BeechBaby wrote:
And of course a capable SEP will cost the same as a twin
arj1 wrote:
Even for SR22 – I’m not sure it makes sense to pay for it the same amount of money as for DA42.
If you are talking 300hp SEP it will be the same as 2*150hp MEP and you will pay minimum 300£/h for about 100h/year 
So it would be the same budget for an SR22 & A36 & DA42 !
Same for vintage SEP, Stearman has 300hp costs 300£/h, T6 has 550hp costs 550£/h, T28 has 800hp and costs 800£/h and Spitefire is +1000hp and you pay +1000£/h, hopefully someone can spot the trend
It has nothing to do with equipment & maintenance but those things tend to grow linearly in horse power as well
IFR/VFR avionics are fixed capital costs, they rarely feed into running costs but you may get a premium to have AP/G1000 but it tend to be 10£-20£/h, the running cost will be almost the same for VFR/IFR variants and because of that 20£/h no one of the “good weather flyers/renter” will rent the IFR aircraft…
Ibra wrote:
Same for vintage SEP, Stearman has 300hp costs 300£/h, T6 has 550hp costs 550£/h, T28 has 800hp and costs 800£/h and Spitefire is +1000hp and you pay +1000£/h, hopefully someone can spot the trend
Twins are terribly underated.
You can do this for not much more in Europe fully de-iced and with the range and safety of a twin at 160 to 200 knots.
I know it is the age old argument but there is something about the comfort of a big twin that will go through most of it in reasonable comfort without any worries about full tanks and all the luggage you like in most cases.
@Fuji_Abound. I totally agree with your sentiments about twin engine aircraft. I just love flying them.
@Ibra here the added cost of say a DA40 full IFR and AP over a VFR/VFR night version appears to be around €40. A Cirrus SR22, A36 and DA42 as well as Cessna 310, Seneca 2 or 3 or an Aztec do not differ massively in their wet hire price. The twins are often €10 to €20 per hour more than the SEP’s I have listed.
IFR DA 40’s and Robin 401’s are about half the price per hour of the above.
Eg I pay €175 -€180 per hour wet for a G1000 DA40 €402 for a DA 42.
€135 per hour for a DA 40 night VFR equipped.
RobertL18C wrote:
Part.NCO requires Mode S, IFR GPS, 8.33khz, and VOR for airways.
Part-NCO does not require VOR for airways. In fact it doesn’t require anything specific in terms of navigation equipment, only that you have the equipment necessary to follow your ATS flight plan and to safely conclude the flight (not necessarily according to plan) in case of failure of a single piece of navigation equipment. You could argue that if you are in radar coverage and can reach visual conditions above MSA, radar vectors could be an acceptable means of navigation in a contingency.
You only need to have a VOR receiver if you plan to fly on routes defined by VORs, which today is unusual in Europe where almost everything is PBN. In practise you could do this using a GPS as well even if that is (not yet) legal. And of course you need a VOR receiver if you plan to make a VOR approach.
Part-NCO also does not require an IFR GPS unless you fly in PBN airspace. Most (but not all) of the controlled airspace in Europe is PBN airspace. Class G is not.
Also, to nitpick, the mode S and 8.33 kHz requirements are not in part-NCO but in EU regulations 1207/2011 and 1079/2012, respectively.
arj1 wrote:
Piper Arrow? Three times the cost of PA28-181? Not sure.
I wouldn’t say that an Arrow is that much more capable than an Archer. It cruises about 20 kt faster, but that’s it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
arj1 wrote: Piper Arrow? Three times the cost of PA28-181? Not sure.I wouldn’t say that an Arrow is that much more capable than an Archer. It cruises about 20 kt faster, but that’s it.
Well, more like 35-40 kt faster, plus it has got wobbly prop & gear. When I was talking about more capable SEP, I did not mean PA46.
@gallois those numbers make sense, DA40s are clearly outliers, the fuel cost is nothing especially JetA but one pays for flying new aircraft (one I fly costs 20£/h on fuel but 220£/h and does 150h/year)
For light IFR, an Archer or Skylane budget does the job pretty well, you can go to the end of the map in these, for serious IFR will be SR22 or twins budget, then you have everything in between, at the end of the day no point talking about extra capabalities if one are not flying them or have contraints, I am sure some C172 fly more and further than some twins, that is what matters at the end of the day, poh numbers stay in poh
You could argue that if you are in radar coverage and can reach visual conditions above MSA, radar vectors could be an acceptable means of navigation in a contingency.
That is correct, radar control would fulfil the requirement for a second source of navigation. In puddle jumper GA that usually means VOR, airways is not always radar control. Am not aware of light GA carrying INS or DME DME.
arj1 wrote:
Well, more like 35-40 kt faster, plus it has got wobbly prop & gear. When I was talking about more capable SEP, I did not mean PA46.
The max cruise speed for an Archer II is 129 KTAS (75% power at FL80). Can a normally aspirated Arrow really make 164 KTAS at cruise power?
RobertL18C wrote:
That is correct, radar control would fulfil the requirement for a second source of navigation. In puddle jumper GA that usually means VOR, airways is not always radar control. Am not aware of light GA carrying INS or DME DME.
I don’t understand the second sentence. How can radar control mean VOR?
Are there any airways in Europe which are outside radar coverage? That must be very unusual. Over the high seas or northern Scandinavia possibly.
