Glass cockpit vs steam gauges for low time PPL (and getting into a fast aircraft early on)

I don’t think that the IFR learning curve on a G1000 is particularly relevant for a beginner….

Back to the question – here is a story. A student of mine, immediately after his first solo in a PA28, bought himself an Arrow IV (T-tail, so a bit heavy on the elevator in the flare). About 5 hours later he soloed in the Arrow, and he completed his PPL in it. His overall development was not really different from any other student.

The only difficulty was arranging meaningful cross country training for something that cruises quite a bit faster than what we usually teach in, so his solo cross country was Biggin – Norwich – Lydd – Biggin, IIRC.

Nobody would really worry too much about training somebody ab-initio on a SR20. So why not an SR22?

You won’t get insurance for a TP to fly right after getting the PPL, unless you have an experienced pilot in the RHS.

I have known quite a few people who had a nearly full time RHS, but it is expensive because you have to pay him, pay for hotels, food, etc, everywhere. Also such pilots (I have known a few of them too) are not too easy to find because the lifestyle doesn’t suit most people. And it isn’t always a popular job because the clients tend to be the sort who don’t like being told what to do I knew one pilot who told his (wealthy company owner) client he will kill himself, he resigned the job, and soon the client did kill himself.

Valentin wrote:

I don’t think it’s realistic at all. With no IR, zero time post-PPL… I don’t believe it.

I don’t think it is realistic neither, early on you need something that can bend and you can walk-away from and besides you will be eaten alive by insurers

Also, to keep confidence on (you and passengers) you need to keep good margins, it took me one year to convince my wife getting back to flying with me after a sluggish cross-country in low level IMC with no proper pilot rating or aircraft configs…

On sophistication: being rusty while flying G1000 or avionics is one thing, in the other hand speed and horse power are less forgiving

Peter wrote:

And it isn’t always a popular job because the clients tend to be the sort who don’t like being told what to do I knew one pilot who told his (wealthy company owner) client he will kill himself, he resigned the job, and soon the client did kill himself.

The only guys who will put you on TPs or Jets after 20 hours flying on SEPs is the military, then you have to like what are being told and be ready to kill yourself !

With that attitude as well you don’t learn much flying neither, most of the time you do what the backseat mentor or radar guy tells you (or worse case scenario you have a 3 km runway for yourself to write it down or simply go out if you trust the parachute packing process)

Actually a TBM is a piece of cake to fly. Overall it is probably easier to manage than a piston plane with a turbo, oxygen, all the ancient stuff… Much safer w.r.t. weather too – with radar and pressurisation and a FL300 ceiling it is the baseline for a “99% despatch rate mission profile”. The build quality is very good – way better than any piston plane. To fly it safely you need to be a good pilot and you need the intellect to understand the aircraft systems. Some have it, most probably don’t.

I went to a turboprop at 430 hours and it wasn’t simple re insurance. It can be done earlier but you will be forced to fly with a mentor pilot for 50-100 hours.

After reading the thread some thoughts. First I’d establish what I really want. Flying for fun? Transport? Ramp appeal of a 3 million € turboprop? ILS to ILS or grass strip in Italy?

I think it depends less on the plane and more on the training and recency you get. I don’t see a problem for a motivated PPL to buy a turboprop, get some serious training in it and fly with a mentor pilot for the first year or so to build experience.

I spend 50-90 hours a month in multi crew jets and fly the SR22 (Avydine) and DA40 (G1000) maybe once or twice a month, in other words my recency on SEPs is very low and even though my flying exposure overall is constantly there I can tell that I am not 100% up to speed on the small planes so I prefer flying the Cirrus with a second pilot who is much more engaged in GA than me.
I also do not enjoy handflying the SR22, it is a great, fast and comfortable travel airplane that I like best when flying on autopilot. The DA40 however I feel very comfortable handflying, it is very easy, fun and forgiving to fly. No matter if you fly a C182, SR22 or DA40, they will not prepare you to simply step into a TBM or PC12.
In order to master those you need to fly these specific planes, alot, while being supported by a pro that you listen to carefully in your own interest.
In any case we are talking about a couple million euros here, so if your goal is to fly a TBM or PC12 I would focus on that instead of compromising on intermediate lateral steps like a C182 or SR22 as the flying in those, while still worthwile for overall experience, just differs too much from flying a TBM in FL280. 200 hours in a Pilatus is better if you want to fly a Pilatus than 400 hours in a Cirrus.
I am sure if you call Pilatus, TBM or Piper and tell them you want to buy a plane they will set up a rigorous training program for you and provide you with the relevant contacts to help you succeed in your goal.
There is one little exception:
Since you mentioned overwater operations, maybe a DA62 would suit you? The commonality between the DA40, DA42 and DA62 is definitely there and might be an option for you if you decide that you don’t need a cabin class over-the-weather private airliner and a smaller (much cheaper) multi engine piston will suffice.
I am looking forward to see how you decide!