Plane for this mission...

Alexb2000 said:
Sounds too cheap to me. I figured fuel at $250 alone. If someone will charter it for $550 why not do that when you have 6 people and buy something else for when you don't?
Click to expand...

Talking with a board member of a non profit that operates an (underutilized) 421, they figure their costs at $650/hr. They are talking about getting a 135 cert and chartering it for around 800 per hour to make revenue to support the charity cause
 
dell30rb said:
Talking with a board member of a non profit that operates an (underutilized) 421, they figure their costs at $650/hr. They are talking about getting a 135 cert and chartering it for around 800 per hour to make revenue to support the charity cause
Click to expand...

Unless they have a charter client base already lined up or they are already paying commercial insurance rates, the may want to delve deeper into the details before committing to that.
 
Interesting discussion. I honestly didn't know if there was anything available to meet the original requirements without going to a 7-digit price tag (purchase price plus annual operating costs) and it sounds like that is pretty much the case.

To keep things going, what if I drop the load requirements a bit. The 6 occupants are known to be able to fit in a Cherokee 6-300, but the speed is horrible for a 600nm trip. So what is out there that has, at a minimum, the weight and volume capacity of a Cherokee 6, but speed of 165+ KTAS?
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
you guys just need to build another RV-10.
Click to expand...

After this past weekend's trip, I would be OK with that. The -10 is such a sweet travelling plane - much more comfortable than the -7.
 
CJones said:
Interesting discussion. I honestly didn't know if there was anything available to meet the original requirements without going to a 7-digit price tag (purchase price plus annual operating costs) and it sounds like that is pretty much the case.

To keep things going, what if I drop the load requirements a bit. The 6 occupants are known to be able to fit in a Cherokee 6-300, but the speed is horrible for a 600nm trip. So what is out there that has, at a minimum, the weight and volume capacity of a Cherokee 6, but speed of 165+ KTAS?
Click to expand...

Same list of twins and turbine singles and a Spartan Exec. Either load or speed is a factor of excess HP. The mission you ask for is a 400+ HP mission.
 
wabower said:
Same old stuff, finding airplanes and structuring deals for buyers--with reasonable success--and trying to find my golf swing with quite a bit less.

Things good with you? Catching any fish? Still flying fat Albert?
Click to expand...

Been trying to catch some fish. Hunting season is almost here too.

Large Marge is still at it. The twin thought keeps going through my head, but its hard to change planes when all the kinks are worked out of mine and it does 80% really well.

Next time I am in Dallas, Ill hit you up and we can grab dinner. I think the place with the 310 went under.
 
CJones said:
To keep things going, what if I drop the load requirements a bit. The 6 occupants are known to be able to fit in a Cherokee 6-300, but the speed is horrible for a 600nm trip. So what is out there that has, at a minimum, the weight and volume capacity of a Cherokee 6, but speed of 165+ KTAS?
Click to expand...
Are you still trying to limit it to singles?

If so, I think you'd have to be looking at the turbo props....C208, PC-12
 
I had to register because you are guys are overlooking an obvious winner. Aerostar 702. Done. Thread closed.

Too 'spensive? Fine, 601/602.
 
Last edited:
Have you flown one of those? It look pretty sporty - 240kts. Not a machine for a 700hr PP, though, IMHO.
 
I haven't. Know a guy who loved his though. Just throttle it back, lean it out and I doubt you'd find better twin economy, until you had to procure parts for the airframe. Haha never having flown one is your not appropriate for a 700hr pp comment based on a characteristic besides speed and the necessity to have PRECISE airspeed control with the little tiny wings? Some sneaky gotchas? The throttle is adjustable for a reason.
 
I posit that it might take 700hrs in the Aerostar before he could fly it well and safely...based on having flown the night freight for a few years myself in similar equiptment.
 
Oh, I love the Aerostar, the economics on them if you're a mechanic are fantastic for the speed an capabilities. Pretty much they have a 1700lb useful load with 990lbs of fuel leaves about 700lbs for the cabin. Since Chicago to Atlanta is only 600NM figure you only need to haul 140 gallons of fuel, so that brings you to 850lbs in the cabin, so yeah, the Aerostar will do it.
 
Henning said:
Chicago to Atlanta is only 600NM figure you only need to haul 140 gallons of fuel, so that brings you to 850lbs in the cabin, so yeah, the Aerostar will do it.
Click to expand...

6x170=1,020, I don't see that working with 850 in the cabin?
 
Alexb2000 said:
6x170=1,020, I don't see that working with 850 in the cabin?
Click to expand...

I thought we had kids in this, probably I'm confusing threads. No, the Aerostar is 3-4 adults to travel and 5 on short hauls which is why most of them have lost the seat behind the pilot for a table to work at.
 
Aztec.

You can fit 6 adults and luggage (done it lots of times). I do 21 GPH @ 155 KTAS. On a 600 nm trip, figure that'll be about a 15 minute difference.

Other benefits: easily available with FIKI + radar, low purchase cost, very easy to fly, and very forgiving.
 
Henning said:
Oh, I love the Aerostar, the economics on them if you're a mechanic are fantastic for the speed an capabilities. Pretty much they have a 1700lb useful load with 990lbs of fuel leaves about 700lbs for the cabin. Since Chicago to Atlanta is only 600NM figure you only need to haul 140 gallons of fuel, so that brings you to 850lbs in the cabin, so yeah, the Aerostar will do it.
Click to expand...

Me too, but the 700s burn the same fuel as a Chieftain (same engines). The 600 might be better and lighter.
 
Yep, the lottery is over and I think you were the only winner. As with many opportunities, timing is everything.

jasont said:
Next time I am in Dallas, Ill hit you up and we can grab dinner. I think the place with the 310 went under.
Click to expand...
 
Just read a pretty interesting discussion about Aerostars on Prune forums. I'm drawn to the airplane - but the discussion cast sufficient doubt on its merits to make even me shake my head. Some highlights: 4 times the fatality rate of Barons and, get this - 12 times the accident rate. The 700 costs more to operate than a C-90. The airplanes look cool, but they're sirens. One poster likened Aerostars as a "Piston engined MU2".
 
j1b3h0 said:
Just read a pretty interesting discussion about Aerostars on Prune forums. I'm drawn to the airplane - but the discussion cast sufficient doubt on its merits to make even me shake my head. Some highlights: 4 times the fatality rate of Barons and, get this - 12 times the accident rate. The 700 costs more to operate than a C-90. The airplanes look cool, but they're sirens. One poster likened Aerostars as a "Piston engined MU2".
Click to expand...


It's a very high performance Ted Smith design that was meant to become a jet (which it has now). It's really a plane waiting for better engines, much like his Twin Commander series.
 
MU-2....ah, just saw it was already mentioned.
 
Last edited:
I have the cancelled checks to support the operating cost assertions. Lke most light twins, they must be flown like a single in order to have any chance of surviving the outcome of an engine failure. The only difference is that the wreck happens at higher speeds. Anybody considering them should carefully study the TAS claims.

j1b3h0 said:
Just read a pretty interesting discussion about Aerostars on Prune forums. I'm drawn to the airplane - but the discussion cast sufficient doubt on its merits to make even me shake my head. Some highlights: 4 times the fatality rate of Barons and, get this - 12 times the accident rate. The 700 costs more to operate than a C-90. The airplanes look cool, but they're sirens. One poster likened Aerostars as a "Piston engined MU2".
Click to expand...
 
CJones said:
Tell me the a/c that would meet this mission profile:
  • Cruise 165+ KTAS
  • 6 'real' seats (not 4 seats + small bench like 210)
  • Cabin room for 6 FAA average sized adults
  • Fuel capacity for 600nm trip non-stop with IFR reserves at 165+ KTAS
  • Weight capacity for 6 FAA average sized adults + 1.25 carry-on sized bag each
  • Reasonably insurable for PP-ASEL-IA with ~700 hrs (with possibility of acquiring AMEL if twin is needed to meet profile)
I honestly don't know what kind of plane would meet this requirement, so let's hear the suggestions.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go ahead and suggest a DC-3....
 
I used to fly a R4D-8 or C-117, which is a later version of the DC-3. Had different tail feathers, (8ft more horizontal stab span) flush-riveted, stainless cowlings and wings. It had more horsepower than the stock R-1830s on the '3, and it wouldn't cruise at 189MPH, let alone knots. 165mph, maybe...it's been a long time, that was in 1981.
 
j1b3h0 said:
I used to fly a R4D-8 or C-117, which is a later version of the DC-3. Had different tail feathers, (8ft more horizontal stab span) flush-riveted, stainless cowlings and wings. It had more horsepower than the stock R-1830s on the '3, and it wouldn't cruise at 189MPH, let alone knots. 165mph, maybe...it's been a long time, that was in 1981.
Click to expand...

Well huh...I guess that's the difference between book and real life.
 
I actually own and fly what you're looking for, Charlene, 1973 421B, FIKI, seats 8 in a pinch, but 6 comfortably.:D 190 knots on 40 GPH at cruise, holds 250 gallons of gas, 2350 lb useful load I average 50 gallons the first hour depending on altitude. Maintenance is not cheap, I figure $10K for an annual including squawks and another $3-5K during the year.
 
OK, so I know this probably doesn't work for you, but there's the Expedition E350 that seems like a fantastic plane. It's got the speed, the load, and the range, but only has 5 seats. Also you'd have to buy new, because there aren't any on the used market that I can find. But it seems like a fantastically capable airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top