Plane for the Mission

A

Apache123

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
546
Location
Lake Forest, IL
Display Name
Hey, Steve!
Home Airfield
KJOT/KUGN
Always a fun topic, I figured I'd throw this one out there and get some thoughts.

After selling the Apache I am transitioning back to single-engine.

My 80% mission will be 5 170lbs adults plus a baby (and possibly a small dog depending on how she takes to flying). Speed of 130kts is fine. I won't be doing any over-water flying, and the farthest west of the Mississippi I'll be going "most of the time" would be Houston.

Most common flights:
Chicago <--> Toronto
Chicago <--> Atlanta

I'm partial to low wing aircraft.

This is why I'm looking at the Piper Six (260 or 300). The speed is fine, the range is good, the rear-door aids in passenger comfort, and fixed-gear == less things that can break.

At the same time, I basically want just enough quality aircraft to meet the mission.

Thoughts?
 
I'm no shopper, if I find something that will suit the requirement and is within my price I buy. IMHO you hit the nail on the head fist swing. I'd go 300 in my area as most of the MEAs I fly are over 10k. Hard to beat the Six for a reliable load hauler. Alaska is full of them.
 
Nothing wrong with the 6, but I would say A36. Light weight mid-70's one with a 550 conversion. You should see about 160 on 11 GPH LOP. With a useful around 1200. Based on your criteria it is hard to beat the 36 for operating cost. I would think about $150-175K would buy a good example. If nothing else I would fly a couple and see what you think before I made up my mind.
 
With the price of fuel and the length of those trips I'd be looking at a straight tail Lance or 36 Bo unless you can find a killer deal on a 6 that buys you a few years of fuel.
 
I'll toss some more info in:
budget would be less than $100k preferred,
low-wing is an aesthetic preference, but I didn't say I'm limiting myself to it =)

Rainsux, I know what you mean about the Chicago <---> Toronto needing FIKI to be reliable all-year; I'd probably limit myself by the season before getting into the FIKI price range.
 
+1 for a straight tail Lance. I used to fly freight in one and the Cherokee 6. Never liked the 6 - had a really stupid fuel system and flew like a truck. But the Lance would carry me, (I was skinnier then) 1000+ lbs of freight AND 4hrs of gas at 135kts. Easy to work on, too.
 
Before you entirely sell yourself on the PA32, get a W&B sheet or find an online W&B calculator and make sure your anticipated load will fit within CG.

Understand you prefer low wing, but you may want to keep the 210 in consideration (much more favorable CG envelope and faster too).
 
Alexb2000 said:
Nothing wrong with the 6, but I would say A36. Light weight mid-70's one with a 550 conversion. You should see about 160 on 11 GPH LOP. With a useful around 1200. Based on your criteria it is hard to beat the 36 for operating cost.
Click to expand...
Except with a PA-32. Think insurance -- FG vs RG. I agree with the first thought -- PA-32, probably a 260 since they generally have more useful load and he's not going anywhere hot/high.
 
Apache123 said:
. Speed of 130kts is fine.

Groundspeed or TAS? [/U]I won't be doing any over-water flying, and the farthest west of the Mississippi I'll be going "most of the time" would be Houston.

Most common flights:
Chicago <--> Toronto 375 nm
Chicago <--> Atlanta 525 nm



At the same time, I basically want just enough quality aircraft to meet the mission.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

How often are you planning to fly those trips? Do 90 kt ground speeds from Toronto to Chicago work for you? Having flown similar legs for many years in the midwest/southeast, the 6 wouldn't be my choice. YMMV.
 
COFlyBoy said:
I have a W&B spreadsheet for a '66 PA-32-260 and I could never figure out how to load it out of CG (using resonably sized humans).
Click to expand...
I don't have any experience with the -260, but with the -300 both the FG and the PA32RT (Turbo Lance is worse IIRC), as you load up, the envelope gets pretty tight. You may have to put the fat folks in the very back seats and keep the nose baggage empty to get it inside the envelope.
 
The mid-60's 260's have really astonishing full fuel payloads. The later Lances and Saratogas are a very different story, so don't take anything you know about a -301 model into your consideration of a PA32-260.
 
Ron Levy said:
The mid-60's 260's have really astonishing full fuel payloads. The later Lances and Saratogas are a very different story, so don't take anything you know about a -301 model into your consideration of a PA32-260.
Click to expand...
Interesting....usually when you think bigger engine, you think greater capability, but in this case it sounds like it doesn't equate to payload.
 
Just go buy a Comanche B or C =

they are economical enough to do the hamburger runs yet have the range, payload and speed to do the longer flights with aplomb. . . . and they cost 2/3rds what a Bo costs. . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
Just go buy a Comanche B or C =

they are economical enough to do the hamburger runs yet have the range, payload and speed to do the longer flights with aplomb. . . . and they cost 2/3rds what a Bo costs. . . .
Click to expand...


That used to be true, I'm not seeing that anymore for equal condition aircraft.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting....usually when you think bigger engine, you think greater capability, but in this case it sounds like it doesn't equate to payload.
Click to expand...

Yep, my '66 PA-32-260 had a 1625 lb useful load. I was looking at the Saratoga that Greg K's club has and it only has a 1200 lb useful (granted it is a whole lot faster).
 
comanchepilot said:
Just go buy a Comanche B or C =

they are economical enough to do the hamburger runs yet have the range, payload and speed to do the longer flights with aplomb.
Click to expand...
With 850 lb of people in the cabin and baggage to boot? I don't think I've seen that sort of payload in a Comanche B/C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top