If I need to go fast somewhere I take this. 487kts TAS!

You have less than 5 ft margin to each wingtip? That's tight! Who puts obstacles 26 ft off centerline?


13,500 lbs will do it in a V.

I had to go to 10,000 lbs in the 501.

Suspect the V can fly the same weight the same distance or more.


True for a 501, too, it depends on weight and temps.

Just to pick a temp, say +15 C, no wind, 4000 ft elevation, 2900 ft runway:

560: 13,540 lbs (4310 lbs useful load left)

501: 9970 lbs (~3000 lbs left?)

Landing is no problem for either plane at any reasonable landing weight.

The V is remarkably good at short field work. I gave up almost nothing in runway access from the MU2 to the V. Given the same mission, some payload flown some distance, I suspect there is no paved runway the 501 can use that the 560 can't.

Mike C.

That's a voice I'm familiar with in the right seat. Were you happy with Dan?

I saw that extra bit of right rudder on the initial roll and it reminded me of my first day flying twins.

There was barely an excursion when you "lost" your right engine. Nice job!!!

You have less than 5 ft margin to each wingtip? That's tight! Who puts obstacles 26 ft off centerline?


13,500 lbs will do it in a V.

I had to go to 10,000 lbs in the 501.

Suspect the V can fly the same weight the same distance or more.


True for a 501, too, it depends on weight and temps.

Just to pick a temp, say +15 C, no wind, 4000 ft elevation, 2900 ft runway:

560: 13,540 lbs (4310 lbs useful load left)

501: 9970 lbs (~3000 lbs left?)

Landing is no problem for either plane at any reasonable landing weight.

The V is remarkably good at short field work. I gave up almost nothing in runway access from the MU2 to the V. Given the same mission, some payload flown some distance, I suspect there is no paved runway the 501 can use that the 560 can't.

Mike C.

I get that. I initially never considered a 560 because of it, but upon further review, it wasn't the excess I thought.

When I compare trip fuel numbers with 501 owners, I find my usage is not appreciably more despite the much larger plane. The reason is that I fly higher and faster. I've concluded that buying a 501 would not be a great way to reduce my fuel usage, and on those flight where the 501 needs a stop and the 560 doesn't, the 501 uses more and take more time. Also, heavier headwinds make the 560 look better on fuel, too.

So while it may seems like "gluttony" to fly the 560 around versus a 501, the actual fuel usage on a given trip is not much different. The extra speed saves money on maintenance since those are tied to hours. Plus, who doesn't want to go faster?

I've also had a lot of people on board, 9 once, 7 several times. I'll have 8 on my trip to Chicago on Monday, for example. I find the average passenger load is higher than I expected.

Where was your puritan avoidance of gluttony for your 487 KTAS travel airplane?

Mike C.

I get that. I initially never considered a 560 because of it, but upon further review, it wasn't the excess I thought.

When I compare trip fuel numbers with 501 owners, I find my usage is not appreciably more despite the much larger plane. The reason is that I fly higher and faster. I've concluded that buying a 501 would not be a great way to reduce my fuel usage, and on those flight where the 501 needs a stop and the 560 doesn't, the 501 uses more and take more time. Also, heavier headwinds make the 560 look better on fuel, too.

So while it may seems like "gluttony" to fly the 560 around versus a 501, the actual fuel usage on a given trip is not much different. The extra speed saves money on maintenance since those are tied to hours. Plus, who doesn't want to go faster?

I've also had a lot of people on board, 9 once, 7 several times. I'll have 8 on my trip to Chicago on Monday, for example. I find the average passenger load is higher than I expected.

Where was your puritan avoidance of gluttony for your 487 KTAS travel airplane?

Mike C.

What's the over/under on Tarver exploring the 750 space

Lots of bargain deals on those and talk about fast (with range)!

You mean the 2 Klingon pilot airplane? I think there is pretty good chance!

You mean the 2 Klingon pilot airplane? I think there is pretty good chance!

I worked on the 750 as an engineer at Cessna. Don't remember seeing any Klingons.

Mike,
A seasoned passenger would have noticed the relatively lethargic single engine climb.

I have mentioned before.
I would sleep just fine in the back of your plane in low IFR or a thunderstorm with you up front. I would probably wake up on an engine failure and ask if you would like me to handle radios

Not sure what useful experience was to be expected vs. same in SIM.
Bit of a narrow runway.

You performed very near flawlessly to me

If 1500 FPM qualifies as "lethargic".


The sim is more violent and more difficult. The actual plane is tame. This is generally true for all things, the sim is always harder than the real airplane.


100 ft wide, so not that narrow.


I've only done it once for real. Beginner's luck.

One thing I remain convinced of: all pilots seeking a multiengine rating should be required to get a tailwheel endorsement first. Most pilots are rudder challenged and this will help address that. For me, I got my private in a tailwheel airplane, so my feet knew what to do to keep an airplane straight.

Mike C.

Prior to taking the runway, raise the V bars with GA button, select heading, verify heading bug and V bars align with the runway. Rotate into the V bars. If you have an engine fail, simply do whatever is necessary to keep the airplane in the V bars. It requires very little though and no angst.
Simple.


Robert T

Agreed, but...

If the engine fails on the runway, you can't be looking at V bars, you have to look at the runway and do whatever is needed to keep the plane on centerline with rudder. Once airborne, then V bars.

There's no banking into the good engine, just fly normal attitude with some rudder to center the ball (now the slip/skid indicator).

Mike C.