My dream plane.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CZ
Age: 49
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we missed Mooney
Mooney - Overview of Aircraft
Mooney - Overview of Aircraft
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the Extra 500 had one serious problem for an aircraft to be flown IFR in Europe: MTOW 4.696 lbs / 2.130 kg
That extra 130kg probably doubles the hourly flying cost, if you go IFR.
Surely with a bit of carbon fibre or magnesium they could save 130kg.
They may be able to get an STC for 1999kg, like was done with the Seneca. This is just some flight manual pages...
I vaguely recall that a Meridian can have the same 1999kg treatment but only on N-reg; EASA has refused to accept that STC.
I was very suprised the Diamond jet (which doesn't exist yet anyway) was coming out above 2000kg as well.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Essex
Age: 74
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought though that even with the STC while you get the cost down again you loose an awful lot of the utility of the aircraft. 130Kgs is 286lbs is about 40 US gallons of jet fuel is about 1.6 hours for the little Allison/RR.
Doing the sums in my head and from figures in memory but reasonably accurate, I think.
Doing the sums in my head and from figures in memory but reasonably accurate, I think.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah; I tend to agree. They need to shave the empty weight a bit.
The bottom line is that the market for this upmarket hardware is not that big. Most of the punters in the market are bright people who know the options and if the owners I know are anything to go by, a great deal of due diligence is done before a purchase.
If you live in Europe, and you want a turboprop to fly yourself, then if you are loaded to the point where money barely matters, you buy a TBM (or a King Air, etc if you need a twin or something for a special purpose) and everybody below that will buy the Jetprop which is so far ahead of anything else on the ratio of what you get for the money.
And if you cannot stretch to a $1M JP then you buy a piston twin and pour in the avgas
The bottom line is that the market for this upmarket hardware is not that big. Most of the punters in the market are bright people who know the options and if the owners I know are anything to go by, a great deal of due diligence is done before a purchase.
If you live in Europe, and you want a turboprop to fly yourself, then if you are loaded to the point where money barely matters, you buy a TBM (or a King Air, etc if you need a twin or something for a special purpose) and everybody below that will buy the Jetprop which is so far ahead of anything else on the ratio of what you get for the money.
And if you cannot stretch to a $1M JP then you buy a piston twin and pour in the avgas
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southern England
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want range, you could get yourself a Comanche Look what Max Conrad achieved in the 50's....
In 1959 Max Conrad flew a Comanche 250 N110LF non-stop from Casablanca, Morocco to Los Angeles, a distance of 7,668 mi (12,340 km). This distance record (for aircraft in the 1750-3000 kilogram weight class) stood until 1987. With interior seats replaced by fuel tanks, the aircraft was loaded 2,000 lb (910 kg) over its production gross weight limit when Conrad took off from Casablanca.
A few months later, on November 24, 1959, Conrad set the record (that still stands) for the 1000-1750 kg weight class, flying from Casablanca to El Paso, Texas in the same aircraft fitted with a smaller engine, with a flight time of 56 hours.
Look what Max Conrad achieved in the 50's.... In 1959 Max Conrad flew a Comanche 250 N110LF non-stop from Casablanca, Morocco to Los Angeles, a distance of 7,668 mi (12,340 km). This distance record (for aircraft in the 1750-3000 kilogram weight class) stood until 1987. With interior seats replaced by fuel tanks, the aircraft was loaded 2,000 lb (910 kg) over its production gross weight limit when Conrad took off from Casablanca.
A few months later, on November 24, 1959, Conrad set the record (that still stands) for the 1000-1750 kg weight class, flying from Casablanca to El Paso, Texas in the same aircraft fitted with a smaller engine, with a flight time of 56 hours.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a flying instructor my dream plane would be a C150 replacement and for the life of me I can't understand why no one has come up with one yet. As there is a hell of alot of them and the desperately need replacing.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the Extra 500 had one serious problem for an aircraft to be flown IFR in Europe: MTOW 4.696 lbs / 2.130 kg
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, but the TBM gives you a lot more capability, at a way higher cost, than an E500.
A TBM costs around £30000/year in routine maintenance; that's if you never fly it. One can do it on less of course but that is the average, which covers some expensive lifed items. It burns some 50USG/hr at about 280kt TAS (few people fly them flat out) so you can work that out. Against that, it can carry 6 big people, a ton of junk, do FL300+, has a ~ 99.x% despatch rate, is built like a tank (no in-flight breakups ever). The Eurocontrol-collected airspace fees are not all that significant, at that level of "business".
But the E500 is about half the above cost, and I think it is a bad business decision to pitch it above 2T, when the Jetprop is the obvious alternative which delivers more performance, at a similar cost. Unless of course they are banking on the US market alone.
The E500 can reportedly operate OK from grass, which is not wise for the other stuff.
I am not in aviation as a business but have been in manufacturing business since 1978, and it is awfully hard to make progress with something which doesn't offer a clear advantage. Aviation is very conservative and most private punters will go for a proven solution every time. The Jetprop sets up a bar which is hard to cross, until you deliver a whole lot more capability like a TBM. If the E500 had a huge amount going for it, we would see loads flying by now.
A TBM costs around £30000/year in routine maintenance; that's if you never fly it. One can do it on less of course but that is the average, which covers some expensive lifed items. It burns some 50USG/hr at about 280kt TAS (few people fly them flat out) so you can work that out. Against that, it can carry 6 big people, a ton of junk, do FL300+, has a ~ 99.x% despatch rate, is built like a tank (no in-flight breakups ever). The Eurocontrol-collected airspace fees are not all that significant, at that level of "business".
But the E500 is about half the above cost, and I think it is a bad business decision to pitch it above 2T, when the Jetprop is the obvious alternative which delivers more performance, at a similar cost. Unless of course they are banking on the US market alone.
The E500 can reportedly operate OK from grass, which is not wise for the other stuff.
I am not in aviation as a business but have been in manufacturing business since 1978, and it is awfully hard to make progress with something which doesn't offer a clear advantage. Aviation is very conservative and most private punters will go for a proven solution every time. The Jetprop sets up a bar which is hard to cross, until you deliver a whole lot more capability like a TBM. If the E500 had a huge amount going for it, we would see loads flying by now.
Last edited by IO540; 12th Aug 2011 at 08:09. Reason: UK -> US
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
I totally agree about conservatism in aviation but rightfully so.
Aircraft especially when you get into turbines are very expensive animals!
It makes a mockery buying an aircraft to save a few gals of fuel or get a few more kts if that aircraft looses a fortune in value.
Buyers will tend to go for the long established manufacturers not so much because they are well tried and tested but because they have been in business a long time and are still likely to be around years ahead.
For that reason there is demand on the S/H market and owners know pretty well what their aircraft will cost to maintain and how much it will depreciate.
The untried and tested new manufacturers have a big problem in wooing buyers. The Eclipse was a light jet which promised the earth but was not complete or reliable leaving owners with almost worthless aircraft.
While many of the new concepts may look sexy, claim fantastic performance there is always the big ? of what they will be worth. How reliable will they be?and will the manufacturer still be around to service them years ahead!
So your few gals saved can seem pretty insignificant in the big picture.
I totally agree about conservatism in aviation but rightfully so.
Aircraft especially when you get into turbines are very expensive animals!
It makes a mockery buying an aircraft to save a few gals of fuel or get a few more kts if that aircraft looses a fortune in value.
Buyers will tend to go for the long established manufacturers not so much because they are well tried and tested but because they have been in business a long time and are still likely to be around years ahead.
For that reason there is demand on the S/H market and owners know pretty well what their aircraft will cost to maintain and how much it will depreciate.
The untried and tested new manufacturers have a big problem in wooing buyers. The Eclipse was a light jet which promised the earth but was not complete or reliable leaving owners with almost worthless aircraft.
While many of the new concepts may look sexy, claim fantastic performance there is always the big ? of what they will be worth. How reliable will they be?and will the manufacturer still be around to service them years ahead!
So your few gals saved can seem pretty insignificant in the big picture.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, aviation is as conservative as it gets. But it's not that long ago since TBM was the new kid on the block, when the M was because Mooney had a stake in them and when nobody knew them from a hole in the wall. Look at them now. You can achieve success if you keep at it and build trust. I hope the E500 can build that trust, if nothing else because Walter Extra is a true enthusiast and the right type of guy to have in aviation.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Eclipse was an aviation version of Mr Ponzi. It was an appalling example of business ethics, never mind gross technological mismanagement where you bet on several then-nonexistent horses at the same time. I dare say most of the deposit holders were people who could easily afford to lose the money (they had better be) but things like delivering the plane with a Garmin 496 for navigation was just a finger-up to any kind of civilised behaviour. I think what Raburn did simply stinks and the fact that so many bought into his scheme does not excuse that. You can always con people with a polished enough proposal; a relative of mine has lost much of her savings in this.
The TBM carved out a nice niche because it delivered a capability which was much desired and which didn't exist. It still doesn't exist now, all those years later.
The TBM carved out a nice niche because it delivered a capability which was much desired and which didn't exist. It still doesn't exist now, all those years later.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam
Wasnt that the company who on the first sale of their pressurised single had a big send off party for its new owner who took off and killed himself in it on the send off flight?
If so not A good marketing start!
It takes a long time to build confidence in lesser known models and more than that they have to have the financial stability so that owners know they will be around in years to come.
Pace
Wasnt that the company who on the first sale of their pressurised single had a big send off party for its new owner who took off and killed himself in it on the send off flight?
If so not A good marketing start!
It takes a long time to build confidence in lesser known models and more than that they have to have the financial stability so that owners know they will be around in years to come.
Pace
