What kinda airplane would you buy?

stuckingfk said:
I knew I should have corrected Smitty for that absurd post.

They are not 2.3 million. I can't believe ya'll believvve that.

A quick look at controller.com has a 2006 Baron with the G1000 and only 235 hours going for $950,000.

A completely decked out brand new Baron would be just a shade over a million. Do I think this is a rip off? Of course, but it isn't even close to 2.3 million.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not really up on the going rates for glorified Travel Airs. I'd heard they were over a million, didn't know how much. It doesn't change anything--you can still get a turboprop single, older King Air or Citation, VLJ for close to the same cost.
 
zmiller4 said:
Sorry, I'm not really up on the going rates for glorified Travel Airs. I'd heard they were over a million, didn't know how much. It doesn't change anything--you can still get a turboprop single, older King Air or Citation, VLJ for close to the same cost.
Click to expand...

I know.....but aquisition cost is only a small part of cost of owning an airplane, ie insurance, gas, training, hangar, etc.

So you may be able to own it for the same price but definitely won't have the same overall operating costs.
 
Well I didn't see cost in your initial criteria so I'd say Baron. I haven't exactly flown a plethora of piston aircraft but the Baron is the smoothest airplane I've ever flown, turbine equipment included (and most of my baron time was in a 60 year old example).

If cost is at all an issue I say C182.
 
stuckingfk said:
There is a reason twins are made and used by millions everyday. When flown correctly by a proficient pilot, they are safer.
Click to expand...

Not trying to start a flame war here but statistically speaking, a multi engine aircraft is no safer than a single engine aircraft when averaging turbine/piston singles to turbine/piston twins.


According to the FAA statistical data on turbine powered aircraft -
  • SE TPs have a rate of 1.89 accidents per 100,000 flight hours with .78 being fatal.
  • ME TPs have a rate of 2.48 accidents per 100,000 flight hours with .86 being fatal.
According to the same FAA statistical data but for piston powered aircraft -
  • SE pistons have a rate of 1.3 accidents per 100,000 flight hours [no data on fatal accidents].
  • ME pistons have a rate of .69 accidents per 100,000 flight hours [no data on fatal accidents].
Maybe you should look at the FAA statistics and not Barry Schiff before you spout off such claims. Also, before citing Barry Schiff as a source, do some homework on his work. He regularly teaches unsupported, inaccurate concepts. Just read The Proficient Pilot followed by H.C. Smith's Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics to see what I am talking about.

/thread derailed
 
meritflyer said:
Not trying to start a flame war here but statistically speaking, a multi engine aircraft is no safer than a single engine aircraft when averaging turbine/piston singles to turbine/piston twins.


According to the FAA statistical data on turbine powered aircraft -
  • SE TPs have a rate of 1.89 accidents per 100,000 flight hours with .78 being fatal.
  • ME TPs have a rate of 2.48 accidents per 100,000 flight hours with .86 being fatal.
According to the same FAA statistical data but for piston powered aircraft -
  • SE pistons have a rate of 1.3 accidents per 100,000 flight hours [no data on fatal accidents].
  • ME pistons have a rate of .69 accidents per 100,000 flight hours [no data on fatal accidents].
Maybe you should look at the FAA statistics and not Barry Schiff before you spout off such claims. Also, before citing Barry Schiff as a source, do some homework on his work. He regularly teaches unsupported, inaccurate concepts. Just read The Proficient Pilot followed by H.C. Smith's Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics to see what I am talking about.

/thread derailed
Click to expand...

Make up your mind, you just posted FACTS that multi engine aircraft are safer. To go from a rate of 1.3 per 100,000 to .69 per 100,000 is a reduction by nearly half. (.69 * 2 = 1.38)

With your mission profile I'd seriously consider a used Barron.
 
Acutally if you take the average of piston and turbine ME the accident rate is 1.59 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

Piston and SE turbine aircraft average a nearly identical 1.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

Multi engine turbine aircraft have proven to have more accidents and deaths when compared to SE turbines. Why would that be? The only thing I can think of would be poor multi engine flying skills. Although, insurance will mandate recurrent every 6 months at FSI. Even for a piston twin like a C421.
 
You cant just average two statistics like that to get an accident rate of 1.59 for all twins. They are 2 separate categories of airplanes wit 2 different missions, and the fleet hours are significantly different between multi pistons and multi TPs. You then say, "they are about 1.6". 1.3 and 1.9 are also significantly different, and 1.6 is a bogus number to begin with.

I hope there are no hard feelings here, I'm just trying to show my point of view.
 
OldTownPilot said:
You cant just average two statistics like that to get an accident rate of 1.59 for all twins. They are 2 separate categories of airplanes wit 2 different missions, and the fleet hours are significantly different between multi pistons and multi TPs. You then say, "they are about 1.6". 1.3 and 1.9 are also significantly different, and 1.6 is a bogus number to begin with.

I hope there are no hard feelings here, I'm just trying to show my point of view.
Click to expand...

No hard feelings. I think you can average them though. The stats were non-commercial aircraft. Mission profiles are most likely very similar, IMO.

My point is, the safety factor between twins and singles are very slim. I also found it kinda odd that the SE TPs are "safer" than ME TPs.
 
I'd rather have one turbine than two recips, personally. But I'd certainly rather have two recips over one recip if I'm planning on a lot of cross-country flying and such.

Personal preference regardless of statistics.

I've I'm over the desert on a moonless night, I'd rather have the option of eeking out a controlled descent to a diversionary airport rather than a best rate glide into the darkness.
 
You can make statistics say anything you want. The biggest factor in accidents is still the pilot.

Of course, while we're talking about statistics, you have to keep this stuff in perspective. No matter what you fly, flying is very, very safe.

Let's say there are 2 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. That's one accident every 50k hours, theoretically.

What's the average professional pilot have for flight time at the end of a career? Maybe 25,000 hours?

Looking at the statistics, you could *easily* go two entire *lifetimes* with no accidents. That's pretty safe.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I'd rather have one turbine than two recips, personally. But I'd certainly rather have two recips over one recip if I'm planning on a lot of cross-country flying and such.

Personal preference regardless of statistics.

I've I'm over the desert on a moonless night, I'd rather have the option of eeking out a controlled descent to a diversionary airport rather than a best rate glide into the darkness.
Click to expand...

Werd.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I'd rather have one turbine than two recips, personally. But I'd certainly rather have two recips over one recip if I'm planning on a lot of cross-country flying and such.

Personal preference regardless of statistics.

I've I'm over the desert on a moonless night, I'd rather have the option of eeking out a controlled descent to a diversionary airport rather than a best rate glide into the darkness.
Click to expand...

Why won't you go fly SE IFR with me!!!
 
I haven't see Mike Busch's article on AvWeb linked to yet. "Do you really want a twin?" (reg required) http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/182809-1.html

I personally would prefer a recip twin to a recip single, unless the single is turbocharged. Then it would be a very close call, leaning towards the single. I think a turbo single is a good compromise between overall performance and MX cost.
 
OldTownPilot said:
You cant just average two statistics like that to get an accident rate of 1.59 for all twins.
Click to expand...

Another article supporting my claim that the two stats can be averaged and such stats support singles are equally safe when comparing twins. This article by Mike Busch compares a 310R and T210 to compare speed, useful load, mx, and fuel costs amongst other things. After combing over the data, concludes the two classes of aircraft from a safety standpoint, are the same.

Twins have a slightly higher accident rate per 100 aircraft and a slightly lower accident rate per 100,000 hours, but for all practical purposes the accident rates are the same.
Click to expand...
 
meritflyer said:
Another article supporting my claim that the two stats can be averaged and such stats support singles are equally safe when comparing twins. This article by Mike Busch compares a 310R and T210 to compare speed, useful load, mx, and fuel costs amongst other things. After combing over the data, concludes the two classes of aircraft from a safety standpoint, are the same.
Click to expand...

I've already said what I'd take, Doug said the same thing, a SE Turbine.

It all comes down to preference like you said. I know that when I'm IFR over a mountain at night, I'd would like the comfort of a second engine. You're either a glider, or you're not. I'll take the latter.

I really think a turbine bonanza or 210 would fit your bill nicely. Turbines don't have the failure rates as pistons do. It's simple as that, they're better more efficient engines.

Off topic, what is with the constant changing of the mind? You've stated so many different things on this website it's hard to take you seriously. How does one go from almost working at one of the worst airlines in the U.S. to thinking about owning an expensive airplane? It almost seems like you knew it would be bad there, you got the job, but then realized it wasn't for you. Not trying to be a prick, it's just hard to believe anything you post.
 
stuckingfk said:
Off topic, what is with the constant changing of the mind? You've stated so many different things on this website it's hard to take you seriously. How does one go from almost working at one of the worst airlines in the U.S. to thinking about owning an expensive airplane? It almost seems like you knew it would be bad there, you got the job, but then realized it wasn't for you. Not trying to be a prick, it's just hard to believe anything you post.
Click to expand...

If you have an issue, feel free to PM me. I'll be more than happy to take it up with you.
 
Some interesting reading on turbine singles...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060421X00468&ntsbno=SEA06LA074&akey=1

I went to the same college as the pilot's daughter. I got a close look at this machine a few months before the crash and it was a real show stopper...very well done. I have no doubt he would have won awards at Oshkosh if it'd lasted that long.

I'm not trying to say anything here aside from the fact that nothing is perfect in life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top