+2

I wonder how the G650 hand flies? I wonder if anyone at Gulfstream cares?

I have sports cars. I don't have them for the same reason as the airplane. But to each his own. How it flies by hand is not a question I will ask the salesman at Gulfstream.

I have thought for a long time that the TBM or even Pilatus would be towards the top of my list as the ideal airplane. They both still are.

However, I recently rode in a Meridian and while the ride was fantastic, performance was awesome and the entire experience was a huge adrenaline shot, I came away thinking much differently about tprops. It was clear to me that the desire to get up high at all times is a constant factor. The economy was great at 28K ft but even descending down to 20K the fuel consumption increased substantially. I think if I had a turbine, the constant battle with ATC and stress over getting high would take away a lot of the fun. I also take a lot of short trips (<300 miles) and the tprop would frequently never get to decent cruising altitudes or for only a very brief period of time.

Unless my missions change to much longer trips, which they may, I'd be very hard pressed to justify a SE tprop as my block fuel burns would be sky high.

Don't get me wrong, I love SE tprops, especially TBM and Pilatus (the UL of the Merdian is quite low, so it's really not in the same league). However, I know how I think and I believe the frustration level flying at low altitudes and the crazy high fuel burn until you're 25K+ ft would get to me after a period of time.

Don.....who buys a turbine to save gas?


they are time machines......

Depending on the year, make, model and miles (hours & landings) yeah.

I wouldn't want some high time ragged out POS,but I've definitely witnessed some beautiful jets on the ramp that still get me fired up.


Hell, I'd still like to see one of those Lear 25's with the engine upgrades and G1000's. Figure out a way to certify it SP and I think that would be a blast.

(oh, and figure out a way to pay for it. Wait, I won the lottery right? )

300 nm trips I do at 17.5 and burn 500lbs per hour. But I get there in an hour.

At 28k I'm burning just under 400lbs per hour. The difference in fuel burn is not a big deal.

My point is that the owner of the Meridian told me he had no qualms about writing the $2M check to buy the thing but now has remorse over the cost of fuel and the flying experience involves stress every flight on getting up to altitude as quickly as possible. On the return flight back to Milawukee, Chicago ATC vectored him all over hell and kept him down below 6K ft. In a SE piston or even a twin piston, who cares? But in a tprop, that makes a HUGE difference and turns the flight experience into a stressful one.

In turbines, we get up pretty fast. I'm normally in low flight levels in 15 minutes in the C90. Coming down from there is usually great fun. Of course, if you're where ATC keeps you low, longer, not as much fun but I don't have that happen much out of the Dallas Area. Left Tampa area couple weeks ago and they got me up pretty quickly.
In the 58P, I normally climbed 30 to 40 minutes to the low flight levels. Makes a large difference.

I go back and forth on Sierra conversion with the new Williams engines. Same as converting an older baron or any other plane: how much to you put into an older airframe? I guess if you assume low or no residual value, run the numbers and that works, it could be attractive. On our C90 that's what we essentially have done. We're not looking to a large residual for it to make sense.

Best,

Dave

OK, Jason a moment of inductive logic:

How many buyers of high end Gulfstreams are pilots who will fly them . . . not many, agreed. Although I have been told they are a delight to fly.

Also, how many on this web site actually fly what they own . . . the majority, I would submit.

How many can afford to throw the "chicks dig it" argument at a subject and reasonably afford the result? Probably only you . . .

The result is that if flying qualities didn't matter most Beech SEL flyers would be flying a T210, T206/207 (all more capable load haulers) but universally reported to be not as rewarding.

As to the "Franken*.*" appellation, most here have some sort of "morphed and altered condition" airplane.

So those with TN, SVT, GPSW, etc are all flying our vision of what works best for us.

BTW, there is a beautiful Duke that just came out on Controller as a counter-balance to the turbo prop fuel altitude issues.

That's not my experience at all. I wouldn't take his word for it. I couldn't be happier with my decision. I'll fly at 10k if I feel like. It still hauls ass.

8 of em.....I might add.

I thought we were talking about "winning the lottery" Mooref? Did you read the thread?

My point is from the vantage of "winning the lottery".

Instead of working- I'm "visualizing" success...

Please critique this and point out any errors. Numbers came from all over the place...

TBM 850
TAS = 315 knots at 58.5 gallons/hr
315 knots = 362 mph
362 mph/58.5 gph = 6.19 mpg
6.19 mpg = .162 gallons/mile
@ $4/gallon (jet fuel guess)
.162 gallons per mile @ $4/gallon = $0.64/mile
My A36TC
TAS = 175 knots at 16.5 gallons/hr
175 knots = 201 mph
201 mph/16.5 gph = 12.18 mpg
12.18 mpg = .082 gallons/mile
@$5/gallon (100LL guess)
.082 gallons per mile @ $5/gallon = $0.41/mile


If I fly 20,000 miles/yr, my extra fuel costs me $4,600
For $4,600 I go waaaaaay faster!

The PT-6 engine is orders of magnitude more safer than piston engines, its equivalent to jet aircraft. This article quotes 2 inflight shutdowns for 2 million hours of flight. Incredible. I read somewhere else that single engine turbine-powered airplanes went 12 years without a fatality resulting from an inflight shutdown. You guessed it, that TBM-700 crash in south Florida broke that streak....
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... -aero.html

Would love to spend some time with you someday Jason chatting about it.