And if you were 'seriously wealthy', then surely you would be looking at something without props and more than one engine...;)

Of course you would also need someone to fly it for you, to give you more time to spend with the penthouse pets down the back!! :eek: :O

I'm with the ForkTailedDrKiller - I'm happy with my C210 and I don't think that I need a twin.

However if I was going to move up to a nice twin, the C414A Chancellor would be high on my list.

I'd say running costs on the C414A would be cheaper if not the same as the Baron 58P and it's got extra seating - plus its a cabin class twin.

I reckon it's amazing what Cessna have done with that airframe and wing on what is essentially the same power as a C310 or Baron (50hp more if you want to be picky).

Beware of the C414 RAM conversions with winglets here in Oz, as CASA halves the spar life. Apparently there is little or no data on the twisting loads that the winglets put on the wing & spar therefore we halve the spar life to be on the safe side.

If you don't need all those seats then we're back to the C303 Crusader again.

Never flown a C414, but that's an aeroplane that has appeal to me - always enjoyed flying the 402.

Never flown a Crusader either, but it always seemed underpowered to me. what is it, 520 hp total cf 600 in the 310 airframe? The engine choice was a response to the "oil crisis" of the early 80's. I wonder how a Crusader would go repowered with a pair of IO550s?

Dr:cool:

Ask gaunty, it goes fine on what its got.

Fork

I think you will find that the TBM850 is cheaper to operate than you think. 208 litres per hour with a block speed in excess of 300 knots. Do the math.

KLN

WX Radar
 

Just wondering if you guys think this gentleman might be wise off with a colour radar in his beast that actually works - considering he is thinking of driving around one of the crapier east coast crap weather areas......

Just on a side, for me only - as everyone has their own thoughts and opinions - I would not fly a single around that part of the world IFR. Not many places to save your butt when it stops, if you see anything before you hit. Or the butt of your kids if on board. As Nivo might know - real tiger country.

Best regards and good luck.

Speaking of turbo normalised Barons, how would one compare against a normaly aspirated one in terms of cost and performance.

I had allways thought that anything thats turboed automatically increased running costs by around 40%. I'm a desciple of John Deakin and have all his engine series articles printed so am up to speed on the LOP philosophy.

Any guess on the preformance figures for a turbonormalised Baron TAS/FF at various altitudes?

Additionally, is there much benefit in operating in the 12,000 to 18,000 foot range.

Would be interesting to see how a turbo normalised Baron would go with the Colemill winglets and 4 bladed props.

Has anyone had any experiance wih the Foxstar baron, do they do the business or all show.

Turbonormalised engines shouldn't show a large increase in operating costs because unlike turbocharged engines they are still only getting 29.9in MP but maintain it to a higher critical altitude...instead of 36in MP which really puts extra stress and heat into the cylinders.

Operating in the low to mid teens is good because you will usually be above the weather or on really bad days be able poke around it more easily...diversions off track due weather are likely to be less...and virtually no-one else is operating in that altitude band so you are more likely to get want you want from ATC. The normally aspirated are all below 10, the turboprops are above 20 and the jets are above 30...12-18 is a real quiet bit of sky.:ok:

Would it be unfair to say that Beech, Raytheon have allowed the Baron to rest on its laurels. Other than the G1000 avionics option, there seems to have been little or no development of the Baron since 1984 when it went to the 300 hp engines. Cirrus seem t set the pace now with gen 1, gen 2 and now gen 3 versions of the SR22.

What would you like to see improved on the Baron.

Personally I;d love to see available from the factory, Continental IOF-550N's the engines with the crossflow heads ( are they actually better than the 550C's) and fettled with FADEC, winglets and 4 bladed props, perhaps the new EVADE thermal anti ice as seen on the Columbia 400.

The Baron brochure said the middle seats can be made to face forward. Pro's and cons for things like access etc?

What other things would pilots like Hawker Beechcraft to address/improve.

Forgive them/
 

Chimbu chuckles.
You have to make allowances for the aeroplane sales people. Someone made a comment 2007 years ago,that seems appropriate here.
"forgive them, for they know not what they do"

bushy I think you need some professional help old chap. Basically to help you get in touch with the real world.:rolleyes:

Real world????
 

Gaunty OLD CHAP.
Your response to my post is exactly what I expected.
Your real world appears to be different from the real world that the rest of us live in.
Could you please tell us about the crusader which is "Bullet proof" and can be flown "feet on the floor through all regimes" and " flies like a single with an engine out."
Does this aeroplane not have assymetric thrust when it has an "engine out"? I do not know of any singles that do that.
Reality.
Yes, I have flown a crusader, and it is a nice little aeroplane with some innovative technology. But it still has assymetric thrust when it has an engine out.
You also say the C414A is"IMHO where you should be. ......And will still be worth something when you get to sell it.".......and later,"donate the 414A to the local kindergarten"
Which real world?
Yes, I have flown a C414.
Reality.
I saw an example of a couple of turboprop singles that a company INVESTED in. One cost over 6 million, and was eventually sold for 2.5 million. (after extensive maintenance.) The company shut down the operation.
Reality.
So far the turboprop singles are very expensive to buy, and need a lot of well paying work to make them viable. And about $100,000 a month to service the loan and insurance.
They have a place where lots of dollars are available. If all the piston engined machines were gone, people would have to buy them.
There are many 20 or 30 year old piston engined machines in Australia that have only flown a few thousand hours, and that is a fraction of what they are capable of. (It's proven) With proper engineering they can keep a lot of Australia's transport going for another decade. By then the little jets and new small turboprops will be here.
Just for information, last time I checked the first 172 that Cessna ever built was still flying in the US, and the first Fletcher FU24 agplane was still flying.(It was built about 1955). There are still some Luscombe 1947 vintage aircraft flying in Australia.

I was always fond of the Navajo PA 31
It handled better and performed better than a Chieftan but was obviously smaller
I can remember seeing Sharpie turn left after TO out of Chimbu and head direct to GKA in one years ago
That took some doing :ooh:

Are there any left?

On youtube there a video of a guy flying his new Barn G58 with the Garmin setup. Oh how nice would it be to have tht kind of dosh.

Fergotten what a nice lil ship the B58 is

Um...its been an awful long time.... but do them posts on the airstrip seem to be going past quicky? :uhoh:

No one has mentioned the Foxstar conversion from Colemill. Do the winglets and 4 blade props and winglets actually work as claimed........colemill claim up to 15Kts TAS increase.

I doubt whether you'd see any increase in cruise performance at all. There might be a small increase in takeoff and climb performance, but again I bet you'd be hard pressed to pick it up.
It's a bit like those droopy wingtips you see on some cherokee's and cessna's that are guaranteed to reduce the aircrafts stall speed. They don't.

The 1977 V35B that I fly has a 3-blade Scimitar prop conversion. I did not fly it before the prop change but the owner says it is 2 kts slower but has significantly improved climb performance.

It certainly climbs like its on rails. I consistently do A100 in less than 12 min.

Dr

Tbm850?
 

KLN94,

300nm on 208ltrs sounds pretty good, but a "Block" speed of 300kts??? What does the thing climb and cruise at?

I'm suspecting shorter sectors might well destroy those figures and have Nivo's budget out through the outflow valve!

Would 240kts/400lph be far off the mark for any shorter sectors?

Say 94, are you in sales by any chance? :p

Tell us the full story here.

Salesmen?
 

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.