Plane for the mission

James_Dean

James_Dean

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
2,113
Location
Iowa
Display Name
Display name:
Eggman
I know everyone is tired of these threads, but I'd like to ask anyway. Goal is to eliminate commercial travel time.


Pilot
1. 750TT since 2003, 700 HP, 20 complex, 15 multi. Instrument rating in 2004 and about 50 hour in actual. Due to work/family only about 50 hours in the last two years.


Missions in order of importance
1. 15 - 20 trips per year of 750nm with one pax
2. 10 - 15 trips per year of 150 - 250 nm with 2 - 5 pax
3. 3 - 5 trips per year of 1500 nm with 2 - 4 pax
4. 3 - 5 trips per year of 450 nm with 7 pax.


Expectations
1. Will need to spend 100+ hours with CFI prior to insurance approval
2. Will need to do on site training twice per year
3. Plane will be professionally managed and maintained to pt 135 standards
4. Speed is important, but fully understand the tradeoffs required
5. Known ice certification is critical for dispatch reliability.


Other
1. Sub $750k acquisition cost desired
2. Concerned about long term availability of 100LL
3. We have realistic expectations of operating costs for various options.

Eggman
 
When you say "professionally managed" do you mean you are willing to hire someone to manage the airplane and fly along with you? Seven passengers eliminates a lot of airplanes. I know someone who did something similar with a King Air.
 
Few more questions:

1) Do your 750 nm trips need to be non-stop?

2) What's your acceptable block time for trips?

Sounding like a turbine would be a likely buy. Anything that will fit the mission won't be entry-level, but you've covered that with expecting 100+ hours with an instructor, plus I'd expect sim training.
 
Skylane81E said:
PA31-350 Navajo
Click to expand...

750 nm trips in that take up a full working day door to door. I've done it, but for 15-20 trips a year of that length, he's probably looking at wanting something faster.

Other than the speed, though, it'd be a good fit. I'd go for a PA-31-310 with the Panther conversion, though.
 
I was thinking the bigger airframe for the 7 passenger trips.

Supose a 421 would work too (and i think they are faster too)

Other than that its turbine time.
 
Straight King Air 200's (pre-1981) are available in that price range and easily capable of such trips. I'm working with a client now who flies 25-30 trips to his ranch each year. He's vacillating between a Mustang and a King Air 350 (I know, don't bother writing about the logic gap in those two options.)

OTOH, other clients who found themselves faced with frequent trips of ~750 nm from NC to TX became disenchanted with groundspeeds against winter winds and sold their B-200 in favor of a Citation V. Three years later they traded the V for a CJ-2.

For no-wind trips, a 200 with 280 TAS will block 255-260, so figure three hours each way. Not many no-wind days, however, so the times will be skewed accordingly.
 
The KA200 was what I was thinking off the top of my head. Problem with a 421 becomes useful load for 8 people, plus a question of whether or not the speed if sufficient, plus high MX.

One of my clients with not dissimilar missions (but shorter overall) is thinking about a 421 because of cheaper initial purchase price. They will probably end up settling on a turboprop, though.
 
kkoran said:
Turbo Commander?
Click to expand...

While technically they do seat 8, they do not do it comfortably. I don't think they make good passenger-carrying aircraft, either (although what the passengers think may not be of concern), and don't find the ergonomics to be comfortable for someone my height.

Otherwise, they're great aircraft.
 
Everskyward said:
When you say "professionally managed" do you mean you are willing to hire someone to manage the airplane and fly along with you? Seven passengers eliminates a lot of airplanes. I know someone who did something similar with a King Air.
Click to expand...

Willing to pay an FBO to maintain the plane, have it ready when called, and have a pilot/CFI ready to go for times when owner wants to fly with help or non-owner pax need to go.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Few more questions:

1) Do your 750 nm trips need to be non-stop?

2) What's your acceptable block time for trips?

Sounding like a turbine would be a likely buy. Anything that will fit the mission won't be entry-level, but you've covered that with expecting 100+ hours with an instructor, plus I'd expect sim training.
Click to expand...


Would prefer the 750 to be non-stop. Block of 4.5 hrs as a max which, I think, means a cruise of 190+. I'm willing to do the sim training.
 
James_Dean said:
Willing to pay an FBO to maintain the plane, have it ready when called, and have a pilot/CFI ready to go for times when owner wants to fly with help or non-owner pax need to go.
Click to expand...
Then I agree with Wayne about an older King Air 200. Even thought it's a pretty easy airplane to fly it would be an unreasonable step for someone with 750 hours and only 50 in the last two years to fly it alone.
 
Everskyward said:
Then I agree with Wayne about an older King Air 200. Even thought it's a pretty easy airplane to fly it would be an unreasonable step for someone with 750 hours and only 50 in the last two years to fly it alone.
Click to expand...

Which is where the 100+ with the CFI and the expected sim training come in. I can't see why somebody couldn't fly one after 100 hours of dual.
 
Just for clarification purposes, I'm the perspective pilot in this scenario. I've done 140 takeoffs with United this year, the boss has done about the same and it is freaking killing us. Combine that with the lost travel and family time and we need to make something else happen. I haven't been flying much because of the travel schedule.
 
wabower said:
No 400 kt speeds either way, just normal cruise +/- winds. But better than Greyhound, no doubt about it.;)
Click to expand...

Round trip was 1130nm in 3+44 for an average of 302kts. That is pretty hot for any plane with propellers hauling 7 people.
 
Yep, other than horrible range (can't make the trip home non-stop against the wind) horrible useful load, small tube, inadequate seating, antiquted systems, inefficient fuel burn, horrible maintenance intervals, marginal environmentals it's a hell of a deal. I might want one too. Does he have more than one for sale?

Tom-D said:
we all know the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

nice little turbin



must be on a pro-maintenance system, will do the job in almost all the weather, and should be piloted by a pro.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Yep, other than horrible range (can't make the trip home non-stop against the wind) horrible useful load, small tube, inadequate seating, antiquted systems, inefficient fuel burn, horrible maintenance intervals, marginal environmentals it's a hell of a deal. I might want one too. Does he have more than one for sale?
Click to expand...

Yep,, that's why it's only $425k
 
James, I fly a IIIA for a family here. They do like it. Eight passengers is going to be a little crowded. Plus with all the seats full you will have very little range. The useful load will be just north of 4000 pounds. We in fact keep the seat behind the co pilot seat out of the plane. Your speeds are a little optimistic. Summer expect 286 at the end of the first hour and up to about 288-289 at the end of the second hour. In winter add about 6 knots. You will burn about 700 pounds the first hour and about 600 per hour for each additional hour spent at or above 25,000 feet. I have never seen a III or IIIA with RVSM so you would be limited to FL280.
The $750 K is going to keep you out of the IIIA but you might find a high time III with original avionics in that price range.
The straight 200 has more cabin room and is about a 265 knot plane. Again to get any kind of modern avionics, descent paint and interior and maybe mid time engines you going to have to be in the $1M range for either.
I doubt (I could be wrong) if you can get insured in any turbine for solo operation untill at least 2000PIC, MAYBE 200 make and model and a commercial ticket. Of course initial sim school and recurrent each year. If you fly 200 hours a year figure about $1300.00 per hour all in. That of course depends on hangar costs, insurance and so on. If you want any additional info on the IIIA feel free to contact me.
I don't know of a piston twin that will do your missions. The 1500 mile trips you mentioned will be long day in a IIIA.
 
James,

The FBO where my mechanic was based used to operate a C-421 commercially. It KILLED them with maintenance, and dispatch rate suffered. I believe it had the same conversion. If you want to talk to the chief mechanic that maintained the plane, let me know, he also maintains my Tiger.
 
James, my experience is that the 421 is a maintenance hog. Geared engines, pressurized useing the turbos for the cabin pressure, makes this a very expensive plane to keep up. You may simply find it easier to rent space in the maint hangar.
I will tell you exactly what I told my owner when moving from the Chieften to the Cheyenne. Do not buy a turbine aircraft if you can not write checks with lots of zeroes and get over it. Turbine aircraft are not for the weak hearted. Difference in DOC on a 421 and a 200 I don't know. I suspect your estimate may not be too far off. Part of that would depend on the age of the aircraft.
 
Spread in hourly DOC's is probably more than 30%, depending on the items (such as engine reserves) that are included in the number. But the King Air is at least 30% faster than the 421, so the hourly DOC's calculation doesn't tell you what you need to know when comparing airplanes as dissimilar as the two mentioned.

The first thing you must do is determine whether both airplanes will be able to fly the trips on your list. Then you must determine the importance of being able to continue the takeoff after an engine failure. This is obviously a worst-case scenario, but ten funerals during the past year are proof that the 421 won't do it reliably. Ramen-eating pilots who want to fly twins seem to have a different attitude about this capability than do rich folks riding in the back, so it's worth a conversation prior to making the call.

Insofar as costs are concerned, two numbers are more critical than any others. The first is the total annual budget, including both ownership and operating costs. In order to level the field, the budget comparisons are based on the projected miles to be flown, irrespective of the aircraft selected. Once the miles are known and everybody involved agrees they are cast in stone until further notice, the hours required to fly those miles can easily be determined by applying block-time performance numbers.

The second is the projected full-cycle cost of the ownership over an assumed ownership life of however many years your choose to use. I use a six-year life in all such projections because tht's the normal period of time required to fully depreciate the airplane for IRS purposes and it's and economically reasonable and consistent number. Once those numbers are in place, the tax consequences can be measured to obtain an after-tax number for use in comparisons to other options. Doing all this stuff is a bit daunting, but gets easier after the first 600 or so airplanes that you analyze.

Reliability and dependability should also be considered in the selection process. Shop owners (like the one where I spend about 200 days per year) who work on both King Airs and big Cessna twins will tell you that the piston airplanes spend many more days per year in the shop than the turbines. The reason is no secret. They simply aren't built to the same quality standards and piston engines, turbos, exhausts, injection/induction systems, alternators, pressurization systems, and many other components are much more problematic than those on PT-6 turbines.



James_Dean said:
I really figured we would end up in something like this,

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...NA-421C-RAM/1982-CESSNA-421C-RAM/1221363.htm?


My gut tells me the DOC between a 421 and a KA200 would be about a +30%?? Am I even close?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
James_Dean said:
Would prefer the 750 to be non-stop. Block of 4.5 hrs as a max which, I think, means a cruise of 190+. I'm willing to do the sim training.
Click to expand...

I think you'd benefit from the sim training.

The 750 nm range combined with the 7 passenger trips are what create the issue since you need both range and passenger capacity in the piston world. If you took a 421, you could potentially do the 750 nm trips non-stop (assuming you had aux fuel and no winds), but you'd still be right about at your legal reserves. When you put 7 passengers in, don't expect to have room for baggage or much fuel. The 450 nm trips even might be a bit tough. I've had 7 passengers and their baggage in a Navajo 310. While doable, it was definitely tight, and where I was going had few options for where to stop for fuel. For a 600 nm trip, we made a fuel stop, and were right at gross for takeoff. Not a great situation.

The 421 also has the well-deserved reputation of being a maintenance hog. For the number of trips you're looking at, your dispatch reliability would likely suffer.

I enjoy flying the Cheyenne II (no experience with the III, but Ronnie knows more there). The Commander has the advantage of getting your block times down with its ~270 KTAS speed. However not being aware of your size, you may not find the Commander to be as comfortable to fly. It has great W&B characteristics and a great baggage compartment, but 8 people in it I don't think would be terribly comfortable. I'll take the 35 kt speed hit of the Cheyenne II for the extra comfort personally. 230 KTAS @ 450-500 pph isn't too terrible. Still, 8 people and luggage would be tight. You could consider the Commander depending on your size.

The King Air 200 is probably going to be your best bet. With sim training and a good amount of dual (which would likely require hiring a pilot for the first year to fly with you), you'd be in good shape.
 
What Ted said +1000

Ted, 8 people in a 310 Navajo??? I don't know what to say!!
 
ronnieh said:
Ted, 8 people in a 310 Navajo??? I don't know what to say!!
Click to expand...

It was a very carefully calculated trip that required quite the balance between fuel, planned passenger placement, and luggage placement. Came in right at gross, with enough fuel to make it to destination, alternate, +45 min. My passengers were mostly my size or smaller (I'm a scrawny weakling). As I said, with the 600 nm trip we had to make a fuel stop, and I needed to have enough fuel from the landing point to make it another 50 nm to get fuel (with IFR alternates itself).

If it was more than a once-or-twice event, we'd be going to a turbine. As it is, next year I'm going to go for the Commander or Cheyenne if I can.
 
Heres one to consider, if staying with piston planes for that budget you could get a nice fast Mooney for the longer trips with fewer passengers and a Navajo or similar for the shorter ones with more passengers.

Saved money on fuel for the long trips could probably cover a large protion of the annual maintenance of the mooney.

And if you are REALLY flying as much as your first post staying proficent in each shouldnt be too difficult.
 
James_Dean said:
Just for clarification purposes, I'm the perspective pilot in this scenario. I've done 140 takeoffs with United this year, the boss has done about the same and it is freaking killing us. Combine that with the lost travel and family time and we need to make something else happen. I haven't been flying much because of the travel schedule.
Click to expand...

Yuck. Considering you aren't anywhere near a major hub, those had to be some LONG flying days in the cattle wagon.
 
Or in place of a Mooney a T210, little more fuel burn but bigger cabin.

Both available with FIKI (or if the weather looks bad that day you slog it out in the big plane)
 
Skylane81E said:
Heres one to consider, if staying with piston planes for that budget you could get a nice fast Mooney for the longer trips with fewer passengers and a Navajo or similar for the shorter ones with more passengers.
Click to expand...

Even a turbo Mooney with TKS you're not looking at a particularly good airplane from a weather perspective.

T310R or 58P and Navajo, you could go that route to stay with pistons, and have reasonable overlap as far as being able to utilize one plane if the other is down for MX. Problem is, those 8-person flights in the Navajo will still be rather marginal. It doesn't make a good 8-person plane. I was definitely praying that the Lycoming gods not fail one of the TIO-540s on me on initial climb-out.
 
True but in Iowa and most points around it stellar climb SE isn't as critical.

The point being that 3/4 mil will buy a LOT of good piston engine planes a few times over. And even with more planes to maintain operating costs will still probably come in below a turbine.

And as you noted, a "fleet" however small improved dispatch rates:yesnod:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top