BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 17 Sep 2013, 23:12

Looking forward to pics Jason. My partner and it did a demo flight in a Mustang and really liked it. Hope you have many happy hours in that bird.

Best,

Dave

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 00:16

Username Protected wrote:

Looking forward to pics Jason. My partner and it did a demo flight in a Mustang and really liked it. Hope you have many happy hours in that bird.

Best,

Dave

Dave:

I was very close to taking the route you did. I think good strong engines over tbo are fine, and use more for 135 ops. I wish you could do that on a pc-12. My issue was by the time I upgraded to a g1000(which I wanted) I would have one of the more expensive vintage birds with run out engines, making it harder to sell. If I didn't do the upgrades, it is a perfect machine. You will be very happy with your choice and I think you are spot on with your analysis.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 04:47

Username Protected wrote:

There is a greater speed penalty flying up high, especially in the winter. For me that could mean 100 kts on the side of the plane as I fly North and South. Less penalty in the twenties. Of course when it is a tailwind......

100kt headwinds can be hard on you if you're going 200kt (Duke), at 280kt it hurts a little less.. but in the Jet, you have to go up to FL410+ or else the Fuel penalty will kill you, even if the winds are more like 150kt on the nose!

Don't forget that a few jets can't climb straight up, but have to sit lower and lighten up a bit.

The Tailwinds are wonderful, whenever you can get them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 08:03

Username Protected wrote:

Dave:

I was very close to taking the route you did. I think good strong engines over tbo are fine, and use more for 135 ops. I wish you could do that on a pc-12. My issue was by the time I upgraded to a g1000(which I wanted) I would have one of the more expensive vintage birds with run out engines, making it harder to sell. If I didn't do the upgrades, it is a perfect machine. You will be very happy with your choice and I think you are spot on with your analysis.

Avionics are a big deal. G1000 with GFC700 is a big deal. That sells airplanes. I'd have made the same choice. I wish the PC12NG had G1000 but the Honeywell is a distant.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 08:03

Username Protected wrote:

Dave:

I was very close to taking the route you did. I think good strong engines over tbo are fine, and use more for 135 ops. I wish you could do that on a pc-12. My issue was by the time I upgraded to a g1000(which I wanted) I would have one of the more expensive vintage birds with run out engines, making it harder to sell. If I didn't do the upgrades, it is a perfect machine. You will be very happy with your choice and I think you are spot on with your analysis.

Avionics are a big deal. G1000 with GFC700 is a big deal. That sells airplanes. I'd have made the same choice. I wish the PC12NG had G1000 but the Honeywell is a distant second.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 10:59

. will get some pictures

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 11:38

Username Protected wrote:

Dave:

I was very close to taking the route you did. I think good strong engines over tbo are fine, and use more for 135 ops. I wish you could do that on a pc-12. My issue was by the time I upgraded to a g1000(which I wanted) I would have one of the more expensive vintage birds with run out engines, making it harder to sell. If I didn't do the upgrades, it is a perfect machine. You will be very happy with your choice and I think you are spot on with your analysis.

Clearly, the Mustang has it's place. If I needed new with better dispatchability and new avionics, I'd have been headed that direction. The Pilatus is also a great bird. Having over a couple million in a bird just didn't fit me, but I reserve the right to change my mind (g).

I found KA with a G530, 430, GMX 200 (we added Waas). We've side funded for a 600. As you, said, dual 1000s in this bird would probably over value it. But, we have to take extra time at inspection time to keep costs down. Wouldn't be necessary with a newer bird.

Congrats again.

Best,

Dave

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 13:11

Username Protected wrote:

Owners of older turbines like to lowball their maintenance cost and owners of new turbines like to ignore the cost of capital.

.

If I don't buy an airplane, I won't have an airplane. The lifestyle is worth more to me than any return the money could give me sitting in the bank and I don't need another full time job managing that money in an investment.

You only live once. Nothing in life is better than having your own airplane.

I'm not ignoring the cost of capital. I'm enjoying it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 14:21

Quote:

I'll get some pics up this weekend! I forgot to update my pic, although I still am proud of the meridian! I ran all the numbers and a mustang really fit my mission, and what I wanted to do.

I looked hard at a TBM and a PC-12, and ultimately, made the decision that if I didn't want to jump into an NG, then I would be disappointed with the panel (to Jason C's points). The TBM didn't give me much more than the Meridian and there are a lot of happy mustang owners that have moved up from the TBM (Marc, save your breath, we know you love your TBM and it is a good plane, just not for me).

The discussion about maintenance and cost of capital is really entertaining to read because I went through all these exercises. For me, I have to say I am impressed by some of the programs that Cessna (and Pratt and Williams) have for the jets, commonly called "Power by the Hour". Coupled with Cessna's parts programs, it makes my cost of operation very dependable. I like that. I looked hard at an older King Air, doing the part 91 maintenance that is active on another thread, running over TBO, etc. In the end, I decided my capital cost was a "deposit" and, especially with the engines fully funded, made it easier to pencil out, at least for me.

I am really impressed with some of the systems that Cessna put together for the mustang. Flying it almost feels like cheating... Plus, let's face it, it is super cool to be flying over Southwest jets in normal cruise...

-jason

Congrats, Jason, and thanks for the details. You must be thrilled.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 18 Sep 2013, 20:22

Username Protected wrote:

Dave:

I was very close to taking the route you did. I think good strong engines over tbo are fine, and use more for 135 ops. I wish you could do that on a pc-12. My issue was by the time I upgraded to a g1000(which I wanted) I would have one of the more expensive vintage birds with run out engines, making it harder to sell. If I didn't do the upgrades, it is a perfect machine. You will be very happy with your choice and I think you are spot on with your analysis.

Clearly, the Mustang has it's place. If I needed new with better dispatchability and new avionics, I'd have been headed that direction. The Pilatus is also a great bird. Having over a couple million in a bird just didn't fit me, but I reserve the right to change my mind (g).

I found KA with a G530, 430, GMX 200 (we added Waas). We've side funded for a 600. As you, said, dual 1000s in this bird would probably over value it. But, we have to take extra time at inspection time to keep costs down. Wouldn't be necessary with a newer bird.

Congrats again.

Best,

Dave

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2015, 00:16

Very interesting . I have a question guys at CJ2 /CJ3 have APU ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2015, 00:17

Username Protected wrote:

Very interesting . I have a question guys at CJ2 /CJ3 have APU ?

no

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Jan 2015, 00:36

Thank you Jason .

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2015, 13:19

Username Protected wrote:

I've flown the CJ1 and currently fly the CJ3 single pilot, they are simple airplanes to fly and both cost the same to operate. The fuel burn per mile on a CJ3 will be the same or less than the CJ1 because the 3 will climb straight to FL450 and do over 400kts at 110gph fuel flow while the 1 is stuck down at a lower altitude burning almost as much and only doing 360kts. TAP and proparts is $475 per hour on the CJ3. Phenom 300 is nice but is way more money, I'd look at a used CJ3 if I were in the market for a light jet.

+1

I see the same numbers...360 a side at FL450, CJ3 is a lot less money than the 300 and the CJ line will be far easier to fly than any piston twin, period. I own a Part 142 sim and aircraft based CJ training company in California and the biggest issue we see with pilots transitioning out piston twins is learning energy management in jets. Forget about shock cooling, cowl flaps, CHTs and EGTs (ok, so ITTs are important).

I think the biggest issue with the 3 over say the 300 is the panel. The 3 has the Proline 21 with the FMS3000 (which is absolutely fantastic BTW) and the 300 has the Garmin. I think both are extremely capable platforms, the Garmin looks prettier.

I have never flown the 300, but I have a lot of time in CJs and the 3 is a fantastic machine, long legs, true FL450 capabilities and and absolute joy to fly.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Jan 2015, 00:33

Someone posted a link to this AAIB incident report on a CJ2+ over on the AOPA board.

Sounds like a wild ride.

Username Protected wrote:

Synopsis
As the aircraft approached its cruising altitude of FL430, the pilot was not monitoring the indicated airspeed and the aircraft stalled, departing from controlled flight in a series of five 360° rolls to the right.
The pilot briefly regained control before the aircraft stalled again and in the following recovery, the aircraft’s wings were damaged in overload.
The pilot made a successful landing and examination of the aircraft’s recorded data revealed that the angle of attack (AOA) sensing system had ‘stuck’ in flight and the aircraft’s stall warning system did not operate prior to the stall onset.
Two Safety Recommendations are made, relating to the continued airworthiness of the AOA sensing system.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cf ... 001-15.pdf

CJ1 vs. CJ3 vs. Phenom