Thinking about the next plane

Topper

Topper

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Messages
416
Location
Benton
Display Name
Display name:
Topper
I did not want to hijack the other thread and it seemed to be going a little off track.

The good news, we have a reason to travel, my partner has the budget for whatever plane we want (within reason, G5 is out, but he would consider a small jet)

The smart answer is to buy the last plane first and hire a pilot for a couple of years. My partner has a problem putting a pilot on the payroll when he would only work a few hours a week. I realize that a full time pilot does more than working the few hours that he/she is flying, but I understand his perception. We make good partners for a variety of reasons including that I am a pilot and can fly us.

Our typical mission now rarely exceeds 300 miles, we have a 182 that fits nicely. New opportunities are expanding out mission to 650-1100 miles. Typically it will only be with two or three people. It would be nice to be able to take 5 with enough fuel to get somewhere.

I am a realitively new low time pilot. Working on my IR and hope to complete it in the next few months. I have no complex time.

I think my partner is considering netjets or something similar for the longer trips. I enjoy the flying and the freedom the decide to leave in 30 minute and check the weather, check the plane and head out. I think my partner will get tired of the expense of the jet and will avoid some trips.

Ultimately I think I would like to fly a single or twin turboprop. Trying to decide how to best get there and what the next best step would be. Love the idea of a piston twin for the redundancy of the second engine. But maybe a Malibu is a better next step. Pressurization, retract, much faster, etc.

I have an Aspen and a 750 in the 182 and am not sure I want anything less. A newer Malibu with a glass panel seems like a good fit. An older pressurized Aerostar or 340 would be cheaper even with a panel upgrade. Maybe I should stay away from pressurization for the next plane?

A Lance or a Bo does not seem like enough of a jump to make a change. I want to avoid taking on too much at once. Right now I am flying about 20 hours a month and I think I learn something (or at least gain confidence), every flight.

I don't mind and actually think I would look forward to the recurrent training. The only concern I have about a higher insurance premium is that they may have a good reason for a higher premium.

Jim
 
Several options here.

I would suggest that you could temporarily do NetJets or even just charter for the longer trips early on while you're building experience.

If you're flying a 182 and you're good with that, take another step up in speed first, somewhere in the 170-200 knot range. I'm thinking Mooney/Bo/Saratoga, with a turbo - Or maybe even a light twin, also preferably with a turbo. Get used to flying higher, farther, faster, and exercise your instrument skills in the real world.

After a few hundred hours with that, then you should consider a PC12 or King Air. A jet would be neat, but most jets need longer runways - The t-props can squeeze in and out of 2500 feet if not hot/heavy. Most jets need quite a bit more than that. Depending on availability of airports with longer runways, you may spend longer getting to where you need to go because you spend half the time on the ground getting to/from your destination when you could have potentially landed closer with a turboprop.

Enjoy the hunt!
 
Tons of options depending on your price range PC12's are always popular, along with King Air 200's:D
For twins I am a Cessna guy, and I have owned two 414A's and a 421B, great airplanes if you need FIKI and a good size cabin. Maintenance is going to be higher than a non-turbo twin, and fuel flow is 38-45 GPH at 190-200 knots.;) But they are comfortable for longer trips, especially in the rear seats, than 310's/Barons/Senecas/ etc. :D
NetJets is good, but I don't think they'll let you fly left seat.:nono:
 
I had a brief conversation with the insurance company today. She thought most carriers would prefer to see me with some complex time prior to jumping to a twin or pressurized single. Seems like a Saratoga/Lance/Bo is a marginal increase in performance for the expense of changing planes. On the other hand I want to take small logical steps as needed.

There seems to be a huge variation in opinions when it comes to a twin. From its a simple jump, no big deal - one more engine, etc. to being a huge jump in performance, complexity, etc.

Planning to fly in an Aerostar in the near future, maybe I will have a strong opinion after that. My gut says I consider a non pressurized complex single or light twin. Seems like a good time to buy a twin. However there is a beautiful Lance in Kansas City, might be priced a little high, but wow is it equipped.

Jim
 
Anybody thinking about Net-Jets should seek advice about frac and card programs from somebody who understands the vagaries. They will screw you like a tied goat.

Your partner clearly doesn't understand how pilot services can be structured without full-time employee expense. A high percentage of high-performance planes are operated without full-time crews.

Jets can usually use the same airports as turboprops. Kent needs to update his files.

If you guys are serious about this big-airplane stuff you need to find somebody to sort the black pepper from the flyshlt.

If you're just buying an airplane that you can fly, the game is totally different.
 
Last edited:
Topper, no right or wrong answers. I will throw out something for your consideration. Stay with the 182 for a few mongths. Get the IR quickly. Go to some kind of accelerated school and get a multi/commercial. You won't know anything about flying a multi but, you will have the piece of plastic. The commercial is for insurance and avoid any problem if you are considered being paid to be a pilot.
Now buy the plane you want, cabin class piston twin or turbo prop. Hire a contract pilot to baby sit the first year. Might even line up a couple contract pilots. Look for a retired freight dog or something like that. Stay away from the low time instructors wanting to build time. You only pay for the pilot while using him. Sim training is cheaper per pilot when two pilots go together. Advantage, you get to fly left seat, you get a plane like you want/need for the missions. You will get excellent experience in the actual plane you want to fly. I would guess after a couple hundred hours with the baby sitter you proficiency and competence should be adequate. Just a thought. Edit: What Wayne said.
 
Last edited:
If you know you are going to end up in a jet or single turbo prop then you might as well get a go fast plane or twin now and start building those hours and maybe even get your IFR in them.

Since it is a transitional plane you might even try and find a dry lease for a year so you can get 100-200-300 hrs in a hi performance complex or twin which may be enough to get you to the next step.
 
wabower said:
Jets can usually use the same airports as turboprops. Kent needs to update his files.
Click to expand...

Wayne, are there really any common jets that can get in and out of a 2500' runway like a King Air can?

I've been in the right seat of a King Air 200 on and off a 2500' runway. I've also flown right seat in a Hawker that had to land an hour's drive away from the destination 'cuz it was the closest airport that plane could get in and out of, but there was a perfectly good airport with a 2949' runway right in town. King Air would have been the better bird for that trip (and in fact, would have been were there not a maintenance issue with it).

Yes, I'm aware that there are smaller jets than the Hawker that can get on and off smaller fields - The captain was looking for 5000' minimum, whereas I used to work at a field with the longest runway at 4100' that had a Citation Excel, a CJ1, and an L39 based there and plenty of transients as well. In fact, it's my home field now and a few weeks ago I saw a Challenger in there - Musta been a tight squeeze.

But I think it all depends on where you are in the country, and where your missions will take you. Some of the more populated areas have plenty of airports with longer runways. Other areas have lots of 2500 and 3000 foot runways...
 
Kent, do you remember than straight-wing Citations were introduced to compete head-to-head with King Airs insofar as runway requirements were concerned?

Per the Operating Handbook, a 90 KA and Citation I, both at mid-weight, need almost exactly the same 2,000' runway for takeoff and landing. Vref is almost identical. A KA 200 and Citation-II will share similar performance. Some of the newer jets will outperform the older models but I don't have the CRH for them in the target tub.

The Hawker and other early swept-wing jets won't compare favorably for runway performance, but I've flown the G-V in/out of less than 3,500' lengths.


flyingcheesehead said:
Wayne, are there really any common jets that can get in and out of a 2500' runway like a King Air can?

I've been in the right seat of a King Air 200 on and off a 2500' runway. I've also flown right seat in a Hawker that had to land an hour's drive away from the destination 'cuz it was the closest airport that plane could get in and out of, but there was a perfectly good airport with a 2949' runway right in town. King Air would have been the better bird for that trip (and in fact, would have been were there not a maintenance issue with it).

Yes, I'm aware that there are smaller jets than the Hawker that can get on and off smaller fields - The captain was looking for 5000' minimum, whereas I used to work at a field with the longest runway at 4100' that had a Citation Excel, a CJ1, and an L39 based there and plenty of transients as well. In fact, it's my home field now and a few weeks ago I saw a Challenger in there - Musta been a tight squeeze.

But I think it all depends on where you are in the country, and where your missions will take you. Some of the more populated areas have plenty of airports with longer runways. Other areas have lots of 2500 and 3000 foot runways...
Click to expand...
 
Topper said:
I did not want to hijack the other thread and it seemed to be going a little off track.

The good news, we have a reason to travel, my partner has the budget for whatever plane we want (within reason, G5 is out, but he would consider a small jet)

The smart answer is to buy the last plane first and hire a pilot for a couple of years. My partner has a problem putting a pilot on the payroll when he would only work a few hours a week.

Jim
Click to expand...

You guys should take the bus.
 
The following is a thread hijack for which I apologize in advance. Second, this is not directed toward the OP. If I were in his shoes I would attempt the same thing, wise or not.
I have several times seen a person of means spend $1.5 million or even a lot more on an airplane. They do not flinch at $40K a year in fixed costs. Perhaps another $10K in incidental maintenance. At least a $100K in DOC for a hundred hours worth of flying. Then when it comes to the most important safety feature, a competent, experienced pilot, one who can not only fly the plane but, can manage it in a way that could easily save thousands of dollars in costs, they choke at hiring a pilot:dunno:. Heck I have known a few that would crawl into a plane with anybody that could start the engines. In my way of thinking I would hire the pilot first, the most experienced one I could find. Then get his input on the plane for the mission and based on the pilots experience buy a plane we both agreed on. Just my $.02. Back to the regular scheduled programming.
 
Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

Hiring the pilot first causes more problems than it solves for a number of reasons, the first being that pilots are trained to fly planes, not to acquire them.

Nor can the owner be assured of objectivity if a king air pilot is hired and the best plane turns out to be a jet.

Hire acquisition people to buy them, hire pilots to fly them. If you know how to do both yourself and have time and inclination to fart with it, don't hire anybody.
 
At 300 miles, you're looking at about 2.5 hours in the 182 wheels up to wheels down (no-wind). That would probably get down to about an hour in a jet, and anywhere in between for a fast single up through turboprop. So you need to ask how fast you really want to go, and how much you really want to spend.

300 miles is pretty short. A 340 can do over 200 KTAS (so 1.5 hours in theory), but after you do the climb to FL200 (figure 30 minutes) you'll probably be closer to 1:45 Meanwhile our 310N could do the same trip in about 1:45 (so figure the same time) for way less operating costs. The secret is it goes fast lower. Figure similar for a Malibu. A good turboprop could probably take that 1:45 down to 1:30, and then a jet to get down to the even 1 hour.

I'd say there's insufficient info here to really give you advice. If you are thinking of getting into jet fuel, I would say that most of the folks on here don't really have much experience with it. Wayne and Ronnie have good advice, but they both actually dealt with Jet A a good deal.
 
Wayne, I see your point, I really do. However, my point was to hire a pilot experienced in the general area I was looking to purchase. If I knew I wanted a twin turbo prop I would want my pilot picked out or perhaps even on board who had experience in flying and managing a turbo prop. I think a pilot with multiple thousands of hours in KA's would be helpful in picking out a KA, no? This hiring would be with interviews and complete check of references. I would not hire a PP even a high time one to help me with acquisition of a Lear 60. In my personal experience I try to always put the owner first. Perhaps I am naïve but, it has worked well for me as the pilot. You do make a very good point and find it hard to disagree strenuously with you. Enough thread drift on my part.
 
If you have the money get a PC-12. Best multi purpose plane ever made and prices will not fall on them anytime soon so resell will be better than others. Fast, Big Cabin, Short Field, Single Engine, Lots of useful load, less dificult to fly than most twins piston or turbine. Winner!
 
What I found is that every half mile per minute above 3 miles per minute is an exponential increase in cost. That's why I settle for 3 miles a minute for traveling, I can get corner to corner across the country in a day barring severe headwinds (yep, it's a long day from Ft Lauderdale to Seattle, but I'm used to long days at the helm). It also helps to have a three and a half mile per minute plane and operate it at three with regards to overall operations and maintenance costs.
 
I want the very best pilots we can hire to fly the planes, and they are high on the list of referral sources for the acquisition business. Their problem is lack of knowledge and resources on the acquisition side of the deals, and many deals are very structurally and financially complex.

OTOH, I defer on all crew-related, training and operational issues, and serve as a resource when asked to do so. Most of the pilots that I have hired for positions with existing clients are happy campers with long-term jobs, good comp, working conditions and good bosses.

That said, most of them know that the acquisition process and required skill-sets are much different than the stuff they know how (and like) to do. The reverse is true as well. The advent of and ongoing changes to of all the information and reporting stuff including EAFIS, RVSM, etc. has increased pilot/aircraft management workload to the point that I'm no longer comfortable doing it.

Finally, many pilot friends and referral sources simply don't want to be in the middle of the acquisition deals because they have found them to be a trap because they know they will be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they like to have me around to take the heat.


ronnieh said:
Wayne, I see your point, I really do. However, my point was to hire a pilot experienced in the general area I was looking to purchase. If I knew I wanted a twin turbo prop I would want my pilot picked out or perhaps even on board who had experience in flying and managing a turbo prop. I think a pilot with multiple thousands of hours in KA's would be helpful in picking out a KA, no? This hiring would be with interviews and complete check of references. I would not hire a PP even a high time one to help me with acquisition of a Lear 60. In my personal experience I try to always put the owner first. Perhaps I am naïve but, it has worked well for me as the pilot. You do make a very good point and find it hard to disagree strenuously with you. Enough thread drift on my part.
Click to expand...
 
It seems that your and your partners needs are very different and trying to hitch them together may leave both of you unhappy. Your partner may be best served with a common turboprop or light jet (iow a King Air or CJ) and a short list of semi-local contract pilots to fly it and you would probably just be best off sticking with your 182 and enjoying the occasional ride-along in the big bird.
 
Topper said:
I had a brief conversation with the insurance company today. She thought most carriers would prefer to see me with some complex time prior to jumping to a twin or pressurized single. Seems like a Saratoga/Lance/Bo is a marginal increase in performance for the expense of changing planes. On the other hand I want to take small logical steps as needed.

There seems to be a huge variation in opinions when it comes to a twin. From its a simple jump, no big deal - one more engine, etc. to being a huge jump in performance, complexity, etc.

Planning to fly in an Aerostar in the near future, maybe I will have a strong opinion after that. My gut says I consider a non pressurized complex single or light twin. Seems like a good time to buy a twin. However there is a beautiful Lance in Kansas City, might be priced a little high, but wow is it equipped.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim;

Who is selling the Lance? I recently looked at one @ OJC that was geared up and had a water landing!
 
wabower said:
Kent, do you remember than straight-wing Citations were introduced to compete head-to-head with King Airs insofar as runway requirements were concerned?
Click to expand...

Remember? No, but maybe that's because they were announced 5 years before I was born. ;)

Per the Operating Handbook, a 90 KA and Citation I, both at mid-weight, need almost exactly the same 2,000' runway for takeoff and landing. Vref is almost identical. A KA 200 and Citation-II will share similar performance.
Click to expand...

Interesting!

So how is it that the King Air still sells so well, if a Citation can take off from the same runways and outrun it? (I'm thinking better efficiency and larger cabin cross section, but I could be wrong...)

Some of the newer jets will outperform the older models but I don't have the CRH for them in the target tub.
Click to expand...

When I was second-guessing myself after your earlier post, I went and looked up the Mustang because I remembered that it had fairly reasonable runway requirements, but they only claim 3110 feet. Looking at the full line, that's their shortest claim.

Now if only I had the money for this to matter to me... Sigh.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Interesting!

So how is it that the King Air still sells so well, if a Citation can take off from the same runways and outrun it? (I'm thinking better efficiency and larger cabin cross section, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Exponential increase in operating costs and lower payload?:dunno:
 
King Air cabins are much more comfortable, fuel burn is 60% of Citation. They won't outrun the Citations, (360 vs 280 knot speed) but on short trips the time doesn't matter all that much. King Air engines can run for 8,000 hours between overhauls, the older citations were figmo at 3,500 hours. Most people fly KA single pilot (except 350) with no type rating required. MX programs are much cheaper, only four main phase inspections completed every 2 years and no additional "Phase 5" at three-year intervals. King Airs are just great airplanes and many people who trade them for jets end up trading back down or buying a KA outright for all the trips at which they excel. Pax like to have their baggage inside where they can access their "stuff" and the big private potty area is very nice.

When I flew Chuck Norris to his ranch in Navasota I could land the B-200 on roughly half of their 3,200' foot runway. The published runway lengths can be confusing, depending on weights, balance field lengths, climb gradients, part 135 requirements vs part 91 requirements, Yada Yada Yada.

flyingcheesehead said:
Remember? No, but maybe that's because they were announced 5 years before I was born. ;)



Interesting!

So how is it that the King Air still sells so well, if a Citation can take off from the same runways and outrun it? (I'm thinking better efficiency and larger cabin cross section, but I could be wrong...)



When I was second-guessing myself after your earlier post, I went and looked up the Mustang because I remembered that it had fairly reasonable runway requirements, but they only claim 3110 feet. Looking at the full line, that's their shortest claim.

Now if only I had the money for this to matter to me... Sigh.
Click to expand...
 
When you fly into those short strips in a jet make sure of the runway load restrictions.

We could get a Falcon 50 into Desert Aire, 3660'. But it might not be pretty. Load limit 12,500#

When this runway was paved 30 years ago, some farmer just laid asphalt right on the sand.
 
Topper said:
Planning to fly in an Aerostar in the near future, maybe I will have a strong opinion after that.

Jim
Click to expand...

I would do the Aerostar and keep a good A&P on call. Blistering fast, pretty easy to fly, and for the other folks they do like the pressurization.
 
Aerostars are great, they are however not great short field performers (if that's a criteria). Lightly loaded and with a proficient pilot, they'll just about do 2500ft. Anything below 3500ft makes me nervous when I'm fully loaded. That wing is designed to go fast, not fly slow or takeoff fast. Mine is a mushy, bad climber below 100-110kts. Above that, it's like a completely different plane and it climbs great.
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
When I flew Chuck Norris to his ranch in Navasota I could land the B-200 on roughly half of their 3,200' foot runway. The published runway lengths can be confusing, depending on weights, balance field lengths, climb gradients, part 135 requirements vs part 91 requirements, Yada Yada Yada.
Click to expand...

C'mon people, Wayne is describing aircraft performance with Chuck Norris on board and nobody is biting?
 
Well, when I was flying Bubbles the clown around in my ultralight, we liked the bugs in the teeth.
 
Last edited:
Sam D said:
C'mon people, Wayne is describing aircraft performance with Chuck Norris on board and nobody is biting?
Click to expand...

Chuck Norris is so tough he doesn't even need a PPL. The guy just took over at the controls and flew the plane like a pro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top