Buying/Flying an N-Reg: Lots of questions!!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the problem is that all of this is still shaking down. However, since Cabair UK are offering the conversions, then they must be a reasonable source of information.
Regarding the medical, as far as I am aware a PPL IR only requires a class 2 certificate. If you were going down the commercial route then it would have to be a class 1, I imagine.
Regarding the medical, as far as I am aware a PPL IR only requires a class 2 certificate. If you were going down the commercial route then it would have to be a class 1, I imagine.
Grandpa Aerotart
Piotr
FWIW my thoughts, based on 6000+ hours Multi engine/piston/turbine (+3000 jet) and a fair bit of C&Ting in those aircraft...and as a Bonanza owner.
1/. If you are going to be flying for your business regularly then you should have no trouble staying current on ME handling. Find a good experienced ME instructor and organise your own formal recurrent system every 6 months (max). Take him along for a reasonable number of trips, particularly early on...there's a rather massive difference between what you'll experience in sunny Florida under training and what you'll get on a bad weather trip from the UK to Poland.
2/. As lovely as the Bonanza is crossing Europe regularly and long overwater is dumb. Either you risk getting killed in an iced up aeroplane which can no longer sustain flight or being delayed so often that the aircraft becomes a liability. Note I don't view engine failure as the biggest risk you'll face!!
3/. As far as ME aircraft that would be suitable I would suggest something like a Cessna 414/421/425. The piston pressurised Cessnas are really nice aeroplanes and not at all difficult to fly...the 425 (PT6 powered 421) is the ducks guts. Remember that overhaul costs piston/turbine aren't that hugely different on a per hour basis, turbines are probably cheaper/hr when you take into account the REAL costs associated with turbocharged piston engines. The ability to cruise in the high teens/mid 20s will keep you above most weather/icing most of the time.
Another good aeroplane would be an early model C or E90...the E being the much better machine...again both easy to fly and the PT6 engines are VERY reliable and parts are VERY plentifull therefore not so expensive in relative terms.
We used to get 8000+ hrs between hot section inspections on our -27s and -34s (very similar to what's in an E90/C425) with a combination of Trend Monitoring and 'On Condition Maintenance'...I would think a privately owned/operated PT6 powered aircraft could get the same/similar...I think a hot section insp in those days was 100K. Even if it's 150K these days x 2 = 300K/8000 hours = < $40/hr engine maintenance...My 1 IO550b costs about AUD23/hr. assuming no mid life crisis. 'Power by the hour' is another way of operating a PT6/Garret engine which is tax effective. That means you pay a flat per hr rate and 'all' your engine maintenance is covered, including replacement engines when yours are away being maintained.
Yet another way of minimising costs...and depending on your projected utilisation would be to buy an aircraft through your company that could be utilised by a Charter company for X hours/mth thereby covering a proportion of your fixed costs. You could also, possibly, use them for your recurrent training and they might be prepared to supply, at some minimal cost, a suitable pilot to give you 'Line Training' in your own aircraft.
The absolute minimum aircraft I would consider for what you intend would be an E55 Baron with Turbonormalised IO550s + Gamijectors and an all cylinder engine monitor(+a course in how to use them)+ all the deice gear you can bolt on it +a good oxy system...up to about FL180 all you'll need is nasal canulas rather than the full O2 mask, which are uncomfortable. This aircraft/engine combo will give you SL MP up to FL200 without most of the added expence turbocharging brings (Note the difference between Turbocharged as opposed to Turbonormalised). You'll get at least 220 TAS and 1000nm should be a doddle. Same load as a Bonanza and reasonable SE performance at lightish loads as long as you stay current.
Operating an aircraft for your business is no different to any other piece of plant/ equipment. Effective use of the Tax Laws should allow you to operate a suitable aeroplane....if your business can't afford that then you are stuck with the Scheduled airlines I'm afraid.
Hope this helps,
Chuck.
FWIW my thoughts, based on 6000+ hours Multi engine/piston/turbine (+3000 jet) and a fair bit of C&Ting in those aircraft...and as a Bonanza owner.
1/. If you are going to be flying for your business regularly then you should have no trouble staying current on ME handling. Find a good experienced ME instructor and organise your own formal recurrent system every 6 months (max). Take him along for a reasonable number of trips, particularly early on...there's a rather massive difference between what you'll experience in sunny Florida under training and what you'll get on a bad weather trip from the UK to Poland.
2/. As lovely as the Bonanza is crossing Europe regularly and long overwater is dumb. Either you risk getting killed in an iced up aeroplane which can no longer sustain flight or being delayed so often that the aircraft becomes a liability. Note I don't view engine failure as the biggest risk you'll face!!
3/. As far as ME aircraft that would be suitable I would suggest something like a Cessna 414/421/425. The piston pressurised Cessnas are really nice aeroplanes and not at all difficult to fly...the 425 (PT6 powered 421) is the ducks guts. Remember that overhaul costs piston/turbine aren't that hugely different on a per hour basis, turbines are probably cheaper/hr when you take into account the REAL costs associated with turbocharged piston engines. The ability to cruise in the high teens/mid 20s will keep you above most weather/icing most of the time.
Another good aeroplane would be an early model C or E90...the E being the much better machine...again both easy to fly and the PT6 engines are VERY reliable and parts are VERY plentifull therefore not so expensive in relative terms.
We used to get 8000+ hrs between hot section inspections on our -27s and -34s (very similar to what's in an E90/C425) with a combination of Trend Monitoring and 'On Condition Maintenance'...I would think a privately owned/operated PT6 powered aircraft could get the same/similar...I think a hot section insp in those days was 100K. Even if it's 150K these days x 2 = 300K/8000 hours = < $40/hr engine maintenance...My 1 IO550b costs about AUD23/hr. assuming no mid life crisis. 'Power by the hour' is another way of operating a PT6/Garret engine which is tax effective. That means you pay a flat per hr rate and 'all' your engine maintenance is covered, including replacement engines when yours are away being maintained.
Yet another way of minimising costs...and depending on your projected utilisation would be to buy an aircraft through your company that could be utilised by a Charter company for X hours/mth thereby covering a proportion of your fixed costs. You could also, possibly, use them for your recurrent training and they might be prepared to supply, at some minimal cost, a suitable pilot to give you 'Line Training' in your own aircraft.
The absolute minimum aircraft I would consider for what you intend would be an E55 Baron with Turbonormalised IO550s + Gamijectors and an all cylinder engine monitor(+a course in how to use them)+ all the deice gear you can bolt on it +a good oxy system...up to about FL180 all you'll need is nasal canulas rather than the full O2 mask, which are uncomfortable. This aircraft/engine combo will give you SL MP up to FL200 without most of the added expence turbocharging brings (Note the difference between Turbocharged as opposed to Turbonormalised). You'll get at least 220 TAS and 1000nm should be a doddle. Same load as a Bonanza and reasonable SE performance at lightish loads as long as you stay current.
Operating an aircraft for your business is no different to any other piece of plant/ equipment. Effective use of the Tax Laws should allow you to operate a suitable aeroplane....if your business can't afford that then you are stuck with the Scheduled airlines I'm afraid.
Hope this helps,
Chuck.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 19th Jan 2003 at 13:04.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK and Poland
Age: 60
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choices choices
Chuck,
Thanks for you for your full & very helpful reply. Food for thought....
An interesting point you make re Bonanza is "...you risk getting killed in an iced up aeroplane which can no longer sustain flight or being delayed so often that the aircraft becomes a liability. Note I don't view engine failure as the biggest risk you'll face!!" My hope was that as the turbo Bonanza cruises in the 15k-20k altitude range, this would put me above most significant weather and icing (though obviously I have to get up there and down again!). Is that realistic? I assume that most Bonanza's are not equipped for known icing (they are not plumbed for it as standard?), but presumably there are some second-hand models around thus equipped.
I am labouring the SE/ME question a little bit as obviously I am on a budget, and while I could stretch to a reasonable ME, as you suggest, for the same money (as I pointed out earlier) I could get a MUCH newer & better equipped SE.
The other interesting point you make is regarding clawing some of the fixed costs back by renting out the a/c when I am not flying it. As the main thrust of this thread is me running an N-reg, I wonder whether this would prevent me from renting the a/c out in the UK??? (I assume so!). If so, it's an important NEGATIVE against operating an N-reg.
Regarding "renting out when not using" - also I would be interested to hear people's opinion regarding the "rentability" of a high-performance/complex SE versus ME - my gut feeling is that it would be easier to rent out an SE than a twin, not least because it would be considerably cheaper/hr, and does not require an ME rating. I may be wrong of course!!!
Still
!
Thanks for you for your full & very helpful reply. Food for thought....
An interesting point you make re Bonanza is "...you risk getting killed in an iced up aeroplane which can no longer sustain flight or being delayed so often that the aircraft becomes a liability. Note I don't view engine failure as the biggest risk you'll face!!" My hope was that as the turbo Bonanza cruises in the 15k-20k altitude range, this would put me above most significant weather and icing (though obviously I have to get up there and down again!). Is that realistic? I assume that most Bonanza's are not equipped for known icing (they are not plumbed for it as standard?), but presumably there are some second-hand models around thus equipped.
I am labouring the SE/ME question a little bit as obviously I am on a budget, and while I could stretch to a reasonable ME, as you suggest, for the same money (as I pointed out earlier) I could get a MUCH newer & better equipped SE.
The other interesting point you make is regarding clawing some of the fixed costs back by renting out the a/c when I am not flying it. As the main thrust of this thread is me running an N-reg, I wonder whether this would prevent me from renting the a/c out in the UK??? (I assume so!). If so, it's an important NEGATIVE against operating an N-reg.
Regarding "renting out when not using" - also I would be interested to hear people's opinion regarding the "rentability" of a high-performance/complex SE versus ME - my gut feeling is that it would be easier to rent out an SE than a twin, not least because it would be considerably cheaper/hr, and does not require an ME rating. I may be wrong of course!!!
Still
!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK and Poland
Age: 60
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While personally still not decided 100% on the high-performance SE versus light twin issue, I just came across these thoughts in a newsletter that other pilots may find interesting:
"Although one can legally fly just about anything as a new Private Pilot with a multi engine rating, the question is SHOULD THEY? Granted there are some "naturals" out there, but generally speaking working your way up the latter is best
for most of us. Going from a light single to a Piper 235 or Cessna 182 is very easy and usually enjoyable. Going from a Piper Cherokee 140 to a Piper Malibu is a big jump.
Going from a light single directly to a twin, in my opinion is not recommended. Why?
There is a lot to be said for good old fashion experience. I'm talking about the experience of creating and solidifying good flying habits. Without question, the best step after getting
your Private license is getting your Instrument rating. Once you get the Instrument, use it!
File IFR just about everywhere you go. Get used to flying in the ATC environment. Get used to flying in the clouds. Get used to making the different approaches. Get used to not fearing
the weather, but respecting it. YOU SHOULD BECOME COMFORTABLE FLYING IN THE REAL WORLD BEFORE YOU TAKE ON THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF A MORE COMPLEX AIRCRAFT. In my opinion, most pilots should think in terms of an instrument rating, multi and 300+ hours before operating a light twin.
Finally, it goes without saying that the more the complex the aircraft, the more it going to cost to buy and maintain. Figure on 2.5 to 3 times the cost of operation in a light twin over
the heavy single. Just remember, "it takes two things to fly an airplane, cash and airspeed. You run out of either and you're going to crash".
You can catch the whole newsletter on http://aircraft-airplanes.com/NL%2009.htm
"Although one can legally fly just about anything as a new Private Pilot with a multi engine rating, the question is SHOULD THEY? Granted there are some "naturals" out there, but generally speaking working your way up the latter is best
for most of us. Going from a light single to a Piper 235 or Cessna 182 is very easy and usually enjoyable. Going from a Piper Cherokee 140 to a Piper Malibu is a big jump.
Going from a light single directly to a twin, in my opinion is not recommended. Why?
There is a lot to be said for good old fashion experience. I'm talking about the experience of creating and solidifying good flying habits. Without question, the best step after getting
your Private license is getting your Instrument rating. Once you get the Instrument, use it!
File IFR just about everywhere you go. Get used to flying in the ATC environment. Get used to flying in the clouds. Get used to making the different approaches. Get used to not fearing
the weather, but respecting it. YOU SHOULD BECOME COMFORTABLE FLYING IN THE REAL WORLD BEFORE YOU TAKE ON THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF A MORE COMPLEX AIRCRAFT. In my opinion, most pilots should think in terms of an instrument rating, multi and 300+ hours before operating a light twin.
Finally, it goes without saying that the more the complex the aircraft, the more it going to cost to buy and maintain. Figure on 2.5 to 3 times the cost of operation in a light twin over
the heavy single. Just remember, "it takes two things to fly an airplane, cash and airspeed. You run out of either and you're going to crash".
You can catch the whole newsletter on http://aircraft-airplanes.com/NL%2009.htm
