Aircraft recommendation for 200-300 nm business trips with easy access for dogs

[Henning]

That's an interesting recommendation that was completely off my radar. Any particular reason to go with a Cardinal over a 182 besides price?

Door size and back seat access, general access overall is best in class. (Except accessing the fuel caps). Looking at your load, you may be close with a lot of luggage, but with only 200-300 miles, you can leave some fuel behind.

 

[Henning]

Everything I've read about them makes me think I don't want a retractable gear Cessna.

The Cardinal RG does not have the gear saddle issues the other ones do.

 

[Henning]

Even notice the answers to these "which plane" questions tend to almost always be whatever plane the responding poster owns?

"I have a 300lb wife, and I weigh 400lbs, and have 2 250lbs kids, what plane should I get?"
"A Mooney but make sure it's the short C body"
"RV-8"
"Cri-Cri"

Where is this dumb water people keep drinking?

I try to figure which ones will best fit what they are looking to do.

 

[3393RP]

Even notice the answers to these "which plane" questions tend to almost always be whatever plane the responding poster owns?

"I have a 300lb wife, and I weigh 400lbs, and have 2 250lbs kids, what plane should I get?"
"A Mooney but make sure it's the short C body"
"RV-8"
"Cri-Cri"

Where is this dumb water people keep drinking?

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[tree96]

...but very easy to beat when it comes to loading dogs, especially big or crated ones.

Or being 6'8" and trying to fold yo self into one to be a safety pilot.

 

[Stryker1112]

Ive been thinking about getting a plane just like you are looking for. I keep coming back to a Cherokee 6 because its simpler, carries a lot, I know I can handle it.

It not as sexy as others, but its cheaper, carries anything, Im not going to land wheels up, I dont have to fix a retractable gear, and my flights will be <400 NM. I cant justify the cost for something like a A36 although Id love to

 

[weilke]

Ive been thinking about getting a plane just like you are looking for. I keep coming back to a Cherokee 6 because its simpler, carries a lot, I know I can handle it.

It not as sexy as others, but its cheaper, carries anything, Im not going to land wheels up, I dont have to fix a retractable gear, and my flights will be <400 NM. I cant justify the cost for something like a A36 although Id love to

If you fly 48k nm per year, the lower per-mile fuel consumption of either a Lance or a A36 will pay for whatever higher complication they require. In addition, as you fly fewer hours to cover the ground, the cost you have to allocate for engine, prop and pressure pumps is going to be lower.

I have the maintenance expense file for our partnership A36 going back 10 years. The plane flies 200-400hrs/year. If the gear expenses add up to $1000/year (gear motor overhaul, gearbox overhaul, 1 episode of replacing a bunch of bushings) it would be a lot. Relative to what it has cost to maintain engine/prop and the fuel that has been burned, the gear expenses are a rounding error.

 

[Henning]

Ive been thinking about getting a plane just like you are looking for. I keep coming back to a Cherokee 6 because its simpler, carries a lot, I know I can handle it.

It not as sexy as others, but its cheaper, carries anything, Im not going to land wheels up, I dont have to fix a retractable gear, and my flights will be <400 NM. I cant justify the cost for something like a A36 although Id love to

H's got a 670lb load with 200 lbs of luggage. The 177RG has around 1000lb useful load. That leaves room for 55 gallons of fuel. Figure it does 145 kts on about 11gph, that's about 4.5 hours plus better than VFR reserve. That's 630-650 miles, depending on the climb, with reserves. To take 400 miles worth of fuel to account for reserves and head winds on his 200-300 mile trip he only needs 30 gallons, or 182lbs of fuel leaving him 150lbs below gross. Figuring $4gal fuel, the 177RG making the 300 mile trip for $91 in fuel, or about $42hr in fuel. The Cherokee 6 will fly the same flight profile/speed (145kts) burning 16gph at a cost of $64hr or $128 for the trip for a difference of $22hr.

Retractable gear does not cost $22hr, more like $2hr. When you also add in that the IO-360 costs around $23k to overhaul and the IO-540 around $29k on the same 2000 hr TBO, there is another $3hr there. That gives the the Cherokee 6 an additional an extra $23hr operating cost, or $2300 per 100 hour year, and provides him no extra utility, plus the 177RG gives the best view and visibility GA has to offer.

 

[James331]

I was dead set on a Cessna 210 at one point. I went so far as to contact a broker known for repping 210s, but after doing my research (much of which was done here), I am convinced 210s are "dead planes flying" due to the expense of certain parts for the landing gear that are almost guaranteed to fail at some point.

Go ask the operators in Africa.

210s ain't gojg anywhere

 

[Henning]

Go ask the operators in Africa.

210s ain't gojg anywhere

I wouldn't be so sure, Africa is developing their own aircraft industry, at the rate this guy is progressing, he'll likely take the market in another decade.

http://youtu.be/TWOyM9Axn-w

 

[James331]

I wouldn't be so sure, Africa is developing their own aircraft industry, at the rate this guy is progressing, he'll likely take the market in another decade.

http://youtu.be/TWOyM9Axn-w

Yeah, that's not replacing the 210 any time soon

 

[Ravioli]

Here come the flames.

Maintenance on the A36 may be more costly than a Lance, Saratoga, or Six.

I'm a partner in a 6/300 and the rear doors are great for loading. Also, you'll need to decide on your preference for retract or fixed gear.

 

[warthog1984]

Good aircraft:

Cessna- 177, 182, 205/206

Piper- 6/lance

Beech- v tail, 33?, 36

Others???

Don't get fixated on Waas and IFR panel mount GPS. Lots can still be easily flown with dual VORs and a portable GPS like a Garmin 496/696 for situational awareness is cheap.

 

[ronnieh]

Have to wonder how two dogs fit in the business model, oh well that is another thread. Does the "several" 2-3 hour trips a week raise any concerns? The OP is a PP student. He wants to go ahead and get his instrument which is commendable. It seems like these trips may be a must be completed. First of all the dispatch ability of any single piston is going to be hard pressed to meet that kind of schedule IMO (and experience). Add into the equation winter weather and spring storms in the mid west coupled with a very inexperienced pilot and trips that are very important. The OP may want to step back and take a deep breath. It might be advisable for the first 6 months or so that if the dogs are not essential to the business he might want to hire a seasoned pilot to take the place of the dogs. An old freight dog, or seasoned instructor might be very useful for a while. There is MUCH that a freshly minted instrument pilot with very little total time doesn't know.
I do not mean to rain on a parade. It is very good for GA to be considered a tool in a small business. One would do well to actually evaluate the actual usefulness. At this point, Tum, several will come out of the woodwork giving examples of their own flying. You will see posts of newly minted private pilots making three 600 mile trips a week and only canceled two times in three years. Take these anecdotal trips with a grain of salt. Find a local business man with a single engine plane that he uses some for business. Offer to buy him lunch and find out how it works in the real world. Best of luck to you.

 

[Alexb2000]

Have to wonder how two dogs fit in the business model, oh well that is another thread. Does the "several" 2-3 hour trips a week raise any concerns? The OP is a PP student. He wants to go ahead and get his instrument which is commendable. It seems like these trips may be a must be completed. First of all the dispatch ability of any single piston is going to be hard pressed to meet that kind of schedule IMO (and experience). Add into the equation winter weather and spring storms in the mid west coupled with a very inexperienced pilot and trips that are very important. The OP may want to step back and take a deep breath. It might be advisable for the first 6 months or so that if the dogs are not essential to the business he might want to hire a seasoned pilot to take the place of the dogs. An old freight dog, or seasoned instructor might be very useful for a while. There is MUCH that a freshly minted instrument pilot with very little total time doesn't know.
I do not mean to rain on a parade. It is very good for GA to be considered a tool in a small business. One would do well to actually evaluate the actual usefulness. At this point, Tum, several will come out of the woodwork giving examples of their own flying. You will see posts of newly minted private pilots making three 600 mile trips a week and only canceled two times in three years. Take these anecdotal trips with a grain of salt. Find a local business man with a single engine plane that he uses some for business. Offer to buy him lunch and find out how it works in the real world. Best of luck to you.

Do you also quote divorce statistics at a rehearsal dinner?

 

[ronnieh]

I guess that went over my head. I would hope any couple getting married would look at all aspects including the good the bad and the ugly well BEFORE the rehersal. Talking about thread drift. Apologies to the OP.

 

[Alexb2000]

I guess that went over my head. I would hope any couple getting married would look at all aspects including the good the bad and the ugly well BEFORE the rehersal. Talking about thread drift. Apologies to the OP.

PILOTS! Sheesh. You tell an aspiring new pilot that he should forget about holding any kind of schedule or reliability using piston GA, he doesn't have and will not have the skills to even make the decision for some time, and that he should leave his dogs at home. Why not just post a link to Southwest ticket sales and the dog pound drop off procedures?

=joke BTW

 

[ronnieh]

PILOTS! Sheesh. You tell an aspiring new pilot that he should forget about holding any kind of schedule or reliability using piston GA, he doesn't have and will not have the skills to even make the decision for some time, and that he should leave his dogs at home. Why not just post a link to Southwest ticket sales and the dog pound drop off procedures?

=joke BTW

This is getting a little out of hand. Where did I say the OP could not hold "ANY kind of schedule or reliability" with a piston single. I do doubt he can keep a schedule of SEVERAL times a week, week in and week out. He may have the skills to decide to not go but, he insinuated the trips needs to be made on a regular schedule. I thought and still do that he might be benefited by taking a mentor pilot rather than the dogs IF the dogs are not needed for the business at hand. Reading comprehension give you a lot of trouble?

 

[SoonerAviator]

This is getting a little out of hand. Where did I say the OP could not hold "ANY kind of schedule or reliability" with a piston single. I do doubt he can keep a schedule of SEVERAL times a week, week in and week out. He may have the skills to decide to not go but, he insinuated the trips needs to be made on a regular schedule. I thought and still do that he might be benefited by taking a mentor pilot rather than the dogs IF the dogs are not needed for the business at hand. Reading comprehension give you a lot of trouble?

Ronnie, I believe his original comment about the divorce statistics was meant tongue-in-cheek. Your comment (while correct and helpful) was just sort of "raining on the parade" regarding the possibility of using GA as a great solution of the OP's problem. No need to take offense, smiley face or not.

 

[Henning]

Have to wonder how two dogs fit in the business model, oh well that is another thread. Does the "several" 2-3 hour trips a week raise any concerns? The OP is a PP student. He wants to go ahead and get his instrument which is commendable. It seems like these trips may be a must be completed. First of all the dispatch ability of any single piston is going to be hard pressed to meet that kind of schedule IMO (and experience). Add into the equation winter weather and spring storms in the mid west coupled with a very inexperienced pilot and trips that are very important. The OP may want to step back and take a deep breath. It might be advisable for the first 6 months or so that if the dogs are not essential to the business he might want to hire a seasoned pilot to take the place of the dogs. An old freight dog, or seasoned instructor might be very useful for a while. There is MUCH that a freshly minted instrument pilot with very little total time doesn't know.
I do not mean to rain on a parade. It is very good for GA to be considered a tool in a small business. One would do well to actually evaluate the actual usefulness. At this point, Tum, several will come out of the woodwork giving examples of their own flying. You will see posts of newly minted private pilots making three 600 mile trips a week and only canceled two times in three years. Take these anecdotal trips with a grain of salt. Find a local business man with a single engine plane that he uses some for business. Offer to buy him lunch and find out how it works in the real world. Best of luck to you.

That depends on where you live. If you live in the Southwest, you have 355 VFR flyable days a year. I wish people would fill in the 'where are you' part of their profile, as advice on lots of things really needs to consider the operating area as well.

Living in SoCal, I can remember 2 times I had to cancel due to weather in 3 years.

 

[ronnieh]

The OP said the Midwest. He said several trips a week without defining several.
So lets just assume for arguments sake that is three times a week with each round trip at 3 hours. Nine hours a week times 50 weeks in a year is 450 hours per year. Forget weather, put him in Arizona does this sound realistic? Now Add in Midwest weather. I am not raining on anybody's parade. I have spent a few thousand hours in the corporate world (re: flying for business) no single engine but cabin twins. I would not even try to keep that schedule.
Is there a place for SE piston, owner flown, in business. I think there is. However I just thought the OP might need to do a reality check. Get some opinions from somebody doing it. See if his goals are realistic before he spends $150K and then realizes he can not use a plane like a car. I still think the mentor pilot is a good idea. If the dogs are a necessary part of the equation then so be it. I am not down on dogs. Just throwing out ideas for the OP to think about. Most likely worth about what he paid for them, like all the other ideas.

 

[Alexb2000]

This is getting a little out of hand. Where did I say the OP could not hold "ANY kind of schedule or reliability" with a piston single. I do doubt he can keep a schedule of SEVERAL times a week, week in and week out. He may have the skills to decide to not go but, he insinuated the trips needs to be made on a regular schedule. I thought and still do that he might be benefited by taking a mentor pilot rather than the dogs IF the dogs are not needed for the business at hand. Reading comprehension give you a lot of trouble?

Have a nice day Ronnie.

 

[ronnieh]

You too, its all good.

 

[Tummler]

The OP said the Midwest. He said several trips a week without defining several.
So lets just assume for arguments sake that is three times a week with each round trip at 3 hours. Nine hours a week times 50 weeks in a year is 450 hours per year. Forget weather, put him in Arizona does this sound realistic? Now Add in Midwest weather. I am not raining on anybody's parade. I have spent a few thousand hours in the corporate world (re: flying for business) no single engine but cabin twins. I would not even try to keep that schedule.
Is there a place for SE piston, owner flown, in business. I think there is. However I just thought the OP might need to do a reality check. Get some opinions from somebody doing it. See if his goals are realistic before he spends $150K and then realizes he can not use a plane like a car. I still think the mentor pilot is a good idea. If the dogs are a necessary part of the equation then so be it. I am not down on dogs. Just throwing out ideas for the OP to think about. Most likely worth about what he paid for them, like all the other ideas.

Hey Ronnie, thanks for your input and no offense taken.

What makes my traveling requirements somewhat unique is that we will not need to be in any one place on any given day. The only thing that matters is that we spend 2 or 3 days per week in one location and 2 or 3 days per week in the other location. Said another way, the primary reason for flying is to reduce the amount of windshield time spent per week. Besides, I much prefer windshield time in a plane than in a car.

The reason we want to take our dogs on a business trip is to address your primary concern of desire to get home causing questionable decision making. I work with my wife, and we do not have any kids. If we take our dogs with us, we greatly reduce the pressure the get home, especially since there is a hotel that allows dogs very close to our second location.

Hope that clears up a few of the issues.

 

[Dr. O]

So, to the OP - scheduled flights and General Aviation don't usually work well together. ymmv.

If I were going to do what you propose I would be thinking an instrument rating and a twin would be the minimum equipment requirement...
Thunderstorms and Ice are going to be your two major issues in the midwest - sometimes they are even simultaneous here, but not real often.
As I write this it is raining, and slowly melting the freezing rain that came down during the night before it turned to warmer rain. Little weather quirks like this will cause a pause in your routine. We are not even able to get the tractors out into the field this morning much less go flying (not while I am still not suicidal that is)

Another issue you have not mentioned is dispatch reliability. What is your back up plan when the bird is down for three weeks waiting on parts?

Let me opine for sheer get-there toughness an Aztec would be my first choice. Non turbo. Boots and a hot plate. Yeah it is a fuel hog. But generations of red lobster haulers understood that the good points of the aztruck outweighed the bad.

Good luck

 

[ronnieh]

That changes the whole dynamic. Your OP said "several times a week. If it is one trip a week and the destination is not fixed or the particular days of the week that is a totally different scenario. I may very well be doable. The mission parameters do matter. Best of luck

 

[weilke]

Hey Ronnie, thanks for your input and no offense taken.

What makes my traveling requirements somewhat unique is that we will not need to be in any one place on any given day. The only thing that matters is that we spend 2 or 3 days per week in one location and 2 or 3 days per week in the other location. Said another way, the primary reason for flying is to reduce the amount of windshield time spent per week. Besides, I much prefer windshield time in a plane than in a car.

The reason we want to take our dogs on a business trip is to address your primary concern of desire to get home causing questionable decision making. I work with my wife, and we do not have any kids. If we take our dogs with us, we greatly reduce the pressure the get home, especially since there is a hotel that allows dogs very close to our second location.

Hope that clears up a few of the issues.

If it wasn't for the dogs, this sounds very doable, and this is how:
- you need to have the flexibility of moving a trip one or two forward or back. Weather in the midwest rarely remains unflyable for more than a day or two, this is not like the coasts where you can be socked in for a week.
- you need to have the willingness to leave your plane at the outstation and rent a car if the weather doesn't support flying and you need to be at your other shop the next day. Come back when the weather passes and pick up the plane (costs $30/day).
- you'll probably need icing protection. In your budget, that means a booted 210, a booted A36 or an A36 with TKS (well, the last one is outside of your budget). If you can stomach higher direct operating cost, a Seneca could also do the job. If you fly 300+hrs/year, you will have no difficulty remaining current in a twin, it'll just cost more to operate on a per-mile basis.


In the end, you'll be best off
- finding a dog-sitter
- upping your purchase budget by 100k
- buying a SR22 with inadvertent TKS and DFC90 autopilot

Talk to an aviation tax professional. While you can't take bonus depreciation on a used plane or expense the purchase (like you could on a new plane some years back), buying a used plane and flying it for business will still have quite a tax effect. Like any other vehicle, you can still depreciate the value of a used plane on a MACRS schedule and all your flying and recurrent training expenses are direct business expenses. So while 'upping your budget by 100k' sounds like a flip recommendation, if you have a professional look at it relative to your after-tax expenses over a period of 5 years, the difference may be a lot less.

 

[Tummler]

If it wasn't for the dogs, this sounds very doable, and this is how:
- you need to have the flexibility of moving a trip one or two forward or back. Weather in the midwest rarely remains unflyable for more than a day or two, this is not like the coasts where you can be socked in for a week.
- you need to have the willingness to leave your plane at the outstation and rent a car if the weather doesn't support flying and you need to be at your other shop the next day. Come back when the weather passes and pick up the plane (costs $30/day).
- you'll probably need icing protection. In your budget, that means a booted 210, a booted A36 or an A36 with TKS (well, the last one is outside of your budget). If you can stomach higher direct operating cost, a Seneca could also do the job. If you fly 300+hrs/year, you will have no difficulty remaining current in a twin, it'll just cost more to operate on a per-mile basis.


In the end, you'll be best off
- finding a dog-sitter
- upping your purchase budget by 100k
- buying a SR22 with inadvertent TKS and DFC90 autopilot

Talk to an aviation tax professional. While you can't take bonus depreciation on a used plane or expense the purchase (like you could on a new plane some years back), buying a used plane and flying it for business will still have quite a tax effect. Like any other vehicle, you can still depreciate the value of a used plane on a MACRS schedule and all your flying and recurrent training expenses are direct business expenses. So while 'upping your budget by 100k' sounds like a flip recommendation, if you have a professional look at it relative to your after-tax expenses over a period of 5 years, the difference may be a lot less.

Weilke, after putting some serious thought into this question over the last 24 hours, I am arriving at similar conclusions. Despite the mocking up thread for people suggesting a Mooney, I am intrigued by its possibilities.

Apparently J series after 1982 have back seats that are easily removable, and when removed, it creates a large flat space that extends into the baggage area. This would be a perfect space for two decently sized dogs. Further, several Mooney owners claim their dogs don't have a problem stepping up onto the wing and climbing in. They simply lower the flaps during their preflight to protect them from the dog. With careful fuel management, I should be able to carry most, if not all, of the cargo plus dogs, especially if I go on that diet I intend to start any day now.

Now, if I really want to take the ice issue by the horns, 1,500 fpm would be nice: http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...ston/1989/Mooney/M20K+305+Rocket/2073515.html

 

[weilke]

90% of the trips will be you alone and a couple of boxes for a same-day out&back. No wife, no dogs. Any plane will do.

 

[ronnieh]

Tum, as far as to dog or not I have no opinion. Several make and models would do this mission. When you changed the scenario to one trip a week with the flexibility you describe then it is much different. Being able to choose the destination and more important the days makes a huge difference. Leave on Sunday come back Wednesday. Leave on Wednesday and come back Saturday or any combination in between. This flexibility puts you squarely in the place where GA does make sense. A Mooney, maybe, they are a little tight, good speed, great plane. Lance or Saratoga would work with the large doors in the rear. Actually $150K gives you lots of options. Boots are nice but in reality you need to avoid ice in a single. None of the singles IMO have usable on board radar but, the XM is quite good. Just make sure you understand what you are looking at
I still think a mentor might be useful on the first few trips that is IFR, especially spring time weather. Most instrument training is heavy on the approaches with little time in actual en route. In my experience the en route can be the most challenging. This is where a mentor might make sense for a few trips, JMO.

 

[AggieMike88]

...or Beech Model 36 Bonanza -- it's all about the big back door and the removable last row of seats (making lots of room for a big crate).

A friend owns a 1968 model for this reason. He likes the aircraft for all of the other major reasons, but the large back door is what sold him on getting an A36

 

[Tummler]

When you changed the scenario to one trip a week . . .

It will still be two to three trips a week, flying out in the morning and returning at night. It just doesn't matter which days of the week we make the trips. For little more than the price of a nice hotel room, we can fly home most nights.

As for the mentor recommendation, I absolutely agree. Growing up, I was a horrible risk taker of epic proportions. At some point, something clicked in my head, and I now have no taste for throwing caution to the wind.

 

[ronnieh]

Well that again changes the dynamic. The flex ability helps but you are still talking 9 hours or so a week. In other words you have 5 days to get in three round trips. That is going to be tough. Also now your dispatch ability starts taking a beating. You are looking at 400+ hours a year. However, you can "mix and match". Some weeks you might get in two flights and driving the third and some weeks perhaps no flights. You should certainly be able to complete at LEAST half of the trips by plane. With a little imagination and flexibility I think you could get reasonable utilization. Small single engine aircraft flown by private pilots are just not suited very well for scheduled use.
To get the high completion rates you desire you are looking at FIKI twins with a professional pilot. Some would say it even requires kerosene (not sure your short trips would require that level).
I think in your case it is worth a look. Watch the weather for the next three months and mark on a calendar the number of trips you think you could have flown.
Not sure how much you pay for hotel rooms. A high performance complex, all in, insurance, maintenance, fuel, hangar, $200/ hour? That is $600 for a round trip. Lets be optimistic and say $450 for a round trip. The only thing cheap in aviation is the pilot.

 

[ChemGuy]

Another potential issue with OP's initial post that I don't think anyone has mentioned. Couldn't he run into potential issues with 61.113 if he is hauling items for sLe in his shop? Seems to me the Mangiamele letter might cause an issue with the "compensation", not that I agree with it.

Just a thought.

 

[ronnieh]

Yes if he is hauling stuff to sell. In fact that whole scenario does raise questions.
Is the OP flying a company owned airplane that puts him in the position of being a corporate pilot for compensation. Using personal plane but with passengers. Good grief that may open a can of worms. I never think of that because I had a commercial 18 months after my private so it never comes up.
Perhaps some of the more level heads might want to discuss it for the benefit of the OP. Worst case might be he needs to get his commercial which is no big deal. Something to consider.

 

[Tummler]

Another potential issue with OP's initial post that I don't think anyone has mentioned. Couldn't he run into potential issues with 61.113 if he is hauling items for sLe in his shop? Seems to me the Mangiamele letter might cause an issue with the "compensation", not that I agree with it.

Just a thought.

I just read the Mangiamele letter. The real interesting question it raises is the treatment of flights to our other business location when my wife is a passenger. Unless there is an exception for family members in the regulation cited in the Mangiamele letter, it looks like our business would not be allowed to pay for expenses related to the flight. Of course, I know absolutely nothing about the applicable regs, so there may be something else out there that would be controlling.

 

[weilke]

I just read the Mangiamele letter. The real interesting question it raises is the treatment of flights to our other business location when my wife is a passenger. Unless there is an exception for family members in the regulation cited in the Mangiamele letter, it looks like our business would not be allowed to pay for expenses related to the flight. Of course, I know absolutely nothing about the applicable regs, so there may be something else out there that would be controlling.

Mangiamele dealt with reimbursement to an employee for using an aircraft not owned by the company.
Whether it has any bearing on the principal of a business flying a plane owned by the business has to my knowledge not been determined. You are not receiving reimbursement, you fly a plane owned by the company and you pay the operating expenses with a company credit card.

Btw. you may have to look at the workmans comp implications of flying on company business.

 

[3393RP]

Mangiamele dealt with reimbursement to an employee for using an aircraft not owned by the company.

Whether it has any bearing on the principal of a business flying a plane owned by the business has to my knowledge not been determined. You are not receiving reimbursement, you fly a plane owned by the company and you pay the operating expenses with a company credit card.

Btw. you may have to look at the workmans comp implications of flying on company business.

Jeezus. It's no wonder that GA is dying.

 

[Alexb2000]

Jeezus. It's no wonder that GA is dying.

After a couple more pages, the OP's next post….


"Hi Searay forum, new poster here, I was going to buy a plane, but after asking a simple question about what airplane to buy on POA. I was convinced of the danger, insane cost, administrative nightmare, and lack of any reliability using GA. So I quit flying all together and now I am shopping for a boat."

 

[Henning]

A friend owns a 1968 model for this reason. He likes the aircraft for all of the other major reasons, but the large back door is what sold him on getting an A36

The back door is nice. Hopefully the PT-23 revisions will come through and I can have a GTSIO 520 powered P-36 Bonanza.