on a weekly and monthly basis would no doubt be in the VLJ, actually getting somewhere distant for a variety of good reasons. I look forward to journey ahead. Thanks for all your help around here, FCH! :)
 
OP, how many times have you been in a small airplane?

Depends on what you mean by small. That could be a relative term. 8 times in what the FAA designates as SEL. 5 were private pilot lessons more than 20+ years ago (instruction received). 1 was the introductory flight. 2 were aerobatic flights in a Citaborea with a now retired USAF pilot. All were rides except the training flights. A total of 5 military aircraft. 1 C5-B Galaxy (30 mins left seat), 1 T-37 Tweet (left seat). 1 T-38 Talon (front seat). 1 F-15 (back seat). 1 F-111 (right seat). T-37 full motion sim (30 min). T-38 full motion sim (30 min). All about 20+ years ago.

Oh, I almost forgot. I've got some radio controlled model airplane flight experience from over 40 years ago. Believe it or not, that actually helped me during my first ever flight in the Tiger Grumman more than 20+ years ago. So, I wold not discount the model airplane experience at all. I knew what an aileron, rudder and flaps were before I learned how to ride a skateboard. It may seem silly, but on that first flight in the Tiger, it paid off.

Have you obtained your Medical?

No. However, my last physical late last year was passed with flying colors including tons of lab work. My vision is correctable to 20/20 and stable. Never drank, smoked or did drugs. No moving violations in almost 15-17 years. Never had a criminal background. I'm nowhere to be found in any law enforcement database. And, no prior medical history other than routine doctor visits that typically end with: "Ok, you're fine. Well see you in six months." Former peak performance athlete. Still run several miles per week. Still lift weights in the gym every week (though much more lightly than I did when I played football). I try to eat clean (whole/real) foods consistently. pH level was 7.38 on last physical. All essential nutrient levels were good. However, my protein levels were slightly lower than normal. That can be attributed to a reduction in meat without equal adjustment in a non-meat protein source. I'm working on fixing that.

Hopefully, I'll be good to go on the Medical.


Have you talked to an insurance broker re insuring an $800K airplane without a PPL (solo)?

Yes. The twin turbine won't be purchased until I have the PPL, however. The twin turbine would be purchased (initially) for the purpose of "Multi-Engine Flight Training with an Instructor." The twin turbine would also be used for "Pilot Development" purposes with a Mentor Pilot who is either rated or checked out in the aircraft. So, my involvement in the aircraft prior to earning a multi-engine rating would be either "Training" or "Pilot Development" and with either an Instructor or Mentor who are either rated and/or checked out. It can be done differently for different people and different circumstances. I can't get into the exact specifics of how I would do it, but it does involve a third-party ("legal entity") other than myself involved in the initial ownership. They want to insure the jet ultimately and they want to ensure that I bring it to them. That's sort of the bottom line here. Read into that what you will.


Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a legacy twin turboprop (be prepared to fly with a mentor for a loooong time)?

Yes and that's what the plan calls for. I don't fear flying with a Mentor Pilot. I got the idea from AOPA. The goal is to get prepared for a VLJ in the most effective way possible outside of a Part 141 environment. So, I'll have a Twin Turboprop Mentor Pilot and a VLJ Mentor Pilot through all phases of my development, until I am ready to release myself into the wild as single pilot and until the insurance company says, go.


How much do you expect to fly eventually?

I posted the proposed outline above not too far from this post.
 
I'm leaning Bonanza. I just have to figure out the Variant to pick. Beechcraft designed a number of these things. I don't want a "V-Tail" and I don't want cross-linked yokes.

I would suggest the Bonanza as well. The piston side of the Malibu line is all turbocharged and has the most notoriously unreliable engines in GA. Taking that around the pattern a bunch of times while you're learning to land is going to make it even worse. Turbos are good for going places, but absolutely terrible for training and pattern work - It's a recipe for unnecessary maintenance spending in your plan.

So, back to the Bonanza. When you say you "don't want cross-linked yokes" I assume you mean the kind where the yokes are connected in front of the panel instead of behind it (most planes connect behind the panel)? I mean, they're all cross-linked. ;) But I can't say I blame you there, those do tend to eat up a lot of space in front of the panel IMO.

To get a straight tail with traditional dual yokes that go straight into the panel, you should look for either a 1984 or newer A36, or a G36 (which is the G1000-equipped version of the A36). Careful when you're shopping, a lot of these have had turbos added to them as well. Have you given any thought to glass panel vs. steam gauges for the first plane? Given where you want to end up, I would suggest glass as that's what you'll have in the VLJ; I would suggest you should buy the turboprop already equipped with glass or put it in. Best bet would probably be to get a G36 and then move into a G1000-equipped King Air as the panel will work the same but for the extra screen and the turboprop engine gauges, which should make for an easier transition.

If you were ready to buy today, I think this would be the plane for you: G36 Bonanza - Straight tail, dual yokes, G1000, no turbo, mid time engine, and ADS-B upgrade already completed.
 
How does one become a "private proprietary money manager"?

We don't really have time or space for me to cover this in any real detail. However, I will give you an idea from my own personal experience of how one could become a Private Proprietary Money Manager, because there is no book and no college or university campus that will teach you how to achieve it.

For me, it took about 15 years of developing the skills, knowledge and expertise and the core technology that I apply to the Markets on a daily basis. It then took 3 additional years of integration engineering and optimization work predicated on that core technology. The Most successful public facing fund managers I know have been in the business developing themselves for 20-40 years. It is not for everyone. It takes a mental and emotional framework that most find difficult to adjust to. And, it requires a complete change of personal attitudes and personal beliefs systems about money. It takes extreme focus, will and determination to succeed. You'll need beyond merely good analytical skills to become a technical practitioner in the business. You'll need to develop the ability to see beyond the obvious by being adept at recognizing patterns in data that others simply do not and cannot see.

I'm on the Technical side of the business as opposed to the Fundamental side and I manage my own private capital. I'm whats known as a Quant in the business (you can google it). However, I have to wear multiple hats and run my operation as a business through development lifecycles and revenue generating cycles. That requires changing focus from the purely technical to the execution side of the business fluidly. I don't work with or for the public. That means, no one can hire me to manage their capital for them. That's not what I do. I don't work with third-party capital, ever. I'm focused exclusively on growing my own private capital and creating a personal financial empire. That may sound a bit ambitious, but I have good reason to believe its possible. I'm a long way from that level today, but the research data that I've produced through many years of hard work says it can be done. So, I'm going to give it my best shot. I'd be a complete fool not to try, knowing what I know. If I fall short, then so be it. But, it won't be for the lack of trying.

If you are going at this from the technical side, you will need to develop yourself into a better than average integration engineer. As such, you will have the unenviable task of welding together both mathematical and logic based algorithms to produce software based decision support technology, that you then bring to bear directly on the markets. The Market will punish you severely when you and/or your technology get it wrong. So, expect to be humbled by the Market from time to time. That's par for the course. You will need to be good with math, logic, strategic planning, tactical execution and decision making. They don't teach what I do at Harvard Business School, nor do they teach it at MIT. Unfortunately, there have been too many public facing Fund Managers (those who thrive off of the public's money) who attended Poison Ivy League schools, were considered geniuses before age 28 and then given the responsibility for managing $400 million after just a few years of skills development under their belt. This has lead to more than one well publicized disaster and such fallout gets attached to everyone in the business, deserved or not. In the meantime, guys like me fly completely under the radar because we are Private Proprietary Fund Manager of our own Private Capital. And, the only way we can still be around in this business after 15-20 years, is if we learned a long time ago how to first survive and then how to thrive. That takes many years and lots of frustrated success.

Welcome to the world of Growing Capital for a living. That's all it is. It is not glamorous. It certainly is not the way Hollywood typically depicts it. It is not evil. It is not corrupt. It is not unlawful. It is not immoral or unethical. It is just another day at the office growing your own private capital. Nothing more than that. My professional life is all about money and its growth. My private life is completely set aside from my professional life and never the twain shall they meet. If along your journey you get it right (and you will if you work hard enough and smart enough at it) - there won't be many physical things outside of your reach that are desirable. I maintain my morals, ethics, principles and character, of course. So, I don't have internal conflicts merely because I've learned how to grow capital to the point where I want for nothing. In addition, the successful practitioner will have options/choices in life that other Professions and business models will be hard pressed to ever match. I know of no other business model that affords the individual such freedom and opportunity to structure a life and lifestyle of their desire and to develop capital to a level commensurate with their talents, skills, knowledge and expertise.

I know a lot of people look from the outside-in on this business with skepticism and criticism based on what they've seen in the Media. However, the truth behind the scenes is far from what most people know beyond what the media shows them and that is vary unfortunate. A good Money Manager and Trader, whether they manage the capital of others, or a Private Money Manager and Trader who works exclusively with their own capital and does not work with the public (as in my case), is a true Professional in every sense of the word. In order to reach that level of success, they had to overcome many obstacles that force lesser focused individuals out of the business forever and often times into a resulting life of psychological, emotional and eventually even physical ruin (poor health). A willingness and capacity to adapt to change is probably the most important character trait I can think of that will give an individual an opportunity to succeed in this business.

This business does not build character, it exposes personal character trait flaws and many who enter the business never find a way to manage that internal change process successfully. Those who can't or don't ultimately resign themselves to failure and often times become outside persecutors of the same business model they once loved - exposing the real character flaws that caused them to fail in the first place. A viscous, downward spiral that sometimes send certain individuals out of control in their own personal lives. One's financial market IQ, fundamental skill, fundamental knowledge and talent will be developed over a period of years in this business, not days and not months. Many are not willing to pay that price and so they too, ultimately fail. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel that is not also an oncoming freight train. That light is seen once the fundamental baseline of skill, knowledge, wisdom and talent have been laid over the course of years. That will ultimately be the tangible proof which provides the individual with the necessary internal support from which they can then begin thinking seriously about establishing the structural foundation for a lasting business model predicated on consistent, reliable and predictable revenues.

I hope that gave you some idea of what's truly involved in this business and what it takes for one to become a Private Proprietary Money Manager from the inside-out, as opposed to the all too familiar outside-in perspective the Media constantly focuses on. :) It can be done. I'm living proof.
 
If they enjoy watching someone make progress in GA, they should appreciate the call.
Even if he took the call, he and the others I referenced are unlikely to return to this forum.
 
Back
Top