banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 11:20 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2018, 07:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20104
Post Likes: +23515
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
Username Protected wrote:
The Diamond would fly circles around a Cirrus Jet for 1.8 million less.

Yes, but the Diamond has last-Century avionics, sucks down gobs of fuel, needs 5000 feet of runway, and has no parachute.. :eek:

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2018, 08:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4573
Post Likes: +3298
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
Username Protected wrote:
The Diamond would fly circles around a Cirrus Jet for 1.8 million less.

Yes, but the Diamond has last-Century avionics, sucks down gobs of fuel, needs 5000 feet of runway, and has no parachute.. :eek:


It has good avionics if you look at the add.

Top

 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2018, 08:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/13/10
Posts: 20104
Post Likes: +23515
Location: Castle Rock, Colorado
Aircraft: Prior C310,BE33,SR22
Username Protected wrote:
It has good avionics if you look at the add.

Yes, they are OK.

But, they're not 21st Century like the Cirrus Jet.....for some pilots, that's a big deal, for others it isn't.
.
Attachment:
avionics.JPG


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Arlen
Get your motor runnin'
Head out on the highway
- Mars Bonfire


Top

 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2018, 09:26 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/04/10
Posts: 3539
Post Likes: +3198
Aircraft: C55, PC-12
Good speed, good range, good load - wow, not a bad little plane! I'd bet you could get type rated for less than 20K. Yes it burns more fuel than a CJ2 but if you get fuel at $4 and you burn maybe 60 more gallons/hr that is $240/hr more than a 2.5 million dollar airplane. Say you fly 20 hr/mo, you'd spend $5K more in fuel than the CJ2, the capital expense of the $2.5 million CJ2 is a lot more than $5K.

It is not likely to fly for just the cost of fuel, I wonder what the average maintenance cost would be $500/hr? If so that could be comparatively cheap jet hours.

_________________
John Lockhart
Phoenix, AZ
Ridgway, CO


Top

 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2018, 09:30 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Two pilots not a pita.

Obviously you haven't tried to arrange an SIC over a week long Christmas break.

Second pilot is chartering a human with all the hassles, cost, and inflexibility chartering brings with it.

I have no problems with an SIC in flight, but otherwise, a true royal PITA.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2018, 09:46 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Yes, but the Diamond has last-Century avionics

Far easier to upgrade than the SF50 will be in time.

Quote:
sucks down gobs of fuel

About twice as much per mile. But you are comparing an airplane that weighs ~2.5 times as much and is *much* bigger, and goes *much* faster.

Quote:
needs 5000 feet of runway

Due to nearly full length flaps (like the MU2), the V speeds are pretty low and MGTOW runway needs are 3940 ft. Note that this figure is to 35 ft, *with* an engine failure on the runway at V1. There is no point in the takeoff roll that the airplane cannot either stop or fly in the 3940 ft runway length.

The SF50 takeoff distance to 50 ft is 3192 ft. Realistically, with no engine failure of either one, the Diamond is about the same takeoff profile. On a 4000 ft runway, with an engine failure, the SF50 is crash at the end of the runway, the Diamond is flying safely. The danger for the SF50 exists until it reaches minimum parachute altitude.

Quote:
and has no parachute..

Doesn't need one.

Parachute didn't help the SF50 when an engine fails at low altitude.

Jets fly a *lot* of hours and don't crash. All last year there were only two fatal crashes of US registered jets, and 1Q 2018, there have been none so far.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 10 Apr 2018, 22:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/14
Posts: 280
Post Likes: +86
Location: KPDK
Aircraft: C421B MU2-40 Solitai
Mike has it right! I'd buy a Beechjet or that Diamond in a second if there was a SP waiver.

_________________
Sandy


Top

 Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet
PostPosted: 11 Apr 2018, 00:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/28/11
Posts: 1712
Post Likes: +1701
Company: N/A - Retired
Location: Southern AZ / South Carolina
I’ve flown both the Diamond and the Beechjet. They’re tough solidly built airframes but they don’t “fly circles around” much of anything. 3 hour IFR range max — they both run out of climb in the upper twenties — high/hot performance is very limited. Don’t expect to get out of ASE/EGE in the summer with much more than fuel to get to Springs or GJT.
Now admittedly I’m talking Pt 135 performance here but IMHO, if you’re flying a part 25 jet and not considering single engine obstacle clearance, you’re begging to be a statistic.

The comments about dated avionics is worth considering in that it can be much higher workload than newer suites. Carrying a marginally trained passenger and calling him an “SIC” may even increase that load.

Some of these airframes are starting to show their age. Cracking horizontal stab attach fittings comes to mind. Older type stab de-ice was a continuous headache. Windshield heat failure can mean a replacement to the tune of 25-30 AMUs when they’re available.

It’s not all bad news, it’s a lot of airplane for a quarter mil, but don’t expect it to be trouble free.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2




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

Jump to:  

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 2007-2024

.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.daytona.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.