My club is going to get another plane, looking for suggestions

stagecoachco

stagecoachco

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
516
Location
Steamboat Springs, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Tony B
Background:

We have about 40 members, half of which actually fly. Currently we have 3 aircraft: a 1977 R172K Hawk XP (195hp with a Const. Spd. Prop), a 1999 182S, and a 1979 TR182. The TR182 was recently gear upped, but did not get totaled by insurance, and is currently undergoing repairs.

The club's primary mission is to provide aircraft for use by members for cross country flights. Primary training is only allowed in the 172, and XC flights can trump training flights in the schedule.

We have a modest monthly fee that covers all fixed costs, in other words our aircraft can sit on the ground and we are still financially solvent. Aircaft are billed per hobbs time at the actual variable operating cost, plus a $10/hour fee that goes into an MX reserve account. Currently the rates are as follows (not incl the $10 reserve); 172 - $105/hour, 182S - $115/hour, and the TR182 - $135/hour.

We have sufficient members now to add a fourth aircraft. Some folks have expressed an interest in getting an aircraft that can truly take four people and baggage on long trips. There has been talk of looking at turbo 206s which would fit that role. I am looking for some suggestions as to other aircraft to consider. Budget is around $175K.

One aircraft that I think might meet the mission, plus go a little faster, is the Beech A36 (possibly a turbocharged one). Anyone have real world numbers for the A36. Rising Up claims 190kts cruise (for the turbo charged version). Any idea of operating costs (not including hangar, ins, and other fixed costs)?

What other aircraft should we be considering?
 
Funny before I read your last paragraph, I was thinking A36. Sorry, no real world A36 numbers, because I don't have real world A36 money :) The folks on BT would probably be the best source for those. There are some nice examples to be had in your range, sorry not much else for suggestions at that price point :)
 
Tom Gresham flew a TN-36 for years and loved it, quoted 190 @ 190. Since you're currently flying Cessnas, consider a T-210 as well. Lots of family similarities to your fleet with similar performance to a Bo. I've owned and operated both, each has its talking points and drawbacks. Tall people fit better in 210s.

bartmc said:
Funny before I read your last paragraph, I was thinking A36. Sorry, no real world A36 numbers, because I don't have real world A36 money :) The folks on BT would probably be the best source for those. There are some nice examples to be had in your range, sorry not much else for suggestions at that price point :)
Click to expand...
 
You need to talk to your members about what they will use, and what they are qualified to fly. When you move to a 6-seat, HP/complex plane, the insurers start to get strict about that. You also start to get into issues of keeping people qualified and current in all the types, especially when you mix a Bonanza in with three relatively similar Cessnas. My suggestion would be to buy one more of whatever the most used of the three existing planes is -- they've already told you by their actions what it is they want to fly most. That will give your members the most flexibility and probably give the club the greatest utilization of the fleet.

BTW, 190 KTAS is not realistic as a cruise speed for an A36. Might go that fast flat-out on the deck, or in a dive, but that's about it. A turbocharged BE36 may attain those speeds up high, but that's about it, and the cost/hr on a turbe BE36 is going to be a lot higher than even your 182RG.
 
A-36 would be my suggestion, you can get a decent one at that price. 190 happens up high in the TN ones if you put 19gph or so through them.
 
Generally I'd say get another Cessna, since that's what they're familiar with, and would recommend the 206 to avoid the retractable insurance surcharge of a 210. But in CO a turbo would be a good idea. The turbo 210 that we used to have on line is apparently up for sale out of KDPA. It was an older model with the gear doors, which can add maintenance problems. Make sure that the members are well trained in the operation of a turbo engine.
 
I'd push for a newer C182S. 88 gallons fuel makes for long legs. Off load fuel to carry 4 people on moderate trips.

I'd follow Capt Ron's advice, stick with 4 seats and Cessnas. Mixing in a Bo or adding 6 seats will limit who can fly it.
 
BillTIZ said:
I'd push for a newer C182S. 88 gallons fuel makes for long legs. Off load fuel to carry 4 people on moderate trips.

I'd follow Capt Ron's advice, stick with 4 seats and Cessnas. Mixing in a Bo or adding 6 seats will limit who can fly it.
Click to expand...

How is that? There are no onerous requirements for a Bo or a 210. They already have 4 4 seaters and there apparently is a demand for a faster, larger plane. Anybody that can fly a Cessna can fly a Bo, and the Bo has the strongest retract landing gear out of all the options and is the preferred 'bush plane' in Australia.
 
Lots of good responses already, thanks!

Ron, I agree with you as to getting another copy of the aircraft that is most utilized. In this case that would be the 182S. Some members of the club haven't gotten checked out in the TR182 because they don't want to spend the money (10 hours dual). I am one of those. I figure that for most of the trips that I take, the extra speed really wouldn't make that much of a difference in block times, plus the leather interior of the 182S sure is nice (compared to the original red velvet interior on the TR182).

Ultimately it will come down to a vote. Right now I just want to have a good list of aircraft to consider for the members. I also want to try to think outside of the (Cessna) box if it makes sense.

One more note on hangar space. Currently all of our aircraft reside in a large corporate style heated hangar (which is really nice in the winter, no preheat even if it is -40F). There is a 206 that is housed in the same hangar. I don't think we could fit another high wing in the hangar, but could probably get a low wing in easily enough. That is one of the reasons that I thought of the A36.

Anyway, thanks for the respones so far!
 
stagecoachco said:
Pretty cool plane Tom. How would it do at 6800' on 4400' of paved runway? I know that Velocitys require more runway due to not having flaps.

Might be tough to sell the members on an experimental, but I am not opposed to it.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue, the issue is that the canard needs to stall first rather than the wing so you don't get the low speed leverage of your pitch arm driver.
 
Henning said:
How is that? There are no onerous requirements for a Bo or a 210. They already have 4 4 seaters and there apparently is a demand for a faster, larger plane. Anybody that can fly a Cessna can fly a Bo, and the Bo has the strongest retract landing gear out of all the options and is the preferred 'bush plane' in Australia.
Click to expand...

I agree, if you can fly a C182 retract, you can fly a 210 or Bo.
Insurance companies get funny when you get more than 4 seats, they will limit who can fly it. Does 30-40% of the membership meet that level.

And from a later post, they have a bunch of members that never checked out in the retract 182 because they did not want to pay for 10 hrs dual. You can eliminate those from the Bo and 210 pilots.

Although its nice that they would contribute to the fixed costs of insurance for the limited membership that will enjoy the Bo.
 
Tony,
The low wing in the hangar is an advantage. I'm surprised you need 10 hours dual for the TR182. We only require 5 hours in type for the Bonanza, but I think you need 250 total time. Perhaps you could shop insurance, but, with a recent gear up in it, you may have difficulty.
 
gprellwitz said:
Tony,
The low wing in the hangar is an advantage. I'm surprised you need 10 hours dual for the TR182. We only require 5 hours in type for the Bonanza, but I think you need 250 total time. Perhaps you could shop insurance, but, with a recent gear up in it, you may have difficulty.
Click to expand...


The 10 dual might not be an ins. requirement, but might be imposed by the club. To get into the 182 we require 125 total time and two XC of at least 250nm , and just a checkout with a CFI. The idea is that you should have a little experience operating away from the nest before taking the faster plane. The TR182 requires 250 total time, plus three XC of at least 250nm (in addition to the 10 dual).

I think that the ideal situation would be to sell the TR182, and replace it with an A36. The folks flying the rectract now would most likely jump at the chance to fly something with more room and more speed. Then four our fourth aircraft, we could get either another 182S, or possibly a straight leg turbo 182 (Maybe John (Okie182) will sell us his newly aquired bird :lol: ). I am not sure that this senario would work out very well financially though, plus the TR182 now has major damage history :sad:.
 
Gear-ups are an accepted fact of life in the retrac market, and while nobody particularly likes them they don't detract significantly from price, since most of them have a relatively new engine and prop.

stagecoachco said:
The 10 dual might not be an ins. requirement, but might be imposed by the club. To get into the 182 we require 125 total time and two XC of at least 250nm , and just a checkout with a CFI. The idea is that you should have a little experience operating away from the nest before taking the faster plane. The TR182 requires 250 total time, plus three XC of at least 250nm (in addition to the 10 dual).

I think that the ideal situation would be to sell the TR182, and replace it with an A36. The folks flying the rectract now would most likely jump at the chance to fly something with more room and more speed. Then four our fourth aircraft, we could get either another 182S, or possibly a straight leg turbo 182 (Maybe John (Okie182) will sell us his newly aquired bird :lol: ). I am not sure that this senario would work out very well financially though, plus the TR182 now has major damage history :sad:.
Click to expand...
 
I love the Bo, but a T210 would serve well, as well. A real gem sold here a couple of weeks ago, well within your budget. In turbo'd planes, the 210 willmcost less than the Bo, by a little.
 
SCCutler said:
I love the Bo, but a T210 would serve well, as well. A real gem sold here a couple of weeks ago, well within your budget. In turbo'd planes, the 210 willmcost less than the Bo, by a little.
Click to expand...

I believe the T210 I mentioned earlier has an asking price between 60 and 75K.
 
I fly a T210 quite often at work. I can hold 6 hours of fuel, haul 4 adults and golf clubs/baggage. I usually fly between 16,000 ft and FL230. At these altitudes I can achieve 170-190kts TAS, burning 14gph all day long, 50 degrees rich of peak.

In my opinion, this is the ideal airplane for a club with your needs. Remove the 3rd row of seats, (have your A&P make a logbook entry), redo your W&B and your insurance goes down dramatically because it is no longer a 6-place plane. (Most adults won't fit in the 3rd row anyway). You can always put them back in later if you need to.

By the way, do not get a P210. They are much heavier and the insurance is outrageous.
 
I'm late to the answers, but I'd say T210.

Reasons:

- I disagree that the folks who won't step up to the TR182 won't step up to the 210. Theres a performance change where the value of stepping up to the TR182 is limited, but the T210 with O2 is a coast hopper.

- You have a bunch of Cessna pilots. Unless there's a significant clamor for a low-wing or "something different", you'll get the most upgraders out of a T210 because more will already feel comfortable with Cessna behavior. Not saying a Bo flies significantly different, but a non-trivial number of Cessna folks will (incorrectly) THINK it does. Give them the next up model in Cessna performance, they'll bite and it won't sit idle.

- The T206 isn't enough of a performance increase. Same problem as the TR182.
 
P.S. Dump the TR182. It's only purpose is to go almost as slow as a C-182 and have gear up landings. :) People will like the 210 better. Especially if it has nice avionics.
 
I forgot to mention that we also have a TR182. If I want to fill all 4 seats, I have to offload fuel. Plus, the TR182 burns more fuel (17gph) than the T210 (14gph). The purchase cost is about the same these days, so why wouldn't you buy a T210? Plus, as I mentioned before, you can easily remove the 3rd row and insure it as a 4-seater. Most insurance companies allow this.
 
Agree with the T210. If you do consider a Bo, shop early '70s which have most useful loads. A former instrument student of mine researched them thoroughly and ended up with a '73 (I believe) for that reason.
 
stagecoachco said:
The 10 dual might not be an ins. requirement, but might be imposed by the club. To get into the 182 we require 125 total time and two XC of at least 250nm , and just a checkout with a CFI. The idea is that you should have a little experience operating away from the nest before taking the faster plane. The TR182 requires 250 total time, plus three XC of at least 250nm (in addition to the 10 dual).

I think that the ideal situation would be to sell the TR182, and replace it with an A36. The folks flying the rectract now would most likely jump at the chance to fly something with more room and more speed. Then four our fourth aircraft, we could get either another 182S, or possibly a straight leg turbo 182 (Maybe John (Okie182) will sell us his newly aquired bird :lol: ). I am not sure that this senario would work out very well financially though, plus the TR182 now has major damage history :sad:.
Click to expand...

Tony
I'm heading that way tonight for job interview tomorrow. Does anyone ever do lease's to the club? New possible job is in Craig so flying to work wouldn't be that important only my fun family flying and monthly trips to Oklahoma to check on couple pieces of property.

If the job comes through I was entertaining one of the hangars that are for sale. I could work deal with the182 and by the decathlon I always wanted. :)
Jon
 
stagecoachco said:
Currently the rates are as follows (not incl the $10 reserve); 172 - $105/hour, 182S - $115/hour, and the TR182 - $135/hour.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the off topic comment, but this bothers me to no end when I rent a car....

If you always have to pay the $10 fee, then why would you say the cost of renting the 172 is $105? It's not. The cost is $115.

I have rented cars in the past where the quoted price was half what the amount of money in fixed costs they take from me. If I have to pay it, it needs to be in the quote!

:)
 
stagecoachco said:
Ron, I agree with you as to getting another copy of the aircraft that is most utilized. In this case that would be the 182S.
Click to expand...
There you go. And that doesn't surprise me.

Some members of the club haven't gotten checked out in the TR182 because they don't want to spend the money (10 hours dual).
Click to expand...
That doesn't surprise me, either, and that situation would only be worse with a BE36, especially one with a turbocharger. Then members would be financially locked out of half the club's planes instead of 1/3, and that's when you start losing members.
 
If the purpose of a new plane is primarily for X/C trips, where do the members currently fly in the existing fleet? Where do they want to go that they can't go now, or don't want to go due to aircraft speed, range, payload limitations. Can you reasonably predict usage based on some combination of member input and prior experience?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top