Which of these is the most reasonable rate and best platform?

T

turbofan

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
99
Display Name
turbofan
Mission profile: 3 pax @ 250lbs per, 500nm, 7,000' airport elevation, 6,000' long runway, majority of flight over/near mountainous terrain

C-182T or RG - $185
C-210L - $210
SR-22 - $280
BE-76 - $220
 
Last edited:
How high are the mountains, what altitudes are you planning?

I'd say forget the hourly rate. What is the trip cost for each platform (since you list a 500nm leg length) ?

What are your priorities? Trip cost? Travel time? Pax comfort?

Is this a one time trip or an on-going thing?
 
coma24 said:
How high are the mountains, what altitudes are you planning?

I'd say forget the hourly rate. What is the trip cost for each platform (since you list a 500nm leg length) ?

What are your priorities? Trip cost? Travel time? Pax comfort?

Is this a one time trip or an on-going thing?
Click to expand...

~14,500' (Mount Whitney). Planning on 12,000' if IFR and maybe up to 14,000' on a shorter leg... lower if VFR. Obviously the 182 is going to be the cheapest.

I want to fit 3 pairs of skis, boots, poles, etc. My priorities are comfort then cost then time.

It will be an on-going thing.
 
Last edited:
How is the Dutchess in the same performance category as a Centurion? The Dutchess is a trainer.


I'd get the C210.
 
turbofan said:
~14,500' (Mount Whitney). Planning on 12,000' if IFR and maybe up to 14,000' on a shorter leg... lower if VFR. Obviously the 182 is going to be the cheapest.

I want to fit 3 pairs of skis, boots, poles, etc. My priorities are comfort then cost then time.

It will be an on-going thing.
Click to expand...

For 14,000, your bumping the max altitude for a normally aspirated 210/182RG.
 
I would go with the 210 and rent the skis and boots . I agree with finding a 210 turbo for safety.
 
turbofan said:
Mission profile: 3 pax @ 250lbs per, 500nm, 7,000' airport elevation, 6,000' long runway, majority of flight over/near mountainous terrain

C-182T or RG - $185
C-210L - $210
SR-22 - $280
BE-76 - $220
Click to expand...


Of the choices given, the BE-76 as I'm looking at another factor.

The BE-76's service ceiling is 1500 feet higher then the C-210L, 75 hp more engine power, climb rate 250fpm better and useful is 100lbs more. However, the cruise speed on the BE-76 is 9kts slower then the 210... but over 500nm that is 10-12 minutes however the BE-76's faster climb rate might mitigate part of that.

It's joked the second engine takes you to the accident scene but that glide ratio on the BE-76 with one engine out I suspect is quite a bit better then a C-210 with an engine out... and for the type of flying you are doing that would be a factor I'd be considering. Plus most passengers like seeing the second engine.
 
Last edited:
Cessna 210D service ceiling is 21k feet, no turbo.
 
bnt83 said:
Cessna 210D service ceiling is 21k feet, no turbo.
Click to expand...

That isn't one of the OP's choices however. 210L is, which is about 3000 feet lower.

One thing the OP might consider is to just take a few of them out flying and see what he likes best. I'm ME rated so I don't have the working against me on the Dutchess.

Honestly I'm thinking none of the above. Mountain flying, in the winter, IFR? Seriously with any of these choices I think they'd be headed towards being a statistic if they try and keep a timetable.

FIKI, twin with turbochargers is what I'd be looking at and then only with some experience. I'm hitting icing in Michigan in IFR conditions and I'm puckering up a bit.... I can't even begin to imagine what that would be like in the Rocky Mountains for a renter.
 
Last edited:
+1 for the Duchess. It's as comfortable as a C210, it's a very sweet flier, and let's face it, assuming you live past the climb to 1000' agl it's safer.

Especially over mountains where your off field landing options (wheels, belly, or parachute) are much more restricted compared to say, Kansas.
 
turbofan said:
Mission profile: 3 pax @ 250lbs per, 500nm, 7,000' airport elevation, 6,000' long runway, majority of flight over/near mountainous terrain

C-182T or RG - $185
C-210L - $210
SR-22 - $280
BE-76 - $220
Click to expand...


500nm, choose the plane to pros choose, the Cessna 210.
 
Clip4 said:
For 14,000, your bumping the max altitude for a normally aspirated 210/182RG.
Click to expand...


I think the NA 210 is more like 22k' but he would be limited to about 45% power at 14k' so head winds could slow down the trip a bit. The turbo would equalize the 182's speed to the 210 NA at those altitudes maybe nudge the T182 a bit faster.
 
JimNtexas said:
+1 for the Duchess. It's as comfortable as a C210, it's a very sweet flier, and let's face it, assuming you live past the climb to 1000' agl it's safer.

Especially over mountains where your off field landing options (wheels, belly, or parachute) are much more restricted compared to say, Kansas.
Click to expand...

Single engine service ceiling on the Duchess will not clear tall rocks, and doubles your probability of an engine failure.

I'd go twin anyway because iFlyTwins, but I would call it a wash at best for that area. Probably worse than a wash.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Single engine service ceiling on the Duchess will not clear tall rocks, and doubles your probability of an engine failure.

I'd go twin anyway because iFlyTwins, but I would call it a wash at best for that area. Probably worse than a wash.
Click to expand...


Assuming in either the 210 or the Dutchess; the engine goes out you turn away from the peaks and go down hill to find the next airport, wouldn't the 2nd fan help you go farther?

Is the decent slower in a twin with one fan than in a single with no power?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Assuming in either the 210 or the Dutchess; the engine goes out you turn away from the peaks and go down hill to find the next airport, wouldn't the 2nd fan help you go farther?

Is the decent slower in a twin with one fan than in a single with no power?
Click to expand...

That would be the theoretical benefit, and there will be a lot of variables that go into it. It might make sense depending on where you're flying, but over the big rocks I tend to think it's a crap shoot at best.

I'll argue safety benefits of twins in many cases, my point is that's not one.
 
For clarification the route I'm looking at is KMHV KL33I KL39I BIH JASAT FEBAT KMMH. It's not yanking and banking around peaks, just a wide valley at high altitude.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
Assuming in either the 210 or the Dutchess; the engine goes out you turn away from the peaks and go down hill to find the next airport, wouldn't the 2nd fan help you go farther?

Is the decent slower in a twin with one fan than in a single with no power?
Click to expand...


Lose an engine on the dutchess, your ceiling is 6000 feet, on the C210 it is 0 feet. Further, the closer you get to 6000 feet the slower the dutchess would descend... so yes you be able to glide much further in the dutchess going from 14,000 to 6000 feet then the C210. Then indefinitely could hold that altitude in the dutchess while the C210 continues going down. That gives you alot more options. It's pretty rare also for an engine to fully cut out in cruise, generally you have a little warning and time to deal with it.

But this whole discussion is academic. None of the listed choices are wise to do IFR flying in the mountains in the winter.
 
Last edited:
And yet when you visit airports in those areas the mix of planes looks very similar to that in flatland areas. What do they know that we don't?

Ted DuPuis said:
That would be the theoretical benefit, and there will be a lot of variables that go into it. It might make sense depending on where you're flying, but over the big rocks I tend to think it's a crap shoot at best.

I'll argue safety benefits of twins in many cases, my point is that's not one.
Click to expand...
 
One advantage of the Dutchess is that she has two very reliable O-360 motors, which in my unscientific opinion are significantly less likely to fail than the higher power motors in the other choices.
 
wabower said:
And yet when you visit airports in those areas the mix of planes looks very similar to that in flatland areas. What do they know that we don't?
Click to expand...

That it's not worth caring about.

JimNtexas said:
One advantage of the Dutchess is that she has two very reliable O-360 motors, which in my unscientific opinion are significantly less likely to fail than the higher power motors in the other choices.
Click to expand...

That is a good point. Two O-360s do have twice the probability of failing of one O-360, but probably less than twice the probability vs. an IO-520.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That is a good point. Two O-360s do have twice the probability of failing of one O-360, but probably less than twice the probability vs. an IO-520.
Click to expand...

And also consider the failure of that one IO-520 in the C-210 at 14,000 feet in IFR conditions would most likely have a far different outcome then the failure of one of those O-360's in the Duchess at 14K in IFR conditions.

There is a reason why the insurance regs at my FBO prohibit flight over Lake Michigan in the 172 vs. the twin.

Again, I stress this whole discussion is academic as the OP is wanting to fly in the winter in IFR conditions in the Rocky mountains. None of these planes is a good choice. He needs to be looking at dc-ice turbo twins for his mission.
 
Last edited:
Winter conditions in the Rockies range from O/0 in snow and ice to 'Clear and a Million'. Stay on the ground for the IMC and fly in the CAVU and all is fine.
 
I will be posting my FIKI de-turbo'd IO-550 T210N for sale this weekend, if you are interested.

Wells
 
That Duchess had better be in TERRIFIC shape at $220K, it's a trainer.....
 
bbchien said:
That Duchess had better be in TERRIFIC shape at $220K, it's a trainer.....
Click to expand...

I deduced the costs provided to be wet rental rates.


I was actually looking at something similar to this. A friend in Arcata, CA was curious about renting or buying something for his business. Apparently they have 2-3 partners that travel frequently to LA, Portland, etc.. basically sub 400nm trips with a good portion over rugged terrain. Peaks over 5k feet could be avoided.

Typically 2 people and bags trips. I figured a Twinkie might do it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top