BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 00:03

Username Protected wrote:

Not entirely accurate. The 12 could meet all of the requirements under normal attitudes and power settings and under such conditions, has benign stall characteristics. The reason it could not be certified without a pusher was that it could not meet the requirements at high power (>75%) and high nose up conditions which it stalls at 45kts. It does not have the aileron authority to stop rolling in those conditions and a pusher was the best way to solve the issue. The videos you see on YouTube of the test pilots are in the extreme stall conditions.

Ok, then Flight Safety and their level D is wrong.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 00:13

Username Protected wrote:

$750k owners won’t get a “good manager”. They’ll get a kid or some flunky working 9 other non pilot owners who will be gone in 3 months.

These guys need to buy a fractional in Planesense and enjoy themselves.

At what price point can they get a good manager? Is it because the airplane isn’t worthy? The OP made it clear that money wasn’t an issue. It’s pretty easy to find a competent aircraft manager, I know dozens of them. They don’t work for free, but they also have no problem managing a $750k airplane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 01:39

Username Protected wrote:

How many miles do you fly in a typical year?

About 40,000 miles.

Quote:

How much time do personally spend (or pay someone to spend) managing maintenance on your aircraft?

About ~10 hours/year.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 01:57

Username Protected wrote:

Charles is making really sound, common sense, points. Arguing against them is stubbornness or defensiveness not thoughtfulness.

Coloring the viewpoints you disagree with this way is really inappropriate.

There are a lot of problems with the basic theory that accidents are caused by lack of technology. The fact some of us say so doesn't make us stubborn or defensive.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 02:14

Username Protected wrote:

If this Nevada crew and patient would have been lucky enough to have hitched a ride in the University of Utah's PC12, which could have been there before the patient made it to the airport, instead of the local companies, hundred year old Cheyenne, they would still be alive.

So how do you rationalize the 15 fatal accidents in PC12s?

I can just as easily find examples in those where I can say had they flown XXXX other airplane instead, they would be alive.

Was the above accident caused by the airplane? Had it occurred in a brand new King Air, how would you rationalize that with your views?

Quote:

I don't hate old planes, but for mission critical transport, hard IMC, these old planes are a liability.

I use my plane for mission critical, hard IMC flights all the time.

Specifically, what am I lacking that a new airplane has that will materially affect my safety?

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 02:16

Username Protected wrote:

Not trying to pick a fight, but systems failures, loss of control in IMC and loss of control maneuvering are the nemesis of small GA. Complexity leads to distraction and also leads to likelihood of systems failures. More systems, more failure points, more things to remember, more things to do right. Some planes are more forgiving, or easier to make stop flying than others. Stalling a PC12 with a pusher or a P46T without a pusher is hard to do. If you manage to do it, you don't have to be Chuck Yeager to recover it. Hard to get disoriented in IMC when the PFD in front of you looks just like the world you would see out the window if you could see out the window. The latest generation of aircraft, will nudge you back into the aerodynamic envelope if you try to stray. Some of them like the M series Pipers will even automatically engage the AP to take over if it detects that you are out of control. Smart Gear tied to TAWs not just dependent on throttle settings, Radar that alerts you to severe weather ahead even if you aren't monitoring it or even have the window up. Pressurization systems that automatically pressurize you if you inadvertently defeat the system. Clear voice CAS messages instead of buzzers and beeps. Sensors that CAS if the plane is out of trim. AOA's that adjust stall logic for icing conditions. The newer aircraft don't just have cosmetic upgrades, they have better systems. We will still see accidents, but we will see fewer. The type of accidents will change. There are always geniuses out there when it comes to defeating systems. All this technology has come about as a result of NTSB reports. For the first time the GA fatal rate dipped below 1/100K. I think that is due to a lot of things, training, people migrating to turbine aircraft, but also technology.

You can get all that stuff after market and stick it on a 60 year old airframe if you want to. Not much as changed in engines and airfoils. Modern avionics can be retrofit... some airframes are more forgiving than others, but I don't see that as a function of age, it's a function of design.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 02:16

Username Protected wrote:

Lot's of planes have Pusher

Not generally turboprops, even more so for single engine turboprops.

You find stick pushers on swept wing jets mostly due to nasty stall behavior. The fact a straight wing turboprop has one is odd and suggests unusual characteristics in the stall.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 02:19

Username Protected wrote:

Lot's of planes have Pusher

Not generally turboprops, even more so for single engine turboprops.

You find stick pushers on swept wing jets mostly due to nasty stall behavior. The fact a straight wing turboprop has one is odd and suggests unusual characteristics in the stall.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 08:28

Username Protected wrote:

Lot's of planes have Pusher

Not generally turboprops, even more so for single engine turboprops.

You find stick pushers on swept wing jets mostly due to nasty stall behavior. The fact a straight wing turboprop has one is odd and suggests unusual characteristics in the stall.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 09:17

I'm just an ole country boy. Been flying all my life but in a boot strap sort of way. Most of the guys in this debate operate above my pay grade and have received training at levels that I have not. That being said, I can perform the basics of flying pretty well; I can keep the blue side up, recover from an inverted spin, and fly a manhole cover on one engine if necessary. Still, I respect all you fellow's experience and comments. Even ole MC :lol:

Just kidding Mike, you make your points well.

So, I'm going to share the thoughts of the "good ole boy" standing at the side watching

Crandall makes the best sense for these docs "going in".

Chip points out that doing it by ownership and professional management and pilotage can and does work. The trick here is that somebody in the Doc's group has got to manage the managers.

The brouhaha about the stall characteristics of the PC-12 is total bullshit. The ag pilots that taught me to fly when I was eleven years old never allowed me to just "stall" the Aeronca or 172 they trained me in. A stall was as much a part of a spin as a flare was a part of landing. When I stalled, I was to spin and recover. The lesson was simple: don't stall and you don't spin.

In 57 years of flying, I have never inadvertently stalled an airplane except in aerobatics: not even close. Despite the "Cirrus bashing" often seen on this Beech site, :eek:

, a Cirrus is a very benign handling airplane, but people stall it on approach and kill themselves; The dumbest will always be dumb.

Crandall pretty much caps it off: stick shaker=problem solved. I couldn't agree more.

Why? because "the dumbest" stall and spin the most benign airplanes all the time: Skyhawks, J-3's, Cherokees, Bonanzas and even Stearmans. :bugeye:

Anyway, I'm enjoying the input from all. Thomas is in the exact situation proposed and has all the numbers to share. I'd like to hear more.

And I still want a C-90. :shrug:

Jgreen

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 09:19

Username Protected wrote:

At what price point can they get a good manager? Is it because the airplane isn’t worthy? The OP made it clear that money wasn’t an issue. It’s pretty easy to find a competent aircraft manager, I know dozens of them. They don’t work for free, but they also have no problem managing a $750k airplane.

If money is no issue just get a Pilatus and have a pilot on call for $75K a year.

If money is no issue, I'd be on Planesense or Netjets.

Having to bring a pilot along screws your useful load on a $750K bird.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 09:39

Username Protected wrote:

Not generally turboprops, even more so for single engine turboprops.

You find stick pushers on swept wing jets mostly due to nasty stall behavior. The fact a straight wing turboprop has one is odd and suggests unusual characteristics in the stall.

Mike C.

that's no big secret...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 10:05

Username Protected wrote:

Chip points out that doing it by ownership and professional management and pilotage can and does work. The trick here is that somebody in the Doc's group has got to manage the managers.

A big problem in GA is the high percentage of crooks that are just looking for the next person they can get one over on. Charter operators that quote moon prices hoping to find a sucker who pays them, undisclosed 'fees' that get tacked onto a charter half way through the trip, 'managers' who cash their monthly check but are nowhere to be found when the plane is needed, 'managers' who use the clients plane to run a 134.5 operation, maintenance shops who replace perfectly good components and re-sell the stolen part on eBay etc. I wouldn't hire anyone to manage a plane unless they come with references from a similar setting.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 10:20

Username Protected wrote:

[
A big problem in GA is the high percentage of crooks that are just looking for the next person they can get one over on. Charter operators that quote moon prices hoping to find a sucker who pays them, undisclosed 'fees' that get tacked onto a charter half way through the trip, 'managers' who cash their monthly check but are nowhere to be found when the plane is needed, 'managers' who use the clients plane to run a 134.5 operation, maintenance shops who replace perfectly good components and re-sell the stolen part on eBay etc. I wouldn't hire anyone to manage a plane unless they come with references from a similar setting.

I dunno about high percentage. Maybe. Those conducting themselves ethically don't make the news so it is hard to say.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Nov 2017, 10:32

Username Protected wrote:

Chip points out that doing it by ownership and professional management and pilotage can and does work. The trick here is that somebody in the Doc's group has got to manage the managers.

A big problem in GA is the high percentage of crooks that are just looking for the next person they can get one over on. Charter operators that quote moon prices hoping to find a sucker who pays them, undisclosed 'fees' that get tacked onto a charter half way through the trip, 'managers' who cash their monthly check but are nowhere to be found when the plane is needed, 'managers' who use the clients plane to run a 134.5 operation, maintenance shops who replace perfectly good components and re-sell the stolen part on eBay etc. I wouldn't hire anyone to manage a plane unless they come with references from a similar setting.

Best aircraft for $750,000?