Hey,

I am PPL (ASEL and AMEL) with IR ticket and around 350 hours PIC over the past 30 years (with a LONG break until 2017). Never owned a plane before, but I am considering an airplane purchase for family travel (NOT corporate), roughly 100 hours per year or so.

Usual mission will likely be 6-700 pounds of people and gear going 700nm or less. I would like the plane to be capable of carrying 1000 pounds of people and gear up to 1200nm in 6 hours. I don't mind a refueling stop, but would like to keep the trip at 6 hours.

I don't have a lot of multi experience and really would prefer a single engine (for insurance issues mostly) if there is a plane that can accomplish this mission. Would prefer a plane with only 6 digits in the price, but if it's 7 digits, the first one better be a $1,xxx,xxx (or the wife might balk). Lower hourly operating cost a plus, obviously.

Piston or turboprop? Mirage or Matrix? TBM or Pilatus overkill? King Air 90? Aerostar? Cessna 340 or 421? Could a Baron or Bo make that time? Probably too much weight for a Bo, right?

Thoughts?

Joshua

Meridian?

Old twins would get the job done nicely. You can get a good 421 for under $500k. That is the "king" of pressurized piston twins.

Navajo is the choice for unpressurized, but kinda slow down low without o2. Seneca III is pretty economical.

Joshua,

Here's what I used when I went through this exercise.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1k4VcdrRHeKogd8sQU6iBPFMWrSLU7Oc5ADxp1dgxF5E/edit#gid=797415287
The left 5 airplanes were what we started focusing in on... Add data as you see fit, typical useful loads, expected trip lengths and cargo, etc... Feel free to copy, make use of, share...

Andy

I had a TBM A model that would do the 700 nm mission but would not do the 1200 mile without a fuel stop. With good weather and no west headwind you could do 1200 in 6 hours even with the fuel stop. If you are headed west in the winter, no way.

A newer TBM or a PC12 might do it. The nice thing about the Pilates is the potty and the leg room. Unfortunately both are going to be outside your hull budget. You might get into a king air but I am not sure on range and time. I think what you are describing is a Cessna Conquest or a Merlin.

Any turbo prop is going to require initial and recurrent training and getting insured at 400 total time is going to be a challenge. I would bet at least 50 hours of companion training and low liability limits might get you there but be prepared for 15k insurance costs.

Others with better knowledge will be along shortly. They will have better answers.

Joshua,
For a single with performance you have listed you have limited choices
a36 with tips in 70s airframe will meet payload but at 172kts will not do 1200 in 6 hrs
A36 TN with tips 70s airframe will meet payload and close to 1200 in 6 hrs up high
Your budget will buy an exceptional Malibu but maybe not payload
Your budget will buy a nice meridian but not sure on payload. If a stop is ok the pipers will fit for sure
Your budget will buy a bottom of the fleet TBM and meet your needs

You mentioned concern about insurance. Have you received quotes on the Malibu?
If you think a piston twin is a lot. You will be surprised on the Malibu and meridian.
A Cessna eagle turbine might work but I don't know about them. I was going to mention the money bravo or acclaim but will not meet load needs.
This is a beech forum so you will get very accurate stats on any beech product. The insurance co's to the right can quote you on beech or other aircraft.

A36TN is a great airplane, but no way will it carry 1000# of people and bags 1200nm in 6 hours (it needs a fuel stop and the associated extra approach and climb; when heavy is more like a 185-190KTAS airplane).

In the piston world, those figures are approachable in the big piston twin area, but if the budget allows near a million in hull and low 6 figure operating expenses per year, I'd look at the turboprop offerings. The alternative is to compromise on the time and capability end but save (a lot of) money in the piston world.

C421 or P-Navajo are good birds to look at in the piston side. No practical advice on the turbine side. Anecdotally, I've heard claims that you can run a Cheyenne for about what a P-Navajo/C421 would run in terms of operating expenses. If that's the case, very little reason to consider the P-Navajo.

For only 100 hours / year with that capability you should consider a piston.

Either a 421C or a Panther depending on specific trips and need for pressure. It looks like I'm going to a piston partnership plus turbine so if you go the Navajo route PM me. Regardless, I've owned a NA58, 58P, 421C, and the Panther PA31 so if you have questions I'd be happy to share my experience.

Good luck!

Pilatus

Joshua
An Eclipse will fit the bill. Have to do a fuel stop for the 1200 mile trip.

Full fuel payload on my airplane is 575 lbs.

It's an easy airplane to fly and very safe

200kt block speed is basically not achievable in a piston*. Even assuming no headwinds, climb and vectors will drop block speed much below cruise TAS. I did a study of 421 block speeds using FlightAware data years ago. It was 185.

1200nm is also beyond the range of almost all pistons and there's no way to make it under 6 hours with a fuel stop.

Multi turbine is tough to make economic sense at 100 hrs/year, so then we have

Meridian
TBM

Both available around $1mm. Both will need a fuel stop. Go sit in a Meridian (literally) and see if you like the cockpit ergonomics. A number of people don't.

* there is a very nice 56TC for sale here. That might do your mission

What you save on insurance for a piston twin (on the hull), you'll pay on the turboprop with increase hull value and more $$ for recurrent training (so insurance may not be the deciding factor).
it costs more to do an initial->annual TBM/Pilatus syllabus than a piston twin syllabus (my recurrent is about $1100).

I think I could operate a legacy TBM for roughly what I'm operating my C340 for (on an hourly basis), but the buy-in on my 340 was 30% of what I'd spend on a TBM, so as long as I own it i'm money ahead.

would be interested to hear what you get...

Interesting thread.

Since you haven't owned an airplane before....

A couple of random observations...

Make sure you look for/buy the plane that will fit 90% of the missions you describe. It's the last 10% that make it expensive.
My experience and talking with many other owners is that your actual missions differ substantially from what you thought you would do. The 1200 mile one will be a tough one, for instance. How often will you actually do that.,

700lbs and full fuel will also be tough...How often will you do that....

Etc...

I also know many owners who keep buyer bigger and faster planes and stop having fun in the process. I never see them at fly ins anymore, or breakfasts. Even though money is not a factor, they don't drag the thing out of the hangar for 100 mile flights.

Our next plane.... probably a used TBM ....(Turboprop, FIKI, pressurized).

In the mean time, we keep putting 300 hrs per year on our trusty old Bo who takes us almost anywhere we want to go.

How many 421s in your study flew 1200nm? Block speed increases significantly at max range vs a 1.5 hr avg flight.

What is the hourly on a Pilatus flying 100 hours per year?

How many 12 hour RTs do you think will happen at 100 hrs per year?

That limitation says piston.

A 56TC? Thats like recommending a Dodge Hellcat for family road trips.

If you can see yourself accepting the limitations of an A36, I think that would be a great first airplane. Its going to be 50 knots slower than your dream plane, but its hard to imagine something better to get started in. On the up side, it is only going to cost about 20% of your proposed budget, and you will be able to operate it for peanuts compared to some of the other choices out there.

Once you get a year or two under your belt, you may find that your idea of the ideal aircraft may have changed somewhat. A nice A-36 will be easy to sell and you will be much better equipped when making your next "must have" list.