Airway fees are close to 50€/h
My previous plane was a G36TN
After 2 years and close to 400h in the Meridian, the costs per NM are almost identical comparing the two planes.
Emir wrote:
Flying overweight on paper and in reality are two different things.
Yes, from a safety point of view very different things, but Im not sure the CAAs will make the distinction, if confronted with an overload and on the papers, it says MTOW 1999 kg? My comment was more in a legal direction, most likely to come up if there is an incidence that requires investigation. Along the same lines my instructor told there had been cases with pilots/operators being charged back in time for all flying done at 1999kg assuming all previous flights had been done overweight too. If there is any truth to this, there certainly is a legal/financial risk to fly overweight also on paper.
THY wrote:
Along the same lines my instructor told there had been cases with pilots/operators being charged back in time for all flying done at 1999kg assuming all previous flights had been done overweight too. If there is any truth to this, there certainly is a legal/financial risk to fly overweight also on paper.
I’ve never heard of something like that and it has been discussed several times on this forum.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The original Conti 520 did not really enjoy to be flown ROP and showed significant durability issues when handled wrongly.
You are too modest :) There were people like yourself who knew how to handle it and got the desired results. In other words, the Conti 520 had to be operated “just so” in order to reach any reasonable useful life and Piper found out to their frustration that quite a few of their well to do customers had a better wallet than engine handling skills.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The Lyco at these days has been much more robust against “pilot abuse” and at a time where AVGAS was basically for free in the US, consumption did not matter really
Yea, I can see that. It is starting to bite them now though. And it is a pity that a very capable airplane was “castrated” to lower specs due to incapable handling.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Piper found out to their frustration that quite a few of their well to do customers had a better wallet than engine handling skills.
So true!
Does anybody know if the Jetprop conversion has an EASA stc – if so can someone point me to it?
Amazing so poor many aviation businesses represent themselves on the internet. I found an old folder that pointed me to www.jetprop.com which (at least now) has nothing to do with the Jetprop conversion. Googleling Rocket Engeneering Spokane (which I recall is the ones doing the conversion) – doesnt bring their webpage (if the even have one)?
Rocket Engineering
The founder Darwin Conrad is apparently over 80 now and the planned younger generation was killed in a crash years ago. From what can be read they never did get back to normal after COVID and seem to only supply parts to the existing fleet working part time.
Jetprop conversion has an EASA stc
I do not have it but there must be one, as there are many German registered JetProps flying for decades.
A search on “jetprop” here finds many hits, including this one where a famous German guy says it can go on D-reg.
Presumably if you can buy the STC then you can install it IAW the STC.
If the STC owner dies, what happens to the STC rights? In theory they are vested in his estate… @silvaire or @ncyankee may know more.
Yes I have searched allready “Jetprop” here but most information is very old (like that thread 10 years old) and seams to be from a time when at least some basic information was available online, like that jetprop.com homepage. This one is more recent but mostly about tax issues related to import. Like Peter says what happens if the owner of the STC is no longer here? Im certainly no expert in STCs – reason for my questions. I talked to a guy the other day about Jetprop N-reg to EASA reg import and he asked for the EASA STC and I can find nothing to point to.
