The Best Plane for 10M.

[con-pilot]

Well, you sure have my vote for the old 72. Only problem is that you can have problems with weight limitations at a lot of airports that have enough runway normal 727 operations but cannot handle the weight of the dual wheels of the main gear.

Point in case is where I use to park in Phoenix Sky Harbor. We had to park on steel plates in the summer or we would sink into the asphalt.

But, she does burn a bunch of fuel. Then again, for the 35 some odd million dollars you would save as compared to buying a new BBJ you can sure buy a whole lot of Jet-A.

(By the way, one can operate a medium weight 727-100 all day from a 5,000 foot runway, unless the OAT gets real hot.)

 

[IronManNDFW]

I was living in Honolulu about 6 years ago. The bank you refer to upgraded to a Falcon 50. They do Mainland & Japan trips in it.

Last year when I was there all I saw was G-III, IV, V, CL601-3AER, C-X, and of course 707JT.

I have heard about the outfit that uses LR36's. The only baggage is a toothbrush!

 

[G100driver]

I was living in Honolulu about 6 years ago. The bank you refer to upgraded to a Falcon 50. They do Mainland & Japan trips in it.

Last year when I was there all I saw was G-III, IV, V, CL601-3AER, C-X, and of course 707JT.

BTW how can you tell the difference between a 601-3A-ER vs 601-R vs 604?

 

[some_dude]

Lead, if you go to Simuflite for your Falcon 50 recurrent, one of those guys is (or was, a few years ago) one of the Falcon 50 ground instructors.

About 15 years ago I was in Tucson for Lear 35 recurrent. We had a couple of guys from Hawaii who operated a 55 and a 35 for some bank over there. They flew the airplanes to the mainland once a year for maintenance and recurrent. It was amazing listening to those "professionals" in ground school... One guy said that the only thing he didn't like about it was on the return trip they'd sometime get the low fuel light just prior to descent. It was amazing how several in the class thought that these guys were Lear Gods.

LS

 

[blzr]

Sure, Gramps, anything you say.

There's a very nice corporate DC-3 based near me also. That thing can carry 12 passengers pretty comfortably, don't know about Hawaii though. Of course, he could put in sleeper bunks since the crossing would take about 12 hours if it can do it.

I'd bet that DC-3 will be flying when your 28 year old Sabre 65 is pop cans!

As to the Gramps thing, I bet I'm a bit younger than you, and much much better looking than your old crusty a$$.

As to the second one, I doubt that the venrable DC-3 will be anywhere in the next 10 years except the CAF and Smithsonian.

Ahh, what's the use. I ould like to fly a new shiney jet, but that ain't going to happen where I am, so I gotta fight for my bird when eople throw rocks at her.

 

[G100driver]

blzr:

Look at it this way, you have opprotunity to fly a piece of history. Enjoy it, just do not fool yourself into believing that is the "best" way to go in 2007. The new Mode S requirements in itself will most likely be the death of many of these "classic" airplanes.

Another point, this person wants an airplane to go to HI. Any person who goes to HI in Sabre ought to have his head examined and then have his certs pulled for being an idiot.

Give it rest. I am not trying to be mean to you, just give you a reality check.

PS Have you ever met some dude? The dude is pure chick magnet. You must get laid every night!

 

[Lead Sled]

Lead, if you go to Simuflite for your Falcon 50 recurrent, one of those guys is (or was, a few years ago) one of the Falcon 50 ground instructors.

Well that probably would cinch it for me. Not a lot of judgement shown in my humble opinion.

LS

 

[blzr]

blzr:

Look at it this way, you have opprotunity to fly a piece of history. Enjoy it, just do not fool yourself into believing that is the "best" way to go in 2007. The new Mode S requirements in itself will most likely be the death of many of these "classic" airplanes.

Another point, this person wants an airplane to go to HI. Any person who goes to HI in Sabre ought to have his head examined and then have his certs pulled for being an idiot.

Give it rest. I am not trying to be mean to you, just give you a reality check.

PS Have you ever met some dude? The dude is pure chick magnet. You must get laid every night!

Yeah, I knew about the HI thing. I was just giving my opinion about the under $10M thing. I would not attempt a trip that long over water in the Sabre.

 

[pilotviolin]

So far the only logical plane that has been brought up is the 50.

G II & III: No because I have already seen a flight department go under because of the operating costs. Burns a lot of gas, and it is an old airplane. Mx issues. 25 year Europe rule is something we would deal with too.

727: Same as above. We want something we can take normal GA airports.

Sabre: Blzr can only talk about this plane, although it has nothing to do with the HI problem.


I think we would do better around 15 M. Has anyone seen a Ce-680 in HI?

 

[G100driver]

I think we would do better around 15 M. Has anyone seen a Ce-680 in HI?

Yes, I have seen them over there. It sounds like it is a bit marginal as well, especially if you need to fill it up with people. Plus I think that you have to take a number to get one.

15 million is a better number. You might be able to find an older 604 or a 900 in that range.

 

[Lead Sled]

Yes, I have seen them over there. It sounds like it is a bit marginal as well, especially if you need to fill it up with people. Plus I think that you have to take a number to get one.

15 million is a better number. You might be able to find an older 604 or a 900 in that range.

And $20 million would be better than $15 million and $25 million...

Come on guys, if your budget is $10 million then that's the budget. If runway performance is an issue (as it was in our case) then a DA-50 is probably the most workable solution for $10 million. If runway performance isn't an issue then an older challenger may work. Everything else mentioned have issues that make them unworkable in the long-run.

LS

 

[con-pilot]

And $20 million would be better than $15 million and $25 million...

Come on guys, if your budget is $10 million then that's the budget. If runway performance is an issue (as it was in our case) then a DA-50 is probably the most workable solution for $10 million. If runway performance isn't an issue then an older challenger may work. Everything else mentioned have issues that make them unworkable in the long-run.

LS

I agree with your statement, however, with one more point on the older Challenger vs the straight Falcon 50. If one is going to operate out of high and hot airports like Aspen in the summer. The 50 is much better.

 

[Lead Sled]

I agree with your statement, however, with one more point on the older Challenger vs the straight Falcon 50. If one is going to operate out of high and hot airports like Aspen in the summer. The 50 is much better.

Like I said, if runway performance is an issue as it was for us (we fly in and out of Aspen frequently) then the 50 is the only real contender given the parameters given in the original question. Period.

LS

 

[belchfire]

Lots of old 72's out there...some DC-10's, L-1011's and 74's. Well, you did specify a big cabin...