Need Some Help On Picking a "Twin"

[OldTownPilot]

Have you looked at the Piper Navajo/Chieftain or a Cessna 414/421?

larger cabin for the long flights. The Cessnas are pressurized and some of the Navajo's are.

 

[KLB]

I'd go with the a King Air or a Piper Navajo with the Panther conversion. I've been trying to find some perfomance specs on the Navajo with the Panther conversion. I can tell you that a normal Chieftan/Navajo (minus the panther conversion) has an endurance of about 4 to 4.5 hrs plus 1 hour of reserve. Your true airspeeds is going to be around 170-180kts burning around 26-36 gallons/hr. I really can't find any data to show how the panther conversion would improve those numbers.

 

[L-39 Driver]

You are not going to want to do that ASE trip in a Baron. 200 lbs of stuff, on top of topped off tanks, and some people in the back in july is asking to be flown into a mountain.

Can you even get two sets of clubs in the nose of the baron?

Great point and a very real draw-back for me. I have thought about the high-density performance issues with something like the Baron, but wanted to see what others had experienced in those types of flight/operational conditions (or similar conditions).

Have you done some degree of mountain flying in the Baron?

Get an old king air if you need a second er, third airplane. Otherwise fly all the trips in the jet.

You might be right given the need to be able to operate into and out of HDA airports. I wonder if after I'm all done with my research/homework, I won't look back on this post and see it as being fairly prophetic for its time.

The only problem here would be run-way length requirements and some of the airports that I'd most likely be using from time-to-time. ASE certainly has enough runway, but others (with or without HDA conditions being present) will be a tight fit for the SJ30.

Believe it or not, I don’t like tip tank designs for a couple of reasons, with one of them being esthetics. I know, but you say the L-39 has tip tanks. Well, mine won’t! I’m going to have mine done with a conventional wing-tip conversion and move the fuel stores that were out on the tips, to under wing pylons (where they belong, IMO). This is how some of the Racing versions of the L-39 have been modified and they work beautifully. So, with the under wing pylon mounted tanks and conventional wing tips, I should actually pick-up some additional airspeed and better climb performance. So, the Cheyenne, for that reason won’t work for me.

I used to fly (many years ago) the Ameriflight PA-31 on the weekends. Very familiar with it, but not something I’d like to own and operate. It is a great aircraft for hauling the bank-paper, but a bit outdated at this stage for what I’m trying to accomplish. The Cessna 4XX series and the C-310 never did get my juices flowing for some reason. From a performance standpoint, you can get over 200 kts max cruise speed, but you will drop below 200 kts for any kind of econo-cruise profile, for sure.

The Commander has been proven (especially by Bob Hoover) to be an amazingly agile airframe. I’ve always thought it was an interesting aircraft, but like most of the others mentioned above, it is a bit outdated for what I’m going after. These are all great ideas, however.

It is starting to look like a 90 series of some type…

 

[DavCo]

Hey, look into the Aerostar. It has turbo 540's in it... pressurized and does well here in CO. Just look and the fuel consumption as a factor. I fly an Aerostar regularly up to Leadville and ASE. Its a dream with Dual Garmins'.

 

[Nihon_Ni]

One comment about your mission requirement: a prop won't get you above the weather, unless the weather you are talking about is just low layers of IMC. The stuff that causes concern lives in the 20s and you won't be able to get above it without a jet. I fly a BE-200 and we are always stuck facing icing, turb, solid IMC, etc. while the Citation brothers in my shop cruise above it VMC in the low 40s.

 

[KLB]

I used to fly (many years ago) the Ameriflight PA-31 on the weekends. Very familiar with it, but not something I’d like to own and operate.

What do you know....a former Ameriflighter!? I'm a current one.

 

[Polymox]

There is one aircraft I can think of that meets your specifications. It's pressurized, cruises at 200 knots, has two engines, glass avionics, and can be bought factory new. It's also not nearly as large and thirsty as the King Air. However, it's a new, relatively untested design, only been in low production for a year or so. It's the Adam A500. I don't know much about it, have never flown one or even seen it in person, but it might be worth some research for you.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Adam-Aircraft-A-500/0961539/M/

 

[OldTownPilot]

There is one aircraft I can think of that meets your specifications. It's pressurized, cruises at 200 knots, has two engines, glass avionics, and can be bought factory new. It's also not nearly as large and thirsty as the King Air. However, it's a new, relatively untested design, only been in low production for a year or so. It's the Adam A500. I don't know much about it, have never flown one or even seen it in person, but it might be worth some research for you.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Adam-Aircraft-A-500/0961539/M/

No more brand new ones.

Adam suspended operations a week ago.

Might be able to find some cheap on the used market because of the lack of factory support.

 

[fadec]

How about a Piper Aerostar? Not sure what kind of payload she has, but it's definitely a fast twin.

 

[L-39 Driver]

Hey, look into the Aerostar. It has turbo 540's in it... pressurized and does well here in CO. Just look and the fuel consumption as a factor. I fly an Aerostar regularly up to Leadville and ASE. Its a dream with Dual Garmins'.

I did – thanks! J I completely forgot about this airframe because it has been out of production for over 20 years and my “mindset” has been “new”, “new”, “new”, all the way. The airframe design is definitely a “throwback” to yesterday’s nomenclature, but I’m able to put that “attitude” about the look & feel of the aircraft away, due to the fact that you can have the company do a full-up restoration/modification that makes the aircraft even better than the original design.

Trying not to get excited, I noticed that pilots are seeing 254 kts (true) or better at FL300 in the 700P version. Max cruise near 280 kts and econo-cruise well above 200 kts with stall speeds significantly under 100 kts and single engine ops that are “reasonably” comfortable/doable from just about any altitude, the 700P looks like a real contender without the need for going to a less fuel efficient turbo-prop design.

The 700P also has a 5.x psi cabin and from what I read, it is supposed to be even wider at the back than the Baron 58P. I notice that you are operating out of ASE type HDA airports in-type. Are you flying the 700P or the 700CR, or one of the older un-modified types?

Thanks for reminding me about this airframe – I completely forgot about Aerostar Aircraft and the way in which they’ve taken the airframe to a new level of performance and comfort. She was built like an M4 Sherman Tank from the very beginning so that its airframe would remain “extensible” to new performance technology down the road and that seems to be the way things turned out. Too bad more of them were not built. I think Aerostar did a better job than Piper on the aircraft, however. With the newer modifications, it is supposed to handle very well at approach speeds – something pilots complained about in earlier versions.

To understand the efficiencies better, I’ll have to go take a look at the SFC of the Garrett turbo-props used by the King Air 90 series, the GPH fuel burn of the TIO-540-U2A’s and the fuel capacity of both airframes, along with a comparison/analysis using both Jet-A and 100LL, to get a real idea of baseline (real world) fuel economy during climb and cruise segments.

But, taking just a quick look at both airframes, it appears as though the 700P would give better overall speed performance in all phases of flight, but less single engine performance in speed, rate of climb and effective ceiling. The 90 would also have a more impressive payload, but I don’t ever expect to need to airlift more than 250 lbs of personal load.

So, single-engine envelope looks better wit the King Air 90 series. However, with the Honeywell TPE331-10AV-511KA Engines on the King Air 90, you get something like 290 kts cruise speeds, 1,500 to 2,000 nm range, 4,000 fpm initial climb rates and 2,500 fpm climb rates above 25,000 ft. Those 90 packages run between $1.5 million up to $2.0 million.

So, by switching to the Honeywell powerplant/modification on the 90, the King Air far out performs the Aerostar. But, the Aerostar with its 700P modification package, will meet my mission requirements – the Honeywell TPE331, simply places the King Air in a completely different class, even above other King Air 90’s, no doubt. Yet, the 700P will be between 2.14 to 2.86 times more cost effective to acquire than the Honeywell 90.

One comment about your mission requirement: a prop won't get you above the weather, unless the weather you are talking about is just low layers of IMC. The stuff that causes concern lives in the 20s and you won't be able to get above it without a jet. I fly a BE-200 and we are always stuck facing icing, turb, solid IMC, etc. while the Citation brothers in my shop cruise above it VMC in the low 40s.

This is why my initial questions were about either turbo-charging or super-charging the Baron. Or, finding out if anyone had any information on a completely different engine configuration for the Baron that would take it “above the weather”. If I can get to between FL250 and FL350, then I can get above “most” weather, though of course, not all. I can also get above most other light twin air-traffic as well which also means fewer en-route routing restrictions and/or amendments when IFR direct.

I agree with FL200’ish being a trouble spot for most twin activity – that’s why I don’t like to fly there anymore when I don’t absolutely have to, unless I’m highly rural and well extended beyond most Class B and C. Otherwise, it is too much of a hassle being there especially above 240 kts.

I’ve often wondered what two (2) Walter M601 750 shp turbine-props mounted to the Baron 58P would look and “feel” like. J I bet that configuration would be good for FL300 and put you above “most” light twin traffic and “most” cloud decks. The weight of the IO-550 (Baron) and the Walter M601 (Turbine Legend) is almost exactly the same at around 425 lbs.

The Walter would be more streamline in profile having less width, but it would be almost 15-20 inches longer (not sure how much the Walter could be modified to reduce overall length) and push the CG forward. It would give the Baron 58P 1,500 shp. Flight tests would have to determine the new climb rates and cruise speeds, but suspect that given that kind of superior power to weight ratio, you would expect King Air 90 Honeywell conversion type climb rates and cruise speeds somewhere between 275 and 290 kts true (I guess). Not to mention the much improved short field and HDA performance overall (with a three-blade prop).

Those are the kinds of mod questions I have for the Baron. Come to think of it – I now have the same Walter M601 modification questions for the Aerostar.

A 1,500 shp Aerostar, seems like it would hit the 300 kt true cruise speed range with no problem at all. It also has a bigger (stronger) triple-spar wing design that would be make it a better candidate for carrying the slightly heavier engine.

Hmmmm… an interesting thought, no?

What do you know....a former Ameriflighter!? I'm a current one.

I actually flew “with” an Ameriflight pilot while I worked “at” Ameriflight on the line, back when I was in school (I should have made that clearer, my mistake.) I flew the aircraft a ton between KOAK and KBUR, Friday night to Saturday mornings. I had to ask several times before I was allowed, but after the first flight, I became a regular right-seater and learned a lot about the PA31 back then.

Back then (late eighties) they operated PA: 28, 31, King Air (various), and two Lear Jets. Today, I think they operate the B-1900D as well, if I am not mistaken. What do you fly for Ameriflight and are you still out of North Field Hanger 2 – or have they moved since then?

There is one aircraft I can think of that meets your specifications. It's pressurized, cruises at 200 knots, has two engines, glass avionics, and can be bought factory new. It's also not nearly as large and thirsty as the King Air. However, it's a new, relatively untested design, only been in low production for a year or so. It's the Adam A500. I don't know much about it, have never flown one or even seen it in person, but it might be worth some research for you.

I think OldTownPilot hit the nail on the head and for that reason, I would pass on the Adam.

I was one of those sitting and waiting on the Javelin Jet MK-II to become a reality and got very excited when they began flight testing of the prototype. I thought they were on their way to a successful program, but it has become so darn difficult to type certify a new aircraft design in America, that hardly any of these “VLJ” type companies have had much success.

I (like many others) were saddened to hear the news late last year, that ATG ran out of money and now Adam is following in the same footsteps. Maverick Jets has an interesting design, but they too are suffering from lack of capital.

I thought the Epic Elite from Epic Aircraft, would be my “local twin jet” transport of choice, but the company can’t even return phone calls. I can’t do business with a company that refuses to return phone calls. Other say that Epic thumbed its nose at the FAA rules regarding how aircraft are to be certified here in the U.S., by taking a major part of their operations to Canada. But, can anyone blame them! We make it so difficult and so cost prohibitive to certify anything new here in the U.S., that you really cannot blame a company for seeking most cost effective grounds for bring their new design to market.

The Elite is a nice looking “Very Light Jet” and it was going to be my short range transport choice, but the attitude of the company has turned me off. If I cannot get a phone call returned BEFORE I buy the aircraft, just how difficult would it be AFTER I’ve spent the money. If they can get their act together and start paying attention to “customer service”, then I might reconsider them, but for now, I think many of these VLJ companies are just to under-capitalized and as a result are suffering many problems.

The truth is that I LOVE the Elite’s design characteristics and overall performance. It is RVSM Certified (or, it will be) and FAA Single Pilot Certified. With an operational ceiling at FL410 in under 20 minutes, a cruise speed in excess of 400 kts, FADEC, full EFIS, 1,700 lbs payload, well over 1,200 nm range and 8.5 cabin psi at altitude, there simply won’t be anything like it under 7,700 lbs MTOW.

However, it won’t be available until 2009 in the “certified” version and every pilot that owns one will be automatically enrolled in the Epic Test Pilot Program and that single fact alone cuts against my personal flight risk management grain.

Still – she is one very beautiful bird and a great short-range transport.

 

[L-39 Driver]

Anyone out there have any SJ30 time. It looks like a pretty nice bird. Impressive stats. If so what were or are your thoughts?

She's very impressive. The company demonstrator was amazingly impressive, very agile in every corner of its flight envelope, responsive to all my inputs, easy to manage and was well beyond my expectations. It is a little jet, but it has very big jet type performance and even better in many areas. Visibility is very good and sitting in the cockpit gives you a sense of control over the aircraft - not the aicraft controlling you.

You feel like you are Pilot In Command of this aircraft - not the other way around. Cockpit layout is intuitive at every level and the Primus Epic CDS EFIS layout makes single pilot ops a breeze. It actually fosters the right level of confidence in single-pilot operations especially for flights with long durations. For an aircraft with this much performance, you are not overwhelmed by the cockpit environment.

The Honeywell IAC (integrated avionics computer) houses the auto-pilot, flight director, FMS and display processor in a single unit, making the bulk of flight management components as streamline as possible, integrating as much of the display source and origin as practical which further enhances pilot's ease of use and competency at the same time. I felt like everything was in the right place for all the right reasons, especially for those flights that would by their nature include approaches through IMC/VMC, or even right down to minimums.

I hope to be taking delivery of mine in early 2009. SSAC will be proving my 141 in-type SPC (single pilot certified) flight training in the SJ30-2, down in San Antonia, Texas, at the factory. They’ve been doing this type of “structured” training since 2007, so that should have given them time enough to work out the training “bugs” that are present in any new syllabus based course regimen.

I’ve got plenty of PIC time total and I’ve flown aircraft as PIC that are more “complex” than the SJ30-2, but not many that were higher performing twin jets, than the SJ. The things that SSAC has done with this aircraft during the type certification and flight testing phases, were nothing short of revolutionary. Other “biz jets” can reach FL410, but not many of them can “perform” in the well known “high-energy/high altitude” regime as well as this one can. This aircraft proved to actually be highly maneuverable (higher bank angles) at FL410 without the usual degradation in altitude associated with many of the other “high altitude biz jets”.

In other words, you don't easily get caught behind the high altitude power-curve in this aircraft because you are pushing the outer edge of its performance envelope by trying to reach FL410. Remember, that CRJ-200 crew back in 2004, that decided it was time to test out the manufacturers max operational altitude - well when they got up to FL410, they learned what high speed high altitude flying was all about when the first engine flamed out.

This was an embarrassment to GE, makers of the CF-34 turbine fan engines and I thnk that the NTSB covered for them because it was easy to pin the blame on the pilots. Sure, they were knuckle heads and did not pay attention to high altitude jet operations related to angle-of-attack, but those enignes should have never stalled under those conditions and calling it core lock was no help either. I mean, it was not like the guys attempted a ballistic appproach up to 50,000 ft. (but that's another story) The SJ30, according to all acounts, felt very much "at home at FL410" with no adverse power to angle-of-attack issues whatsoever. Not that I'll be operating there on a regular or routine basis, but it is very nice to know that she actually enjoys being there!

Quite frankly, this aircraft has no equal (I know I sound biased) in its weight classification. The size, speed, range and real operational altitude of the SJ, simply places it into a category by itself, for now. It is classified (marketed) as a VLJ. But, it outperforms most medium range business jets in almost every category except “comfort & convenience”. However, for my money, the C&C takes a back seat to the flight physics any day of the week – besides, it does have a lavatory.

I look forward to the training and if I am still here, I’ll write my first Pilot Report on this site - if you don't mind.

 

[KLB]

I actually flew “with” an Ameriflight pilot while I worked “at” Ameriflight on the line, back when I was in school (I should have made that clearer, my mistake.) I flew the aircraft a ton between KOAK and KBUR, Friday night to Saturday mornings. I had to ask several times before I was allowed, but after the first flight, I became a regular right-seater and learned a lot about the PA31 back then.

Back then (late eighties) they operated PA: 28, 31, King Air (various), and two Lear Jets. Today, I think they operate the B-1900D as well, if I am not mistaken. What do you fly for Ameriflight and are you still out of North Field Hanger 2 – or have they moved since then?

I'm flying the Beech 99 right now. Quite a bit has changed since then. The PA28 went bye bye about 3 years ago. Right now we are operating about (this is a rough estimation): 50 PA-31's 50 BE-99's 40 SA-227's 15 BE-1900's( I don't think we have any D models) 5 Lears and 1 King Air 200.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers.

I'm actually a system TDY guy so I'm all over AMF's system. I think thats Hangar 2 we use in OAK.

 

[minitour]

Mustang or CJ.

Top the weather, short hops with fuel and people. Not sure about the ASE thing...you aren't going to make the departure on one engine in a light citation and you sure as hell aren't going to make it in a prop with one engine inop.

...unless you have access to a C130 with JATO rockets...

-mini

 

[L-39 Driver]

Mustang or CJ.

Top the weather, short hops with fuel and people. Not sure about the ASE thing...you aren't going to make the departure on one engine in a light citation and you sure as hell aren't going to make it in a prop with one engine inop.

...unless you have access to a C130 with JATO rockets...

-mini

You've got about 4.2 miles straight out at the end of your 33 departure clearance at ASE before you will need to put on about 1,400 ft altitude above departure. Highway 82 is just about parallel with you all the way until it bends to the left of your departure path. But, by then turning North West for better clearance above terrain as you gain altitude.

If you are engine-out in an NA prop twin, I'd agree - you are probably done for the day. But, engine out in one of the modified variants discussed here thus far buys you some time to the North, North West, or all else fails, highway 82. Right of Upper River Road looks promising for levelness, but it only extends for about 1.37 nm depending on how and when you get to the area. But, by the time you arrive at Upper River Road, you've already been in the air for 3 miles. So, you have "some" time, just not a lot of time to make decisions.

It is not all bad, but it is not all good either -

Here is a Conquest II making that same departure from 33 and it uses the Garrett TPE-331 with the McCauley 4 blade (if I’m not mistaken). Granted, this particular departure is not “mid-July”, however.

[yt]IL6i7hccPhc[/yt]

 

[Tram]

Just curious, if you don't mind me asking... What do you do for a living that allows you to own 3 very nice aircraft?

 

[SeattlePilot]

L39, have you considered TBMs? 700 is a nice bird and 850 is even nicer when it comes to speed.
Also, please don't take this thing a wrong way but in my eyes an investment of this magnitude requires a bit more research than a bulletin board research..

 

[TallFlyer]

You advertise yourself as a pretty experienced pilot and I'll accept that, but I think you overstate the apparent dangers of single engine flying. The PT6 is a very mature design and we routinely run ours out to about 7000 hours under an approved trend monitoring program.

That being said I wouldn't hesitate to look at a Meridian, TBM, or PC-12.

However, if you have the money to burn I wouldn't hesitate on the SJ30 either. Or maybe a Phenom?

 

[L-39 Driver]

Just curious, if you don't mind me asking... What do you do for a living that allows you to own 3 very nice aircraft?

No problem, that’s understandable.

If I could tell people what I do for a living in an open forum like this, then I would not really be doing it - honestly.

What I tell people that ask me "in-person" is that: I research, develop and engineer certain proprietary technology that I use to my advantage. (that’s it)

I have thought about writing a book about how things have unfolded in my life, given the very unusual or atypical way in which some things have turned out, However, such a project would not come for at least another 15-20 years, or so. I'm simply too close to the apex of what I do, to be so exposed at this time on certain levels.

I hope that's as clear as "mud" - as they sometimes say.

 

[L-39 Driver]

L39, have you considered TBMs? 700 is a nice bird and 850 is even nicer when it comes to speed.

They are both very nice airframes from what I've seen and heard, but as I stated earlier in this thread, one of my primary safety protocols for an aircraft in this particular category, given the way I intend to use it, is having two powerplants instead of one. That adds an obvious layer of safety that does not need much explanation.

Also, please don't take this thing a wrong way but in my eyes an investment of this magnitude requires a bit more research than a bulletin board research..

Gee! Ya, think? LOL - just kidding!

I consider this my first phase research/study/homework - there will be other phases down the road. Right now, this is what I have time for. When the time comes, I'll venture out to the flight line. But, you are certainly correct in your observations, IMO. Thanks.

 

[SierraPilot123]

I hope that's as clear as "mud" - as they sometimes say.[/COLOR]

No not really. So do you really do? Semiconductors?

Do you fly the L39 out of C83? I see a lot of older guys flying them out of there for pleasure trips on the week days.