Long Term Planning for a Fast Comfortable Cross Country Plane

AFlyGuy said:
"700 feet AGL and you enter a spin on base - which is when most will enter a spin - CAPS isn't much help at all." Fly something with better design where a spin recovery might actually work).
Click to expand...

I would pick a new CFI. Dumb statements like that make me think he is not even qualified to teach the 4 forces of flight in lesson 1.
 
AFlyGuy said:
I just can't bring it in myself to ever challenge an instructor directly
Click to expand...
..and generally as long as you feel like you're getting quality instruction (which it seems you are) it's not worth pushing the issue, in my opinion. Eventually when it's time to buy your "forever home" plane (Cirrus haha) you can go through the 10 hr CSIP course there, which, I believe now Cirrus is actually paying for the instruction through their embark program

AFlyGuy said:
Anyway, it's quite possible that my CFI just has outdated information
Click to expand...
Most likely. I've met actual Cirrus owners who perpetuate the "if they stall they spin and can't recover myth, that's why they have parachutes" and etc.

AFlyGuy said:
My CFI bought the Piper Archer III that I'll be training in, and it has a Garmin 1000 glass panel, so he's not averse to tech either, but I suppose he's more traditional in his skill instruction approach.
Click to expand...
Cool! I'd be curious how he teaches partial panel. Some instructors dim the screens (which is crap, in my opinion), others, like mine did, physically pulled the CB to truly emulate a panel failure and to force the screens to revert and condense the data. Will be curious how he teaches it
 
SethV said:
I would pick a new CFI. Dumb statements like that make me think he is not even qualified to teach the 4 forces of flight in lesson 1.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too hard on him - he probably just had outdated information and solidified his opinions based on them. And I could have very well misquoted him about the Bonanza too - i.e. blame me, not him, until I know for sure his thoughts (It has been about 3 weeks since I had that initial discussion with him and I could be misrepresenting some details). I think he was more implying - again in his mind - that the Cirrus isn't as forgiving and requires tech to fly it safely (CAPS, Perspective envelope control, etc), and that just doesn't sit well with him.

In his defense, he doesn't work for a pilot mill, he's not trying to build time (he owns the flight school), is a gold seal instructor, pushes his students for proficiency and not sufficiency, and has never once had a student fail their PPL checkride (and he's been teaching for - I think - at least 15 years).

That said, I'm always open to other options. My final decision will largely be based on how many hours a week a CFI can dedicate to me. I would like 3-5 lessons per week, and I'll likely go with any gold seal instructor that isn't just trying to build time quickly and who can give me as many lessons as frequently as feasible.
 
AFlyGuy said:
Cirrus isn't as forgiving and requires tech to fly it safely
Click to expand...
It's honestly easier to fly, in my opinion, than a Grumman, and easier to land than a Mooney. Flying *any* airplane at 180 KTAS or greater with 300+ hp and approach speed around 80-90 knots is going to require more discipline than a C172 that floats in at 55 knots and cruises a full 20 knots slower than the Cirrus climb out speed. And honestly, up until Perspective came about plenty of people flew steam gauge G2 SR22 around safely as well, they didn't all stall / spin fall out of the sky. The obsession with the Bonanza is funny, when that "doctor killer" came out decades ago it was just as hated by "real pilots" - but now adored by the same group. Incidentally it's not a very fast plane, in fact, a well appointed 210 is going to be faster than a Bonanza

It's a remarkably mis informed opinion to have, but I digress. A better response forth coming
 
AFlyGuy said:
My primary desire in finding an aircraft - a 'mission' if you will - would be a roomy cross country aircraft capable of flying from, say, Fort Lauderdale to Denver with only one stop as fast as possible, with 3 to 4 grown adults with full bags - and here's the tricky part - with the lowest Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) possible. Assume 75 to *maybe* 100 hours of flight a year. I also want a pressurized cabin and FIKI as I will be flying IFR as soon as I can get my certificate.
Click to expand...
You've done your research and unlike most people who post here on "help me find a plane" and can't figure out their mission "I want to fly for burgers, but may want to make it out to Bermuda as well" you've given a clear set of parameters. Since you didn't mention a fixed cost to stay under but are looking at older TBM 700, SR22T, Vision Jet, I'm assuming that's a safe ballpark.. here's my responses
*if I were in the same boat I'd be looking at TBM.. or SR22T.. if the finances afford it than the TBM, because it's fast, and let's face it, crazy sexy.. if that's a stretch then the Cirrus.. because you'll still get 200 knots true or better and it's very comfortable. The Bonanza is narrower, and much slower, and the Mooney and TTx are faster, but less comfortable by a long shot if you plan to take 4 people (cue the "But Al Mooney was a big guy, and they're wider than a Piper!" crowd).. and let's not even consider the 210, simply because it's a high wing, and not sexy.

-roomy: after having spent many long hours in a Cirrus, including several flights 3+ hrs at a time it's a remarkably comfortable plane.. in fact, the back seats almost feel larger. Plenty of legroom, headroom, and shoulder room.. I'm 6,0, 180 lbs. And the back seats recline

-range and 3/4 adults full bags: this will be a hard bill to fit with most piston singles. Even a "6 place" Bonanza will be at its limit with gas, 4 adults, bags, etc. The G6 Cirrus has a 3,600 MTOW, or about 1,250 useful load best case scenario.. 4 people at 190 lbs each you get 760 lbs.. assume each brings a 15 lb bag, you are at 820 lbs.. that leaves only 72 gallons of gas.. or tabs +10ish. That's pretty decent actually.. and you could just *about* make KFLL to KDEN with one stop half way in Little Rock at KLIT.. in reality you'll be wanting to take more than 72 gallons for that trip, so hopefully you can take 3, or 4 at an average weigh under 190 lbs, or some other combination. Note that your TBM is only going to have a max useful of around 1,347.. gives you more weight and options, but not by much, and with a thirstier plane you'll be largely in the same boat with load capability as the Cirrus

-pressurized: how critical is this? and why? mostly so you don't have to wear cannulas? It's another system that's liable to fail and will add cost to maintain. With O2 and a turbo you'll be able to get up into the low to mid 20K range on altitude and find the best winds and have some options with weather

-FIKI: I agree, this is a must. Being a socal pilot even I've picked up ice a couple of times, and if you plan to actually use your plane knowing you have the capability to NOT DIE if you hit ice is huge. My vote is TKS, system has worked fantastic for me and takes the stress of running the boots, not getting all ice, etc., off your plate.. PLUS, you get some coverage for the whole wing and parts of the airframe as TKS fluid flows back and comes off the prop. The TBM has boots but with a 30K ceiling you're not spending time in the ice anyway

AFlyGuy said:
Could I get a SR22T or a Vision Jet? There are ways I could make that work, with LLC ownership, leasing, and 100% depreciation write-offs. Do I want to? Not really. I have a hard time justifying the SF50 when it seems like you could buy a used TBM 700, pay for a new glass panel and interior upgrades, and come in at half the cost of the SF50 for the same cruise speed, or even a third or even a fourth the cost of a new TBM 930 or PC-12. Virtually same comfort and performance envelope at 1/2 or 1/4th of the cost. That's what I mean by 'bang for the buck.'
Click to expand...
Yeah, the TBM is a better buy than a Vision Jet, and this is coming from a Cirrus obsessive. But the TBM is, in my opinion, one of the ultimate small GA pilot operated planes out there. You don't need a full FBO to run it, you can still get in to a short 2,100 ft strip, but also have your own miniature airliner at 30,000 ft and 300 knots. The PC12 is slow and too utilitarian, same reason I wouldn't buy a Suburban
 
OkieAviator said:
Make shorter posts and use the time saved building an RV-10.
Click to expand...

OkieAviator said:
<youtube video>
Click to expand...

I don't know you, nor do I have a feeling of your sense of humor, and this just might be a simple personality difference, but both of these replies come across to me as trolling, whereas everyone else in this thread has communicated with a pleasant degree of decorum.

Your first reply disregarded my original post and the explicit mission profile within it (an RV-10 fails easily fails the initial post's criteria, so the attempt at a witty quip really just reflected lazy participation), and the 2nd reply might be (I can't tell) a jab at either me directly or a culture and a discipline I have dedicated thousands of hours to and the families and instructors that propagate it, all without pay, all for the benefit of the next generation. Unlike the ridiculous video above, I practice Kendo, an art still deeply rooted in honor, respect, tradition, self-introspection and an ever-present sense of responsibility to better yourself and your community. That's not not lip service, and it's not bull****. Its practitioners, especially the sensei (who are not paid), actually believe in these tenets and try to live their lives accordingly, and although I fall short more often than I'd like to admit, I still try to do so as well.

If that was not your intent, and it's all in good fun (and I'd join right in there with you in the laughs, because taken at face value only, that video is ludicrous), a little context or additional color in your replies (smileys, clarifications, etc) go a long way to avoid potentially offending people you've never met before, and who I might add, are brand new to the community, in a text-based medium well known to ineffectively represent nuance and intent. At least until we have a couple beers together ;)

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
AFlyGuy said:
I don't know you, nor do I have a feeling of your sense of humor, and this just might be a simple personality difference, but both of these replies come across to me as trolling, whereas everyone else in this thread has communicated with a pleasant degree of decorum.
Click to expand...

Take it how you want, out of my control. A majority of my posts are nonsensical and I refuse to get overly serious on an msg board.

The RV-10 post was tongue in cheek and serious at the same time. Expieremental aviaton- your build your plane. You wouldn’t be the first guy to slap a PT-6 in one.

The video is what popped in my head reading what you posted so I wanted to share. I think it’s fantastic!
 
OkieAviator said:
A majority of my posts are nonsensical and I refuse to get overly serious on an msg board.... what popped in my head reading what you posted so I wanted to share. I think it’s fantastic!
Click to expand...

This is super helpful context to understand your communication style, and I'll keep that in mind for the future - thanks so much that. And yes, the video is hilarious ;) Thanks!
 
I'm kind of new to this forum... a couple weeks, I think... so I'm just starting to "get to know" some of the poster's personalities. Having said that, as internet forums go, this about as kind of a place as you're going to find and as a person who certainly seems to be comfortable and able in these settings, you've GOT to realize that already, no? Having said that, I did laugh, and yes, even out loud, at both of OkieAviator's posts to which you seemed to take offense. You DO write lengthy posts... some very, VERY lengthy (as do I at times.. not calling the cooking vessel non-reflective), and you do seem to consider as many angles as you're currently aware of while still interested in learning more. The comment about writing less and using the time saved to build an RV-10 was hilarious to me.. and I read no ill will at all into it. I've been on the receiving end of comments like that after some of my own digitally-diarrhetic posts, and laughed then too at my own proclivities.
Additionally as a fellow (although not involved in recent years and now former in a certain sense physically) martial artist, I thought the video was hilarious, too. I saw the video as mocking bad schools/dojos/phony practitioners, and there are a LOT of them out there, BADLY needing to be mocked. The "black belt factories" in our area churning out 12 year old black belts because mommy paid for them make me sick.. the more people who know about these charlatans, the better. Again, I saw a funny video and nothing close to a personal attack.
In response, you accused Okie of trolling and being lazy. I accuse him of entertaining me and making me laugh for a bit, without being mean or nasty to another person, and in today's world, I'll take all the smiles and giggles I can get. In your defense, not that you need anyone to defend you, you DID open the door to the possibility that it was all in good fun, and that he didn't intend to offend you. I guess all I'm saying is, as gently as possible, that if that offended you, maybe consider that returning something that MIGHT have been offensive to you with comments that DEFINITELY are (troll, lazy) may not have been the kindest way to approach the situation.
I'm going to start building my RV9 now... ;)

Best to you.

Edit: Look at that.. in the time it took me to write this post, you guys already took a meeting, worked out an action plan, implemented stage one and two, and have now formed an LLC!
 
AFlyGuy said:
So the RV-10 has a Vne of 200 kts TRUE (not indicated) per RV-10 Pilot's Operating Handbook. Seems like putting a PT-6 (or even a smaller Rolls Royce) is ... a really bad idea. :eek:
Click to expand...

A builder wrote that PoH, I wrote one myself and like him I did use the Vans suggested speed for Vne. However if you tossed a PT-6 in then you would need to do any reinformencement or modifications needed to support greater speeds, gross weight or whatever. Think of it like that A36 turbine modification mixed with that A36 sporting a TIO-550. Actually at that point you might as well try and find a turbine Evolution.
 
**Since we've ventured into homebuilts I will ask this.. are there any TWIN home builts out there?

And how many truly genuine custom home built aircraft are there, I mean planes like Peter Garrison's Melmoth 1 and Melmoth 2?
 
Tantalum said:
**Since we've ventured into homebuilts I will ask this.. are there any TWIN home builts out there?

And how many truly genuine custom home built aircraft are there, I mean planes like Peter Garrison's Melmoth 1 and Melmoth 2?
Click to expand...

There are one-offs out there but a majority of unique experimental I've seen are heavily modified kits. There are twins out there, the Velocity V-twin referenced above is the only Kit twin I know of. However, the JAG-2 is a one off, heavily modified twin. It's pretty neat... https://flycorvair.net/2018/08/30/jag-2-corvair-powered-twin-now-airborne/
 
OkieAviator said:
Actually at that point you might as well try and find a turbine Evolution.
Click to expand...

Juliet Hotel said:
If you're hell bent on a speedy plane that burns kerosene, there are kits which tick that box.
Click to expand...

After @OkieAviator suggested it, I did some research (thanks for the pointer!). It is affordable relative to other options with the same specs, and its range and 4-passenger capability look outstanding.

I'm assuming the only reason others in this thread haven't suggested it thus far is because it seems to cruise at 260 kts above FL180, lower than my defined threshold of 300 kts (I wish I could find a full spec sheet on their website to know definitively). Based on this alone, it seems that a turbine Evolution 850 would get me from Fort Lauderdale to Denver in two 2.5 hour (ish) legs (assuming IFR reserve and no problems, weather, etc). As is the case with any pilot, I'll re-evaluate my criteria as I gain experience and see if that 300 kts threshold still matters to me. Anyway, good stuff!

edit: it is unclear to me if their quoted 260 kts is kias or ktas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top