Cat Driver wrote:Really?
You are suggesting that I exaggerate my experience as a pilot?
O.K....fair enough after sixty years of flying most everything in aviation and not really keeping an accurate record of my time I need to justify my experience to you?
No, I don't suspect for an instant you would exaggerate. And like most old timers I know, you probably stopped filling out your log book long ago. But when you write one number then another, people notice. That's all. But here's a question, simply out of curiosity... if Miramax has such strict insurance guidelines, I find it strange they did not want to look at your log book. I guess they simply took your word for it?
If it is such a difficult insurance policy to get your name on, then that just seems odd. Or perhaps you used references, of which I'm sure you have plenty.
Cat Driver wrote:Trust me he can afford a Jet Ranges for personal use, and my position in his company involves deciding what aircraft we use or buy.
Fair enough, but do you think if your business partner were to read this thread or perhaps get outside opinions on the Twin Beech, would he think you were making the correct choice in aircraft? It is simply of my opinion that because the aircraft loses in literally every category, it is the wrong plane for the job. Choosing it because it's "a pleasure to fly" and it's a "great collector's item" seems that you would be choosing it for your own personal desires and not what is best for the operator.
Rowdy wrote:The -18 is cheaper to buy than a dhc3T or caravan, faster than the otter too
Cheaper initially, yes, but in the long run, maybe not. And as I already pointed out, the Otter can get up high and true out a speed that is nearly equal to the Beech. Find some good winds and you're going faster.
Rowdy wrote:An engine failure is not a death sentence as some of you seem to portray.. no more so than the DHC3T or caravan if a stove quits at 100ft over the trees, hell, a loaded 100 series twin otter at 100ft trying to out climb the trees could be sketchy
A fully loaded Beech on a hot day would not fly on one engine. Hell, just blowing a jug on one could be detrimental if it were at the wrong phase of flight and the wrong conditions. And the likelihood of that happening versus a failing turbine is far, far, far greater.
Rowdy wrote:Whats an overhaul cost on a PT6 or TPE these days? Probably a lot more than BOTH 985's
PT6 overhaul is... and correct me if I'm wrong... somewhere around 3500 hours when you first start. Most operators I've ran into do them around 5000. A TPE is, I believe 8000 hours. What are 985's? 1200 hours? Again, please anyone in the know fix these numbers for me but I believe I'm in the right ball park anyway.
Rowdy wrote:I chuckled when I read someone quote the fuel burn of the turbines at 10,000ft vs the burn of the 985's at sea level (where it will pretty much always be operated) Not a fair comparison.
Why is it not a fair comparison? It's an accurate one.
Rowdy wrote:JAC - pretty sure the water around here can't be confused with the lakes of the rest of flat land canada
I understand that completely. But I was under the impression it was to be used for more than just coastal flying. Either way, it still loses in all categories. But if it were to be used strictly on the big water, that would certainly make a better case for it.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is a Beech 18 requires a PPC, so your training cost would also be higher. And you also need to find someone to do the ride unless you can .? I know the boys in Ontario all use the same guy out of Ear Falls.
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did do.
So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover.