If you had limitless $$$

Jeff Oslick said:
King Katmai.
Click to expand...

Even the 260hp has incredible performance and unbelievable handling at the bottom of the speed envelope. Personally I would rather have the IO-470, much cheaper to keep, pretty much the best of the big Continentals as far as cost of operations/HP goes. Plus the belt drive rear alternator is less prone to causing catastrophic engine failure than the front gear drive on the 520&550; then there is the airflow difference it causes as well.

I wonder what it would cost to get it onto floats? Then I'd want a GTSIO-520-K.

Hmmm, can I get Petersen to build a new STC to do that engine (or even the 375hp version) and a canard kit for a 206 including floats for my purchase price? With that I bet I could get a royalty on the STC that would pay for my flying in perpetuity as that plane would sell well to the operators in AK and other bush ops.
 
Last edited:
RV-7 with a lycon 200HP, left hand throttle, tip up canopy, catto 3 blade prop, and a pair of parachutes.

*sigh*
 
Henning said:
Even the 260hp has incredible performance and unbelievable handling at the bottom of the speed envelope. Personally I would rather have the IO-470, much cheaper to keep, pretty much the best of the big Continentals as far as cost of operations/HP goes. Plus the belt drive rear alternator is less prone to causing catastrophic engine failure than the front gear drive on the 520&550; then there is the airflow difference it causes as well.

I wonder what it would cost to get it onto floats? Then I'd want a GTSIO-520-K.

Hmmm, can I get Petersen to build a new STC to do that engine (or even the 375hp version) and a canard kit for a 206 including floats for my purchase price? With that I bet I could get a royalty on the STC that would pay for my flying in perpetuity as that plane would sell well to the operators in AK and other bush ops.
Click to expand...




I lose sleep wondering why Petersen doesn't kit a Turbo Stationair.

That's probably the plane I'd go with considering my flying and the OP's constraints.

Fully loaded C-206 turbo. :yesnod:
 
txflyer said:
I lose sleep wondering why Petersen doesn't kit a Turbo Stationair.

That's probably the plane I'd go with considering my flying and the OP's constraints.

Fully loaded C-206 turbo. :yesnod:
Click to expand...

I'm $ure he could be per$uaded. I've talked to him before about developing a MoGas STC and he offered to let me use his fuel heating rig for the test flights. Considering the improvements in handling and performance on the 182, the 206 would be a winner if it managed 75% of that improvement. Hang a 425hp GTSIO up front and it would be a hell of a utility platform, especially on floats.
 
I'd have Burt design something specifically for me. You didn't say the aircraft had to exist yet. He's a master at efficient designs, and we'd figure out the perfect airplane for all of my missions and budget for operating costs. He's not going to work cheap and your benefactor who's paying for the aircraft won't like the development costs, but you said any aircraft... We'll just have to build it first.
 
RV-10, with me holding the repairman's cert. The fixed cost would probably be $5k/yr including hangar rent. At $75/hr for consumables, it would be manageable as a 4 seat compliment to my RV-6. A Grumman AA-5B or a Diamond DA-40 would work too, but would be more restrictive and costly from a maintenance and upgrade perspective.
 
Henning said:
Swearingen SJ-30, go faster and far.
Click to expand...

I like that but, I can't feed it and it's not fast enough (Mach 0.83).

The SX-300's fuel economy is equivalent to or better than most cars in regards to MPG.
 
Can't decide between a single turbine or light twin...either a Lancair Evolution or the Diamond DA-42NG. Most missions will be of the shorter variety (<400 nm) favoring the twin, though the occasional trips to Europe would be so much sweeter in the turbine...
 
Flying Viking said:
Can't decide between a single turbine or light twin...either a Lancair Evolution or the Diamond DA-42NG. Most missions will be of the shorter variety (<400 nm) favoring the twin, though the occasional trips to Europe would be so much sweeter in the turbine...
Click to expand...

Having flown both, I would buy the Evolution over the DA-42NG.
 
denverpilot said:
I'd have Burt design something specifically for me. You didn't say the aircraft had to exist yet. He's a master at efficient designs, and we'd figure out the perfect airplane for all of my missions and budget for operating costs. He's not going to work cheap and your benefactor who's paying for the aircraft won't like the development costs, but you said any aircraft... We'll just have to build it first.
Click to expand...

Just have him build you a Boomerang. Not going to do much better than that. I would love one. It just needs a little bit of work to make it more friendly to get in and out of.
 
Given the parameters of the OP- that I have to pay for the fuel and maintenance, I'd have to go for a Glasair IIRG 100% new, built to my specs.
 
Tecnam p2006t. 140kts on 10gph, twin rotax 912's! I might even be able to afford to fly it!
 
N747JB said:
+1:D dash 10's of course!:yes:
Click to expand...

Yep. And also a fresh RVSM cert, panel redone to my specs (dual G600s, dual 750s, GWX70, WX-500 and a few other goodies), and the dash 10s would be zero timed, and have the plane thoroughly gone through so it's basically as close to a new 441 as possible. Throw on strakes, hubcaps, and 5-blade props.

At that point, I'd have 5200 hours until TBO. $100k every 1800 hours for hot sections, and 300 KTAS @ FL330 on 50 GPH combined. Might drop the RVSM cert once it runs out depending on how much it would cost to refresh and the speed/fuel savings by being limited to FL280.
 
Flying Viking said:
Can't decide between a single turbine or light twin...either a Lancair Evolution or the Diamond DA-42NG.
Click to expand...
Ohh.. that would be very easy for me, give me the former.
But it will definitely be more costly way of flying so my pocketbook would be a decisive factor.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yep. And also a fresh RVSM cert, panel redone to my specs (dual G600s, dual 750s, GWX70, WX-500 and a few other goodies), and the dash 10s would be zero timed, and have the plane thoroughly gone through so it's basically as close to a new 441 as possible. Throw on strakes, hubcaps, and 5-blade props.

At that point, I'd have 5200 hours until TBO. $100k every 1800 hours for hot sections, and 300 KTAS @ FL330 on 50 GPH combined. Might drop the RVSM cert once it runs out depending on how much it would cost to refresh and the speed/fuel savings by being limited to FL280.
Click to expand...

Why a 441 over an Avanti?
 
Henning said:
Even the 260hp has incredible performance and unbelievable handling at the bottom of the speed envelope. Personally I would rather have the IO-470, much cheaper to keep, pretty much the best of the big Continentals as far as cost of operations/HP goes. Plus the belt drive rear alternator is less prone to causing catastrophic engine failure than the front gear drive on the 520&550; then there is the airflow difference it causes as well.

I wonder what it would cost to get it onto floats? Then I'd want a GTSIO-520-K.

Hmmm, can I get Petersen to build a new STC to do that engine (or even the 375hp version) and a canard kit for a 206 including floats for my purchase price? With that I bet I could get a royalty on the STC that would pay for my flying in perpetuity as that plane would sell well to the operators in AK and other bush ops.
Click to expand...


You're talking logic here. :lol: If I'm staying with a 182 (have a 275 hp Pponk already), I'm getting the most bad-a$$ 182 out there...
 
You guys are making me have fantasies of flying a King Canard Turbo 206 amphib with synthetic glass everything and air conditioning.

Go pretty fast, haul the mail, land anywhere in comfort with those big wide double doors in back.

They make Wing-X for 206? What an incredible machine that might be. King Katmai 206 or amphib with Wing-X extensions, extended tanks, MT prop, belly pod ... .
 
Henning said:
Why a 441 over an Avanti?
Click to expand...

Maintenance costs on the Avanti make jets look very cheap. Plus the Avanti is not as efficient as the 441.
 
Since my purchase budget is unlimited and I still have fuel the thing I'm thinking diesel piston.

Diamond Da-42 TDI.
 
Dav8or said:
Really? That's hard to believe. How do you define efficiency?
Click to expand...

I would assume he's using MPG. The 441 uses TPE-331 geared TP engines which are very efficient, especially the -10s. I believe the P-180 uses PT-6s. Also the Avanti travels at a higher airspeed which will use more fuel. Plus the 441 has about 1000lbs more useful load IIRC.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
Really? The 441 is a better airplane from A to B?
Click to expand...

Dav8or said:
Really? That's hard to believe. How do you define efficiency?
Click to expand...

Well, I know someone with a 441 that has TPE331-10s on it. With RVSM he can do 300 KTAS @ FL330 @ 50 GPH combined. That's pretty damn efficient, 20% more fuel burn than a 421 for 40% more speed. If you go lower then you can obviously burn more fuel. I don't know the numbers on the P180, but one note I found was 770 pph combined (that's over 90 GPH) for 383 KTAS @ FL310.

As far as "better", that, like anything, is subjective. I really don't care so much about the aft cabin, any of those planes are quite nice. Yes, the P180 has a wonderful cabin, but I've heard better things from pilots about the 441. Plus, I've heard nothing good about maintenance on a P180. While Cessna's support of the legacy propeller twin fleet is at best horrendous, at worst criminal, I'm still not too worried about getting parts and they built a good plane with the 441 in the first place. Since we're supposed to pay for the ownership costs afterwards, if I had a perfect 441 that would basically just need fuel, I could pretend to swing it for a while. :)

TPEs are more efficient than PT-6s, and from everything I've seen more reliable. They do have some finicky traits and are also VERY LOUD which is why they fell out of favor and why you don't see them on new planes like the PC12 or TBM. The reality is the TPE would be a better engine for those planes from a performance and efficiency perspective (perhaps not from a FOD perspective on the PC12 for which that's considered a bigger concern), but the noise regs (thinking Europe mostly) will guarantee you won't see a TPE on a new turboprop.
 
Henning said:
I would assume he's using MPG. The 441 uses TPE-331 geared TP engines which are very efficient, especially the -10s. I believe the P-180 uses PT-6s. Also the Avanti travels at a higher airspeed which will use more fuel. Plus the 441 has about 1000lbs more useful load IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what happens when you throttle the Avanti back to 441 speeds? My guess is the MPG surpasses the Cessna.
 
kyleb said:
RV-10, with me holding the repairman's cert. The fixed cost would probably be $5k/yr including hangar rent. At $75/hr for consumables, it would be manageable as a 4 seat compliment to my RV-6. A Grumman AA-5B or a Diamond DA-40 would work too, but would be more restrictive and costly from a maintenance and upgrade perspective.
Click to expand...

Same boat. Makes the most sense to me.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yep. And also a fresh RVSM cert, panel redone to my specs (dual G600s, dual 750s, GWX70, WX-500 and a few other goodies), and the dash 10s would be zero timed, and have the plane thoroughly gone through so it's basically as close to a new 441 as possible. Throw on strakes, hubcaps, and 5-blade props.

At that point, I'd have 5200 hours until TBO. $100k every 1800 hours for hot sections, and 300 KTAS @ FL330 on 50 GPH combined. Might drop the RVSM cert once it runs out depending on how much it would cost to refresh and the speed/fuel savings by being limited to FL280.
Click to expand...
bit of a grey area whether you have to do hot sections on that schedule for part91 ops
 
Dav8or said:
Yes, but what happens when you throttle the Avanti back to 441 speeds? My guess is the MPG surpasses the Cessna.
Click to expand...
just a sec let me model that scenario.............nope it still uses too much runway and looks like a beached whale
 
I like the TDI DA42 suggestion, however there allegedly is the 52 coming...

I think I'd do the PC12NG - take into dirt strips and sell the extra seats to pay for fuel (include manufacturer extended warranty in purchase price w/ pre-paid or included maintenance)...
 
Dav8or said:
Yes, but what happens when you throttle the Avanti back to 441 speeds? My guess is the MPG surpasses the Cessna.
Click to expand...

I would doubt that. Like Henning said, that doesn't work as well with turbines. Turbines are usually more efficient at higher powers.

JHW said:
bit of a grey area whether you have to do hot sections on that schedule for part91 ops
Click to expand...

True, but let's just say I did them anyway. If I didn't, all the more savings.
 
Surprised nobody said it yet.

Marchetti SF260

The original, with the uncuffed, fast wing.
 
Piper Malibu with the big SMA SR460 300hp diesel engine, G600 or G1000 w/Synth Vision, GTN 650, GFC 700 A/P, and the STC to convert others to this configuration.

Look out JetProp DLX....

Or, a C-185, same engine as above, G600/GTN/GFC, with normal and bush tires and amphibious floats.

'Gimp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top