Personal Airliner

IF I ever decided that a jet made sense for me I would look a the later iterations of the Falcon. I was satisfied with the feel and performance of the HU-25s I flew (Falcon 20s) and while I have never seen a civilian interior in one I think it would serve for anything I would realistically need.

In reality however, the TBM 850 or a King Air are more likely when the wife finally retires and we get to travelling.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What, to buy a plane that has worse performance and higher MX costs while being slower because you like the way it looks?
Click to expand...

How can anyone like the way it looks? It looks like a catfish ate a football.

catfish.jpg
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What, to buy a plane that has worse performance and higher MX costs while being slower because you like the way it looks?
Click to expand...

In this hypothetical situation I am rich out the wazoo correct? Worth it. I have people to deal with all that other stuff.

In reality, I probably wouldnt own one. :)
 
If money was unlimited, why wouldn't you just pop for an actual airliner and call it a day?! A 757 is a pretty nice ride. I've flown the sim and it's impressive. All weather, high flyer...and you can bring the whole family...and most of the neighborhood.
 
Z06_Mir said:
How can anyone like the way it looks? It looks like a catfish ate a football.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that I liked the way it looks, but there are a lot of people who do. The charter outfit I used to fly for managed one for an owner. It was amazing how many people saw it in the hangar and started drooling. My guess is it had more than anything to do with the fact that it doesn't look like any other airplane out there.

Seanaldinho said:
In this hypothetical situation I am rich out the wazoo correct? Worth it. I have people to deal with all that other stuff.

In reality, I probably wouldnt own one. :)
Click to expand...

True, but the Piaggio is about a combination of looks and theoretical economy for the speed you get out of it. So either you like the looks, or you like the theoretical economy. Its range is pretty bad, its reliability is horrid, and things like the $300k mandatory gear rebuild get very expensive, very quickly.

The guy who owned the one we operated previously had a Commander 1000. Although the Piaggio was technically faster, the crappy range (higher fuel burn and smaller fuel tanks) meant that with the Piaggio you might have to stop where with the Commander you could go non-stop. The first time they had to stop for a trip they typically did non-stop in the Commander, the owner said "WTF did I buy this thing for?" to which the pilots responded "We were wondering the same thing."

There are better choices for someone with money coming out the wazoo.
 
LDJones said:
If money was unlimited, why wouldn't you just pop for an actual airliner and call it a day?! A 757 is a pretty nice ride. I've flown the sim and it's impressive. All weather, high flyer...and you can bring the whole family...and most of the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

What's the shortest runway you can get a 757 into? Might make more sense to buy something with shorter-field capability.
 
BBJ is much more practical for non-airline use.

LDJones said:
If money was unlimited, why wouldn't you just pop for an actual airliner and call it a day?! A 757 is a pretty nice ride. I've flown the sim and it's impressive. All weather, high flyer...and you can bring the whole family...and most of the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
 
LDJones said:
If money was unlimited, why wouldn't you just pop for an actual airliner and call it a day?! A 757 is a pretty nice ride.
Click to expand...
This is uncommon for some reason. Sergey Brin has a 767, or used to. He said that he often gave a lift to his employees in whatever he had before (a Falcon, IIRC), and there was not enough room. But as I understand he's an exception. I do suspect that he doesn't fly that 767 himself. It's a two-pilot airplane.

P.S. Look at this SPOT:
atlantic_spot.jpg


It's just a Baron, but seems to be working great for a weekend trip to Europe.
 
Last edited:
nddons said:
Interesting paint color. Do you think the painters thought WTF?
Click to expand...

I know I did. It's difficult to make an airplane ugly but they succeeded on this one.

I think the P180 looks awesome in flight...I would love to own the fantasy version of the Piaggio, one that has reasonable operating costs, good range, and a couple of insanely good looking flight attendants. :D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What's the shortest runway you can get a 757 into? Might make more sense to buy something with shorter-field capability.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely not a 757 expert, but looking at the charts it seems that at the weights a personal plane would operate at would make 5-6,000' runways doable. Most corporate jets I know typically consider that a minimum operational strip even if they can get by with shorter.

All of this is is wild eyed theory!
 
Size, weight, gear dimensions, services required are among the considerations. TEB has 100k# limit per regulation IIRC, many small airports, taxiways and ramps simply aren't big enough nor have sufficient radius and/or clearances for the bigs. Weight restrictions are published in AFD.

When we taxied the G-V along the west parallel at San Jose we had to be constantly aware that our wingtip would scrape a fuel truck working on the GA ramp.
LDJones said:
I'm definitely not a 757 expert, but looking at the charts it seems that at the weights a personal plane would operate at would make 5-6,000' runways doable. Most corporate jets I know typically consider that a minimum operational strip even if they can get by with shorter.

All of this is is wild eyed theory!
Click to expand...
 
LDJones said:
I'm definitely not a 757 expert, but looking at the charts it seems that at the weights a personal plane would operate at would make 5-6,000' runways doable. Most corporate jets I know typically consider that a minimum operational strip even if they can get by with shorter.

All of this is is wild eyed theory!
Click to expand...

I know they fly them (Light, pre and post MX, as well as similarly light 737's and 767's) at my home drome. I've seen them get off in 3000 ft, I'd guess. Don't remember if it was a 37, 57 or 67. CRAZY climb angle once they get rolling....
 
3393RP said:
I know I did. It's difficult to make an airplane ugly but they succeeded on this one.

I think the P180 looks awesome in flight...I would love to own the fantasy version of the Piaggio, one that has reasonable operating costs, good range, and a couple of insanely good looking flight attendants. :D
Click to expand...

That is a BAD paint scheme!:yikes: Gotta wonder if somebody at some time during the planning process, said something like, "Are you out of your cotton pickin mind!":dunno: But, if that's the way you want it to look and you're paying the bill, any paint shop would be glad to do it!:D
 
N747JB said:
That is a BAD paint scheme!:yikes: Gotta wonder if somebody at some time during the planning process, said something like, "Are you out of your cotton pickin mind!":dunno: But, if that's the way you want it to look and you're paying the bill, any paint shop would be glad to do it!:D
Click to expand...

Maybe they'd just finished painting some CAF war birds and had some ugly paint left over...cheap.
 
How much would it cost to buy a Concorde and take it out of mothballs? If that isn't possible, how about a Tu-144?


Actually, it isn't as fast, but arriving in the ultimate propeller airliner would give you some ramp presence... That would be the Tu-116 of course.
 
MSPAviator said:
How much would it cost to buy a Concorde and take it out of mothballs? If that isn't possible, how about a Tu-144?


Actually, it isn't as fast, but arriving in the ultimate propeller airliner would give you some ramp presence... That would be the Tu-116 of course.
Click to expand...

Do the Concordes even have their airworthiness still? I think that would be a major undertaking.

One of the issues with the Concorde is that you're not allowed to make a sonic boom with a civil aircraft over land. So it really is difficult to use for anything other than NYC -> London/Paris sorts of hops. If you need to go back and forth to Europe regularly and can afford a G-V with the loose change in your pockets, then perhaps that concept is for you. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One of the issues with the Concorde is that you're not allowed to make a sonic boom with a civil aircraft over land.
Click to expand...

Well if you did do something naughty, it would be a lot harder to scramble F-16's to intercept you if your speed was Mach 2.05. :yikes:

Maybe you could beg for forgiveness later in the form of campaign contributions. :rofl:
 
why would we want to replicate an airliner? The only reason we have an airplane is that airliners can't go where we want to go.
 
Everybody has a different definition of "airliner". I use FAR 25 proformance as mine. Simply put, there is no compromise in safety. Anything less may be very capable, but there is a sliver of time where an engine failure will cause you grief.

Every GA pilot accepts this. For me, many planes provide a great cost to proformance benefit. I tend to go toward piston twins. C-421, BE -58P, and PA-31 all provide great capabilities, but out of my budget. I still love the C-310R model that I used to rent many years ago. I could afford one, but I'm not sure my wife would like the bills.

Bottom line, every plane can be your personal airliner.
 
I guess I'm old school....if I could have my own personal airliner, it would be a DC-6B.....but I'd settle for DC-3.
 
The turbine conversion P210 would be nice and a bit more realistic for most of us ASEL jocks...
 
jonnyjetprop said:
Everybody has a different definition of "airliner". I use FAR 25 proformance as mine. Simply put, there is no compromise in safety. Anything less may be very capable, but there is a sliver of time where an engine failure will cause you grief.

Every GA pilot accepts this. For me, many planes provide a great cost to proformance benefit. I tend to go toward piston twins. C-421, BE -58P, and PA-31 all provide great capabilities, but out of my budget. I still love the C-310R model that I used to rent many years ago. I could afford one, but I'm not sure my wife would like the bills.

Bottom line, every plane can be your personal airliner.
Click to expand...

Bob Gerace had it right, a 310 is a pilots plane, passengers expect pressurization, and if you want them to be reliable you can't fly 190+, that was where Bob was making his principle error in economics, "I didn't buy this plane to go slow." 180 is not slow, it's three miles a minute.
 
Many part 23 airplanes are capable of part 25 OEI performance. The training centers who teach pilots in such planes publish the performance numbers in their CRH info.

jonnyjetprop said:
Everybody has a different definition of "airliner". I use FAR 25 proformance as mine. Simply put, there is no compromise in safety. Anything less may be very capable, but there is a sliver of time where an engine failure will cause you grief.

Every GA pilot accepts this. For me, many planes provide a great cost to proformance benefit. I tend to go toward piston twins. C-421, BE -58P, and PA-31 all provide great capabilities, but out of my budget. I still love the C-310R model that I used to rent many years ago. I could afford one, but I'm not sure my wife would like the bills.

Bottom line, every plane can be your personal airliner.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Bob Gerace had it right, a 310 is a pilots plane, passengers expect pressurization, and if you want them to be reliable you can't fly 190+, that was where Bob was making his principle error in economics, "I didn't buy this plane to go slow." 180 is not slow, it's three miles a minute.
Click to expand...

Disagree that passengers expect pressurization. Passengers have no idea WTF the plane is, other than they see if it has one propeller or two, or if it has jets. I had one passenger be surprised that the 310 had two engines. "Well, see the two propellers...?"

What passengers do end up wanting is the feeling of comfort and luxury. Spacious, comfortable interiors that are easy to get in and out of help. The Navajo was very popular with charters despite its lack of pressurization. When I fly humans in the 310 or Aztec they deal with it just fine, but in their case it's not about flying on a private plane because it's glamorous, it's about getting a job done.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Disagree that passengers expect pressurization. Passengers have no idea WTF the plane is, other than they see if it has one propeller or two, or if it has jets. I had one passenger be surprised that the 310 had two engines. "Well, see the two propellers...?"

What passengers do end up wanting is the feeling of comfort and luxury. Spacious, comfortable interiors that are easy to get in and out of help. The Navajo was very popular with charters despite its lack of pressurization. When I fly humans in the 310 or Aztec they deal with it just fine, but in their case it's not about flying on a private plane because it's glamorous, it's about getting a job done.
Click to expand...

All my wife wants is an air stair door. And a red carpet in front of it,
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Disagree that passengers expect pressurization.
Click to expand...
think again. I made the mistake of borrowing a friend's 414 when we were in between airplanes. My wife and daughters decided that was just about the minimum airplane they could bear. When I later bought this little travel air there was no end of whining. I have the turbos for it but they're still in a box on the shelf. I know better than to ask "Honey, we could save some gas if you and the kids would agree to breath through this little plastic tube"
 
What a great thread! I'm loving the responses!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top