Cost sharing C172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost sharing C172
I'm not sure if this post is permitted, but here it goes anyway. I apologise if it is classed as advertising and I'm sure the moderators will delete it if it is. I'm looking for any pilot with a minimum of a PPL to help cost share a C172 from Sydney to Gympie and return. Dates can be any day during the week but prefer ASAP and costs are $80/hour wet. Would suit any pilot wishing to get some command time in a hurry by doing some long navs in 2 days. I expect it to take anywhere between 10-15 hours return weather permitting. PM me if you prefer, cheers.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmmmmmm 'airman1' that's 4 in total right? Okay what's the swept prop area of all combined? And the noise of 4X Rotax's, shhhhez talk about noise pollution, fly neighborly? I'd like to see that!
Ok back to the subject. I recall in the early days you where not allowed to charge/advertise anything money wise to share the cost of a flight. I guess it's all diff these days.
CW
Ok back to the subject. I recall in the early days you where not allowed to charge/advertise anything money wise to share the cost of a flight. I guess it's all diff these days.
CW
Last edited by Capt Wally; 18th May 2008 at 07:33.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 Rotax engines going flat strap at the same time?
The sound would be reminiscent of a SE Asian sweat shop.
As for "advertising". I think even a notice on your local flying club wall to share a flight could well be construed as advertising and therefore in contravention of the regs.
The sound would be reminiscent of a SE Asian sweat shop.As for "advertising". I think even a notice on your local flying club wall to share a flight could well be construed as advertising and therefore in contravention of the regs.
Last edited by Islander Jock; 18th May 2008 at 07:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking to buy Piper Seneca 1
I'm looking to upgrade the old C172 to a twin. The one I have, only does 95ktas on a good day and from YWBN to Gympie and back will be at least 10 hours. Apparently there is a Seneca 1 there for sale. Does any one have any comments on the Seneca 1? I'm on a tight budget(and wife) does not allow me to spend any more than 50K. I do know my way around aircrafts and don't mind getting my hands dirty. The engines are TX, perhaps I can put a pair of Rotax's on each wing? At least the fuel burn will be better than those IO360s. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom, Yes you are right. But in return, at least the other pilot gets to expand their comfort zone, rather than building hours going in circles for no real reason. At least this way, they may get to meet some interesting people at half the normal rate.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'BCY' that a big step up (op costs etc) from a C172 going to a 'Sneca 1'. Apart from the lousy C/W limitations (12 kts I think, could be wrong there) & the fact that they are now old as Noah & therefore won't be to swisho at $50K I think what FTDK said was true, somewhat of a dog
They probably won't carry much more than yr old C172 as well. If you really must have a light twin & at the little money yr wife allows you (poor bugga) then think about a PA30/39. They too have their problems (all twins do) but they are less thirsty & go faster than the old PA34 1. Besides the 'twin-can' (PA30/39) look slippery even at their old age, bit like me I guess
Just my thoughst that's all am sure some will shoot me down on that one
CW
They probably won't carry much more than yr old C172 as well. If you really must have a light twin & at the little money yr wife allows you (poor bugga) then think about a PA30/39. They too have their problems (all twins do) but they are less thirsty & go faster than the old PA34 1. Besides the 'twin-can' (PA30/39) look slippery even at their old age, bit like me I guessJust my thoughst that's all am sure some will shoot me down on that one
CW
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Queensland
Age: 53
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats the rego i have worked on most ofv the senecas in that area.
Most of them have a lot of corrosion as they were based at maroochy or caloundra if they are local then i would give em a miss no mater how handy with the srewdriver you are.]
CE
Most of them have a lot of corrosion as they were based at maroochy or caloundra if they are local then i would give em a miss no mater how handy with the srewdriver you are.]
CE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seneca 1
Thanks Capt Wally and Chief Erwin for your comments and yes I will pay particular attention to any corrosion. Speed and load carrying ability is not important as I'm looking to put it online as a MECIR aircraft. I'm in the process of getting my instructors rating and thought it would be a good idea if I got my own MECIR in it and used it online with the flying school. I also have numerous other singles including a nice early model C210 which does better than 150KTAS on less than 50litres/hour.
Sceneca 1 = disaster
Anyone contemplating a sceneca I should be shown the VMCa limits of an aircraft to the final crash.
The second engine is simply a mode of getting you to the accident quicker.
Always remember flying out of the old Ayers Rock strip in a Pa 34 -1, she didn't climb and I missed the old Red Motel by inches. The truck driver on a mission later destroyed what i managed to avoid.
Stick with teh 172, it is cheaper, and the bbottom line will be you will stay married.
The second engine is simply a mode of getting you to the accident quicker.
Always remember flying out of the old Ayers Rock strip in a Pa 34 -1, she didn't climb and I missed the old Red Motel by inches. The truck driver on a mission later destroyed what i managed to avoid.
Stick with teh 172, it is cheaper, and the bbottom line will be you will stay married.
*Struggling to understand exactly what dhavillandpilot is trying to say, apart from importance of doing p-charts before any takeoff*
BCY, I'd agree with Capt Wally, although you obviously still want to look at the seneca. The Twin Com is an awesome aircraft, with tips you have about 440L of fuel, burning 70L/hr. It cruises easily at 160kts, only real unique thing is that, like the seneca I, it can be tricky to land (not hard once you know how), and if you don't have anyone in the back you'll need some ballast.
If you havent looked at it yet, and the seneca doesnt impress, go have a look at one!
BCY, I'd agree with Capt Wally, although you obviously still want to look at the seneca. The Twin Com is an awesome aircraft, with tips you have about 440L of fuel, burning 70L/hr. It cruises easily at 160kts, only real unique thing is that, like the seneca I, it can be tricky to land (not hard once you know how), and if you don't have anyone in the back you'll need some ballast.
If you havent looked at it yet, and the seneca doesnt impress, go have a look at one!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting any aging aircraft on line in the hope of making money, or even the thing paying for itself, is a recipe for disaster.
A pilot i know of a couple of years ago bought a seneca 1 from QLD with the idea of putting it online, the flying school even thru in an initial twin rating as a sweetener. This machine was <80k with hrs to run.
So far its cost him 30k paint job(inc corrosion rectification), 10k worth of radios and rectifications, every 100hrs at least 2 pots off for low comps or oiling, numerous undercarriage rectifications including hyd powerpack overhaul and actuator replacements. Everything that could be worn on it was and has had to be replaced. I think just paying for the twin rating would have been the smarter option. Maybe just paying for your MECIR would be the smarter option in the long run for you? I don't think a <50k seneca 1 would be a wise investment
JS
A pilot i know of a couple of years ago bought a seneca 1 from QLD with the idea of putting it online, the flying school even thru in an initial twin rating as a sweetener. This machine was <80k with hrs to run.
So far its cost him 30k paint job(inc corrosion rectification), 10k worth of radios and rectifications, every 100hrs at least 2 pots off for low comps or oiling, numerous undercarriage rectifications including hyd powerpack overhaul and actuator replacements. Everything that could be worn on it was and has had to be replaced. I think just paying for the twin rating would have been the smarter option. Maybe just paying for your MECIR would be the smarter option in the long run for you? I don't think a <50k seneca 1 would be a wise investment
JS
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'BCY' I think from all the posts here you get the hint about the PA34 1,
Making money from aviation in general is a very unstable environment & doing it by way of hiring out a PA34 with such poor handling on one donk would have to be the quickest way to loose yr money. Spend it on yr wife, you would be surprised at what 'extras' you get along the way
CW, now bungled up in the same boat as PAF on another thread & banned
Making money from aviation in general is a very unstable environment & doing it by way of hiring out a PA34 with such poor handling on one donk would have to be the quickest way to loose yr money. Spend it on yr wife, you would be surprised at what 'extras' you get along the way
CW, now bungled up in the same boat as PAF on another thread & banned