Ideas / suggestions for a twin
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: land down under
Age: 43
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is a higher cost of keeping a 40 year old airframe airworthy.
However time lifed parts(most) will run out in the same number of hours on a 40 year old plane as they will on say a 4 year old plane. But I can see your point WRT breakages and corrosion.
Just out of curiosity, would there be a difference in insurance premiums between a brand new (high hull value) and a low time airframe, say 3-4000 hours?
If so, how much?
However time lifed parts(most) will run out in the same number of hours on a 40 year old plane as they will on say a 4 year old plane. But I can see your point WRT breakages and corrosion.
Just out of curiosity, would there be a difference in insurance premiums between a brand new (high hull value) and a low time airframe, say 3-4000 hours?
If so, how much?
Last edited by propblast; 8th Jan 2011 at 14:17. Reason: alcohol induced fog
Aging aircraft is not the problem - just cumulative sloppy maintenance. You don't need to look any further than the smarties packet of different screws on inspection panels or the number of times you see LAME's put self taping screws into threaded holes, skip hard to get at greasing points, re-use self locking nuts that were designed not to be reused.
Cost of insurance all depends on how much you want it insured for. Usual figure is about 2% of hull value.
Yeah, you still have to replace lifed parts when due, but with a new a/c they won't be due for their full life.
Say you spend $150K on a baron that's got 9000 hrs TT and 100/200 hrs left on engines & props. Start with $60-80K for new engines, $20K for new props, possible issues with fuel cells $8K, gear issues, autopilot, avionics etc. All these things start to add up, not to mention the time needed to fix the issues, and when you go to sell it 5 years later with 12000 hrs TT, don't think you'll get more than you paid for it, even with half life engines and props. Maybe even after chucking in $8K for a paint job to make it look half decent.
This is fair as an average estimate, and I know there are good deals to be found, I also know there are worse ones too, so don't bother pointing out you could get a set of props at your mates for $19K, hence proving my argument wrong (as so many ppruners LOVE to do).
If you happen to find an airframe that has fairly fresh parts all round, you're gonna pay extra for it compared to something that has everything due.
Same as for well maintained airframes. They're around, but you pay extra for them and you will still get a lot less for your 10000 hr airframe when you go to sell it than a 3000 hr airframe.
The point being you won't spend as much to keep it on the road though.
Who wants to put up a worst case scenario for their ongoing maintenance costs? Might as well see what you could be up for and there's no point saying, "It won't happen to me."
Paddy's law.......Murphy was an optimist.
Old story, pay peanuts, get monkeys.
(Not to mention Large fortune/Small fortune)
Yeah, you still have to replace lifed parts when due, but with a new a/c they won't be due for their full life.
Say you spend $150K on a baron that's got 9000 hrs TT and 100/200 hrs left on engines & props. Start with $60-80K for new engines, $20K for new props, possible issues with fuel cells $8K, gear issues, autopilot, avionics etc. All these things start to add up, not to mention the time needed to fix the issues, and when you go to sell it 5 years later with 12000 hrs TT, don't think you'll get more than you paid for it, even with half life engines and props. Maybe even after chucking in $8K for a paint job to make it look half decent.
This is fair as an average estimate, and I know there are good deals to be found, I also know there are worse ones too, so don't bother pointing out you could get a set of props at your mates for $19K, hence proving my argument wrong (as so many ppruners LOVE to do).
If you happen to find an airframe that has fairly fresh parts all round, you're gonna pay extra for it compared to something that has everything due.
Same as for well maintained airframes. They're around, but you pay extra for them and you will still get a lot less for your 10000 hr airframe when you go to sell it than a 3000 hr airframe.
A new aircraft like a new car will lose significant value as soon as you take possesion of it.
6th Jan 2011 21:41
6th Jan 2011 21:41
Who wants to put up a worst case scenario for their ongoing maintenance costs? Might as well see what you could be up for and there's no point saying, "It won't happen to me."
Paddy's law.......Murphy was an optimist.
Old story, pay peanuts, get monkeys.
(Not to mention Large fortune/Small fortune)
It may cost slightly less in direct costs, maintenance wise to operate the aircraft however any saving will be quickly eaten up by the purchase price of a new airframe. Your Baron example is good as a brand new Baron would set you back $1.5million where as you could make your $150,000 dollar machine quite good for a total spend of $500,000 (zero time most componants, re-paint, refurbish and upgrade the avionics), you have saved a million in finance. After a few years or 2000hours of being looked after properly you should get at least $200,000 where as the brand new machine would probably be worth under a million.
The direct operating cost difference between the two machines would be negligible.
Things like corrosion depend on the aircraft and its history and location, a good pre-purchase will sort that out. I have seen 40 year old aircraft with no corrosion problems and brand new aircraft only a few years out of the factory with major problems due to manufacturing issues.
The main difference between a light aircraft and a car is that a new car has little in common with one from 30-40 years ago. Engines, body and chassis are built with different techniques and materials. A new Baron or Seneca is essentially built the same way as the old, from the same stuff and has the same engine with maybe an electronic control unit attached and some fancy new avionics and interior.
The direct operating cost difference between the two machines would be negligible.
Things like corrosion depend on the aircraft and its history and location, a good pre-purchase will sort that out. I have seen 40 year old aircraft with no corrosion problems and brand new aircraft only a few years out of the factory with major problems due to manufacturing issues.
The main difference between a light aircraft and a car is that a new car has little in common with one from 30-40 years ago. Engines, body and chassis are built with different techniques and materials. A new Baron or Seneca is essentially built the same way as the old, from the same stuff and has the same engine with maybe an electronic control unit attached and some fancy new avionics and interior.
Last edited by 43Inches; 9th Jan 2011 at 09:29.
Yes, ends up pretty much the same, but without the downtime required to fix the broken/breaking things.
Higher outlay....yes
Higher sale price when you upgrade....yes
My baron actually was a good example as there was a G model with Garmin glass for sale a year or two ago at Archerfield for about $1.2M AUD. Add $100K for new donks and props and not much else and you've spent $400K.
The $150K machine as you pointed out needed half a mil spent to get an extra $50K back (Optimistically as you'll need a fresh set of donks and props at sale if you want to get more than you paid back on a now five figure TT machine). $450+K cost. Much more attractive presentation for clients as well.
The P68C is also a very good example. $850K to purchase with glass (probably about to go up) and there are examples I've seen around 5-8 years old selling for $700+K. Not that much of a loss, really. Plus they present a hell of a lot better for charter clients, have current and working avionics and they come with factory corrosion proofing.
Pretty good actually.
Higher outlay....yes
Higher sale price when you upgrade....yes
My baron actually was a good example as there was a G model with Garmin glass for sale a year or two ago at Archerfield for about $1.2M AUD. Add $100K for new donks and props and not much else and you've spent $400K.
The $150K machine as you pointed out needed half a mil spent to get an extra $50K back (Optimistically as you'll need a fresh set of donks and props at sale if you want to get more than you paid back on a now five figure TT machine). $450+K cost. Much more attractive presentation for clients as well.
The P68C is also a very good example. $850K to purchase with glass (probably about to go up) and there are examples I've seen around 5-8 years old selling for $700+K. Not that much of a loss, really. Plus they present a hell of a lot better for charter clients, have current and working avionics and they come with factory corrosion proofing.
Pretty good actually.
Grandpa Aerotart
Geez guys - they did build a few Barons between the 1970 model at 100K and the 2011 Baron at 1.5 million.
I am a member of another bulletin board that exists only for Beechcraft owners and there are MANY members in the US with Barons of every vintage from 1960s models to one (Australian) member of the BB who picks his new G58 up in a few weeks from the factory.
Lots of mid 70s, mid 80s, early 90s Barons with low TT and upgraded avionics (G600 Glass and Garmin stacks), recent paint and interiors that a lay person simply could not tell from new and that change hands for 200k - 400k. Just the savings in insurance premiums alone would cover 40% of the total cost of operating a Baron for a year.
850k for a P68?
That is just nuts.
I am a member of another bulletin board that exists only for Beechcraft owners and there are MANY members in the US with Barons of every vintage from 1960s models to one (Australian) member of the BB who picks his new G58 up in a few weeks from the factory.
Lots of mid 70s, mid 80s, early 90s Barons with low TT and upgraded avionics (G600 Glass and Garmin stacks), recent paint and interiors that a lay person simply could not tell from new and that change hands for 200k - 400k. Just the savings in insurance premiums alone would cover 40% of the total cost of operating a Baron for a year.
850k for a P68?
That is just nuts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mildura
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try $1.1m for a new p68, and that's with the euro in it's strong position. All of the new build aircraft have much higher BEW too. For a p68 equipped with all the options Inc de-ice and air con you have a useful load of 640 odd kg, and a fuel burn of 60kg p/h, coupled with a tas of around 150 it just won't compete with the likes of a shrike out of Mildura where, apart from Adelaide everywhere is 250nm+.
From all the contact that I have had with operators of shrikes and Navajos, the maintenance is nowhere near the difference in purchase price, unless you intend to operate the older aircraft for 25 years. GAM redo the wings, re engine with a modern io540, and have that many mods that will keep on top of the normal problems associated with aging aircraft. Add to this the ability to put whatever custom equipment you like, where you like and not having any constraints on colour schemes, interior materials etc.
From all the contact that I have had with operators of shrikes and Navajos, the maintenance is nowhere near the difference in purchase price, unless you intend to operate the older aircraft for 25 years. GAM redo the wings, re engine with a modern io540, and have that many mods that will keep on top of the normal problems associated with aging aircraft. Add to this the ability to put whatever custom equipment you like, where you like and not having any constraints on colour schemes, interior materials etc.
Try $1.1m for a new p68
850k for a P68?
That is just nuts.
That is just nuts.
Anyone seen what a Seneca V's worth?
For $600k you will get a lovely PA31 with 3-4000 hours Total Time. Will always be in demand for charter, parts are a no brainer and its a cabin class executive feel aircraft. Not only will it build credible twin time it will do what tasks you need it to do and be resaleable when you want to upgrade
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mildura
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MakeItHappenCaptain, I have a feeling I may have spoken to you, my boss was very close to signing up for a new P68 and I have done my research and know all the numbers.
The retrac that sold was;
A: The ex factory demonstrator
B: Stuck in Malaysia for months with landing gear problems that were subsequently fixed and the aircraft bought by a malaysian company for a lot less than it was supposedly worth.
C: Came in over 50Kg heavier than expected when weighed, and has a 21Kg less MTOW than the fixed gear version. Read: 600Kg useful load.
D: Not equipped with Air Con, De-Ice, Radar (the retractable model cannot house a radar), the lighter MT props, it had the old version head lining, the sideways mounted Sagem EFIS, and more.
The Jan 1 price rise was 9.7% and affected all vulcanair aircraft and all the options.
The Baron only has one option, and that is fully optioned. G1000, De-Ice, Air Con etc. The P68 fully optioned from Jan 1 is over $1.15M and that is with the Euro at 0.768, if it gets back to being 0.65 or worse that price is getting very close to the Baron.
I agree that they are a much better option for the training market and would be a money spinner for short range charters or a bit of freight.
Unfortunately for our intended operation, the distances are in excess of 250NM, the destinations quite often endorsed with INTER and TEMPO, OR have an alternate requirement, and the freezing levels quite low. For example:
P68 with all options Inc De-Ice, Useful load = 645Kg
Mildura to Bankstown, 450Nm @ 130KT G/S = 208 Min
208 Mins flight fuel = 277Lt, +15% variable of 41Lt, +60Lt fixed, +INTER fuel of 30Lt plus an allowance for an instrument approach at BK of 20Lt
= 304Kg of fuel + my weight inc my flight bag of 80Kg = 260Kg of passengers and bags. Now that equals 3 x 86Kg per person with bags and journey time is probably 230 mins total. You could of course stop at say, Griffith and re-fuel. This would allow you to take 4 people instead of 3 (still not a full aircraft) but will add 30 mins to the journey, and your pax will have to get out and stand in the rain while you fill up.
Looking at the numbers i have for the Shrike, you could take 5 x 90+Kg (not including me) and be in Sydney in 3 hours non-stop.
I have been asked to start an operation on behalf of my boss and I am personally responsible for ATTEMPTING to make it as viable as possible, I.e getting an aeroplane that is going to be able to do absolutely everything that may be required of it, is a good start.
Hopefully this gives a bit more insight into what the intended purpose of the aircraft will be. Thanks again to all contributors so far!
The retrac that sold was;
A: The ex factory demonstrator
B: Stuck in Malaysia for months with landing gear problems that were subsequently fixed and the aircraft bought by a malaysian company for a lot less than it was supposedly worth.
C: Came in over 50Kg heavier than expected when weighed, and has a 21Kg less MTOW than the fixed gear version. Read: 600Kg useful load.
D: Not equipped with Air Con, De-Ice, Radar (the retractable model cannot house a radar), the lighter MT props, it had the old version head lining, the sideways mounted Sagem EFIS, and more.
The Jan 1 price rise was 9.7% and affected all vulcanair aircraft and all the options.
The Baron only has one option, and that is fully optioned. G1000, De-Ice, Air Con etc. The P68 fully optioned from Jan 1 is over $1.15M and that is with the Euro at 0.768, if it gets back to being 0.65 or worse that price is getting very close to the Baron.
I agree that they are a much better option for the training market and would be a money spinner for short range charters or a bit of freight.
Unfortunately for our intended operation, the distances are in excess of 250NM, the destinations quite often endorsed with INTER and TEMPO, OR have an alternate requirement, and the freezing levels quite low. For example:
P68 with all options Inc De-Ice, Useful load = 645Kg
Mildura to Bankstown, 450Nm @ 130KT G/S = 208 Min
208 Mins flight fuel = 277Lt, +15% variable of 41Lt, +60Lt fixed, +INTER fuel of 30Lt plus an allowance for an instrument approach at BK of 20Lt
= 304Kg of fuel + my weight inc my flight bag of 80Kg = 260Kg of passengers and bags. Now that equals 3 x 86Kg per person with bags and journey time is probably 230 mins total. You could of course stop at say, Griffith and re-fuel. This would allow you to take 4 people instead of 3 (still not a full aircraft) but will add 30 mins to the journey, and your pax will have to get out and stand in the rain while you fill up.
Looking at the numbers i have for the Shrike, you could take 5 x 90+Kg (not including me) and be in Sydney in 3 hours non-stop.
I have been asked to start an operation on behalf of my boss and I am personally responsible for ATTEMPTING to make it as viable as possible, I.e getting an aeroplane that is going to be able to do absolutely everything that may be required of it, is a good start.
Hopefully this gives a bit more insight into what the intended purpose of the aircraft will be. Thanks again to all contributors so far!
TriMed.
Yes you did speak to me and as such you know that I'm not making this up.
I was initially only presenting an opinion of new vs old. Although I know Vulcanair (duh!) I never said they were the only option available.
Bet it sells for a lot more than a H model.
You said it.
A. The aircraft has only just completed it's FIRST 100 hrly. It was not an "ex-demonstrator" in the sense you portray it as. It was sold on sight on it's way to Aus. Owner and his pilots are completing Aus qualifications and collecting the a/c next week.
B. Not saying what it sold for, but so what if they got a bargain anyway? The gear pressure switch failed and burned out the gear pump. (Could happen to any Piper too. Identical components.) The gear was extended using the blowdown system and it was found the actuators were too light and overextended. The aircraft was "stuck" for six weeks, NOT MONTHS while factory engineers fitted heavier actuators and blueprinted the gear. This aircraft was the first of type. Issues have and will continue to be discovered and rectified on almost ANY new type of a/c, not just Vulcanairs (at no cost to the customer.) Nothing new there.
C. Since when did you see all a/c match their POH Standard Weight? Some are higher, some are lower. This a/c has some options fitted above standard that contribute to a higher than standard weight. Big deal.
D. What do you want a/c for in Victoria? Would have been "nice" in the Middle East on the way over in 40deg heat, but the standard ventilation has three blowers that do a more than satisfactory job and it has a standard fuel burning heater that would be more use to you.
De-ice? It's not pressurised or turbocharged. What for? Extra weight? How many normally aspirated GA a/c have de-ice in Aus????
Radar - You'd mount it under the wing, same as a Malibu
MT-3 blade props quieter climb better - Hartzell 2 blades all metal, easier to get serviced, faster (we got over 170 KTAS S&L from both P68R's with 2 blades)
"Old version" head lining? Oh yes...a grab handle on the windscreen divider for the "new version". WTF???
The landscape mount vs portrait mount EFIS? Not hard to change and the customer has the choice.
What exactly is your point about how the first model was optioned?
PS. I have confirmed AirItalia are keeping the price at 2010 levels (The retract was offered landed in Aus for $850K) until the next factory trip in Feb and no, I'm not on commission.
Yes you did speak to me and as such you know that I'm not making this up.
I was initially only presenting an opinion of new vs old. Although I know Vulcanair (duh!) I never said they were the only option available.
upgrading our (very nice 800 hour old) Cessna 206
The G58 costing $1.5M+ and having less useful load than the P68 and burning over 130 Lp/h it doesnt make any sense. The Seneca is a Seneca and that is enough said.
A. The aircraft has only just completed it's FIRST 100 hrly. It was not an "ex-demonstrator" in the sense you portray it as. It was sold on sight on it's way to Aus. Owner and his pilots are completing Aus qualifications and collecting the a/c next week.
B. Not saying what it sold for, but so what if they got a bargain anyway? The gear pressure switch failed and burned out the gear pump. (Could happen to any Piper too. Identical components.) The gear was extended using the blowdown system and it was found the actuators were too light and overextended. The aircraft was "stuck" for six weeks, NOT MONTHS while factory engineers fitted heavier actuators and blueprinted the gear. This aircraft was the first of type. Issues have and will continue to be discovered and rectified on almost ANY new type of a/c, not just Vulcanairs (at no cost to the customer.) Nothing new there.
C. Since when did you see all a/c match their POH Standard Weight? Some are higher, some are lower. This a/c has some options fitted above standard that contribute to a higher than standard weight. Big deal.
D. What do you want a/c for in Victoria? Would have been "nice" in the Middle East on the way over in 40deg heat, but the standard ventilation has three blowers that do a more than satisfactory job and it has a standard fuel burning heater that would be more use to you.
De-ice? It's not pressurised or turbocharged. What for? Extra weight? How many normally aspirated GA a/c have de-ice in Aus????
Radar - You'd mount it under the wing, same as a Malibu
MT-3 blade props quieter climb better - Hartzell 2 blades all metal, easier to get serviced, faster (we got over 170 KTAS S&L from both P68R's with 2 blades)
"Old version" head lining? Oh yes...a grab handle on the windscreen divider for the "new version". WTF???
The landscape mount vs portrait mount EFIS? Not hard to change and the customer has the choice.
What exactly is your point about how the first model was optioned?
PS. I have confirmed AirItalia are keeping the price at 2010 levels (The retract was offered landed in Aus for $850K) until the next factory trip in Feb and no, I'm not on commission.
D. What do you want a/c for in Victoria?
De-ice? It's not pressurised or turbocharged.
Although I'm not sure why you are averse to turbo-charged aircraft. There is no problem if you and a few selected pilots are the only ones who use it. If its for general hire thats another thing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mildura
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MakeItHappenCaptain,
Sorry if i have offended you. The primary reason for putting this question out there was because I wanted to gain some actual operating figures (not peoples opinions or ideas for their own dream aircraft) so i could present my boss with comparisons about what would and would not work. To spend $1.1M on a P68 and out grow it in 18 months would mean fronting up to my boss to admit that I didnt do my research and spent a lot of money on an aircraft that isnt suitable. Just a little bit of pressure on me to get it right!.
Do you mean to say that the gear emergency extension wasnt tested at the factory? Like you say, new aircraft types will have issues and the only way of discovering these is generally when you are a long way from home.
What do we want A/C for in Mildura? Perhaps you should look here: Mildura climate, averages and extreme weather records.
The aircraft's main use will be as an executive transport, dont think my boss is too keen on getting out of the plane in Canberra for an important meeting smelling like he's just ridden there on a push bike. Over 40c inside the aircraft is pretty common here. Dont quote me but i'm pretty sure the heating set up is an exhaust shroud system too, not that it matters as the heater in the 206 doesnt see much use.
As you say the aircraft is not pressurised or turbo'd, which for mine is more reason to have De-Ice if you can. Yes with good pre flight planning you can just about get around most of the problems associated with Victorian winter freezing levels of 3500, but you will probably negate the saving of 25Kg from not having De-Ice, by using 25Kg of fuel diverting around the ranges at 2500ft. I used it for the comparison so i could compare apples with apples, I could do a comparison of a basically equipped P68 (no leather, air con, de ice, radar etc.) with a fully kitted out older aircraft on a range v payload basis and for anything over 250Nm, the older one would still come out on top for longer trips.
Not to mention the added comfort of the well equipped older aircraft for the passengers, I have to try and sell charters to the public - better equipped aircraft = more attractive to them and more chance of getting there, speed is the other main advantage here.
The main reason for the MT prop option was the 13Kg weight saving, if you dont think they are much chop then add a further 13Kg to the BEW i mentioned before. Youre in G58 territory now as far as useful load goes. If you can show me an example of a retrofit wing mounted radar then I would love to see it, I would guess that it wouldnt weigh less than 10Kg as well.
By old version head lining, I mean that the newer models no longer have the 6 inch covering of the ventilation ducting that runs down the middle of the roof. The same piece of ducting that we all managed to hit our head on getting in and out of the rear seats.
It must sound like I am rubbishing the P68, but I dont intend to - it is still definately on my bosses short list and just about un-beatable when doing what it was intended for. The A-viator you mentioned is a very interesting aircraft and seems a very good turbine replacement for the C402/PA31 type aircraft. We are looking forward to having a look at it at Avalon.
Thanks for your input none the less,
TMG.
Sorry if i have offended you. The primary reason for putting this question out there was because I wanted to gain some actual operating figures (not peoples opinions or ideas for their own dream aircraft) so i could present my boss with comparisons about what would and would not work. To spend $1.1M on a P68 and out grow it in 18 months would mean fronting up to my boss to admit that I didnt do my research and spent a lot of money on an aircraft that isnt suitable. Just a little bit of pressure on me to get it right!.
Do you mean to say that the gear emergency extension wasnt tested at the factory? Like you say, new aircraft types will have issues and the only way of discovering these is generally when you are a long way from home.
What do we want A/C for in Mildura? Perhaps you should look here: Mildura climate, averages and extreme weather records.
The aircraft's main use will be as an executive transport, dont think my boss is too keen on getting out of the plane in Canberra for an important meeting smelling like he's just ridden there on a push bike. Over 40c inside the aircraft is pretty common here. Dont quote me but i'm pretty sure the heating set up is an exhaust shroud system too, not that it matters as the heater in the 206 doesnt see much use.
As you say the aircraft is not pressurised or turbo'd, which for mine is more reason to have De-Ice if you can. Yes with good pre flight planning you can just about get around most of the problems associated with Victorian winter freezing levels of 3500, but you will probably negate the saving of 25Kg from not having De-Ice, by using 25Kg of fuel diverting around the ranges at 2500ft. I used it for the comparison so i could compare apples with apples, I could do a comparison of a basically equipped P68 (no leather, air con, de ice, radar etc.) with a fully kitted out older aircraft on a range v payload basis and for anything over 250Nm, the older one would still come out on top for longer trips.
Not to mention the added comfort of the well equipped older aircraft for the passengers, I have to try and sell charters to the public - better equipped aircraft = more attractive to them and more chance of getting there, speed is the other main advantage here.
The main reason for the MT prop option was the 13Kg weight saving, if you dont think they are much chop then add a further 13Kg to the BEW i mentioned before. Youre in G58 territory now as far as useful load goes. If you can show me an example of a retrofit wing mounted radar then I would love to see it, I would guess that it wouldnt weigh less than 10Kg as well.
By old version head lining, I mean that the newer models no longer have the 6 inch covering of the ventilation ducting that runs down the middle of the roof. The same piece of ducting that we all managed to hit our head on getting in and out of the rear seats.
It must sound like I am rubbishing the P68, but I dont intend to - it is still definately on my bosses short list and just about un-beatable when doing what it was intended for. The A-viator you mentioned is a very interesting aircraft and seems a very good turbine replacement for the C402/PA31 type aircraft. We are looking forward to having a look at it at Avalon.
Thanks for your input none the less,
TMG.
No dramas.
The system should have been tested. I was told that even though the system runs at at ~600 PSI, the lines are rated to 1200PSI+. You would think they would have tried it, but not a concern now that the heavier duty actuators are fitted.
(Imagine how I felt with a 400L bladder of AVGAS in the back, just starting a 1400nm leg over the Arabian Sea when you get a burning smell from the gear pump!)
Be aware that many GA twins, while fitted with de-ice are not certified to remain in icing conditions (ie. vacate ASAP). Navajos, for example are only certified in MODERATE icing and that's only if every part req in the POH (antenna shields included) is fitted and working.
Haven't fitted a radar YET, but the Viator will have underwing pods that can be used for fuel or sensors/cameras and they can be fitted to P68s. Should be able to use for a radar as well.
Sorry 43: my response was on the comment that the demo model didn't have de-ice. That option only comes with the turbo models as far as I'm aware. (Believe it or not normally aspirated Senecas had a de-ice option that held the boots in the retracted position with suction, but usually you need a turbo, turbine or press. air to provide the inflation.)
It's unfortunate the industry hasn't come up with anything piston to replace the C400 series/PA31's. If you're carting anything more than 5 adults total and gear, you're going to have to consider 8/10 seats.
Cheers.
The system should have been tested. I was told that even though the system runs at at ~600 PSI, the lines are rated to 1200PSI+. You would think they would have tried it, but not a concern now that the heavier duty actuators are fitted.
(Imagine how I felt with a 400L bladder of AVGAS in the back, just starting a 1400nm leg over the Arabian Sea when you get a burning smell from the gear pump!)
Be aware that many GA twins, while fitted with de-ice are not certified to remain in icing conditions (ie. vacate ASAP). Navajos, for example are only certified in MODERATE icing and that's only if every part req in the POH (antenna shields included) is fitted and working.
Haven't fitted a radar YET, but the Viator will have underwing pods that can be used for fuel or sensors/cameras and they can be fitted to P68s. Should be able to use for a radar as well.
Sorry 43: my response was on the comment that the demo model didn't have de-ice. That option only comes with the turbo models as far as I'm aware. (Believe it or not normally aspirated Senecas had a de-ice option that held the boots in the retracted position with suction, but usually you need a turbo, turbine or press. air to provide the inflation.)
It's unfortunate the industry hasn't come up with anything piston to replace the C400 series/PA31's. If you're carting anything more than 5 adults total and gear, you're going to have to consider 8/10 seats.
Cheers.
Navajos, for example are only certified in MODERATE icing and that's only if every part req in the POH (antenna shields included) is fitted and working.
It's unfortunate the industry hasn't come up with anything piston to replace the C400 series/PA31's. If you're carting anything more than 5 adults total and gear, you're going to have to consider 8/10 seats.
If you can find a T1040 for sale they are usually around $500000US.
Last edited by 43Inches; 14th Jan 2011 at 22:32.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just get a 10 year old Baron, and suck it and see. You can trade up to larger/turbine later if it works out. if it doesn't you still have a saleable asset. My 10 cents.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mildura
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi and sorry to drag this up again,
We still dont have an aircraft but the focus has turned now to a PA31 sized aircraft and we are in the process of looking at a few in the US. There is a few Mike Jones lock and key chieftains with low time but the problem with them seems to be the BEW.
Can anyone help with info regarding the VG kits and associated MTOW increases? From what i have gathered the standard BLR manufactured VG kits will enable an MTOW of 3349? but when the aircraft has had the "Colemill" treatment with the Q-tip props and winglets you are limited to a MTOW of 3284. Does anyone know about operating at the higher weight with these mods?
Despite what Mike Jones quotes that the average BEW of his aircraft is roughly 2250, all of the ones I have looked into are around 100 Kg heavier, so have a useful load of 950 odd Kg. With 115kg of fuel reserves and and 110kg per hour fuel burn it really makes a good 6 seat aircraft...
I have also heard that the winglets and Q-tip props add no performance and if anything have a negative impact on TAS and BEW, can anyone confirm/deny this?
Does 180kt and 190 litres in the first hour, then 150 lph sound about right too? Some stories on the internet are quoting 190kt.
Hope someone can help out with my questions,
Cheers.
We still dont have an aircraft but the focus has turned now to a PA31 sized aircraft and we are in the process of looking at a few in the US. There is a few Mike Jones lock and key chieftains with low time but the problem with them seems to be the BEW.
Can anyone help with info regarding the VG kits and associated MTOW increases? From what i have gathered the standard BLR manufactured VG kits will enable an MTOW of 3349? but when the aircraft has had the "Colemill" treatment with the Q-tip props and winglets you are limited to a MTOW of 3284. Does anyone know about operating at the higher weight with these mods?
Despite what Mike Jones quotes that the average BEW of his aircraft is roughly 2250, all of the ones I have looked into are around 100 Kg heavier, so have a useful load of 950 odd Kg. With 115kg of fuel reserves and and 110kg per hour fuel burn it really makes a good 6 seat aircraft...
I have also heard that the winglets and Q-tip props add no performance and if anything have a negative impact on TAS and BEW, can anyone confirm/deny this?
Does 180kt and 190 litres in the first hour, then 150 lph sound about right too? Some stories on the internet are quoting 190kt.
Hope someone can help out with my questions,
Cheers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tri-Med, I said it earlier, if this is a commercial operation don't faf about with antique piston twins where you are weighing and considering every kilo of load and litre of fuel to see if it can just barely get the job done. If your mission is that tight, NONE of the stuff you are considering will work out in the long run and you will be back looking for an upgrade.
Get a B200 or a C90, a Conquest or a PC12. They will go as far as you could want, carry as much as you could need, and will still be applicable to the task and achieving the goals in many years time. They cost no more than a tarted-over Chieftain in the long run.
Get a B200 or a C90, a Conquest or a PC12. They will go as far as you could want, carry as much as you could need, and will still be applicable to the task and achieving the goals in many years time. They cost no more than a tarted-over Chieftain in the long run.
A C404 will do what you're asking in the piston range.
They are a real workhorse.
If you're serious about the aeroplane though, something like a Conquest will do a far better job (or an F406).
They are a real workhorse.
If you're serious about the aeroplane though, something like a Conquest will do a far better job (or an F406).