Turbine or Turbo?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Goldfields
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine or Turbo?
Looking for 6 to 8 seat aircraft for business and pleasure. Need 900 mile range or better and high ceiling to get above summer turbulance.
Majority of business to support drilling operations working from isolated and unsealed strips. Easy loading of freight required.
Conscious of cost per nm more than capital outlay. Above 200 kt cruise prefered.
What options are there? New or used? Single or twin? Turbine or piston? Was considering a Piper Meridian, are there other alternatives?
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Majority of business to support drilling operations working from isolated and unsealed strips. Easy loading of freight required.
Conscious of cost per nm more than capital outlay. Above 200 kt cruise prefered.
What options are there? New or used? Single or twin? Turbine or piston? Was considering a Piper Meridian, are there other alternatives?
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da Daaaaaaaaaah
Here ah is.
Agree with almost everything you say 'cept definitely not the MU2 stuff. -10s are interesting, but it so underwinged, any load over that distance is going to have you dragging your a@rse along around the early 20s if you're lucky. You only gotta look at the resale values against their same year new price as a percentage compared to the other types to get the message.
The Cheyene 400 LS is a toy rocket but you need to be rich. It will do 340KTS?? and 1800nm blah blah but not all at the same time. It was the last hurrah for Piper and it never laid a glove on the competition.
Conquest 11 and yep with -10 will beat the cr@p outa anything else, I gaurantee it. GW TO straight to FL310 like a bat outa hell and gauranteed 290KTAS when you get there and be sure you ask "the voice" to move any preceding B200 outa the way
Here ah is.
Agree with almost everything you say 'cept definitely not the MU2 stuff. -10s are interesting, but it so underwinged, any load over that distance is going to have you dragging your a@rse along around the early 20s if you're lucky. You only gotta look at the resale values against their same year new price as a percentage compared to the other types to get the message.
The Cheyene 400 LS is a toy rocket but you need to be rich. It will do 340KTS?? and 1800nm blah blah but not all at the same time. It was the last hurrah for Piper and it never laid a glove on the competition.
Conquest 11 and yep with -10 will beat the cr@p outa anything else, I gaurantee it. GW TO straight to FL310 like a bat outa hell and gauranteed 290KTAS when you get there and be sure you ask "the voice" to move any preceding B200 outa the way
Grandpa Aerotart
Wastegate,
Cessna Conquest 2...even with the - 8 engine is a giant killer...accept no substitute.
There is one with -10s for sale in Aus at the moment...if they are better than the -8 version, and I have NO doubt they would be, mighty machine!!
Very quick for a Turboprop (280Kts+), climb faster than a homesick angel on a promise and easy to fly (like all the 400 Cessnas).
Full tanks only gives you 4 bums but how often will you want to fly 2000+nm?
MU2? Mitsubishi's Revenge
400LS? There is one parked at Kuala Lumpur...has been for a long time due to mechanical/money probs.
Metros? The little short one with -10s might be alright but I still reckon the C441 would be a better allround machine...in fact just a better machine.
C441 cheaper capital cost than PC12 etc but with Transport Category twin performance IFR is a no brainer.
I don't care what stats are dragged out to convince weakminded individuals of the contrary, two turbines beat 1.
Chuck.
Cessna Conquest 2...even with the - 8 engine is a giant killer...accept no substitute.
There is one with -10s for sale in Aus at the moment...if they are better than the -8 version, and I have NO doubt they would be, mighty machine!!
Very quick for a Turboprop (280Kts+), climb faster than a homesick angel on a promise and easy to fly (like all the 400 Cessnas).
Full tanks only gives you 4 bums but how often will you want to fly 2000+nm?
MU2? Mitsubishi's Revenge
400LS? There is one parked at Kuala Lumpur...has been for a long time due to mechanical/money probs.
Metros? The little short one with -10s might be alright but I still reckon the C441 would be a better allround machine...in fact just a better machine.
C441 cheaper capital cost than PC12 etc but with Transport Category twin performance IFR is a no brainer.
I don't care what stats are dragged out to convince weakminded individuals of the contrary, two turbines beat 1.
Chuck.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 20th Oct 2002 at 23:26.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you get an MU-2 factor in a yearly OS trip to a Sim and a small cardiac episode from your insurance broker. EVERYONE has horror stories about flying them, so unless you will remain current and re-currently trained, go for a less hairy machine.
441 takes some beating. (Speaking of which, did you get my private mail a while back Gaunty?)
441 takes some beating. (Speaking of which, did you get my private mail a while back Gaunty?)
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz
Right on re MU2 and I'm not sure about the email how about sending it again.
BIK me old hard bitten thrill seeker.
I am well familiar wid de Marquise. It was just as underwinged as its ancestors.
Full trailing edge flaps certainly help with Vrefs and Vtoss, but lets talk about the Vmca and Vtoss v Vyse spread of around 50Kts if I recall correctly and that is just one of the weak points.
It's really great fun after leaving the relative safety of the ground sitting there doing your nails whilst waiting for the ship to accelerate to a speed that will ensure a continued increase of that precious height should one of those converters of fuel to noise decide to take the day off.
Oh and you'd better get to grips with your MU2 assy technique lest you hang those spoilerons out there to hasten your descent.
Oh and you'd better get it right the first time on final approach coz when you get below M0.2 in the landing config don't even think about an assy go round.
Just look at the "phase of flight" accident stats.
Geez racing all the way to FL250, I'm excited puts you right in the icing within which they are not all that happy, maybe underneath the B200s and you'd need binoculars to see the C441 that's been way up there in the jetstream since morning tea.
Bit of a diff in FF too.
The MU2 wing loading is way up there with some of the better jet fighters on heaps less HP.
Yup you can't beat the Cessna high wing philosophy, but there are very many good structural reasons why Cessna (Boeing, McDonnell etc) did not do their twins that way.
Almost, no ALL, high wing twins have never quite got there in the hardest test of all, the market place, it's a structural weight/complexity thing.
New average equipped
1985 Marquise USD1,852,000 v Used USD860,000 = 46%
1985 C441 USD1,795,000, v Used USD1,280,000 = 71% if you can find one.
1985 Solitaire, USD1,375,000 v Used USD710,000 = 51%
Nah, the MU2 B (8,930lbs) and F (9,920lbs) were outstanding and very sexy ships for their era, albeit fairly highly wing loaded then, but when they took it to 11,575lbs on the same wing despite the 100 odd HP increase it was all downhill.
Anyway apart from all that, whose looking after the parts and manufacturers stuff now?
PA-42-1000
I'm not suprised you can't find one to fly as there were only around 44 total built.
says it all. You can only take a Beech 200 wing and fuselage so far.
Any way buggah it, why dont we just go and get one them new Eclipse thingys and be done with all this old cr@p.
Better still I know where there is an immaculate Mustang.
Right on re MU2 and I'm not sure about the email how about sending it again.
BIK me old hard bitten thrill seeker.
I am well familiar wid de Marquise. It was just as underwinged as its ancestors.
Full trailing edge flaps certainly help with Vrefs and Vtoss, but lets talk about the Vmca and Vtoss v Vyse spread of around 50Kts if I recall correctly and that is just one of the weak points.
It's really great fun after leaving the relative safety of the ground sitting there doing your nails whilst waiting for the ship to accelerate to a speed that will ensure a continued increase of that precious height should one of those converters of fuel to noise decide to take the day off.
Oh and you'd better get to grips with your MU2 assy technique lest you hang those spoilerons out there to hasten your descent.
Oh and you'd better get it right the first time on final approach coz when you get below M0.2 in the landing config don't even think about an assy go round.
Just look at the "phase of flight" accident stats.
Geez racing all the way to FL250, I'm excited
puts you right in the icing within which they are not all that happy, maybe underneath the B200s and you'd need binoculars to see the C441 that's been way up there in the jetstream since morning tea. Bit of a diff in FF too.The MU2 wing loading is way up there with some of the better jet fighters on heaps less HP.
Yup you can't beat the Cessna high wing philosophy, but there are very many good structural reasons why Cessna (Boeing, McDonnell etc) did not do their twins that way.
Almost, no ALL, high wing twins have never quite got there in the hardest test of all, the market place, it's a structural weight/complexity thing.
New average equipped
1985 Marquise USD1,852,000 v Used USD860,000 = 46%
1985 C441 USD1,795,000, v Used USD1,280,000 = 71% if you can find one.
1985 Solitaire, USD1,375,000 v Used USD710,000 = 51%
Nah, the MU2 B (8,930lbs) and F (9,920lbs) were outstanding and very sexy ships for their era, albeit fairly highly wing loaded then, but when they took it to 11,575lbs on the same wing despite the 100 odd HP increase it was all downhill.
Anyway apart from all that, whose looking after the parts and manufacturers stuff now?
PA-42-1000
I'm not suprised you can't find one to fly as there were only around 44 total built.
Another option might be a Merlin IIIC with -10 donks. Also, a Merlin 300 would be fabulous, if only you could find one. Unfortunately, they only made 10 of ‘em.
Any way buggah it, why dont we just go and get one them new Eclipse thingys and be done with all this old cr@p.
Better still I know where there is an immaculate Mustang.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty - "Almost, no ALL, high wing twins have never quite got there in the hardest test of all, the market place, it's a structural weight/complexity thing." Twotter, Dash 8, ATRs have all been very sucessful.
Rehashing the perpetual quest ever since the Wright brothers first defied gravity - How can I go faster, higher and carry more - all for less money! And the same re hashing of out of production antiques.
By George, Gaunty, I think nasa has the perfect solution to our personal hack requirements! nasa, does that thing come with an in-flight bar?
By George, Gaunty, I think nasa has the perfect solution to our personal hack requirements! nasa, does that thing come with an in-flight bar?
Sorry Torres, but no matter how much you might like this aircraft, it is automatically excluded!
Powered by a single engine from a Citation business jet, the Bird of Prey is pure prototype, with a maximum speed of 300 mph and a maximum altitude of 20,000 feet.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends if you want to spend $1/2 M or $2M?
A Cessna 414A or 421C will do the job on avgas in the low 200kt TAS range in the high teens low twenties. (several for sale in AUST now - C414A's have been rare as hens teeth until this month - I believe QLD AIr Ambulance are selling theirs)
If you have $2M go and buy that dash 10 Conquest for 300kts at FL350 - no contest.
A Cessna 414A or 421C will do the job on avgas in the low 200kt TAS range in the high teens low twenties. (several for sale in AUST now - C414A's have been rare as hens teeth until this month - I believe QLD AIr Ambulance are selling theirs)
If you have $2M go and buy that dash 10 Conquest for 300kts at FL350 - no contest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Goldfields
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine or Turbo
Thanks for the advise everyone. From an owner operator point of view the costs per mile of the twin turbines are not too inviting. Can anyone tell me about the Extra EA 400 or where I can find more info on it.
ps. Waste Gate... sorry about that. I find a new name.
ps. Waste Gate... sorry about that. I find a new name.
Bik,
Fly a twin and you are twice as likely to have to deal with an engine out. Knowing how to do it is, I think, one of lifes better ideas.
Yes Boeings have roll spoilers. I fly one. They also have Ailerons which activate first, and single engine procedure is to limit roll input to aviod spoiler extention as it unacceptably degrades climb performance. And this in an aircraft with MUCH more power to weight than a Rice Rocket.
I agree with the sentiment re simulators, but would anyone care to venture an educated guess as to what pecentage of Turbo-prop pilots in Australia recieve annual training in a full-motion, type specific sim? Or even a fixed base with decent visuals? That being the reality, Wastegate SHOULD get himself sim training. If he ignores this sage advice and relies on base-training in the aircraft, he will stand a better chance of survival in something less "challenging" than a Moo-Too.
End of sermon, let us pray.
Fly a twin and you are twice as likely to have to deal with an engine out. Knowing how to do it is, I think, one of lifes better ideas.
Yes Boeings have roll spoilers. I fly one. They also have Ailerons which activate first, and single engine procedure is to limit roll input to aviod spoiler extention as it unacceptably degrades climb performance. And this in an aircraft with MUCH more power to weight than a Rice Rocket.
I agree with the sentiment re simulators, but would anyone care to venture an educated guess as to what pecentage of Turbo-prop pilots in Australia recieve annual training in a full-motion, type specific sim? Or even a fixed base with decent visuals? That being the reality, Wastegate SHOULD get himself sim training. If he ignores this sage advice and relies on base-training in the aircraft, he will stand a better chance of survival in something less "challenging" than a Moo-Too.
End of sermon, let us pray.
