This thread is so much fun, we have all been there in some way or another. I think if I was making the trips you propose I would stay with a turbo single with TKS and good weather detecting equipment. If you are carrying family that is a different story.

A high performance single will not save you much money though. I compare my costs with a buddy who flys a TN A36. I burn about a third more gas than him and go a little faster as long as we stay below 10,000. He is faster as the turbo kicks in. The item that really got my attention was when he overhauled his IO550. The cost was almost twice as much as I paid to do one of my IO470s about 3 years ago. So, in my opinion our costs are comparable when you consider the capital cost of his bird is about 3 times mine.

TAT Cirri is perfect for this mission.

Didn't know that an overhaul is that much more expensive for an io 550 than a 470...

To be fair, mine was Western Skyways and his was a boutique shop. (Bill Cunningham?)

I love these debates so much more than the cirrus vs any single debate. One thing that may not have been covered with operating cost between a twin and the cirrus is the parachute. Depending on what year you buy that is a 12-15k bill. That puts a pretty good dent towards overhauling that second engine. It gets repacked on calendar time so you have to write that check whether you fly a lot of not. The other question is what is your load that 20% that your are t solo? If it's more than you and a small wife the turbo cirrus won't hold the weight. Most turbo cirrus models before G5 hold about 920-960lbs. With 81 or 92 gallons of fuel, you're at around 400lbs left. I personally would love a 55 baron. The crazy thing is I've never ridden in one, I need to scratch that itch.

Shawn,

This is a good point. The parachute repacking is +/- $15,000. It must be done even 10 years so the expense is about $1500 per year. If you only fly 100 hours per year (and that seems low for a Cirrus but the math is easy) the cost is $15 per hour which will pay a part of the second engine overhaul as you point out.

With respect to fuel there can be no argument that the typical 55 or 36 can carry more. The question is whether it needs to. I frequently fuel to the tabs (60 gallons) or perhaps a little more because that is all the mission requires, or if flying with several people they usually wan to stop. I had a very few flights in Bonanza with tip tanks where I actually used the range of the plane. So, it is either a disadvantage or it isn't. For me there are other operational advantages which are more valuable. Luckily we all still have lots of choices for our individual needs!

A G5 is not part of the discussion at $200K.

Lets talk about G2 Cirrus and their capabilities if we are going to compare to a B55.

I'm not talking about a G5 Cirrus. I'm talking about a Cirrus. The parachute cost is the same. The operational considerations of weight vs. range are the same albeit the number are slightly different. (I don't think a Twin Cessna or Aerostar should be either but obviously some don't agree - hell this is BT ) Feel free to ignore my post if you like.

Well...


That's my fault. I was responding to Shaun, and misread his weight numbers to be from the G5 not before it...so... I was wrong. I assign myself Two POHs and a Sport Aviation.

Tony - I would never ignore your posts :bud:

Here is an Aerostar that meets the price point:

http://www.theflightshop.com/Cataspx644.html

If operating cost is paramount:

http://m.controller.com/ListingDetail/I ... tegoryId=6




The majority of flights in my plane I'm alone (just the dog) or have one passenger.

Schedule a visit to Virginia, I'm happy to give you a ride.

You'll be hooked.

Here's a 600.

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd ... &dealerid=

No pressurization in a 600, but also much less stuff to maintain.

For a twin the 600 has very reasonable $/mile operating costs.

Visit Aerostar-Forum.com.

For $200 there are good 58P full FIKI out there not needing much. I'm in that same market now. I sold one of the best 58s NA last summer. Miss it.

This is true I flew a G3 turbo for a while and 60 gallons would get us about 2.5-3 hours up the road depending on how you run it. That works pretty well for most situations. Im the kind of person that likes to do long hauls. Stopping costs so much time. A slower airplane that goes non stop will have a faster block time than an airplane that has to stop. I am in my late 20s as well as most of my passengers, our bladders can go the distance, so they get the ''we will be in the air for 5 hours, we have the pee gel bags but use the pot before we leave."

While not a popular choice on this, or most aviation sites, in the twin Cessna category also consider a P337. I love mine. They are turbo charged, pressurized and air conditioned. I get +/- 182 KTAS in the mid to high teens on 11.6 GPH per engine ROP or 10.6 GPH per engine LOP, each at 65% power. 123 gallons usable gives you five hours and 900 NM, plenty for most needs.

This is my first pressurized twin and the only one of those I was considering (Aerostar 601P, Cessna 340, 414 and P Baron) that did not require formal school. The pressurization system is very simple. Once you move to pressurization, it is really had to move back. Add in air conditioning and it makes for a very comfortable airplane. You'll wonder why you didn't make the move a long time ago.

And you can buy one ready to go for 1/3 to 1/2 of your budget.