Thought on a Cirrus G3 or Twinstar for Midwest Air Taxi?
- Thread starter theyoungs02
- Start date
bdhill1979
Gone West
I heart the 210, but ours does not have Ice protection.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
I'll offer one word of advice...
You'll hear a question like "does that thing have one engine or two" more often than not. Some customers, being a company exec or employee, will be required by their company's insurance policy to only fly in twin engine aircraft.
But, if you do decide to go with a twin, stay far far away from a Twinstar. Like Dough said, a Baron is a solid platform for 135 operations. I honestly think that for a 2 hour stage length, the Baron is the absolute best airplane when considering operating costs, and thus the charter rate for the customer.
P.S. Charge by the hour, not the mile. All of your maintenance is based on hours flown, not miles flown. Also, be real careful about taking payment BEFORE the flight, especially if going into a major airport. You'll see what I mean after that one time of going into a hold or a massive re-route/vector and the company picking up the cost of the extra fuel.
You'll hear a question like "does that thing have one engine or two" more often than not. Some customers, being a company exec or employee, will be required by their company's insurance policy to only fly in twin engine aircraft.
But, if you do decide to go with a twin, stay far far away from a Twinstar. Like Dough said, a Baron is a solid platform for 135 operations. I honestly think that for a 2 hour stage length, the Baron is the absolute best airplane when considering operating costs, and thus the charter rate for the customer.
P.S. Charge by the hour, not the mile. All of your maintenance is based on hours flown, not miles flown. Also, be real careful about taking payment BEFORE the flight, especially if going into a major airport. You'll see what I mean after that one time of going into a hold or a massive re-route/vector and the company picking up the cost of the extra fuel.
IPad (10)
Well-Known Member
If you are going to do that, just get a late 90s Malibu Mirage. Roughly the same operating cost as a T210, but you get pressurization, club seating, radar, known ice, and a plane your passengers don't have to climb onto the wing to get into.
Alex.
theyoungs02
New Member
I thought it silly when they did it, but after buying bankrupt Columbia the folks at Cessna badged the previous Columbia 350 and 400 "Cessna 350" and "Cessna 400", guaranteeing a bit of confusion with their past models for eternity.
By past Cessna convention the 350 should be an upgraded, pressurized cabin-class twin and the 400 some sort of cabin class twin, a la the 402, 411, 414, 421 (all of which would be good fits for the original question.)
They ain't, just as Columbia is no more.
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Forget the twinstar. At least until the thielert issue is resolved. It is an unmitigated disaster. I think the DA 40 XL may be an ok choice.
WacoFan
Bigly
I think SATS Air is succesful because of the BRS system. If someone is skittish about one engine, they can be told about the BRS and how it will float you down gently just like the Apollo splashdowns. Whether the BRS system is that great or not, it would serve to calm neophytes about single engine travel. Why didn't SATS Air use something different long ago - A36's or C-210's? Operating costs would be similiar, but the purchase cost would be lower than a new Cirrus. My guess is the BRS system was the paradigm shift the single-engine Air Taxi business needed to be succesful. Just my opinion.
I think your best bet would be to perhaps find some customers first - small companies that need some air capacity and sell four or five of them blocks of time (similiar to a fractional) in a C-310, Baron, or Seneca.
I think your best bet would be to perhaps find some customers first - small companies that need some air capacity and sell four or five of them blocks of time (similiar to a fractional) in a C-310, Baron, or Seneca.
roundout
VNAV monitor
I wouldn't touch a Twinstar with a ten foot pole until they start delivering them with the new engine (certification expected summer 2009). That said, it's a better airframe than the SR22 for your application because it's certified for FIKI.
I'd get an old BE55 or BE58 Baron and spend the money you save on initial acquisition price for fuel. I used to fly a 414 for a guy and that was a good plane, but it was always in MX.
I'd get an old BE55 or BE58 Baron and spend the money you save on initial acquisition price for fuel. I used to fly a 414 for a guy and that was a good plane, but it was always in MX.
bdhill1979
Gone West
It is going to be a Rotax derivative. No thanks
I think that they should find a way to keep the Thielert concept, just fix the gremlins instead of pretending like their German engineering is flawless. Hell if it meant doubling the fuel burn to 8-10 gallons per hour per side that would be fine on me.
roundout
VNAV monitor
I don't think any of the fixed gear airplanes can get certified for FIKI. It's basically the same system on the Mooney, 210, and A36 (certified) and Cirrus (not certified); the only difference is the certified systems have a second pump for redundancy.
BTW, it's too bad that you hate Diamond. They really do make a good airplane, but your xenopohbia prevents you from seeing it. See RyanmickG's thread about new vs old avionics....same principles apply to airframe design and construction.
roundout
VNAV monitor
Wrong. It's actually based on the same Mercedes block that the Thielert is, with improved accessories such as the gearbox which as you probably know is a major problem with the Thielert models (both 1.7 and 2.0 motors). They are also trying to certify the thing with IO-360s which I think is retarded because with a doubled fuel burn, the IFR endurance is like 3 hours with a reserve.
bdhill1979
Gone West
I have about 600 hours in Diamonds, they do not make a good product.
Has nothing to do with Canucks, but the fact that I have had so many failures, problems, and pucker moments in those airplanes.
Have you ever seen the glue come undone on the Twinstars landing gear actuator plate? I witnessed that one, fortunately was not inside.
Have you ever seen spiderweb cracking in your wing in flight?
Have you had an engine quit in flight because of a stupid design for the fuel pump?
Not to mention how badly my paycheck gets screwed every time one of the damn things is down for the "Mx De Jour"
bdhill1979
Gone West
That info came straight from a Diamond Rep
roundout
VNAV monitor
Doesn't mean it's true.
As for your failures and pucker moments, I suspect that your real beef with Diamond is more tied to this statement:
than to anything else.
bdhill1979
Gone West
No, I have been genuinely scared for my life several times because of Diamond, particularly when I started seeing those cracks in the wing.
But if you want my real beef it is this: the seats are so damned uncomfortable. It is simply inhumane
bdhill1979
Gone West
How the hell do you last three hours? I'm done after 20 minutes if I don't bring a seat pad and a lumbar pad
See my experience with Diamonds has been one of consistent issues, problems, and all too frequent failures.
My job aside from instructing is flying a 1967 T210 for a small corporation. The Boss was originally looking at the Twin Star and I talked him out of it.
We have had that plane for about a year and the only time it has spent in the shop is the Annual, oil changes, and some upgrade work that is being done right now. The plane was purchased for under $100K, has about 400 pounds more useful load than the 42, has 2 more seats, cruises about 40 knots faster (depending on the day and altitude), and dammit the seats are comfy. Yes we burn about 8-10 more gallons per hour, but when you offset the purchase prices it would take us 15,000 hours at todays fuel prices to match the cost of purchasing a 42.
Yes a 40 year old airplane is outperforming the latest and greatest.
I think Diamond has had some wonderful marketing in getting people to believe that their airplanes are better, more efficient, cheaper to operate, safer, etc.......
But the fact is.....they are not any better than most of the airplanes out there.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Just to move this in another direction slightly. Have you contacted Purdue's aviation program? I know in the past they have worked with companies on aircraft selection based on specific requirements. As an aspiring operator in the state of Indiana, they may have some resources to assist you in regards to business plan, as well as aircraft selection.
Best of luck
Best of luck
