Views on Cessna Conquest
12-13-2011, 05:52 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: Square root of the variance and average of the variation
Posts: 1,602
Originally Posted by Boris Badenov
Hmm, low time pilot looking to get into a fast turboprop for a minimum of dosh?
What you need, sir, is an MU-2!
What you need, sir, is an MU-2!
12-13-2011, 06:22 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 279
Std Deviation:
I did about 1400 hours of the same stuff you did and I agree with everything you said. It's a brilliant airplane and 95% of its bad Rep comes from people being inadequately trained or current.
But yes, I was being a little bit sarcastic as the OP sounds like the summary of the logbook of a guy who crashes a Mitsi (no offense to the OP)!
I did about 1400 hours of the same stuff you did and I agree with everything you said. It's a brilliant airplane and 95% of its bad Rep comes from people being inadequately trained or current.
But yes, I was being a little bit sarcastic as the OP sounds like the summary of the logbook of a guy who crashes a Mitsi (no offense to the OP)!
12-16-2011, 04:40 PM
#15
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Originally Posted by Champeen07
My dad is looking for a plane that can travel decent distances fast and haul him and his friends. I would be his pilot but I only have a few hours in a king air as turbine time so I know the easier the plane is to fly the better. I just havent heard much about the conquest and thought they wouldnt be as big a chunk of change as a KA would be. Not too many small turbines out there that don't cost upwards of a million or so.
12-16-2011, 05:05 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by DirectTo
Neither Conquest is exactly a speed demon...depending on how often your dad plans on using it, how many friends he needs, and how much money he has laying around, a cabin class piston twin might be a better idea.
Not to mention, with a 'few hours in a King Air', you're going to be a hell of a lot cheaper to insure in a piston.
I fly a 414 pretty regularly. Excellent airplane.
Not to mention, with a 'few hours in a King Air', you're going to be a hell of a lot cheaper to insure in a piston.
I fly a 414 pretty regularly. Excellent airplane.
12-17-2011, 05:24 PM
#17
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by DirectTo
I fly a 414 pretty regularly. Excellent airplane.
Originally Posted by Boris Badenov
Hmm, low time pilot looking to get into a fast turboprop for a minimum of dosh?
What you need, sir, is an MU-2!
What you need, sir, is an MU-2!
12-17-2011, 05:56 PM
#18
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by Champeen07
My dad is looking for a plane that can travel decent distances fast and haul him and his friends. I would be his pilot but I only have a few hours in a king air as turbine time so I know the easier the plane is to fly the better. I just havent heard much about the conquest and thought they wouldnt be as big a chunk of change as a KA would be. Not too many small turbines out there that don't cost upwards of a million or so.
While the Van is no speed demon, flying around Texas the slower speed isn't much of a factor (from Dallas, Odessa, Houston, and San Antonio are all within two hours).
If you are thinking about flying it for him, you might want to start off talking with an insurance agent. I don't know what your times are, but the insurance for an Private IFR Owner Operator cost was so much higher than hiring a Commercial or ATP, the extra money is about the same as the pilot's salary.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MDT06
Regional
46
09-26-2008 06:59 AM
