banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 19:32 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 08:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/09/09
Posts: 3930
Post Likes: +795
What you need is a PA32


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 08:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/24/19
Posts: 398
Post Likes: +187
Location: Birmingham
Aircraft: Vans RV-6; Archer II
Username Protected wrote:
What minimum useful load would you be comfortable with on a 300 mile trek? 1070lbs of people. We’ll assume 5000’ runway at sea level. In my mind for a trip that distance you wouldn’t need to top off the tanks.


1400(ish) lbs. - options could be a straight tailed lance, an a36tn, or an older conti Malibu. The lance is probably the best option for you, but the Malibu is clearly the more advanced ship.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 08:41 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/06/22
Posts: 30
Post Likes: +12
Thoughts on an Aztec? Seems to be biggish cabin, high useful load, cheap, and slow. Considering most trips will be short, it makes sense to me having never been in one.

From an pov of ignorance it seems to make sense for the following reasons:
B58 will do it for sure, but cabin seems tighter and higher acquisition cost than Aztec.
P32, C210, A36 all would be great for M1 but on M2 (keeping in mind that we are owning the fact that the long trip just won’t work and limiting trip to short flight) it seems like we would be looking more at day trips with the wives. Or at least not a multiple pairs or shoes trip. These limitations are also not a dealbreaker, because that would be a lot of fun. But it seems like the acquisition cost is actually less for an Aztec and the opex doesn’t look bad.

Aerostar 610 looks awesome but I’m concerned it’s too fast and won’t like the 3700’ runway I’d like to get into. Would love some more feedback on this plane. It’s fast! One note is that the 3700’ runway would be M1 only. So never more than 4 people and never a bring a bag trip, just in for meetings and back home. All heavy trips could be to longer strips.

What am I missing on the Aztec? As stated before, cheap planes are usually cheap for a reason. I’m hoping that speed is the only reason.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 08:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6058
Post Likes: +4635
Username Protected wrote:
What am I missing on the Aztec? As stated before, cheap planes are usually cheap for a reason. I’m hoping that speed is the only reason.


It’s a piper….I’ve trained in them but I wouldn’t personally want to own one, and I am not a fan of stabilators


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 09:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Aztec has the passenger loading dynamics of a suburban with no rear doors

Is also much easier to find a great baron and to resell a good baron

The airplane market is shockingly efficient. Anyone in the world has relatively cheap access to any airplane that fits their mission well. Unless you have a very unusual mission (yours is not) popular airplanes are popular for a reason and likely to be the right choice.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 09:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/18/11
Posts: 1026
Post Likes: +584
Aircraft: Seabee Aerostar 700
Username Protected wrote:
Mission 1: business travel for me, two other people, plus pilot. Trips will be there and backs in the 150-250nm range about two times a week. Once or twice a quarter we’ll do an overnight trip of 700nm.

Mission 2: Three couples goofing off. Long trip would be 700-1000nm probably 2-3 times a year. Could see 1-2 weekends a month of a 250nm or less trip. Need enough useful load to take some bags, but not expecting to haul the kitchen sink.

The quandary: this needs to be the same plane. I’d like it to be economical enough to use often for work in the short trips but have enough room to shoot down to the Bahamas or Nashville to goof off.

My buddy who’s going to own the plane with me will be able to fly mission 2. I’m still learning to fly so the business trips will be with a pro pilot when said buddy is not available. He is a commercial crop duster pilot and flys about every day. He is twin licensed, IFR, etc, etc. He owns several ag planes, but is looking to get in to a family plane. I’m mostly here to help pay for it and enjoy the benefits.

We are bouncing around all over the place:
Barron 58
Cessna 210
A36 Bonanza
Cessna 414

Looking to stay below $350k on acquisition cost but could spend up to $450k. Doesn’t need to have mahogany bookshelves but would be nice to have enough runway appeal to make the wives feel special.
OPEX needs to be low enough to remotely justify not driving the 3-4 hour business trips, hotel, etc. To get the time back would be worth a lot to me.

Thanks in advance for the insight on a topic that I’m sure has been discussed often.



I looked at this again and I still think a Seneca II or III with known ice will fill your need and be economical. there are several on Controller that fit you price range. it is very good at the 150 to 250 mile trips where speed is not too important. unless you live in high country the fact it is not pressurized is not a big deal with a pilot O2 bottle, (which is how I flew one for 6 years.) It was flown mostly in the midwest doing this exact mission, with occasional trips to the mountains.


it will do mission 1 very reliably and if you want for some trips do mission 2 if people and luggage are light. (fyi a Seneca II can be turned into a III) the rear ground level entry door is excellent for loading passengers


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 11:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/22/18
Posts: 1096
Post Likes: +1039
Location: DFW and SW PA
Aircraft: What's next?
I like these discussions as they often make me think about aircraft other than what I usually consider.

Doing the math, this is roughly 150-ish flights a year. That's a really good clip.

Mission 2 is about 13% of the flights and requires significantly more airplane than Mission 2. If you don't go heavy enough with the aircraft, the spouses won't want to repeat the trips if they aren't comfortable. If they aren't "pilot wives", then they want comfort and certainly don't want to suck oxygen from a bag.

If you insist on one airplane for both, you'll be putting the wear and tear (OpEx) for a Mission 2 airplane that flies 150-ish flights a year.

This screams small turbine to me, if your buddy can get the insurance. He may have 50,000 hours, but if not a lot of that is Multi time, he's going to get hit pretty hard with the first year insurance bill on a KA or Cheyenne or whatever. SETP seems logical.

Maybe buy the Mission 1 airplane for the 1st year or 2 and then reevaluate the needs.

_________________
Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle. — Abraham Lincoln


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 12:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6058
Post Likes: +4635
Username Protected wrote:
This screams small turbine to me, if your buddy can get the insurance. He may have 50,000 hours, but if not a lot of that is Multi time, he's going to get hit pretty hard with the first year insurance bill on a KA or Cheyenne or whatever. SETP seems logical.


I had only 10-20hrs of multi before I bought my KA, and zero turbine time- I got my multi rating the day before title exchange on the KA, and my first year insurance was actually cheaper than my second year insurance (market dynamics)

around 2.1% of hull

Always get quotes before following conventional wisdom


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 12:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
He may have 50,000 hours, but if not a lot of that is Multi time, he's going to get hit pretty hard with the first year insurance bill on a KA or Cheyenne or whatever. SETP seems logical.

Maybe buy the Mission 1 airplane for the 1st year or 2 and then reevaluate the needs.


Second sentence is wise advice.

First paragraph I disagree. No SETP under 7 figures would do Mission 2. And I've never seen a first year insurance bill high enough to make buying a starter plane make sense. Maybe buy a 150 before your PC12 ... but buying and selling a baron would quickly eat up any insurance savings by coming to a king air with 200 more multi hours.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 12:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/22/18
Posts: 1096
Post Likes: +1039
Location: DFW and SW PA
Aircraft: What's next?
Brian - when was that? If it was more than 12 months ago, that market has changed quite a bit. While not aviation, I live in the insurance world and the aviation insurance market has changed dramatically over the last year.

Charles, you're probably (almost certainly) correct. As hot as it is, I pay little attention to the SETP market. Although:
Username Protected wrote:
And I've never seen a first year insurance bill high enough to make buying a starter plane make sense.
.. I have, often. I don't see as much as Tom or TJ (they being brokers), but I see quite a bit.

It can in the right situation. I recently saw a $37k insurance bill with very low limits and low hull value for someone with 3000 hours but less than 100 MEL hours trying to step in to a MU-2 or C-90. Push a Twinkie or Travel Air around hard for 3-4 months... Pad the "MEL within the last year" time on the insurance app... sell it for about what you paid for it... It's paid for itself (or come close) year 1 or certainly by year 2.

_________________
Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle. — Abraham Lincoln


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 13:21 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 10/06/16
Posts: 114
Post Likes: +182
Location: Tucson, AZ (winter) & Brunswick, ME (summer)
Aircraft: T210, Aerostar 702P
Mission 2 becomes a lot more viable with four, rather than six, people onboard. That change makes the previously-suggested high end singles and light twins viable.

My $0.02: pressurization should be a minimum requirement. Many planes can support this revised mission and fit within your capex budget: P-Navajo, P-Baron, Aerostar, 400-series Cessna.

Loading four into an Aztec is much easier than loading six. My recommendation would be a turbo Aztec (favors short fields and useful load), or an Aerostar 601P (favors speed, and is pressurized). A 58P Baron nicely meets the mission (for 4, not 6) but probably exceeds your acquisition budget.

Good luck


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 13:36 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/18/11
Posts: 7681
Post Likes: +3685
Location: Lakeland , Ga
Aircraft: H35, T-41B, Aircoupe
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft
A malbu similar to this is probably your bst choice.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 13:47 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 10/05/09
Posts: 286
Post Likes: +130
Location: Portland, Oregon
Aircraft: MU-2F
"Tripp,
I hate to be the nattering neighbob, but there is no plane that fits your requirements with that budget."

I respectfully disagree. F Model MU2 would do the job at the purchase price range noted, if you could find one. The issue will be operating costs and pilot training. My full fuel payload is 950lbs, and that fuel will get you more than 1000nm. Plane does 260KTAS mid weight on 56-60gph at FL240-250. Better dispatch reliability than a pressurized piston twin on a similar cost per mile. I have 235 hours now since Sept 2020 with no flight cancellations for maintenance so far. I am still happy with my purchase and ownership of this plane and am pretty sure there isn't any other twin turbine plane you can own for less. Someone earlier said a PA46 is an "all weather" plane. Gotta disagree on that as well. I have 3300 hours in P210s and even a FIKI plane isn't enough in any significant icing. Piston singles do not climb fast enough a lot of the time to keep the ice witch at bay and icing can be a problem all year long at the altitudes these planes work best at. Any real ice accumulation hurts the climb rate even more and often the worst ice is often at the top of a layer which can prevent you from getting on top. They can deal with short exposures and the boots can help with escape, but you will want to minimize your exposure to icing in these planes, and sometimes the best course is stay on the ground, even in a FIKI piston single.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 20:11 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/21/14
Posts: 280
Post Likes: +86
Location: KPDK
Aircraft: C421B MU2-40 Solitai
There are only 2 planes that can meet all of your requirements, including a/c. A C421 or an MU2. If you can find a good F model MU2. You'd be set it does everything you need and is relatively inexpensive and very reliable. Not to mention 270-280ktas. It will easily go into a 3700' airport, even on a hot day. The 421 will do the job too, it's just not as reliable. With the price of planes these days, you may want to consider a 73-74 421B. I had one and loved it, more importantly my family loved it. It is very comfortable for 6 people. 6 people will not enjoy a Baron. After all a Baron is a Bonanza with an extra engine. Good plane but very tight.
Final note, other than annual training and 20% more expensive insurance, my MU2 cost no more to operate than my 421.

_________________
Sandy


Top

 Post subject: Re: New mission, new plane advice
PostPosted: 25 May 2022, 20:21 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
I also have the Lee Aerospace Coolview windows, they help tremendously to keep the heat from building in the first place

Squawk 7500...

What do you think of visibility out of those windows? It it a replacement for the factory window, on an insert on the inside?

I have the electronically dimming LCD windows and the visibility through them when they're in "clear" mode is noticeably poor. They haven't aged well.

Back to the main thread - I second, or third, or 4th an MU-2.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.CiESVer2.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.