First plane for family of 5

Half Fast said:
Almost any airplane is only as reliable as your checkbook. Much depends upon how and how much you will use it, how well you maintain it, and how and where you will store it when it's not being used. Short of buying something brand new with a manufacturer's warranty, you can expect an expensive repair to pop up at any time.

With that in mind, there are indeed decent 310s inside your $250k limit. On some of them, you might have to settle for a mid-time engine, or older avionics, but that can still be quite servicible and reliable.


As an alternative, you can have a $500k airplane for $250k if you find a partner. I know several people who are partners on planes, and typically they're getting all the use they want. Depending upon your specific situation and mission, a partnership might be a good option.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. I've definitely considered a 310. I'm leaning away from twins for my first plane though. I think maintenance of most singles will take some getting used to and don't want to throw in the potential financial risk of a twin until the maintenance of a single doesn't make my wince any more. And I'm thinking a twin may be adding more complexity than I'd like.
And I should say that $250k WITH a partner may be at the top of what I want to spend for now because there's so many reliable option for less than that. Things may be different in the future. I have aspirations of a C340 (or maybe 421) for a future plane. But that would be many years away.
 
The Malibu/PA46 airframe is good. Instead of a twin piston, you might want to consider a Meridian (turbine single) instead.
 
Some thoughts…

Insurance may, or may not kill you. One person might have issues with a $3k tab. Others might be able to stomach $10k and sleep well at night. Only you can decide what $ figure for MX and Ins will ‘kill you.’

The Cessna 182 is the best all-around, Swiss Army knife airplane imho. If I had to downsize to piston single world that’s what I would have. But, you can’t cram 5 into one comfortably without someone having to straddle the empennage. So that would point me a 206. Or a Saratoga/6 if you like Flavor P or prefer club seating.

Finally, it’s not just the bodies, it’s the stuff. Lifting 5 people and stuff separates the men aircraft from the boy aircraft. Both poundwise and sizewise. Even if each person only takes a 24lb, carryon roller, the weight andspace become serious issues in any of those planes
 
JBray said:
And I should say that $250k WITH a partner may be at the top of what I want to spend for now because there's so many reliable option for less than that.
Click to expand...
So much depends on how much cushion you might or might not have on top of the $250k figure. If an unexpected engine overhaul can't be afforded you are stuck with a plane that you can't fly and maybe can't sell.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Finally, it’s not just the bodies, it’s the stuff. Lifting 5 people and stuff separates the men aircraft from the boy aircraft. Both poundwise and sizewise. Even if each person only takes a 24lb, carryon roller, the weight andspace become serious issues in any of those planes
Click to expand...
In 40 years of C206 ownership I don't ever remember a time when I didn't depart with full fuel (80 gallons, or roughly 500 pounds). That still leaves roughly 1000 pounds of useful load for passengers and baggage. At that point it really just boils down to how much each passenger weighs to determine how much "stuff" you can legally carry. But no matter what you have a lot of options, the major one being carrying less fuel and just making an interim stop. (With a family of five, a small spouse, and normal sized kids that is unlikely to ever be an issue.)

I'll never forget my preflight astonishment when my wife and I planned our first trip from Vermont to Alaska in 1998. I weighed every piece of "stuff", from the paper charts to the 280 pound 250cc Ducati motorcyle that fit in the cabin along with all the survival gear, camping gear, tarps, tools, chairs, clothing, shotgun, water, and all the "little" stuff that adds up. We were nearly 400 pounds UNDER gross weight.

Alaska01w.jpg
 
Last edited:
robin ardoin said:
Yea….and it’s not the purchase price of either twin mentioned but the cost to fly and maintain that really knocks it out of the ballpark budget wise.
Click to expand...

Yeap. I would love to own an Aerostar. I can find reasonable ones for less than I paid for my Mooney. But at 3x - 4x the maintenance costs, and more than 3x the fuel flow, nope.
 
JBray said:
Thanks for the reply. I've definitely considered a 310. I'm leaning away from twins for my first plane though. I think maintenance of most singles will take some getting used to and don't want to throw in the potential financial risk of a twin until the maintenance of a single doesn't make my wince any more. And I'm thinking a twin may be adding more complexity than I'd like.
And I should say that $250k WITH a partner may be at the top of what I want to spend for now because there's so many reliable option for less than that. Things may be different in the future. I have aspirations of a C340 (or maybe 421) for a future plane. But that would be many years away.
Click to expand...
Twin is roughly three times the maintenance of a high performance single. For example, look into replacing the fuel selector handle to fuel selector cable in a C414. It's an $800 cable. And a lot of labor. And so on.

Realistically, with a few rare exceptions being sold by pilots as the they age out, good condition C340s and C421 will become rarer and rarer. Only their capital acquisition costs are "cheap."

A turbo 206 would probably do you good service even as your family grows. It might just fit in the 250k cap. But you'd still do well to start with a C182. Possibly a C205 which is a fixed gear early model C210, or a "Super" 182 with 260 injected rather than 230 carb hp.

Although I have flown the -235 and Cherokee 6's a fair amount, I have never found them as nice to fly as the high wing Cessnas. Each to his own.
 
For a family of 5 I’ll take the Cherokee 6 300 any day over the Cessna don’t forget the 6 has a large baggage area behind the firewall and how the rear door is arranged really easy to access, I fly with a friend who has a very nice 1972 model it has some speed mods and a mid time engine good auto pilot he bought it 2 years ago for 179 k in cruise 145 to 150 kts and a very comfortable plane the big back doors and the club seats is what I like , 4 big guys and bags , full fuel going to Mexico no problem
 
@JBray also think of insurance costs. It would cost me $1600/yr for a 182 but the lowest quote on a 210 was $8k/yr. I was told that'd drop $1-2k once I hit 100hr time in type. Twins are even higher. The 6 seats on my 205 costs $1k more than a 182 and they're practically the same darn plane.

Remember, it's not the price of the plane that kills you, it's the yearly costs that drain you. Annual, insurance, oil, fuel, hangar, and engine/prop overhaul.
 
dbahn said:
So much depends on how much cushion you might or might not have on top of the $250k figure. If an unexpected engine overhaul can't be afforded you are stuck with a plane that you can't fly and maybe can't sell.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I could pay for an unexpected overhaul with a partner at that price. And after awhile I imagine the operational cost would settle in to $2,000 or so per month which would keep flying fun for me. And the wife happy :)
 
wheaties is not far off on those numbers. A p210 is around 8K at the 100+ hour TiT mark with a hull value at 300K. A twin is more, but after 100 hours, the percentage rate seems to be about the same as the high $$$ piston singles. I think the 421 and a 210 is about the same (or close to it) ratio wise by hull value. An 182 is like 2K for $180K hull value if I remember correctly a few years ago.
 
Anthem said:
wheaties is not far off on those numbers. A p210 is around 8K at the 100+ hour TiT mark with a hull value at 300K. A twin is more, but after 100 hours, the percentage rate seems to be about the same as the high $$$ piston singles. I think the 421 and a 210 is about the same (or close to it) ratio wise by hull value. An 182 is like 2K for $180K hull value if I remember correctly a few years ago.
Click to expand...
There must a be a few other factors that go into it, because when I was getting quotes on a $180k Twinkie they were in the 5k range with 0 time in type. I needed 10 hours with instructor and 5 hours solo or something like that.
 
EdFred said:
There must a be a few other factors that go into it, because when I was getting quotes on a $180k Twinkie they were in the 5k range with 0 time in type. I needed 10 hours with instructor and 5 hours solo or something like that.
Click to expand...
You have to compare apples to apples. All mine are with 100+ hours TiT as I mentioned on the 210. You cant compare having 5000 hours in a P210, vs a newly minted MEL trying to insure a 421 or something.
 
It also matters a lot these days what state you're in and they don't like pressurized or vintage. Gotta get your own numbers if it's part of the decision process.
 
Anthem said:
You have to compare apples to apples. All mine are with 100+ hours TiT as I mentioned on the 210. You cant compare having 5000 hours in a P210, vs a newly minted MEL trying to insure a 421 or something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you said 8000 after 100 time type and twins were even more expensive, but I have 0 time in the twin (and way less than 100 ME) I was looking at and the price was 5000. According to your original post the quotes I got should have been even more than that, in the 15 range maybe???
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, you said 8000 after 100 time type and twins were even more expensive, but I have 0 time in the twin (and way less than 100 ME) I was looking at and the price was 5000. According to your original post the quotes I got should have been even more than that, in the 15 range maybe???
Click to expand...
How long ago are we talking about?

The last two years seems to have an inflationary uptick in rates.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, you said 8000 after 100 time type and twins were even more expensive, but I have 0 time in the twin (and way less than 100 ME) I was looking at and the price was 5000. According to your original post the quotes I got should have been even more than that, in the 15 range maybe???
Click to expand...

the ratio as thats whats important. Some people dont understand math and say my 500K Saratoga was more than twice as expensive as my 200K 182. . . but the hull values was 200 and 500K, so its obviously going to be much more for the more expensive plane.

I found the ratio to be substantially similar for the 421 vs the 210 once over the 100 hours time in type. I have owned both in the last few years. The 421 was close to double the 210 insurance premium, but the 421 was close to double in hull value (not quite but close). So it worked out about right. Of course this was ME/instrument rated and 100+ hours in each type.
 
Anthem said:
the ratio as thats whats important. Some people dont understand math and say my 500K Saratoga was more than twice as expensive as my 200K 182. . . but the hull values was 200 and 500K, so its obviously going to be much more for the more expensive plane.

I found the ratio to be substantially similar for the 421 vs the 210 once over the 100 hours time in type. I have owned both in the last few years. The 421 was close to double the 210 insurance premium, but the 421 was close to double in hull value (not quite but close). So it worked out about right. Of course this was ME/instrument rated and 100+ hours in each type.
Click to expand...

No, I got that. But the baseline was 8k for a 300k single with 100. I was at 5k for a 180k twin with 0. Using the 8K base - give it a 50% multiplier for 0 time in type. That gets me to 12, add another 30% for it being a twin, that gets me to 15. Use the 300/180 ratio for difference in hull value. I should have been quoted 9k. I was quoted 5k. So there's got to be more to it than having 0 time in type.
 
EdFred said:
No, I got that. But the baseline was 8k for a 300k single with 100. I was at 5k for a 180k twin with 0. Using the 8K base - give it a 50% multiplier for 0 time in type. That gets me to 12, add another 30% for it being a twin, that gets me to 15. Use the 300/180 ratio for difference in hull value. I should have been quoted 9k. I was quoted 5k. So there's got to be more to it than having 0 time in type.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Maybe different types of planes ? Maybe a trainer on the twin type ? But overall - yes I agree with you. But surprising on the lower twin cost. Would have expected that to be the same at the minimum or higher without any time. That being said - the insurance industry has lower rates for certain models and higher rates for certain models that are more accident / claim prone. Found that out as the 210 has a higher rate than say a Saratoga because of its history for whatever reason.
 
Go with an older six,untill you build some time,stay away from retractable gear,speak to an insurance agent. He can guide you along your path.
 
JBray said:
Thanks everyone for the replies. I totally understand this and after rereading my post I think I came off a more bold than I really am.
I'm a planner. I'm not in a rush but like making plans that are very adjustable. I definitely plan on getting IFR immediately after. I know I am very new and I'll be learning a lot and the experience will help me make better decisions but I always appreciate input from people with experience. I'm not in a rush to fly my family cross country and into the southern Utah Rockies. But I can imagine I may feel reasonably comfortable after/during IFR training in a year.

I believe that I would eventually like to own a Malibu or twin years down the road. But for the first plane I've considered owning a 182 with the STC for the 3 seatbelts in back seat. But I think we'd outgrow that really quick. So I'd basically be considering most single piston, 6 seat simple-ish planes. Right now we only vacation for long weekend trips and we're light packers so most 6 seaters would work. Just debating if retractable gear is reasonable with about 100 hours experience. Seems like the opinions are split. I'm not making the decision for awhile, just gathering input.
Click to expand...
The only piston single 6 seaters you'll find that are remotely useable (and 6 adults is not happening regardless) are Bonanzas and the Cherokee 6/Lance/Saratoga family. A Cherokee 6 will fly whatever you can stuff into it, although you won't break any speed records. Lances and early gen Saratogas have good useful loads too. My recommendation for a new pilot would be to find a nice Cherokee 6 - a real docile flyer, gentle stall characteristics, loads of space and reasonable maintenance costs and can be had well below 250k. A perfect plane for a new pilot (although really more of a "1st step up from new pilot"). I love these planes - they're simple, easy to fly, exceptionally stable instrument platform, highly versatile and could fit your family + baggage and take you places. Just don't be in a hurry! Plus insurance will be reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top