Cessna 400

[coloradobluesky]

If there is IMC in the high mountains, there is usually ICE and FSS wont even let you file a flight plan if there is an airmet for icing and you dont have FIKI, at least that is the way Ive seen them handle it. If it is 55 degrees F or below on the ground, it is usually about 34 degrees or below at 11,000' and that is usually BELOW the MEA across the Rockies.

You're better off going VFR across the Rockies. The MEAs into Los Angeles are pretty high also. Some high mountains surround that area.

 

[dans2992]

If there is IMC in the high mountains, there is usually ICE and ATC wont even let you file a flight plan if there is an airmet for icing and you dont have FIKI, at least that is the way Ive seen them handle it. If it is 55 degrees F or below on the ground, it is 34 degrees or below at 11,000' and that is usually BELOW the MEA across the Rockies.

You're better off going VFR across the Rockies. The MEAs into Los Angeles are pretty high also. Some high mountain surround that area.

How does ATC "not let you file a flight plan"? Just curious, I've never heard of that.

I have little experience with ice, but I've heard controllers really don't know or care if you're FIKI.

 

[coloradobluesky]

When you call in and file, they say "we can't accept your flight plan right now unless you have FIKI, there is an icing airmet". Thats what they have told me. I have talked to other pilots who have experienced the same thing.

I was in Colorado Springs. I was headed north and there was a wall of clouds down to the deck just north of there. I landed and checked the weather and called flight service to file IFR. He told me I couldnt go without FIKI because there was an icing airmet.

So I waited. A King Air came in from the opposite direction and landed and I talked to the pilot and asked him if he encountered any ice. He said "Not only didnt I get any ice, those clouds arent the type of clouds to have ice" I asked him to file a PIREP and he did. I then called FSS to file, and even though there was still an airmet, they let me file when I pointed out the PIREP and said "I have what I need to be assured there isn't ice". I filed and I flew. (There were 35 knot winds on the surface and 60 knot winds at 10k, but thats another story). It all went ok.

Im not sure it always works like this, but that is what happend to me and like I said, I have talked to others.

 

[dans2992]

When you call in and file, they say "we can't accept your flight plan right now unless you have FIKI, there is an icing airmet". Thats what they have told me. I have talked to other pilots who have experienced the same thing.

I was in Colorado Springs. I was headed north and there was a wall of clouds down to the deck just north of there. I landed and checked the weather and called flight service to file IFR. He told me I couldnt go without FIKI because there was an icing airmet.

So I waited. A King Air came in from the opposite direction and landed and I talked to the pilot and asked him if he encountered any ice. He said "Not only didnt I get any ice, those clouds arent the type of clouds to have ice" I asked him to file a PIREP and he did. I then called FSS to file, and even though there was still an airmet, they let me file when I pointed out the PIREP and said "I have what I need to be assured there isn't ice". I filed and I flew. (There were 35 knot winds on the surface and 60 knot winds at 10k, but thats another story). It all went ok.

Im not sure it always works like this, but that is what happend to me and like I said, I have talked to others.

Ok, that sounds like FSS not accepting the flight plan, not ATC.

Not saying it's a good idea, but what if pilots file electronically? Do they run into resistance picking up their clearance?

 

[coloradobluesky]

Yes I should have said FSS (Ive changed it above).

That I don't know.

Try filing a flight plan electronically through an icing airmet and see what happens.

 

[txflyer]

Aerostar 601P Machen conversion might be worth a look if a used twin is being considered at all.

That's my 'dream ride for the money' that I would love to train up into.

If you could figure out how to put a head in one, you'd have pressurized comfort and long X-country performance out the wazoo. A very fast and comfortable airplane for the missions in the first post. Twice the burn, but hey, look at all the avgas you can buy with the $500K you save off a new 400. About 100,000 gallons? Also, comfort and safety start commanding a premium when you say passengers and mountains. ...

If it has to be single, CompAir 8 ...... **** Yea! 40g.p.h. baby!

 

[Henning]

Not to hijack the thread, but I've been interested in a Malibu as well.

Currently, I'm flying a Comanche. Would a Malibu be about 1.5x the hourly cost? 2x? More? Even though the Mirage is newer, I'm thinking I might like the straight Malibu better since it can (and should) be run LOP.

Currently, I figure 14gph in the Comanche. I've also heard Malibus are very "maintenance intensive".

Figure the PA-46 will end up being over 3 times the total cost of operation when you figure in insurance, maintenance, fuel, and the bigger hangar.

 

[Dr. O]

By the time every expense is accounted for it costs me close to $200 an hour to fly a clapped out Apache.
And even if that is more than a glass panel crotch rocket costs, it is worth it to me for the second engine.

And I don't believe the crotch rocket can be flown for much less than 200 because most of you guys use funny math to do your figuring..
For instance on a $750,000 airplane, assuming you pay cash, you are losing more than $17,000 a year of income that 750 would bring in if you invested it in farm land (doh)
And if you are financing it - well, just bend over.

 

[Ted]

For the money and mission, a King Air seems like a better deal long term. I fly myself around the mountains in Colorado and Wyoming...non-pilots along for the ride in a piston single? nope...not just nope, NOPE. If you have a mechanical problem and have to go into a mountain airport IMC it will be a little too much excitement...will the pax put up with a two day delay because of freezing fog? will they even understand afternoon/evening thunderstorms? This is a mission for an experienced pilot as lead and the novice as co-pilot in a very capable aircraft. This is not a mission for a piston single w/a flatlander pilot.

No reason he can't learn, although obviously good education is required and strict personal minimums to start with an understanding that no go's will occur.

Plenty of pistons flying out there, as you know. Not necessarily a problem, even with pax, and a King Air at $1,000+/hr is a far cry from a $300-400/hr piston single or even twin.

 

[Clark1961]

No reason he can't learn, although obviously good education is required and strict personal minimums to start with an understanding that no go's will occur.

Plenty of pistons flying out there, as you know. Not necessarily a problem, even with pax, and a King Air at $1,000+/hr is a far cry from a $300-400/hr piston single or even twin.

You have a good point on operating cost. We all know that the pilot is the cause of most accidents and a more-capable aircraft just lets the pilot get into more trouble.

If they go the piston route then they better be ready to airline it or set and wait. Training and self-discipline will be key to operating safely on the over-the-mountains trips.

 

[Ted]

You have a good point on operating cost. We all know that the pilot is the cause of most accidents and a more-capable aircraft just lets the pilot get into more trouble.

If they go the piston route then they better be ready to airline it or set and wait. Training and self-discipline will be key to operating safely on the over-the-mountains trips.

Exactly. But, it's done every day (almost) and can be done. Or move meetings a day.

That said, there's often a way to do it. Take a trip I did last November as an example in the naturally aspirated 310. Montana to Seattle. Mountains and icing en route. Icing was over the state of WA. Went south to avoid it. Added 40 minutes to the flight, and no ice. Planned altitudes carefully, as well as turn back points. 50 kt headwinds for thefirst part of the trip, 50 kt tailwind for the last 200nm - whee!

 

[J3 Driver]

For the money and mission, a King Air seems like a better deal long term. I fly myself around the mountains in Colorado and Wyoming...non-pilots along for the ride in a piston single? nope...not just nope, NOPE. If you have a mechanical problem and have to go into a mountain airport IMC it will be a little too much excitement...will the pax put up with a two day delay because of freezing fog? will they even understand afternoon/evening thunderstorms? This is a mission for an experienced pilot as lead and the novice as co-pilot in a very capable aircraft. This is not a mission for a piston single w/a flatlander pilot.

Listen to this.

 

[Theboys]

I don't have a 400 but I do have a 350. They are great plane. Saying that I also have a pa46 malibu and it is a awesome plane. As far as expense, all of them are gonna cost more than you like to spend. If I had 3 of 4 people who wanted to go at same time I would pick pa46.

 

[dans2992]

How much more does the Malibu cost to operate?

 

[Theboys]

Very little more on fuel if any with your tas. The 350 has a few (recommended maintenance) items that can add up. I'm guessing pretty even. There are things I like about both. My passengers love the pa46 though. If I had to choose it wouldn't take me long to decide between them. I will say the long wing is annoying slightly on the ground but it flys great in the air.

 

[jfrye01]

Thanks for all the input, I appreciate all your comments! I'm letting them ponder it for a while...Aerostar is one of my personal favorite aircraft...man, I'd love to fly one of those! PA46 looks really nice for our mission, the pressurization is a huge plus.

 

[n20junkie]

We have a 400TT

Get a FIKI mooney!

 

[Everskyward]

Plenty of pistons flying out there, as you know. Not necessarily a problem, even with pax, and a King Air at $1,000+/hr is a far cry from a $300-400/hr piston single or even twin.

There are plenty of pistons here in Colorado but very few which do passenger charter. I can't think of any offhand. Sure you can wait out the weather or possibly find a way around it but your passengers are going to need to be more understanding. That's not to say that you will be able to go all the time in a King Air or equivalent, but there were many more days I would go in the King Air as opposed to the Cessna 320.

 

[Ted]

Thanks for all the input, I appreciate all your comments! I'm letting them ponder it for a while...Aerostar is one of my personal favorite aircraft...man, I'd love to fly one of those! PA46 looks really nice for our mission, the pressurization is a huge plus.

Aerostars can be pressurized. And they are MX hogs...

There are plenty of pistons here in Colorado but very few which do passenger charter. I can't think of any offhand. Sure you can wait out the weather or possibly find a way around it but your passengers are going to need to be more understanding. That's not to say that you will be able to go all the time in a King Air or equivalent, but there were many more days I would go in the King Air as opposed to the Cessna 320.

Agreed, but he's talking a Part 91 deal for his dad. While a C400 would be marginal and create a lot of no-go days, a King Air is major scope creep.

 

[Everskyward]

Agreed, but he's talking a Part 91 deal for his dad. While a C400 would be marginal and create a lot of no-go days, a King Air is major scope creep.

True. It's always the problem of deciding which is more important, economy or utility. Of course you could also decide on expensive and impractical but that's another problem.

Also, even though it is Part 91, he is talking about a business use which might mean that schedule is more important. But only he can answer that.

 

[Ted]

True. It's always the problem of deciding which is more important, economy or utility. Of course you could also decide on expensive and impractical but that's another problem.

Also, even though it is Part 91, he is talking about a business use which might mean that schedule is more important. But only he can answer that.

Correct. And I remember a very snowy day a few years ago where even the Sovereign was a no-go. Something about 4 ft of white stuff on the runway.

 

[Clark1961]

Correct. And I remember a very snowy day a few years ago where even the Sovereign was a no-go. Something about 4 ft of white stuff on the runway.

Last time I saw the Sovereign there was a full set of Blizzacks in a corner of the hangar - they're ready for that snowstorm now....

 

[Everskyward]

Last time I saw the Sovereign there was a full set of Blizzacks in a corner of the hangar - they're ready for that snowstorm now....

That might work! It flies better in the snow than it taxis...

 

[dtaylor]

I was in a hurry, I should have said rudder hold instead of yaw dampener. I can't think of another aircraft with that system. What year did that start?

Mid 2007

In terms of different rudder I was referring to the rudder hinge AD. Didn't that apply to the earlier models and the newer ones had the update from the factory?

Sure, sometime in late 2009 they switched to the new style hinges. All Columbia/Corvalis aircraft are required by AD to have the new hinges on by now. The AD forced the need to redesign the hinges, not the other way around.

 

[dtaylor]

The salesman/dealer I was talking with actually had 5 of them for sale at the time. I was certain that was the airplane for me. He talked me out of that and into a lesser priced sale. That was one of the things he said they had seen at their cessna dealership.

I'm glad to hear otherwise. I still love the airplane.

That's sad. I'd sure like to know why they think that. I've had my hands on about 75% of the fleet and we see 120 of them a year and I've only seen two gear problems. Both of those related to the gear bushings slipped out due to improper maintenance. There was even a bulletin back in 2007 to make sure shops knew...

 

[txflyer]

I'd mostly be hauling 1-2 people from Wichita to various oil refineries in Houston, Artesia, NM, Salt Lake City, and the corporate office in Dallas. The airplane would also be used for family trips (Indianapolis, Chicago, and Orlando being the most frequent). The turbo would be nice for heading across the Rockies between Denver and SLC.

When in doubt, always go back and study the mission. Forget turbo's unless you absolutely must have them imho.

You could get away with a simpler Aerostar 601 without the turbo's and pressure. They made them. Add A/C and figure out a head, and BAM! Fast twin economy mover. You're giving up the flight levels and go-no-go capabilities a little, but who wants to fly in the death zone much anyway unless absolutely necessary?

And you're talking a whole different animal with MX.

 

[docmirror]

Thanks for all the input, I appreciate all your comments! I'm letting them ponder it for a while...Aerostar is one of my personal favorite aircraft...man, I'd love to fly one of those! PA46 looks really nice for our mission, the pressurization is a huge plus.

The admin of ferrarichat.com has a C400, and he lives in Dallas. I can ask if you want to have a look at it or maybe a ride if you get down to big D anytime. He's a nice chap all around.

 

[Ted]

When in doubt, always go back and study the mission. Forget turbo's unless you absolutely must have them imho.

You could get away with a simpler Aerostar 601 without the turbo's and pressure. They made them. Add A/C and figure out a head, and BAM! Fast twin economy mover. You're giving up the flight levels and go-no-go capabilities a little, but who wants to fly in the death zone much anyway unless absolutely necessary?

And you're talking a whole different animal with MX.

Yeah, you could buy a naturally aspirated Aerostar. But if you're wanting to cross the Rockies with much of a semblance of reliability, I'd say that turbos are a requirement for the mission. I've never had an issue in a naturally aspirated plane crossing the Rockies, even with some crappy WX, but I've always found myself wishing I had turbos if I didn't if for no other reason than to make the trip easier and give me more options.

And instead of a naturally aspirated Aerostar, I'd go with a 310 any day. More reliable, just about as fast, better support, etc. However if you were going pressurized, an Aerostar wouldn't be bad if it otherwise met the mission.

Of course, Wayne pointed out that the Aerostar is the only plane he owned that tried to eat him out of house and home. For a man with his background, that's saying something.

 

[txflyer]

Yeah, you could buy a naturally aspirated Aerostar. But if you're wanting to cross the Rockies with much of a semblance of reliability, I'd say that turbos are a requirement for the mission. I've never had an issue in a naturally aspirated plane crossing the Rockies, even with some crappy WX, but I've always found myself wishing I had turbos if I didn't if for no other reason than to make the trip easier and give me more options.

And instead of a naturally aspirated Aerostar, I'd go with a 310 any day. More reliable, just about as fast, better support, etc. However if you were going pressurized, an Aerostar wouldn't be bad if it otherwise met the mission.

Of course, Wayne pointed out that the Aerostar is the only plane he owned that tried to eat him out of house and home. For a man with his background, that's saying something.

That's why I went back to his mission. He said turbo would be nice for the Rockies, but he's mostly flying oil tycoons around TX and the South.

A little housewife flew around the world in a normally aspirated single, so if she can do it, I'm sure an Aerostar can navigate the Rockies with a little planning.

The 601P's are so inviting in price because like a yacht, or jet, or a wife, the purchase price is not the issue, it's the upkeep. Phase inspections suck. If you look around, the straight 601's command a premium. And some of those motors are not stock I think. They're beefed up. They cook.

 

[Ted]

That's why I went back to his mission. He said turbo would be nice for the Rockies, but he's mostly flying oil tycoons around TX and the South.

A little housewife flew around the world in a normally aspirated single, so if she can do it, I'm sure an Aerostar can navigate the Rockies with a little planning.

Right, and the southern missions are fine with a naturally aspirated anything, de-ice useful and likely needed in winter.

While you can traverse the Rockies in a 172, that doesn't mean it's doable on anything resembling a schedule.

 

[dtaylor]

The admin of ferrarichat.com has a C400, and he lives in Dallas. I can ask if you want to have a look at it or maybe a ride if you get down to big D anytime. He's a nice chap all around.

I have about 15 at any given time you can look at!

 

[jfrye01]

Appreciate everyone's input, very informative replies here. We have decided on a P210 instead. I have stick time in a 210 and we figured it'll be a little cheaper to acquire and insure...and somewhat more practical of an airplane Thanks again, everyone!

 

[jesse]

Appreciate everyone's input, very informative replies here. We have decided on a P210 instead. I have stick time in a 210 and we figured it'll be a little cheaper to acquire and insure...and somewhat more practical of an airplane Thanks again, everyone!

They certainly seem like a decent airplane, but they're not without their quirks...

http://airfactsjournal.com/2014/09/logbooks-long-wonderful-flight-beginning-turbulence/

Personally in the single department I'd go A36 or Malibu. But I'm rather biased.

 

[docmirror]

I have about 15 at any given time you can look at!

That's nice. See that he checks out a OR built plane.

 

[dtaylor]

Excluding the TTx, there are only about a dozen of them built in Kansas. I typically don't buy the Kansas ones.

 

[Ted]

As Jesse said, they aren't without their quirks. I recall a 550 conversion is available, and that would be very worthwhile. A Silver Eagle would also be worthwhile, but that's a major purchase cost increase. I'd also agree with Jesse that I'd go for a Malibu first.

Good luck with it. They are neat planes and I think you'll find the pressurization, albeit small, will be very much appreciated, especially over the mountains. I know a good broker if you want his name.

 

[Henning]

True. It's always the problem of deciding which is more important, economy or utility. Of course you could also decide on expensive and impractical but that's another problem.

Also, even though it is Part 91, he is talking about a business use which might mean that schedule is more important. But only he can answer that.

But I'd look good in a Duke, and better in a Lear 24....

 

[Ted]

But I'd look good in a Duke, and better in a Lear 24....

Lockheed JetStar

 

[Henning]

Appreciate everyone's input, very informative replies here. We have decided on a P210 instead. I have stick time in a 210 and we figured it'll be a little cheaper to acquire and insure...and somewhat more practical of an airplane Thanks again, everyone!

Try to get an R model.

 

[docmirror]

P210 and practical. Two things one rarely hears in a GA conversation.

I'd make sure they have the 800 # for SWA in their phone contacts....