11 Jun 2025, 06:42 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 11 Aug 2015, 12:44 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/29/09 Posts: 4166 Post Likes: +2987 Company: Craft Air Services, LLC Location: Hertford, NC
Aircraft: D50A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What's the price tag on one of these?
Other than this airplane, I still think the PT6-21 powered B36TC is a great step in airplane to turboprops. Especially if Rocket gets their pressure system going.
No clue on the price tag. I imagine would be around 1.5MM target and increase a little from there. The only problem I have with the PT6-21 B36TC is that it isn't pressurized. If you get it pressurized its a great airplane, but people don't want to wear oxygen every flight.
Yep, it's a crying shame that you can't use a P-Baron as the base airframe for that mod.
_________________ Who is John Galt?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 11 Aug 2015, 13:02 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20314 Post Likes: +25451 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The only problem I have with the PT6-21 B36TC is that it isn't pressurized. Turbine without pressurization is a non starter, IMO. They climb and descend fast, so ear trouble ensues regardless of oxygen requirements. They burn a lot of fuel at non oxygen altitudes, and using oxygen is a pain. They can't get around weather as easily. They can't fly as high. You really don't want to be at FL250 on oxygen, too dangerous IMO. Edit: and they can't fly as fast, either! Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
Last edited on 11 Aug 2015, 14:20, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 11 Aug 2015, 13:38 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/29/10 Posts: 2761 Post Likes: +2605 Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Turbine without pressurization is a non starter, IMO.
Mike, I don't always agree 100% with you, but in this case I do! Outside of some specialized applications (Ag, skyjumping, etc), I just don't get non pressurized turbine airplanes... Robert
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 11 Aug 2015, 20:04 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What's the price tag on one of these?
Other than this airplane, I still think the PT6-21 powered B36TC is a great step in airplane to turboprops. Especially if Rocket gets their pressure system going.
No clue on the price tag. I imagine would be around 1.5MM target and increase a little from there. The only problem I have with the PT6-21 B36TC is that it isn't pressurized. If you get it pressurized its a great airplane, but people don't want to wear oxygen every flight.
I flew the plane a lot without oxygen. And oxygen in the mid teens is nothing.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 11 Aug 2015, 20:12 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The only problem I have with the PT6-21 B36TC is that it isn't pressurized. Turbine without pressurization is a non starter, IMO. They climb and descend fast, so ear trouble ensues regardless of oxygen requirements. They burn a lot of fuel at non oxygen altitudes, and using oxygen is a pain. They can't get around weather as easily. They can't fly as high. You really don't want to be at FL250 on oxygen, too dangerous IMO. Edit: and they can't fly as fast, either! Mike C.
I never had a single person in the plane complain about ear issues because the cabin wasn't pressurized.
Oxygen isn't a pain at all with the proper setup. With the Rocket air boom you don't even notice that it's there. No intrusion at all.
I got around weather good enough to put on 200+ hours a year. Even without de-ice. Never once did I have to cancel a flight because I couldn't get around weather.
Fuel burn isn't optimal at 12k no but it still flew 220ktas. Not exactly slow... and still flew 6.5 nm/gal which is still more efficient than a TBM or most other turboprops.
A TBM flies about 4.8 nm/gal A Meridian flies 5.9 nm/gal A Pilatus flies 4.2 nm/gal
You get the point... Does it use more fuel down low, sure but it's still more efficient than the comparable turboprops. Only something using the Rolls Royce (Allison) will be more efficient.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 11 Aug 2015, 23:13 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20314 Post Likes: +25451 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Fuel burn isn't optimal at 12k no but it still flew 220ktas. I don't buy a turbine airplane to fly 5 hours in the thin air at 12K and 220 KTAS. Gives people headaches. Give me FL250, 5000 ft cabin, and 300 knots, thank you. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 12 Aug 2015, 09:37 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Fuel burn isn't optimal at 12k no but it still flew 220ktas. I don't buy a turbine airplane to fly 5 hours in the thin air at 12K and 220 KTAS. Gives people headaches. Give me FL250, 5000 ft cabin, and 300 knots, thank you. Mike C.
Good thing the endurance is only 3 hours then. You get to stop for fuel, bathroom and re-acclimate yourself. No headache. Problem solved. For 1/5th the price to go 300 kts.
If flying at 12k gives you a headache then use the air boom to supplement. You won't even know it's there.
I bought a turbine airplane that wasn't pressurized because I wanted the power and reliability of a turboprop yet without all the cost of an expensive TBM or the like. I sometimes wonder why that's so hard to grasp. People here fly their TN Bo's in the teens all the time but when it comes to a turboprop to fly in the same altitudes only faster... OH NO!
Sorry, I'm not picking on you, just pointing out that there is a trend that makes no sense to me because of my first had experience.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 12 Aug 2015, 09:56 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Never heard of the Rocket air boom before so I googled it. Then I stumbled onto the Cougar Baron conversion from RE. I'm sure it'll cost a bejillion dollars, but what a machine that would be! The Cougar Baron I believe will be somewhere in the $900k range.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 12 Aug 2015, 10:02 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 05/13/14 Posts: 8955 Post Likes: +7389 Location: Central Texas (KTPL)
Aircraft: PA-46-310P
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Never heard of the Rocket air boom before so I googled it. Then I stumbled onto the Cougar Baron conversion from RE. I'm sure it'll cost a bejillion dollars, but what a machine that would be! The Cougar Baron I believe will be somewhere in the $900k range. I'm not saying it shouldn't cost that much, but if someone has $200K for a donor airframe, $100K for avionics, $50K for cosmetics, and $900K for the conversion that comes to $1.25 million!!!! What else can you get for that money? What can you get for many AMUs less that will be better? Me thinks a bunch of other airplanes.
Apologies for the thread drift.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 12 Aug 2015, 10:07 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/09/13 Posts: 241 Post Likes: +150 Location: KICT/KFFZ/KLAS
Aircraft: CE25B+/CE25C/DA40
|
|
I wonder if Cessna (textron) has considered buying the Extra 500 for their entry into the SETP market. It would certainly fit their high wing line up. (Though I doubt they are overly concerned about that.)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 12 Aug 2015, 10:12 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The Cougar Baron I believe will be somewhere in the $900k range.
I'm not saying it shouldn't cost that much, but if someone has $200K for a donor airframe, $100K for avionics, $50K for cosmetics, and $900K for the conversion that comes to $1.25 million!!!! What else can you get for that money? What can you get for many AMUs less that will be better? Me thinks a bunch of other airplanes. Apologies for the thread drift.
I'm thinking that some of that $900k would be part of the avionics and cosmetics. I'm speculating on the price anyway, so don't take my word on that.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 12 Aug 2015, 10:14 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 20314 Post Likes: +25451 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Oxygen isn't a pain at all with the proper setup. With the Rocket air boom you don't even notice that it's there. No intrusion at all. 18,000 ft is not enough. I rarely fly under FL250. Any use of oxygen by non aviation aware passengers is problematic due to teaching them how, general reluctance, hygiene, danger from oils/creams, etc. The Airboom style is dangerous in that you don't know if you are getting the right amount of oxygen without doing pulse ox testing. If the boom moves, you may not notice and then you aren't getting the required oxygen. The number one oxygen warning system, your brain, is the first thing to go if you lack oxygen. Unlike depressurization, there is no warning light, no change in cabin pressure, no whoosh sound. Refilling oxygen is a pain and costly, particularly on the road. My home FBO only allows maintenance to do it, and then only during their normal business hours, and they charge a minimum of 1 hour labor to do it. If you use oxygen routinely, it can be a significant adder to operating costs. If you don't, then added fuel burn is an adder to costs. Pressurization does not increase operating costs very much. It adds quite a lot to general cabin comfort even just considering temperature uniformity. It also makes the plane quieter inside. Nobody who has owned a pressurized airplane thinks using a cannula is anywhere near the same experience and dread going back to that. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Extra 500 Posted: 12 Aug 2015, 10:44 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Oxygen isn't a pain at all with the proper setup. With the Rocket air boom you don't even notice that it's there. No intrusion at all. 18,000 ft is not enough. I rarely fly under FL250. Is there something that says that you MUST fly FL250? In the B36T there is very little speed difference from FL180 and FL250.Any use of oxygen by non aviation aware passengers is problematic due to teaching them how, general reluctance, hygiene, danger from oils/creams, etc. I've had over 20 different people in my plane and never once did I have to give more than a 30 second overview of how the system worked and NEVER ONCE did I have an issue with people getting sick, complaining of feeling bad. In fact I always asked after landing and everyone loved it.
Oils, creams, hygiene etc.... none of these are an issue with the air boom. NONE.The Airboom style is dangerous in that you don't know if you are getting the right amount of oxygen without doing pulse ox testing. If the boom moves, you may not notice and then you aren't getting the required oxygen. Do you have any experience at all with Rocket's setup because from this comment I would say that you obviously don't. Unless you can speak from experience you might want to reserve judgement.The number one oxygen warning system, your brain, is the first thing to go if you lack oxygen. Unlike depressurization, there is no warning light, no change in cabin pressure, no whoosh sound. I don't disagree with this, however you don't need a pulse oximeter for every passenger.Refilling oxygen is a pain and costly, particularly on the road. My home FBO only allows maintenance to do it, and then only during their normal business hours, and they charge a minimum of 1 hour labor to do it. If you use oxygen routinely, it can be a significant adder to operating costs. If you don't, then added fuel burn is an adder to costs. So you'd rather spend $500k-$1m+ more for a different airplane (let alone 2-3 times the maintenance costs) than the $25-$100 it could cost for oxygen refill? I had my FBO top me off after I arrived back from every trip so it was being filled when I didn't need the plane. Full oxygen systems in those planes would last up to 6-7 hours with 4 people on board.
Also as I pointed out above. Even when you fly the plane at 12k the B36T burns LESS fuel than every other TP out there sans Allison planes.Pressurization does not increase operating costs very much. It adds quite a lot to general cabin comfort even just considering temperature uniformity. It also makes the plane quieter inside. So the $500k-$1m+ more for an airplane with pressure doesn't add to cost?Nobody who has owned a pressurized airplane thinks using a cannula is anywhere near the same experience and dread going back to that. I don't disagree with this statement. Cannula's especially suck to use. I wouldn't want to go backwards after having a pressurized airplane, however people scaring the hell out of someone that has never had a pressurized plane and want to step up in performance may never look at something like the B36T because they read things from people like you and get the idea it's a horrible experience which isn't true at all.Mike C.
I responded to each item within your quote. Your doom and gloom view of things aren't unique but inaccurate to say the least.
I apologize again because I know I come off strong here. I just know what my experiences have been and they drastically contradict what your saying.
Last edited on 12 Aug 2015, 10:54, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|