BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jan 2017, 17:45

Username Protected wrote:

This thread reminds me of the conversation I had with my neighbor a few years ago as he was ridiculing my little VW pickup truck. We have the same size boats.

Him: That's silly what you are doing there, that thing can't tow that boat.

Me: Sure it can, we were skiing and now the boat is back in the driveway. It towed it.

Him: no it can't. Hills, stop signs, needing to accelerate into traffic. You can't do that with anything less than an F-250 like mine.

Me: there aren't any hills, stop signs, or traffic between our houses and the river. It's right there (pointing)

Him: But i could take mine to the ozarks tomorrow and those hills would be a breeze.

me: But you don't. You only go on the river like us. We never tow these things more than a couple hundred yards. you don't even have tires on one of your trailer axles.

Him: But i could, and I'd go fast and still be be safe. You are an idiot towing with that thing.

This entire thread was worth for the picture in your post. Would have bet a large sum that truck couldn't tow that boat - even a short distance. Awesome.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jan 2017, 18:54

Username Protected wrote:

This entire thread was worth for the picture in your post. Would have bet a large sum that truck couldn't tow that boat - even a short distance. Awesome.

Amazingly not hard at all - used to have a 1974 Ford Courier (just like a small Toyota/Nissan/Mazda truck) 1.8L OHC 4, 4 spd manual transmission. Pulled a lot of boats with that rig, 21' Cruisers, 20' Anacapri etc. Long as you did not want to go too fast - 55 was about flat out - it did fine.

RAS

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 09:32

Jeff,

I love your post for so many reasons. The bigger the truck the smaller the ............

Your neighbor is concerned about hills in Peoria. So funny on geographic terms alone.

I also love that paradise to him is the Ozarks. Again so geographically stereotypical for a red blooded male from central ILinoize!

BWTHDIK, I like da UP.

I too have a small truck. It is a Taliban edition Tacoma. Love it. :woot:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 10:04

Yes but that boat look so badd a$$ being pulled by a F250 and we know its all about look and perception.
How many people are driving SUVs that never see any offroad.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 10:09

And now we have political talk on here! :ahhh:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 10:23

Username Protected wrote:

Him: But i could, and I'd go fast and still be be safe. You are an idiot towing with that thing.

100%. Exact same thing. How many stories can we tell in this thread?

Flying into Aspen over Christmas was a zoo. I flew the whole way non stop (fast) and then held around the airport for 40 minutes waiting for lines of airplanes to take off and land. There goes any speed benefit the Citation X guy had. PC12's all the way up to Global's flying circles around Aspen all day at 13K'.

ATC is the equivalent of driving to the river 100 years from your house instead of driving to the Ozarks. ATC is the great equalizer. They dictate speed and altitude.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 11:02

Username Protected wrote:

Flying into Aspen over Christmas was a zoo.

People in Porsches can sit in city traffic.

That still doesn't negate the value of a Porsche.

Most of us aren't flying into Aspen at Christmas, or TEB, all that often, in which case, aircraft speed correlates well to trip speed.

Believing that a (real) jet is no faster than a turboprop due to ATC is what a turboprop owner tells himself to feel better about not having a (real) jet.

Someday you will convince Mom and Dad to buy you a real jet, then you will know how much better it really is, JC.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 11:06

Username Protected wrote:

People in Porsches can sit in city traffic.

That still doesn't negate the value of a Porsche.

Most of us aren't flying into Aspen at Christmas, or TEB, all that often, in which case, aircraft speed correlates well to trip speed.

Believing that a (real) jet is no faster than a turboprop due to ATC is what a turboprop owner tells himself to feel better about not having a (real) jet.

Someday you will convince Mom and Dad to buy you a real jet, then you will know how much better it really is, JC.

Mike C.

Traffic and bad roads are the reason I don't own a sports car. Porsche sells a lot of sedans and SUV's nowadays.

I have a brother 2 years younger than me. He's not a pilot and doesn't own an airplane or anything else that I have. I wonder why my parents are so mean to him? Ha

All your posts are "class warfare" Mike C. Green is a bad color on you.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 11:12

If the Citation X arrived at Aspen two hours ahead of you because he's twice as fast and you both had to wait 40 minutes to land, wouldn't he still make the trip two hours faster than you?

Obviously he'd burn a lot more fuel and require a copilot, but not sure an ATC delay "negates" the speed advantage!

Having to descend to 12,000' a hundred miles from KTEB is a bummer, though.

Nathan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 11:14

Username Protected wrote:

If the Citation X arrived at Aspen two hours ahead of you because he's twice as fast and you both had to wait 40 minutes to land, wouldn't he still make the trip two hours faster than you?

Nathan

The Citation X was behind me.

My point stands.

"Most pilots" fly to popular destinations. That's why the ramps at popular destinations are always full. When I land in Rural Indiana..... There are no planes on the ramp.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 11:40

Username Protected wrote:

The Citation X was behind me.

My point stands.

Uh, no. If you were both flying from 1000 nm away and he arrived at Aspen just behind you, it means he did the trip, including the 40 minute delay, in around 2:40. You did it in around 4:40.

He also has twice the range, so no fuel stop if flying from anywhere in the continental US.

Both planes are outside my budget, so just a math exercise, but still.

Nathan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 11:46

Username Protected wrote:

Uh, no. If you were both flying from 1000 nm away and he arrived at Aspen just behind you, it means he did the trip, including the 40 minute delay, in around 2:40. You did it in around 4:40.

He also has twice the range, so no fuel stop if flying from anywhere in the continental US.

Both planes are outside my budget, so just a math exercise, but still.

Nathan

You're comparing a $20MM+ jet to a PC12 and that's my point.

Me, I'd be pissed I bought a Citation X and ATC was telling me to "descend and slow down".

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 12:13

Username Protected wrote:

You're comparing a $20MM+ jet to a PC12 and that's my point.

Me, I'd be pissed I bought a Citation X and ATC was telling me to "descend and slow down".

No, you made the comparison, I just pointed out the fallacy in your statement that ATC delays "negate" the advantage of a Citation X.

I was told to slow down for a King Air in front of us the other day. I wasn't pissed at all, in fact I enjoyed it. But I'm still very new to MU-2 kind of speeds, likely that will wear off.

Nathan

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 12:27

Username Protected wrote:

I was told to slow down for a King Air in front of us the other day. I wasn't pissed at all, in fact I enjoyed it. But I'm still very new to MU-2 kind of speeds, likely that will wear off. :)

Wait until you are told to slow down for a Citation.

Has happened to me a few times.

I don't recall any time approach asked someone behind me to slow down.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 21 Jan 2017, 12:39

[quote="Nathan Ulrich":18edbta8]
No, you made the comparison, I just pointed out the fallacy in your statement that ATC delays "negate" the advantage of a Citation X.

I was told to slow down for a King Air in front of us the other day. I wasn't pissed at all, in fact I enjoyed it. But I'm still very new to MU-2 kind of speeds, likely that will wear off.

Nathan[/quote:18edbta8]
I didn't make that comparison. I'm simply pointing out as I have through the whole thread that if you want to spend more money on bigger and faster you can just like comparing SF50 to larger more expensive jets. But the extra expense won't necessarily add up over time. Hence why PC12 is the most common GA aircraft flying even though it's far from least expensive. SF50 will be the most common GA aircraft flying in a few years.

But hey, lemme know when you decide to "step up". Ha

Cirrus SF50