What plane?

Utah-Jay

Utah-Jay

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
446
Location
KHCR
Display Name
Display name:
Jay
What is a good plane to do charters from South Florida to the Bahamas for 4 passengers (not including pilot) to shortish landing strips? Think fly fishing destinations. This would be a startup business, so let's be somewhat budget minded :)

Single, say a 210, or a twin like a 337?

Please don't feel the need to limit it to those two, I was just bringing both single and twin into the conversation.
 
Last edited:
I'd say probably PA32 either fixed gear or retract depending on how the time distance worked out.

210 could possibly do it, but 4 pax plus pilot means somebody is sitting in that back seat. A 210 is comfortable for pax if you devote the back bench to luggage and don't try to put people in it.

If you can afford a twin, I'd go with 310.
 
Also, remember that fly rods can be long, so you'll want something that can accommodate a few of those down the middle. I would think you'd want a twin for over water as well, plus people will be packing a bit heavier with fishing tackle so something with a decent useful load. Then again, I'm no expert on airplanes themselves.
 
Most planes can accommodate a tube in the aft fuse for poles, skis, etc.]

ebykowsky said:
Also, remember that fly rods can be long, so you'll want something that can accommodate a few of those down the middle. I would think you'd want a twin for over water as well, plus people will be packing a bit heavier with fishing tackle so something with a decent useful load. Then again, I'm no expert on airplanes themselves.
Click to expand...
 
I removed the back plastic panel in my old C150 so I could carry fishing poles. My vote would be a Cessna 402, you can lay the poles in the floor between the seats.
 
Zhunter said:
What is a good plane to do charters from South Florida to the Bahamas for 4 passengers (not including pilot) to shortish landing strips? Think fly fishing destinations. This would be a startup business, so let's be somewhat budget minded :)

Single, say a 210, or a twin like a 337?

Please don't feel the need to limit it to those two, I was just bringing both single and twin into the conversation.
Click to expand...

Budget start up means single engine. The two best load haulers I am aware of are the Cherokee 6/260 with 1600 useful load 6/7 pax; and Cessna 205/6/7 series. Dead simple best load....I do not think you require the speed or complexity of RG or that it makes much difference.

If you are a mechanic A&P then you might consider an Aztruk twin or 337.
Some folks might prefer to go over water in a twin.
 
wabower said:
Most planes can accommodate a tube in the aft fuse for poles, skis, etc.]
Click to expand...

True; I'm used to the mentality of, "No you can't put anything back there because it won't fit and it would throw the CofG off..." Not that I carry luggage ever, just looks that way from the W&B diagrams.

I can't wait to join a flying club, take my poles out to some lake in the backwoods, and just sit there fishing all day!
 
or a beaver ?
 

Attachments

  • Turbine Beaver.jpg
    Turbine Beaver.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 20
Aztec would be a good choice. Can fit 5 passengers and all their luggage comfortably, and handles short and unimproved strips well.
 
That GA-8 looks awesome, but the ones for sale are very expensive

Note: Traveling fisherman have multi-piece rods, and a non-retractable would be fine
 
Sec. 135.183 — Performance requirements: Land aircraft operated over water.

No person may operate a land aircraft carrying passengers over water unless—
(a) It is operated at an altitude that allows it to reach land in the case of engine failure;

(b) It is necessary for takeoff or landing;

(c) It is a multiengine aircraft operated at a weight that will allow it to climb, with the critical engine inoperative, at least 50 feet a minute, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the surface; or

(d) It is a helicopter equipped with helicopter flotation devices.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-183-FAR.shtml

-----------------------------------------------

135 certificates are pretty hard to get right now, if the fsdo is even still issuing them...i know of people who have recently gone through the orlando fsdo just to get it moving.

If you do choose to go for something, we operate a clean 135 cert out of FXE with a LR60 on it, looking to expand. I do a lot of work at Lantana airport and could see some potential for a light-aircraft 135.

I think something like a Bonanza, Cherokee 6 or 414 / Navajo would be a good bet.
 
Last edited:
lr60plt said:
Sec. 135.183 — Performance requirements: Land aircraft operated over water.

No person may operate a land aircraft carrying passengers over water unless—
(a) It is operated at an altitude that allows it to reach land in the case of engine failure;

(b) It is necessary for takeoff or landing;

(c) It is a multiengine aircraft operated at a weight that will allow it to climb, with the critical engine inoperative, at least 50 feet a minute, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the surface; or

(d) It is a helicopter equipped with helicopter flotation devices.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part135-183-FAR.shtml

-----------------------------------------------

135 certificates are pretty hard to get right now, if they fsdo is even still issuing them...i know of people who have recently gone through the orlando fsdo just to get it moving.

If you do choose to go for something, we operate a clean 135 cert out of FXE with a LR60 on it, looking to expand. I do a lot of work at Lantana airport and could see some potential for a light-aircraft 135.

I think something like a Bonanza, Cherokee 6 or 414 / Navajo would be a good bet.
Click to expand...

Interesting, looks like it is twins then
 
My vote is either a C-185 or C-206 on amphibs. Fly as low to the water as you want, plus you have the payload to haul 4 people.
 
I have learned, thanks to GotTime242, that for a 135 you need twins, so we can eliminate singles. Oh well, I thought the 207 would have been the ticket, but alas not over water.
 
Zhunter said:
I have learned, thanks to GotTime242, that for a 135 you need twins, so we can eliminate singles. Oh well, I thought the 207 would have been the ticket, but alas not over water.
Click to expand...

But not if you have amphibs, right?
 
No need to go the amphib route, there are landing strips all over the islands
 
ebykowsky said:
But not if you have amphibs, right?
Click to expand...

Saw no prevision for float planes...

Gonna need a twin, Aztec, cheap, rugged, lots of space. That would be the smallest I would go for your mission, if I could swing the costs of a Navajo I would.

Keep in mind that getting a plane up to 135 snuff can cost as much as or more than what you payed for it, especially if you aren't careful when shopping.
 
Skylane81E said:
Gonna need a twin, Aztec, cheap, rugged, lots of space. That would be the smallest I would go for your mission, if I could swing the costs of a Navajo I would.

Keep in mind that getting a plane up to 135 snuff can cost as much as or more than what you payed for it, especially if you aren't careful when shopping.
Click to expand...

Yep. And just because a plane came off of 135 recently doesn't mean that it will be a shoe-in for getting accepted on a new 135. Each FSDO may look at things a little differently.

The Navajo would represent a significant cost upgrade, but might also open you up for other charters. Our customers loved the Navajo. The Aztec is less comfortable, but far more economical.
 
Skylane81E said:
Saw no prevision for float planes...
Click to expand...

The FAR cited states 'Land Aircraft', so it would appear that it does not limit sea-planes and amphibs.

Might explain why it is more common to see Beavers on floats than wheels.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Having operated both a 310 (for 500 hours) and Aztec (for 1000 hours), I would think the Aztec to be a better choice for a few reasons.

1) Cabin. The 310's cabin is significantly smaller and will hold significantly less stuff. The Aztec can truly hold 6 people and luggage - the 310, not so much.
2) Cabin cooling. The 310 is a sauna. The Aztec flows lots of air and is comfortable in the warm temperatures you'll be dealing with.
3) Rugged landing gear. The Aztec has it, the 310 doesn't.

The 310 is easier to work on than the Aztec, but it has a few more gotchas. The only negative of the Aztec is that it's slower than the 310, but not enough to really matter on shorter trips. The 10-20 kts of speed only really becomes noticeable when you start to push the 600 nm range.

The reasons we chose to keep the Aztec over the 310 primarily involved the better condition of the specific airframe we had as well as the extra speed. Also, that sauna of a cabin is helpful in more locations we go. Even flying up to Newfoundland last week, we were very comfortable with the cabin heat on the lowest setting. I was wearing a t-shirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top