What to buy......AGAIN.

jonrood

jonrood

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
25
Location
Livingston, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
jonrood
I have enjoyed reading many posts the last few days, so thanks to those of you who are experienced and share.

I am a 300hr pp. I had been flying a Comanche 250 until I got an offer I couldn't refuse a couple years ago.

I am now in the market for another plane. My budget is $200k-$250k

My average mission:
4 ppl
850lbs payload (yes Im a big guy)
400 nm

I will begin my IFR as soon as I buy a plane. Right now I am having a hard time committing to a plane. I want a modern plane ( 1990 +)I have done a lot of research and have narrowed down to the following:

A36
206

Can you guys provide good and bad for these two planes past the obvious.
A36=faster, quality, marginal for my mission
206=like suv, flies heavy, perfect for my mission

A36
Has anyone removed rear two seats and faced middle forward? How much useful did seat removal add? How difficult are middle seats to access facing forward? How difficult is the CG loading wise in this configuration?

T206h
Is the engine in this plane dependable, I have heard stories of engine problems? how is the kap 140 in IMC?

Thanks,
J
 
Welcome to POA!

I used to own a 182 with the KAP140. When it worked, it worked good. Don't think you could ever go wrong with a 206. An older SR22 might also fit your needs as well. Some of the older SR22's without AC and FIKI had 1100-1200 useful plus you get to cruise at 170+ Knots.
 
MY first thought was something in the PA32R family... 1990s you are probably looking at a Saratoga II. Probably would sit between the 206 and the A36 in both load and speed. I think a few forum members own, or have owned, various members of the PA32R family and can give more details, but I'd suggest taking a look.

Also, the Piper will have a wider cabin than either the 206 or A36, and might be a bit more comfortable for larger folks.
 
The best A36 for your mission is an early 1970s one with all of the updates (TAT 550, Tanning salon avionics, tip tanks, etc), and luckily, it's the only one you're likely to enjoy in your price range -- the 1984+ birds are spendy. The later planes got much heavier, and aren't particularly any more capable.

Flipping the middle row seats forward makes loading difficult for big people (I know, I'm a big people), but not impossible. I know of several folks who have either pulled a middle seat (so 5 seats total with super-easy loading), or had one forward and one rear, to ease loading. Pulling the rearmost two seats and making the A36 into a 4+cargo config saves appx 60# if i recall.

An early 36 with tips, big engine, and TAT should be circa 1600# useful load. A 90s 36 with the same mods is likely to be 1300# or so.

If "new" is a priority for you, get the PA32. They're made to haul beef and are super roomy. :)

The KAP140 gives up easily in turbulence (at least it did for me -- might have been unique to mine), but otherwise a sound and solid autopilot.

$0.02

- Mike
 
Are you willing to live with 140 knots or do you really want 170 knots? That's really what it comes down to. That said, note that an 850 lb payload won't be achieved with much fuel at all in the newer (say, 90's and later) A36's -- 650 lb in the cabin with full fuel is more typical. I saw one 2000 model with all the bells and whistles that had only about 550 lb payload with full fuel, and its IFR range with 850 lb in the cabin would have been like NY to Boston.
 
schmookeeg said:
The best A36 for your mission is an early 1970s one with all of the updates (TAT 550, Tanning salon avionics, tip tanks, etc), and luckily, it's the only one you're likely to enjoy in your price range -- the 1984+ birds are spendy. The later planes got much heavier, and aren't particularly any more capable.



Flipping the middle row seats forward makes loading difficult for big people (I know, I'm a big people), but not impossible. I know of several folks who have either pulled a middle seat (so 5 seats total with super-easy loading), or had one forward and one rear, to ease loading. Pulling the rearmost two seats and making the A36 into a 4+cargo config saves appx 60# if i recall.



An early 36 with tips, big engine, and TAT should be circa 1600# useful load. A 90s 36 with the same mods is likely to be 1300# or so.



If "new" is a priority for you, get the PA32. They're made to haul beef and are super roomy. :)



The KAP140 gives up easily in turbulence (at least it did for me -- might have been unique to mine), but otherwise a sound and solid autopilot.



$0.02



- Mike
Click to expand...


Tanning salon avionics?? Never heard that term before. :). I presume you mean glass.
 
nddons said:
Tanning salon avionics?? Never heard that term before. :). I presume you mean glass.
Click to expand...

There is glass, and then there is G500+750+650+JPI930+little glass standby AI glass. The 5-screen scenario is the one I call the "tanning salon", and it seems highly sought after in the 36s particularly. :D
 
Cirrus SR-22 is the only single engine plane I would buy for an IFR mission given your budget. The parachute gives the same level of survival/safety benefit in IMC or night, or over hostile terrain (or combination there of). If I had the budget for an SR-22 I would get away from twins.
 
schmookeeg said:
There is glass, and then there is G500+750+650+JPI930+little glass standby AI glass. The 5-screen scenario is the one I call the "tanning salon", and it seems highly sought after in the 36s particularly. :D
Click to expand...

Having flown your Tanning Salon panel, including a pair of G-600s, I like that name as it is accurate in analogy as well. It's like sunshine when the sun isn't shining, and it gives you the same effect. SVT gives you Day eVMC in the soup at night. It is a technical solution to several natural and human factors problems that kill us on a regular basis. Once you have it, you won't want to give it up. I couldn't afford the full tanning salon, so I bought a few bulbs and fixtures that got the job done.
 
Don't know much about the Bo, but I got a good amount of 206 & 207 time.

You're REALLY limiting yourself by getting a newer one, you'll end up with MUCH less plane.

If you want a 206, you want a big tail U206, float kit, big tail, pax door STC, you'll want the IO550 and black Mac prop, VGs and extensions. Get a panel to meet what you want.

For your budget, I'd get a one with a runout engine, and just get her exactly like you want, you can get a top of the top U206 that price, it'll out perform a new one, out haul and be lighter.
 
Henning said:
Cirrus SR-22 is the only single engine plane I would buy for an IFR mission given your budget. The parachute gives the same level of survival/safety benefit in IMC or night, or over hostile terrain (or combination there of). If I had the budget for an SR-22 I would get away from twins.
Click to expand...

What circa SR22 has big useful load?
 
Oh, 850 Payload, I misread useful load, he needs a 310 or Baron.

Real BIG guy, and a Beech 18 may be a more comfortable and fun choice, and MoGas saves some money. Never be as cheap as a 310 or Baro, but it's sure cooler and more fun.:D
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Cirrus SR-22 is the only single engine plane I would buy for an IFR mission given your budget. The parachute gives the same level of survival/safety benefit in IMC or night, or over hostile terrain (or combination there of). If I had the budget for an SR-22 I would get away from twins.
Click to expand...

The thought of pulling that chute in IMC over rough terrain gives me the vision of impacting a 60 degree rocky slope and being dismembered as the aircraft breaks up bouncing from one rocky outcropping to the next. Screw that chute! A second engine makes a bunch more sense an that budget.
 
Kristin said:
The thought of pulling that chute in IMC over rough terrain gives me the vision of impacting a 60 degree rocky slope and being dismembered as the aircraft breaks up bouncing from one rocky outcropping to the next. Screw that chute! A second engine makes a bunch more sense an that budget.
Click to expand...

This has never happened in 52 Cirrus parachute deployments. Compare to the number of engine failures in twins that have resulted in the good engine getting you to the site of the fatal crash.

Not arguing against twins but your point against CAPS seems hyperbolic.
 
RudyP said:
This has never happened in 52 Cirrus parachute deployments. Compare to the number of engine failures in twins that have resulted in the good engine getting you to the site of the fatal crash.

Not arguing against twins but your point against CAPS seems hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

So you are saying, based on this sample size, that such can't happen?
 
Kristin said:
So you are saying, based on this sample size, that such can't happen?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm saying it is very improbable. In fact, quite likely less probable than dying in the alternate scenario that you think is better.

Neither (CAPS nor a second piston engine) are 100% safe - we all know that. Arguing that a second engine is safer by picking a theoretical scenario that could but hasn't happened as the comparator to an alternate scenario that has happened many times, strikes me as cherry-picking at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

But whatever makes you feel comfortable is fine by me, I just don't see the need to denigrate the alternative that you do not prefer. Like you, I am perfectly fine with the risk profile of a twin piston airplane flown by a competent pilot and I'm not arguing against you that that is a very rational choice to make. Hell, even a single piston without a chute is (IMO) safe enough. At the end of the day, we all know it's a lot more about the pilot than the equipment, but I just don't see the need to put down one form of safety equipment over another.
 
RudyP said:
This has never happened in 52 Cirrus parachute deployments...
Click to expand...
...including one on the side of a mountain in the Canadian Rockies. They almost died of exposure before the rescue crews got there the next day (crash happened at night in November, IIRC -- not the time to be down on a mountainside in the Canadian Rockies), but not of impact injuries.
 
This thread got me to thinking what would be the perfect airplane that would please nearly everyone. I think I have it.

Take a Cessna 337 and put a parachute on it. This pleases the parachute people and takes care of the dreaded asymmetric thrust.

Then put dead simple landing gear on it from a Mooney.

Replace the two vertical stabilizers with v shaped ones. This should doubly please the Bo guys.

Add a sportsman leading edge cuff. Of course I would have started with one of the Robertson equipped models.

Replace the engines with ones that can legally burn mogas.

Slap an experimental sticker on it.

You can have a parachuted twin with no dangerous tendencies, haul some weight, pretty fast on two engines, fly low and slow on one engine, simple gear, v-tail, STOL capable, burns mogas, and experimental.

Did I leave anyone out?


Oh wait, better put a wing on the bottom too :yesnod:
 
RudyP said:
Of course not. I'm saying it is very improbable. In fact, quite likely less probable than dying in the alternate scenario that you think is better.

Neither (CAPS nor a second piston engine) are 100% safe - we all know that. Arguing that a second engine is safer by picking a theoretical scenario that could but hasn't happened as the comparator to an alternate scenario that has happened many times, strikes me as cherry-picking at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

But whatever makes you feel comfortable is fine by me, I just don't see the need to denigrate the alternative that you do not prefer. Like you, I am perfectly fine with the risk profile of a twin piston airplane flown by a competent pilot and I'm not arguing against you that that is a very rational choice to make. Hell, even a single piston without a chute is (IMO) safe enough. At the end of the day, we all know it's a lot more about the pilot than the equipment, but I just don't see the need to put down one form of safety equipment over another.
Click to expand...

Probability depends on where one is flying. Hitting a mountain is Iowa is very improbable. Not so improbable in Western Colorado. You seem to be opining from a flatlander's perspective. That is fine, and is valid as far as it goes. I was responding to Henning's opinion that the parachute is a preferred safety feature in "hazardous" terrain.

He has an opinion. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. If my opinion is somehow intellectually dishonest, if an opinion can be said to be such, yours are no better.
 
Kristin said:
Probability depends on where one is flying. Hitting a mountain is Iowa is very improbable. Not so improbable in Western Colorado. You seem to be opining from a flatlander's perspective. That is fine, and is valid as far as it goes. I was responding to Henning's opinion that the parachute is a preferred safety feature in "hazardous" terrain.

He has an opinion. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. If my opinion is somehow intellectually dishonest, if an opinion can be said to be such, yours are no better.
Click to expand...

I stick by it, especially in a non turbo twin. Non turbo 310, I'm not staying above the ridge lines above 7500', non turbo 4 cylinders I'm not staying above ridges at 5500', so I need SVT for basic survival. If I can't make it into a valley with a runway, I'm still going in with around 65KIAS forward airspeed (which in the high mountains will be in the 70s). If I find an alfalfa field, beautiful, if all there is is rocks, not near so nice. With turbos and strictly managed weights, my TN Travelair would do 13'500 on a single, a T-310R will do some better.

As a person who was taught table by pros, I'll take the odds with the chute. There is no "sure thing", you can just go by the odds, and the odds favor the chute.
 
OkieFlyer said:
This thread got me to thinking what would be the perfect airplane that would please nearly everyone. I think I have it.

Take a Cessna 337 and put a parachute on it. This pleases the parachute people and takes care of the dreaded asymmetric thrust.

Then put dead simple landing gear on it from a Mooney.

Replace the two vertical stabilizers with v shaped ones. This should doubly please the Bo guys.

Add a sportsman leading edge cuff. Of course I would have started with one of the Robertson equipped models.

Replace the engines with ones that can legally burn mogas.

Slap an experimental sticker on it.

You can have a parachuted twin with no dangerous tendencies, haul some weight, pretty fast on two engines, fly low and slow on one engine, simple gear, v-tail, STOL capable, burns mogas, and experimental.

Did I leave anyone out?


Oh wait, better put a wing on the bottom too :yesnod:
Click to expand...


If you're that scared just live in a frickin' bubble.

Before I got my current plane, I was actually looking for a plane that was more challenging to fly, something unforgiving, same reason I don't have a AAD on my sport rig, trying to take all the danger out of life is as impossible as it is boring.
 
Henning said:
I stick by it, especially in a non turbo twin. Non turbo 310, I'm not staying above the ridge lines above 7500', non turbo 4 cylinders I'm not staying above ridges at 5500', so I need SVT for basic survival. If I can't make it into a valley with a runway, I'm still going in with around 65KIAS forward airspeed (which in the high mountains will be in the 70s). If I find an alfalfa field, beautiful, if all there is is rocks, not near so nice. With turbos and strictly managed weights, my TN Travelair would do 13'500 on a single, a T-310R will do some better.

As a person who was taught table by pros, I'll take the odds with the chute. There is no "sure thing", you can just go by the odds, and the odds favor the chute.
Click to expand...

The NA Twinkie will hold around 7K on drift down. Others even less. I don't need SVT to turn down the nearest valley, most of which have an airport in the valley. Or one can follow the established paths along the major interstate highways and there are towns and airports at regular intervals.

While a parachute might be better in a few specific instances, I maintain that the spare engine is better under lots of others. I would much rather land on a runway with one engine feathered than under chute in a nice alfalfa field.
 
Henning said:
Cirrus SR-22 is the only single engine plane I would buy for an IFR mission given your budget. The parachute gives the same level of survival/safety benefit in IMC or night, or over hostile terrain (or combination there of). If I had the budget for an SR-22 I would get away from twins.
Click to expand...

Don't make that comment at the redboard...you'll get eviscerated lol.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't let my AOPA membership lapse just so I can go watch the fireworks there on a slow day.
 
Last edited:
Kristin said:
The NA Twinkie will hold around 7K on drift down. Others even less. I don't need SVT to turn down the nearest valley, most of which have an airport in the valley. Or one can follow the established paths along the major interstate highways and there are towns and airports at regular intervals.

While a parachute might be better in a few specific instances, I maintain that the spare engine is better under lots of others. I would much rather land on a runway with one engine feathered than under chute in a nice alfalfa field.
Click to expand...

Most the valleys in the Rockies I flew down didn't have any V-Airways or other guides to keep you off the rocks in IMC, I'm not sure how you manage it blind without SVT.:dunno:
 
Aren't accident rates higher in twins vs. single engine? I don't think that's mechanical but maybe the increased workload or people taking them into situations they shouldn't with a false confidence.

Personally, I'd be fine with the redundancy of the chute. Neither a twin or SR22 are likely to have an engine out in the grand scheme of things. So by only comparing that, you are comparing only one of many other scenarios. In some not being discussed, the chute might be useful where an extra engine might not be (collisions, certain IMC scenarios, break ups, control failure, so on and so forth).

Even then, the Cirrus drivers had a bad safety record for a long time. I think they've really improved that though with better training. But I agree with Henning. IMC over the mountains...give me the chute. I'll worry about how bent up the plane is later.
 
Bonchie said:
Aren't accident rates higher in twins vs. single engine? I don't think that's mechanical but maybe the increased workload or people taking them into situations they shouldn't with a false confidence.

Personally, I'd be fine with the redundancy of the chute. Neither a twin or SR22 are likely to have an engine out in the grand scheme of things. So by only comparing that, you are comparing only one of many other scenarios. In some not being discussed, the chute might be useful where an extra engine might not be (collisions, certain IMC scenarios, break ups, control failure, so on and so forth).

Even then, the Cirrus drivers had a bad safety record for a long time. I think they've really improved that though with better training. But I agree with Henning. IMC over the mountains...give me the chute. I'll worry about how bent up the plane is later.
Click to expand...

Statistics between singles and twins are misleading at best. I would guess that the accident rate is higher in singles but the fatal accidents are higher in twins. The later is likely the result of the fact that the average twin is going faster than the average single. Simple bit of Newtonian physics there. It will never be possible to get a really good set of statistics and there is no record kept of the twins that after an engine failure made it back to the airport. Without the data on the saves, the numbers are meaningless.
 
Henning said:
Most the valleys in the Rockies I flew down didn't have any V-Airways or other guides to keep you off the rocks in IMC, I'm not sure how you manage it blind without SVT.:dunno:
Click to expand...

You and I have touched on SVT in the mountains before. As you know, I've spent a fair bit of time in the hills with SVT. I'll say that if one is trying to navigate a valley blind they'd better have a moving map with GPS depiction of location and track and use that as primary. If a pilot expected to look at the SVT presentation typically shown with the AI, they'd be too far behind the aircraft to confidently navigate. My problem with the AI display of terrain is mostly one of depth perception. I set up the display accordingly with plan view on the HSI in arc mode. The AI display of terrain comes into play near the airport.

I know that opinions on this will vary and everybody processes information a bit differently. I'll just suggest that maybe practice before preaching.
 
UPDATE: I found a 2000 T206H with 750hrs TT that was in my budget. Its in prebuy/annual, and with no major problems, I should be flying next weekend. Thanks for all your responses...Jon
 
Kristin said:
The thought of pulling that chute in IMC over rough terrain gives me the vision of impacting a 60 degree rocky slope and being dismembered as the aircraft breaks up bouncing from one rocky outcropping to the next. Screw that chute! A second engine makes a bunch more sense an that budget.
Click to expand...


what if you chute down straight to a cell tower!!! that has always been my unreasonable fear when flying the cirrus. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
James331 said:
If you're that scared just live in a frickin' bubble.

Before I got my current plane, I was actually looking for a plane that was more challenging to fly, something unforgiving, same reason I don't have a AAD on my sport rig, trying to take all the danger out of life is as impossible as it is boring.
Click to expand...

Guess I didn't lay the sarcasm on thick enough :dunno:
 
jonrood said:
UPDATE: I found a 2000 T206H with 750hrs TT that was in my budget. Its in prebuy/annual, and with no major problems, I should be flying next weekend. Thanks for all your responses...Jon
Click to expand...


Congrats and welcome to the high wing club!

You're going to like that wing above you in the summer.... :yesnod:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top