What plane do I want to have 1.5 years from now?

FormerHangie said:
Just a reminder, all the turbocharged stuff makes their speed at altitudes where the wind blows hard sometimes. So you'll get those big TAS numbers on one leg of your trip, but not the other.
Click to expand...
You'll get the same true air speed regardless of whether you are into the wind or it's on your tail!
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
or...if you're lucky you'll have a head wind both ways. ;)
Click to expand...
Flying is a net head wind game. Think about it, and what even a slight quartering tail wind does to your track to your destination. All corrections eat up fuel. You can't win (and as they say in physics, you can't break even, either.)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
You'll get the same true air speed regardless of whether you are into the wind or it's on your tail!
Click to expand...
Unless you fly at a much lower altitude to escape the absurd headwinds, in which case you will get a lower TAS. Either way, you aren't going to go fast all the time because you're either going to fly low and get a low TAS or fly high into a headwind and get a low GS. The moral of the story is that you need a jet capable of getting into the stratosphere in order for any of this to make sense, so just keep the Viking. :)
 
TimRF79 said:
Mission:
We live in Texas and would like to be able to fly as far as Seattle.

Doesn't need to be 1,000lbs exactly, thought is I way about 270, wife 180, dog 70, would be nice to have capacity for some luggage and a 3 person.

Thinking potential future budget around 150k
Click to expand...

Seriously, Houston to Seattle is a job for an airliner.

Kenny Phillips said:
You'll get the same true air speed regardless of whether you are into the wind or it's on your tail!
Click to expand...

If you were still flying at the same altitude you would, but you wouldn't do that because chances are that your groundspeed would be higher at a lower altitude. Figure that one leg is worth going high and the other is not.
 
iamtheari said:
Unless you fly at a much lower altitude to escape the absurd headwinds, in which case you will get a lower TAS. Either way, you aren't going to go fast all the time because you're either going to fly low and get a low TAS or fly high into a headwind and get a low GS. The moral of the story is that you need a jet capable of getting into the stratosphere in order for any of this to make sense, so just keep the Viking. :)
Click to expand...
cept.....if I'm true-ing out at 194 kts....the headwind component ain't as bad as true-ing at 160 kts.

so, for a 35 kt headwind....that's 159 kts vs. 125 kts ground speed.
 
iamtheari said:
Unless you fly at a much lower altitude to escape the absurd headwinds, in which case you will get a lower TAS. Either way, you aren't going to go fast all the time because you're either going to fly low and get a low TAS or fly high into a headwind and get a low GS. The moral of the story is that you need a jet capable of getting into the stratosphere in order for any of this to make sense, so just keep the Viking. :)
Click to expand...
Faster is always better, unless landing.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Flying is a net head wind game. Think about it, and what even a slight quartering tail wind does to your track to your destination. All corrections eat up fuel. You can't win (and as they say in physics, you can't break even, either.)
Click to expand...

The crosswind has to be pretty close to directly abeam to act as a headwind. I did a little virtual E6B work, assuming you TAS 1s 160 kts and the wind is 30 kts, any crosswind where the direction is at least seven degrees less than directly abeam will act as a tailwind. So, if you were heading due north, any wind from 97 degrees to 263 degrees acts as a tailwind.
 
FormerHangie said:
The crosswind has to be pretty close to directly abeam to act as a headwind. I did a little virtual E6B work, assuming you TAS 1s 160 kts and the wind is 30 kts, any crosswind where the direction is at least seven degrees less than directly abeam will act as a tailwind. So, if you were heading due north, any wind from 97 degrees to 263 degrees acts as a tailwind.
Click to expand...
It may increase your ground speed, but you also must consider that you will be flying with a correction that increases your flight distance.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
It may increase your ground speed, but you also must consider that you will be flying with a correction that increases your flight distance.
Click to expand...

You lost me there.

Checkout_my_Six said:
cept.....if I'm true-ing out at 194 kts....the headwind component ain't as bad as true-ing at 160 kts.

so, for a 35 kt headwind....that's 159 kts vs. 125 kts ground speed.
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming the winds are the same at both altitudes? I'm looking at the winds aloft maps for the Western part of the United States right now, and the difference in wind speeds between 9000 feet and 18000 feet are between 15 and 30 mph, and this is a fairly benign part of the year. As we get later into fall and until late spring, the winds tend to pick up.
 
FormerHangie said:
You lost me there.



Why are you assuming the winds are the same at both altitudes? I'm looking at the winds aloft maps for the Western part of the United States right now, and the difference in wind speeds between 9000 feet and 18000 feet are between 15 and 30 mph, and this is a fairly benign part of the year. As we get later into fall and until late spring, the winds tend to pick up.
Click to expand...
well....I was "assuming" it was bad high and low.....to prove my point. :D

but, yes, that's not how it's done....out high and fast....and back lower and not as fast. I'd just punch in the BE35 aircraft in flightaware and look at traffic. You'll be able to find traffic moving in apposing directions for comparison.
 
FormerHangie said:
Just a reminder, all the turbocharged stuff makes their speed at altitudes where the wind blows hard sometimes. So you'll get those big TAS numbers on one leg of your trip, but not the other.
Click to expand...
To be accurate, you’ll get the big TAS numbers both way. It’s groundspeed you won’t be getting.
 
FormerHangie said:
Seriously, Houston to Seattle is a job for an airliner.
Click to expand...
$1,000 for a first-class round-trip ticket on United, nonstop both directions, at reasonable times of the day. Even if you can do it in 4 hours each way with your own plane, at $750/hr (a very low estimate for a plane capable of that outcome with any number of people and bags aboard) you are in it for $6,000 round-trip. The same $6,000 gets you 6 first-class tickets on the airline plus you can drink and/or work while en route.

But HOU-SEA is probably the 5% mission. The 95% mission is the one to buy a plane for, and then if the plane you end up is worth it for the Seattle trips, you can take it. Or if it's a marginal bump from the 95% mission to the 100% mission, then go for it. Example: If your normal flying almost justifies a PC-12 and a PC-12 can do the Seattle trip for you, then get the PC-12. But if your normal flying just barely justifies a Bonanza and a Bonanza can't do the Seattle trip, then get the Bonanza and buy a whole lot of first-class tickets to Seattle for the price difference between the two planes.
 
Salty said:
To be accurate, you’ll get the big TAS numbers both way. It’s groundspeed you won’t be getting.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you won't go high on the leg where there's a headwind, as the winds will usually mean that going high isn't worth it.

That's the deal with turbocharged piston planes, the additional speed is mostly useful on the leg where you have a tailwind. On the leg where you have a headwind, it's rarely worth the climb. Also, since the largest amount of time on any given trip will be in headwind conditions, the turbo will help you less than half of your enroute time. It's kind of like riding a bicycle on hilly terrain, you spend at least two thirds of it climbing.

iamtheari said:
$1,000 for a first-class round-trip ticket on United, nonstop both directions, at reasonable times of the day. Even if you can do it in 4 hours each way with your own plane, at $750/hr (a very low estimate for a plane capable of that outcome with any number of people and bags aboard) you are in it for $6,000 round-trip. The same $6,000 gets you 6 first-class tickets on the airline plus you can drink and/or work while en route.

But HOU-SEA is probably the 5% mission. The 95% mission is the one to buy a plane for, and then if the plane you end up is worth it for the Seattle trips, you can take it. Or if it's a marginal bump from the 95% mission to the 100% mission, then go for it. Example: If your normal flying almost justifies a PC-12 and a PC-12 can do the Seattle trip for you, then get the PC-12. But if your normal flying just barely justifies a Bonanza and a Bonanza can't do the Seattle trip, then get the Bonanza and buy a whole lot of first-class tickets to Seattle for the price difference between the two planes.
Click to expand...

It's 1650 nm direct between Houston and Seattle, he'd need a mid sized jet to do that in four hours. Or he could get an old Merlin, I think they can make that distance as well, but would take more like six hours or more. You're right, he should get something that meets his normal mission and take the airlines to Seattle.
 
FormerHangie said:
I'm assuming that you won't go high on the leg where there's a headwind, as the winds will usually mean that going high isn't worth it.

That's the deal with turbocharged piston planes, the additional speed is mostly useful on the leg where you have a tailwind. On the leg where you have a headwind, it's rarely worth the climb. Also, since the largest amount of time on any given trip will be in headwind conditions, the turbo will help you less than half of your enroute time. It's kind of like riding a bicycle on hilly terrain, you spend at least two thirds of it climbing.



It's 1650 nm direct between Houston and Seattle, he'd need a mid sized jet to do that in four hours. Or he could get an old Merlin, I think they can make that distance as well, but would take more like six hours or more. You're right, he should get something that meets his normal mission and take the airlines to Seattle.
Click to expand...

or, if the seattle trip is a couple of times a year, make it one longer day with a stop or two (8-10 hours door to door) or make an overnight part of the tip somewhere fun (Wyoming/etc)?

Looking at Southwest. it's an 8 hour flight with one layover. plus TSA time/etc. it's probably about a wash door to door vs taking a 56TC or similar. It'll cost more in your own plane,a nd your chance of making it are lower, so it all depends what you prioritize. I agree. I'd by for your 95% mission and then either take a longer trip for the once in a blue moon, or just fly the airlines. For example, i'm considering 160-200kt aircraft that would be great west coast planes, or even to the Midwest. The flight to the gulf coast though, would be like 9-10 hours. I'll do the same thing and weigh airlines vs my plane. Figure it's 250/hr or so for variable costs on a twin (perhaps less) X20 hour round trip = $5,000 in variable costs. COACH tickets for my family of 4 during any school holidays are about $3,500, and the door to door time is about the same as the airlines (always has a layover somewhere), so it's a wash for me as well.

what i personally wouldn't do would be jump into a 300kt plane at 150 hours both from a safety and cost standpoint. at $150k purchase price though, he can easily get a 95% of mission plane, and decide on a trip by trip basis if he wants to use airlines or fly himself.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Flying is a net head wind game. Think about it, and what even a slight quartering tail wind does to your track to your destination. All corrections eat up fuel. You can't win (and as they say in physics, you can't break even, either.)
Click to expand...
If you let me know where your flying out of I’ll garuntee you a great tailwind by me starting to fly towards you. Tailwinds are a myth!!
 
One of the practical advantages of the turbocharged plane is that the extra performance gives you more options when encountering weather. Sometimes the best way out of ice is up, but you need extra horsepower to do it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weird....o_O

Full disclosure:....it was a sad attempt a Beechcraft humor. :confused:
 
MIFlyer said:
or, if the seattle trip is a couple of times a year, make it one longer day with a stop or two (8-10 hours door to door) or make an overnight part of the tip somewhere fun (Wyoming/etc)?

Looking at Southwest. it's an 8 hour flight with one layover. plus TSA time/etc. it's probably about a wash door to door vs taking a 56TC or similar. It'll cost more in your own plane,a nd your chance of making it are lower, so it all depends what you prioritize. I agree. I'd by for your 95% mission and then either take a longer trip for the once in a blue moon, or just fly the airlines. For example, i'm considering 160-200kt aircraft that would be great west coast planes, or even to the Midwest. The flight to the gulf coast though, would be like 9-10 hours. I'll do the same thing and weigh airlines vs my plane. Figure it's 250/hr or so for variable costs on a twin (perhaps less) X20 hour round trip = $5,000 in variable costs. COACH tickets for my family of 4 during any school holidays are about $3,500, and the door to door time is about the same as the airlines (always has a layover somewhere), so it's a wash for me as well.

what i personally wouldn't do would be jump into a 300kt plane at 150 hours both from a safety and cost standpoint. at $150k purchase price though, he can easily get a 95% of mission plane, and decide on a trip by trip basis if he wants to use airlines or fly himself.
Click to expand...

Other airlines offer nonstops from Houston to Seattle, 4:40 westbound, 4:00 eastbound at this time of year.
 
For the Houston to Seattle mission... Have you done that in the Viking yet? Did your wife go with you? Was she OK with doing that long of a trip GA? IIRC the Super Viking isn't really that slow - 160 knots? It looks like EFD to BFI is 1654nm direct, and 1696 via ABQ and PUC to keep you in the non-oxygen altitudes, so maybe 11 hours of flight time with no wind. That 200-knot airplane is only going to save you 2.5 hours at best, and since you pretty much need to have turbos and wear oxygen to get those speeds, you may not be any faster going westbound.

Also, have you and your wife ever used oxygen before? I have a factory oxygen system in my plane (M20R) and I rarely use it. The oxygen is devoid of moisture, so within a half hour my nasal passages are burning and dry. It sucks. I've considered switching to a mask, breathing through my mouth, and taking frequent sips of water, but that would likely result in an early bio-stop, which will make a much bigger difference in trip time than speed.

So, IMO, if you want to do that on a regular basis and keep your wife happy, you need to look at a BE-58P (Pressurized Baron) or a P210 (P as in Pressurized). Those will both get you high for speed, and keep you in pressurized comfort. P337 would work too but has a reputation of being a maintenance hog. Then, there's the PA46 which has its rep for engine failures, or the Cessna 4xx twins but now you're getting into pretty expensive territory. Really, none of these will be cheap to buy or operate.

I guess what I'm really saying is this: Be sure you include your wife in the process, and let her try things like wearing a cannula and going on O2 for a few hours. It would really suck for you to buy the awesome plane you want to have, and discover that your wife gives up on it after the first trip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top