1 person commuter aircraft

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Husband and wife are both PPL-IA rated pilots, based in Puget Sound and have been renters until now, Wife has excepted a well paying job in SLC, husband would like a low operating cost aircraft to commute to SLT to see wife on as many weekends as they can. He can't give up his 6 figure pay check here.

Budget is a $50K buy in and minimal maintenance.

what aircraft would you advise ?

safety is a factor, but EXP-AHB are except able with in budget.
 
Last edited:
5.jpg
 
Wow thats 639 nm and looks like its over some ice producing hills. I'd want something FIKI, not sure you can get that for 50K.
 
Sounds like that is not an option then!

I was going to say something like a M20C ... 145 kts at 10.5gph.. 180hp lycoming..

But with only 52 gallons of fuel that is a non-stop plane only on a good day. Since this guy is flying by himself I am assuming he will want to make this flight non-stop as much as possible and save himself some time and money.

Thinking out of the box here.. a 172 RG will do nearly 140kts with a 180hp lycoming. Tons of them came with 66 gallon tanks. That means he can make the trip non-stop most of the time. A nice one can be bought for around 50k.

Service ceiling is 17,000 feet. Bring oxygen :)

http://www.172guide.com/models/172RG-82.aspx
 
Last edited:
How about buy two 25k airplanes and meet half way.
 
Over that terrain for reliable transportation on a regular basis, you're talking two engines and FIKI. Even for most weekends, there's a good chance of not getting back to the office for the next work week without that. But if they are willing to chance that, you can probably find a very nice Grumman Cheetah with really good IFR gear for that money, and maybe a less nice Tiger. Very low maintenance, and the best speed in class. You might also find some older retractables like an early Bonanza for more speed in that price range, but maintenance will be significantly more with two more cylinders, c/s prop, and retractable gear. Another possibility if they don't plan to fly together is a big-engine STC'd Yankee, but payload issues will probably ensue eventually.

If they're based in the Puget Sound area, have them talk with Ken Blackman at Air Mods NW about the Grumman options.
 
Ron Levy said:
Over that terrain for reliable transportation on a regular basis, you're talking two engines and FIKI. Even for most weekends, there's a good chance of not getting back to the office for the next work week without that. But if they are willing to chance that, you can probably find a very nice Grumman Cheetah with really good IFR gear for that money, and maybe a less nice Tiger. Very low maintenance, and the best speed in class. You might also find some older retractables like an early Bonanza for more speed in that price range, but maintenance will be significantly more with two more cylinders, c/s prop, and retractable gear. Another possibility if they don't plan to fly together is a big-engine STC'd Yankee, but payload issues will probably ensue eventually.

If they're based in the Puget Sound area, have them talk with Ken Blackman at Air Mods NW about the Grumman options.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that those aircraft are low maintenance and quick, but do they carry enough fuel to make the trip non-stop? A fuel stop will cost you 5-6 gallons and 45 minutes or more. If this is the primary mission of the airplane, that's going to add up to a lot of time and a lot of fuel. The 172 I mentioned can carry 66 gallons and still have 640lb useful load. Good for 720-850 nm with reserves. I know a nice headwind can necessitate a fuel stop, but with that range you at least have a good shot at a non stop trip.


Sounds like the potential buyer of the aircraft can pick and choose his weekend to fly, since he is not making hotel reservations etc. And if the forecast is crap and the airplane is stuck there, he can fly home commercially, and have his wife fly the plane back to him the next weekend with good weather. A couple commercial air tickets for the few times he gets screwed by the forecast over the next few years does not equal the cost needed to get a FIKI twin...
 
Last edited:
Delta Airlines, $262 R/T, 2 hour flight, non-stop.

In a Cessna 172, at 1278 miles R/T and 124 knots (no wind both ways? not likely), he's looking at a 5 hour trip both ways. At 9.5 gph, he's going to burn 97.9 gallons, so he's pushing $500 on fuel.

I'd take Delta for this mission... I'd get to spend more time with the bride, and can enjoy a drink enroute and higher dispatch reliability.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Delta Airlines, $262 R/T, 2 hour flight, non-stop.

In a Cessna 172, at 1278 miles R/T and 124 knots (no wind both ways? not likely), he's looking at a 5 hour trip both ways. At 9.5 gph, he's going to burn 97.9 gallons, so he's pushing $500 on fuel.

I'd take Delta for this mission... I'd get to spend more time with the bride, and can enjoy a drink enroute and higher dispatch reliability.
Click to expand...

Lets be realistic here. These folks are pilots looking for an excuse to buy a plane.
 
The direct route terrain isn't all that bad, for the west. For that budget and mission, something like an RV-6 is probably the ticket. Fast, fuel efficient. Fly it high and lean it out and it has the range to go non-stop (at least with the 160 hp motor).

That said, I can't see doing that flight more than a few times a year being much fun. For some routes, the airlines are competitive with GA.
 
dell30rb said:
I don't disagree that those aircraft are low maintenance and quick, but do they carry enough fuel to make the trip non-stop?
Click to expand...
No, and I don't know of a plane in that price range which will with normal headwinds westbound and IFR/alternate reserves -- not even your 66-gallon 172.

A fuel stop will cost you 5-6 gallons and 45 minutes or more.
Click to expand...
I'll buy the time, but not the fuel. Maybe half that gas.

All in all, I think this is a wishful thinking situation. Probably a lot cheaper and easier to use an airline which makes this run non-stop.
 
Some have already suggested the right aircraft for the job :lol: And they were right.:D

RV-6ASpecs.gif
 
TangoWhiskey said:
I'd take Delta for this mission... I'd get to spend more time with the bride, and can enjoy a drink enroute and higher dispatch reliability.
Click to expand...
That's probably what would happen anyway, most of the time, especially if he has a job where he needs to be back to work on a certain day. A trip like that might be entertaining in a $50,000 airplane, a few times, if you had a lot of time...
 
Ron Levy said:
No, and I don't know of a plane in that price range which will with normal headwinds westbound and IFR/alternate reserves -- not even your 66-gallon 172.

I'll buy the time, but not the fuel. Maybe half that gas.

All in all, I think this is a wishful thinking situation. Probably a lot cheaper and easier to use an airline which makes this run non-stop.
Click to expand...

westbound is tricky. with a 20kt headwind, the 172 will get you there with 1.2hrs in the tanks

at least you're pretty much guaranteed a non stop eastbound trip

5-6 gal is a bit high... looking at a POH for a 160hp airplane I am seeing about 3-4 gal. .5 flying the pattern, landing and taxing to the pump. 1.8 for taxi, takeoff and climb back to altitude. then tack on some extra for diverting to an airport not exactly on your route
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
westbound is tricky. with a 20kt headwind, the 172 will get you there with 1.2hrs in the tanks

at least you're pretty much guaranteed a non stop eastbound trip
Click to expand...
Don't bet your life or your ticket on that in either direction along that route. You make three or four trips over that route in a 172, IFR, and then tell us what you think,
 
Ron Levy said:
Don't bet your life or your ticket on that in either direction along that route. You make three or four trips over that route in a 172, IFR, and then tell us what you think,
Click to expand...

No one is betting their life. If you have to stop for fuel, you stop. I am assuming our pilot knows how to keep track of his fuel remaining and will stop if necessary due to headwinds or weather.

My point is not that he'll make it non stop every time, its that he'll get in many more non stop trips in an airplane with an extra 1.5hrs of fuel on it.
 
Having looked at GA for a similar commute I settled on: Delta Airlines :mad: .

Looking at that particular route, the lowest budget replacement for airline service is a mid 90s Mooney Bravo with FIKI TKS. It's not 50k, has plenty of systems to keep your friendly A&P busy and the fuel alone for that trip is going to be more than the airlines.
 
My thoughts so far.

a 100 series Cessna might be an option. but the maintenance won't fit.

There are options of not going high and thru the ice which is only a problem 6 months of the year.

I suggested this,

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1346213.html

top of his budget, but no maintenance they couldn't do them selves.
Equipment is good to go IFR, engine is tried and true.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Mooney Mite. Some had Lycoming O-145s in them. :)
Click to expand...
IIRC, Mite is ridiculously slow: 110 knots. On a retract! Cherokee goes that fast on a 160 hp engine. On that other hand, that RV-6 may be a good idea.
 
dell30rb said:
Sounds like that is not an option then!

I was going to say something like a M20C ... 145 kts at 10.5gph.. 180hp lycoming..

But with only 52 gallons of fuel that is a non-stop plane only on a good day. Since this guy is flying by himself I am assuming he will want to make this flight non-stop as much as possible and save himself some time and money.
Click to expand...

There's always Monroy long range tanks available. If you look, I bet you could find a M20C or E that already has them installed at that price range.
 
Ron Levy said:
Don't bet your life or your ticket on that in either direction along that route. You make three or four trips over that route in a 172, IFR, and then tell us what you think,
Click to expand...

try this for a route. PAE D-> BTG D-> BKE D->STL

that will allow you to go around the high rocks. and is not known as the ice machine that Victor 2 out of PAE is known to be. I've done this route many times in the 170, and yes some times this won't work either. but it is a lot lower and doable many time the airways across the tall stuff is not doable.

I think the GlassAirII will do the job well, they have easy 900 mile legs at their speeds.

No, I do not have the numbers or that particular aircraft but the ad says 160 using 8.5 gallons your not going to compete with that in any spam can.
 
RV-3 or an older Mooney come to mind. A car based at Cle Elum or Yakima might be a good plan for more reliably getting back to Seattle.

Brian
 
brcase said:
RV-3 or an older Mooney come to mind. A car based at Cle Elum or Yakima might be a good plan for more reliably getting back to Seattle.

Brian
Click to expand...

Why does every one believe you must go over the tall rocks?

Look at the altitude of the Pendleton Or airport, and the Dales airport and PDX, all below 1500' and no rocks in between, just one big river.
 
brcase said:
RV-3 or an older Mooney come to mind. A car based at Cle Elum or Yakima might be a good plan for more reliably getting back to Seattle.

Brian
Click to expand...

once on the west side under positive control, PAE is an easy do.
 
Tom-D said:
try this for a route. PAE D-> BTG D-> BKE D-> SLC

that will allow you to go around the high rocks. and is not known as the ice machine that Victor 2 out of PAE is known to be. I've done this route many times in the 170, and yes some times this won't work either. but it is a lot lower and doable many time the airways across the tall stuff is not doable.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you... everybody wants to go to St. Louis!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top