BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 01:30

Now lessee here! Your business is "corporate expense reduction" ......... and you can justify two aircraft to accommodate your personal/business travel needs?

Interesting!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 02:26

Don, I may be the contrarian in the group but I don't think you should panic and replace the Seneca just yet. You are comparing an older Seneca in a partnership to a much newer Cirrus that by a significant multiple will have a much higher capital cost. Not sure that is really fair. The Seneca is a good fairly simple machine that once sorted can be reliable. Not knocking the Cirrus or anything else but another airplane just means the start of another period of sorting out the new plane. Get the Seneca reliable then evaluate whether it fits the mission. And I am staying out of the twin vs. chute debate. my $0.02. Todd

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 05:45

Don,

Mom's rule. Not going to argue with the lady telling you to buy an airplane. Any airplane.

Now how's that go, "when Mommas happy everybody's happy"!! At my house it's "when grandmas mad, Run!"

:rofl:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 07:54

Username Protected wrote:

The Seneca is a good fairly simple machine that once sorted can be reliable.

What's your time worth?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 08:47

Username Protected wrote:

The Seneca is a good fairly simple machine that once sorted can be reliable.

Pipers don't age well. You have to select the right machines for business level reliability.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 08:53

Username Protected wrote:

Now lessee here! Your business is "corporate expense reduction" ......... and you can justify two aircraft to accommodate your personal/business travel needs?

Interesting!

Absolutely, unequivocally justified.

Actually the SR22 will be 3... :oops:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 08:56

Username Protected wrote:

Don, I may be the contrarian in the group but I don't think you should panic and replace the Seneca just yet. You are comparing an older Seneca in a partnership to a much newer Cirrus that by a significant multiple will have a much higher capital cost. Not sure that is really fair. The Seneca is a good fairly simple machine that once sorted can be reliable. Not knocking the Cirrus or anything else but another airplane just means the start of another period of sorting out the new plane. Get the Seneca reliable then evaluate whether it fits the mission. And I am staying out of the twin vs. chute debate. my $0.02. Todd

I'm not getting rid of the Seneca. It does our family trips better than the SR22 could ever do. I've just come to the realization that I will not have the dispatchability I need if I just depend on it. It's a very clean and well cared for example but there's just a lot of stuff that can break.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 08:57

Username Protected wrote:

What's your time worth?

EXACTLY!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 08:59

Username Protected wrote:

The Seneca is a good fairly simple machine that once sorted can be reliable.

Pipers don't age well. You have to select the right machines for business level reliability.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 11:58

Username Protected wrote:

I'm not getting rid of the Seneca. It does our family trips better than the SR22 could ever do. I've just come to the realization that I will not have the dispatchability I need if I just depend on it. It's a very clean and well cared for example but there's just a lot of stuff that can break.

Ah, so the solution is triple redundancy!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 12:27

Username Protected wrote:

I'm not getting rid of the Seneca. It does our family trips better than the SR22 could ever do. I've just come to the realization that I will not have the dispatchability I need if I just depend on it. It's a very clean and well cared for example but there's just a lot of stuff that can break.

Knock on wood, I've had zero dispatch/reliability issues with the Baron. :scratch:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 02 Jan 2016, 17:57

Username Protected wrote:

What's your time worth?

EXACTLY!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2016, 06:50

Username Protected wrote:

I'm not getting rid of the Seneca. It does our family trips better than the SR22 could ever do. I've just come to the realization that I will not have the dispatchability I need if I just depend on it. It's a very clean and well cared for example but there's just a lot of stuff that can break.

Ah, so the solution is triple redundancy!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2016, 10:16

Username Protected wrote:

Ah, so the solution is triple redundancy!

Ahhhhhhhh, I believe the second plane provides redundancy and the third plane provides double redundancy...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 Jan 2016, 10:32

I remember when I first came on to BT and saw the guys here with multiple a/c and how absolutely crazy that seemed to me.

Why do these guys need multiple airplanes?? How stupid is that??

It's clearly a disease and I'm pretty certain I've caught it...

SR22 Transition Training