29 Mar 2024, 11:20 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2018, 07:06 |
|
|
|
|
|
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..
_________________ Arlen Get your motor runnin' Head out on the highway - Mars Bonfire
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2018, 08:08 |
|
|
|
|
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..
It has good avionics if you look at the add.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2018, 08:35 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2018, 09:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2018, 09:30 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2018, 09:46 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: What may be wrong with this Jet Posted: 10 Apr 2018, 22:09 |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 2007-2024
|
|
|
|