Flyer59 wrote:
The NDB in the missed approach is not part of the GPS overlay of the missed approach then?
It’s not about not being in the overlay, it’s about not being legal. For example the French DGAC is quite clear on this – if the missed approach is based on an NDB, you can’t fly the approach at all unless you have a functioning ADF receiver on board. Period. I’m not aware of any changes in this requirement.
My experience is different, the NDBs in all approaches i know work fine and the distance is always right. I have heard this before but could never find an NDB for which that was true, Maybe that’s different in the UK, i do not know that.
Martin,
in Germany the ADF is only required if you want to fly NDB based approaches. If you fly RNAV GPS approaches or ILS only, like me, then ADF is not required.
The test profile at Southend has an NDB hold, but the approaches are an ILS/DME and a LOC/DME, both have the SND beacon as part of the missed approach.
Not sure there is a test profile in SE England where an NDB does not figure. The British fetish with NDB holds might not be exactly a benign symptom of the stereotype for mild eccentricity. Initial IR training could focus some of the time gold plating NDB holds on more useful exercises. More varied routes training, more GNSS/RNAV approaches, limited panel non precision approaches, and for single engine some of the training requirements for the new SET IFR commercial ops requirements, for example.
RobertL18C wrote:
Low time early 1990’s Beech 36
This is a great looking plane but it doesn’t look like the kind of thing I associate with grass strips. I reckon it could carry 4 people and 4 bikes though. I must read up on the Bonanza
Martin wrote:
probably the biggest question is in what kind of weather do I want it to fly
Good point. I feel quite unprepared for taking on icing conditions though if I want to do my IR then it’s something that it makes sense to prepare for. So that excludes the DA40 and any plane with no deicing.
Martin wrote:
what do you consider too old?
I am equating age with maintenance issues. That’s probably too simplistic. Maybe I should say that I don’t want to blow the budget on a shagged out version of a capable plane. I worry that’s what I might be getting into if I bought an old SR22
Martin wrote:
What is your budget for running the thing
about EUR25k. Does that sound about right?
Martin wrote:
how many hours per year are you planning
At present I spend about 5 hours angsting over each hour of flight. That limits my flying time to about 10 hours per month. I am hoping that as I gain experience I will angst less and fly more. Let’s be optimistic and say 150 hours pa.
Martin wrote:
there are not that many naturally aspirated ones around.
What about the question of turbos? Is the performance at altitude worth the extra cost and maintenance. Mountains are a big part of my environment.
mh wrote:
So if you intend to fly the occasional run around the patch, you might want to assess the options for some cheaper flight time.
So you think I should buy a collection of planes? That’s the spirit 
Flyer59 wrote:
in Germany the ADF is only required if you want to fly NDB based approaches. If you fly RNAV GPS approaches or ILS only, like me, then ADF is not required.
Obviously. I’m not saying otherwise. However, there are RNAV (or ILS) approaches with a missed approach procedure based on an NDB. Which brings me to my previous posts. If you don’t mind living with this limitation, good for you. And there is still the DME.
Flyer59 wrote:
the biggest difference if compared to similar plane will be the avionics,
I have only flown a glass cockpit once, in a C172. It seemed pretty straightforward, am I missing something? I have the chance to fly a glass DA40 here. I have avoided it because I worry that extra training is a way of avoiding grasping the nettle and actually going flying solo. Do you think it’s worth making the time investment in glass training now?
Flyer59 wrote:
If you happen to be in Munich sometime i can give you a complete introduction.
mh wrote:
If a SR22 is what you want, then why not go for it? It might not be appealing to me
So what would appeal to you? The SR22 is the first plane I thought of, but I am keen to look at options.
tinfoilhat wrote:
Good point. I feel quite unprepared for taking on icing conditions
I thought so. It’s not necessarily about taking on icing conditions, I just prefer to count with the possibility, even when trying to avoid ice. And if you want deicing (even just a simpler system, maybe prop only), it will seriously limit your options. Cirrus is probably the most common SEP with deicing (or air conditioning).
tinfoilhat wrote:
I am equating age with maintenance issues. That’s probably too simplistic.
Point was that everyone will have a different idea about what’s too old. Unless someone knows a particular plane, only thorough pre-buy can answer the question about state of that plane. Even younger planes can have their issues. This comes with the territory.
tinfoilhat wrote:
about EUR25k. Does that sound about right?
About. If it doesn’t include fuel, etc. But I will leave this to more experienced owners. Flyer59 posted some numbers recently (for an SR22), you might want to look for them. Owning typically encourages flying, so if you fly 120 hours now, 150 should be achievable. I was asking in the first place because it’s an important consideration in the selection. Acquisition is just a start.
tinfoilhat wrote:
What about the question of turbos? Is the performance at altitude worth the extra cost and maintenance.
Well, that depends. I generally don’t like flying up high (6+ km) without pressurization. Unless I operated out of a “hot & high” airport, I would prefer naturally aspirated SR22. Nothing against turbocharging. For me, it’s a question of how you intend to use it. And the way I would use an SR22 doesn’t require it. Would I consider a turbocharged one for the right price? Yes. And they tend to be well equipped, which would push me towards them in the first place. However, I think you would need a bigger budget.
