Advise on C182 Options

[Modesetter]

Hi Guys, first post!

The company I work for recently purchased a C182Q to get our foot into the business aviation world, We have a network of Ag Machinery dealerships across Victoria, and the main idea of the A/C was to cart directors around between dealerships for meetings, take salesmen out to customers properties, emergency parts drop off etc. - Generally as a time saver. (also helps me build up my hours after 6 years out of the air!)

So we got the 182 a couple of months ago, great unit only had a TT of 2455 hours on it, not bad for a 1978 model, always hangered, great condition in and out, etc.
Had its last 100 hrly in September last year, and had only done another 9 hrs until we got it in May.

Since we have had it, I have done over 20 hrs in it, took a salesman from Mildura to Moree and back in a day, a few other trips here and there.

The alternator died on take-off from YSHT last week, so I put her back down and taxied it to the local LAME there to get it sorted, which got me thinking.

The more we use it, the more opportunities we find to make even more use of it except for the following limitations:

It is not IFR rated, only NVFR, so trip planning in advance can be hit and miss when depending on the clouds! (especially in winter)

Its a tad slow for longer flights.

Once you get 4 average blokes in it (farmers size), you can only put in about enough fuel to get to the end of the runway without going outside the CG limits.:\

In reality, its over 30 years old, and reliability could be an issue.

The engine is on condition, so even at the next 100 hrly, we could be looking at a reco.


So, my question is: Would I be better off throwing money at this machine, as in maybe instead of reco-ing the O-470, we upgrade to an O-520. Then upgrade the avionics (all quite dated, even the Garmin GNC-250XL) and get it IFR certified,
Or just get a newer A/C?

I have seen a T206H - 2008 model in QLD with 700 hrs TT since new, G1000 etc going for 450K $US, where as our 182 was only $130K $AU and if we spent say, another $100K on it , i doubt we would get it back on the 182.

Sorry for the long post, just thinking out loud really!

Any other suggestions on different A/C to consider?
We just need it to carry 4-6 people (if only 4, then 4 bigger people) cruise at more than 150-160kts and be IFR ready. Also, we use a lot of dirt strips, so sturdy landing gear and tyres are a must.

[wishiwasupthere]

C208!

:ok:

[Modesetter]

wishiwasupthere, i'd love that too !

The 6 figure price tag is a bit too much of a jump from the 182 though. :(
Also, one of our directors is halfway to his PPL, so it needs to be "L" plate friendly....

Unless he keeps the 182, and I get the 208 :)

[27/09]

The first question is how big is your aviation money bucket?

It's going to be hard to beat the 182 in many ways.

30 year old airframe? Yes, true, but a being a reliability issue? Not really if it's been properly looked after at the hours on the airframe.

A 206 will carry more pax but at about the same speed as the 182 burning about 15 litres more per hour.

Do you need a turbo? How often are you operating hot and high? How often will you need to carry more than 3 others? How much extra is going to cost for that luxury?

How long are your normal leg lengths? In other words how much fuel do you need to carry?

I don't know which year your Q model is but my rough calculations on a pre 1981 182Q tell me you can carry 4 100kg people (yourself plus 3 others) and have room for 2 hours and 30 minutes of gas. A post 1981 Q should give you about 4 hours and 40 minutes gas with 4 100kg people on board.

If it were me I'd be looking still at the later version 182 and spend some money on a panel upgrade and stick with the O-470. You'll still have considerable cash left over from the price of the T206H.

If you want to go faster then you need to think about a 210 or Lance. The 210 will be faster but has smaller tyres than the Lance which may be a consideration on the dirt strips.

[Plow King]

Don't get anything too flash, some blokes might query how much they're paying for their green tractors :E

If you rule out upgrading the 182, sounds like it'll come down to a 206 or 210. Have a look at the 210's currently on the field; between them you've got a Turbo, Normally Aspirated, and an Atlantic Aero IO550 conversion; that might give you some ideas. Have a talk to SO'H, he'll be able to find something for you.

Alternatively, when "TriMedGroup" gets his Chieftain/421/208/PC12/G550, there might be an under-utilised 206H with G1000 around the corner, you might get a local discount! :}

PK

[Modesetter]

Plow King:

Thanks mate, I'll be catching up with S O'H soon, he actually put us on to the 182. When we looked initially, we didn't realize just how much we would utilize it once we had it.

I notice TristarMed's thread, and have already PM'd him :)
The one in QLD I mentioned is identical to his, colors, cargo pod and all - except its a Turbo.



27/09:

Id say our "bucket" is a typical "as shallow as possible" one...

Normal flights would be 2-3 hours return, but most destinations wont have fuel.
Again, if we had the ability to take mare that 3 pax, we would use it more often. (obviously have to justify the increase in price vs operational needs)

We did have an offer in on a Lance, but just missed out :(


Thanks for the input guys, and sorry if my replies are slow, being new- i'm still having my posts moderated.

[poteroo]

The 182 takes some beating. If you go to a C210 then the operating cost runs up, and your paddock options disappear.

After owning and operating a C180, and a C182 for over 20 years in the wheatbelt, I can tell you that you usually uplift fewer people than what you 'business planned'.

As for speed, be realistic here. It's not that much different if you start factoring in the ability to land on farm - instead of at the closest airport. Better to clock up a few more hours annually than have an aircraft costing lots more in fixed costs per hour.

I note that you are planning to go IFR or NVFR too. That's fine, but consider your time & duty hours. Just because you might fly only 2-3 hrs in a day, that doesn't mean this is your duty time. If you are in full time employment with a machinery firm - then you need to count from when you walk out the front door each day..............until you get back in.

That's how your real duty time will be calculated by the ATSB when you have an incident due fatigue, as you inevitably will by trying to make each day into a 12 hr one..

Believe me, I've flown in a business role over the WA wheatbelt since 1970, and damned near killed myself because of fatigue caused by working too long hours. Take care.

happy days,

[MyNameIsIs]

We just need it to carry 4-6 people (if only 4, then 4 bigger people) cruise at more than 150-160kts and be IFR ready. Also, we use a lot of dirt strips, so sturdy landing gear and tyres are a must.

Remove the speed from the equation (unless you want to go turbine) and I have the perfect aircraft for you!

BN2 Islander :}
With wingtip tanks, rear luggage extension and the landing weight restriction removed, you'll be laughing :ok:
Even non-turbine, they'll still do 130kts.

With the big tip tanks giving you just under 700ltrs of fuel you can generally fit a bit over 400kg in them.
Thats about 5.8hrs @ 120l/hr and 696nm @120kts till it runs dry (but you'll get better than that)

Even if you didnt have the landing weight restriction removed on any Islander, from MTOW you'd only need to fly for about 1.5hrs to get down to landing weight.


You can take the Islander anywhere, even land it on the the farms if you want.
Heaps of space if you are sometimes carrying spare parts for the farm equip - and big doors means loading is easy.
Config it out into club seating for the first 2 pax rows and have a 3rd row and don't worry about the 4th, with ANR headests for each pax and their own intercom so that your salespeople etc can discuss what they need to discuss.

2 mostly bulletproof engines.
IFR.

You can even buy them brand new- so none of this "30yr old aircraft" crap applies!


Am prepared for the Islander bashing, but those who bash really do not know what wonderful things the Bongo can do :)

[RadioSaigon]

BN2 Islander...

+1, no question. Get the carburetted 260HP 540's and they are bloody-near bullet-proof, simple to operate, easy to start -and there's only 1 significant (speed) number for you to memorise! She'll fly with whatever you can fit in the door and get into & out of places even a 182/206 would cringe at. Flown properly, expect to see 140KIAS at ~55lph per side. You'd find a good, well-maintained BN-2 at a surprisingly affordable rate too. They're renowned as an "accountants aircraft" in terms of DOC and return on investment. Many are already equipped with a full (steam) IFR panel. Throw in a handheld GPS with panel-power and Bob's your Auntie. WRT new/used... it's often said a new Islanders main competitor is a used Islander. I'm sure you can figure that one out!

[Frank Arouet]

Forget about your particular aircraft except to factor in it has done an average of 33 hours per annum since 1978. Only 9 hours in the previous year. An "on condition" engine for serious commercial work??

Think about that when you consider rubber hoses are just about rat**** by then irrespective of hours, the barrels will have probably a lip, the front seats probably have the original tracks, the magneto's WILL fail shortly, but probably not together.

Then think about the wriggle room insurance company's factor into their payout's.

I love the C182, but for an alternate aircraft, a 210M, lots of room), will cruise easy at 140 Kts. The H model, (4 seats + some midgets), about 160 Kts. One litre per minute in either but they will both get you into and out of short strips. Four hundred meters in the tropics at sea level. Depends on how fat the passengers are though, but better than a tired 182.

A twin will only get you to the scene of the accident a bit later. But I do like the Islander.

[Clearedtoreenter]

Forget upgrading your Q. Its old.... old wiring, old airframe, old avionics, old seats etc, probably no corrsion protection etc etc. Once you start upgrading, you never stop.. When/if you eventually get it back with its new engine, new avionics, maybe new paint and new interior (whatever you do to it the new bits will be attached to something old somewhere.) it won't work properly anyway... and it will have cost you an arm and leg whilst you cannot use it for maybe a year or so. Been there, done that, too many times!

If you are thinking Cessna, get a restart, a G1000 one if the budget goes that far. A nice no damage history low time 2004 onwards non turbo 182T will probably go for low 2's in the US, maybe mid 2's upwards by the time it gets to and flying in Aus. These aircraft are really a different world, much better dual wiring, factory fitted state of the art avionics and fully integrated autopilots that work, fully corrosion protected, nice interiors, fuel injection, airbags etc etc. You just won't know yourself! There are a few on the market already here that seem to be going for around that price.

But the big downer... 182T's are heavy and so don't carry as much as a Q/R. Your are probably looking at over 900kg basic weight and 1406Kg MAUW. If your Q is a later model with wet wing, it probably has the same MAUW but is a lot lighter with nothing in it. So if you are carrying 3 big farmers and their gear in a 182T, you will have to offload fuel, but wet wing 182's do carry a hell of a lot of fuel, over 330 litres usable and so even with only half tanks you can still go almost to middle-aged human male bladder range - or alternatively, you might need a 206H... not many of those without a turbo though, which for some reason the Aus market does not seem to like as much as they do in the US.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

BN2?

Gotta be kidding?

Hanger queen.
Heard the one about making a small fortune?

The T206 you mentioned (VH-DNU) would be great. Save heaps on a new one. Built in oxy. Altitude (high level winds) capability. Will carry 4 with decent range. G1000 is magic.:ok:

[MyNameIsIs]

MIHC, no I'm not kidding by suggesting a BN2.

The only thing I would suggest over the BN2 is the Twotter. But let's face it, he isnt't after that sort of capability!


Depends on the tractor spares that have been mentioned that get carried. But it might be easier to load such spares, plus pax and their gear, into an Islander than a 18' or 20' series Cessna.

More physical space inside.
Twin engine for not much more of a 'per hour' cost over a 210 - yes the 210 might only have 1 donk, but its got the added extra of retract to add to the maintenance bill. Let's also not forget that the single's onlyt have one vac pump able to supply the instruments - unless modded. One alternator. Etc.
Plus a safety factor of an 'out' if he wants to do more than day VFR!
Can config a BN2 into Club for the 'execs'. Can you do that in a 210? Never flown one, so I don't know.

Frank,
love the C182, but for an alternate aircraft, a 210M, lots of room), will cruise easy at 140 Kts. The H model, (4 seats + some midgets), about 160 Kts. One litre per minute in either but they will both get you into and out of short strips. Four hundred meters in the tropics at sea level. Depends on how fat the passengers are though, but better than a tired 182.

MTOW in a BN2, for those who do not know, will do 400m with ease. Depending on the distance of your hop that could be up to 10 adult POB. Let's see that in a 210!!!!

But I do like the Islander.
Yeah! :ok:

[lilflyboy262]

You need to look at the operations that he is doing. He doesnt need to lift 10.
The islander is a good rugged short strip operator, but most are getting long in the tooth now and require a trip up to the hanger every few flights. They are cheaper than a C208 in fuel etc, but the maintence costs bring it back down on par.

A C206G model is good. You can remove the seats and carry things like gear boxes etc with no worries at all. The H model, correct me if I'm wrong, have those seats that cannot be removed,
If you get the Bonair conversion on the G engine, you can run them at 25mp/25rpm all day. Usually cruises at around 125-130kts depending on weight. Can get them off the deck at MTOW (Thats african MTOW) in around 400m.
Only issue I can see with those is that the instruments tend to be a little unreliable so I wouldn't want to take them IFR, and the Bonnair engines can be a little weak on the #5 cyclinder and sometimes don't make it to full life. Usually make it to around 1500hrs with a average on 8-10 sectors a day.

To get up to that speed of around 150kts, you will want to start getting retractables. Can start getting a few issues with them in bush operations when the strips get wet. Drives up the costs as well.
But like I said, depends on how much the company wants to spend!

[WannaBeBiggles]

If age isn't an issue, the C185 is a perfect bush plane, seats 6, although the rear seats aren't adult size and can carry a load out of short strips.

C206 and even a PA-32-300 will give you good uplift with the PA32R giving you some more speed but sacrifices a bit on the payload side of things.

The PA-23 Aztec is a twin and will give you great uplift with a decent TAS and you can find some cheap ones around, but of course they come with all the issues an older plane will bring with it. It's a bit of a guzzler too.

Anything with aviation is a compromise, so figure out what's important to you and then go from there. It may be more economical to hire a bigger faster plane for those rare occasions where you go outside your standard operational parameters, than pay for something bigger and more expensive for "just in case" situations.

I'm sure the directors will love hoping in a Bonanza when they have to go a bit of distance for a meeting, but will be landing at an airport and won't be sharing the cabin with large and heavy machinery parts ;)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I'm sure the directors will love hoping in a Bonanza when they have to go a bit of distance for a meeting, Undoubtedly!

but will be landing at an airport Why?

The Bonanza has a very sturdy, wide track undercarriage. I would take a Bonanza into anywhere that I would take a standard C182/206/210 or PA 32 type. Certainly the typical property strip is not an issue.

If you are thinking of landing in paddocks, you will need a C206 with oversize gear or a C180/185 to minimise the chance of coming to grief. The nose wheels are a weak point of Cessna singles and a bent firewall is an expensive repair.

I just did Townsville - Darwin return in 12.2 hrs total in the A36. Lets see you do that in an Islander! :E

Dr :8

[tail wheel]

The company I work for recently purchased a C182Q to get our foot into the business aviation world,

Why was that recent decision wrong? :confused:

We have a network of Ag Machinery dealerships across Victoria, and the main idea of the A/C was to cart directors around between dealerships for meetings, take salesmen out to customers properties, emergency parts drop off etc. - Generally as a time saver.

Sounds perfect for a C182? The Cessna 180 (180/182/185) series aircraft were designed and intended for exactly the task you are using it for. :ok:

So we got the 182 a couple of months ago, great unit only had a TT of 2455 hours on it, not bad for a 1978 model, always hangered, great condition in and out

Sounds like a reasonable deal for 130 grand. Put another engine in it and you will have years of cheap, reliable motoring.

I have seen a T206H - 2008 model in QLD with 700 hrs TT since new, G1000 etc going for 450K $US

Why on earth would you need a turbo charged engine for the tasking outlined above? Nice to look at, I'd leave it right where it is!

I have the perfect aircraft for you!

BN2 Islander

You think "emergency parts drop off etc" would warrant around $5 per nm freight delivery costs? Looked at BN2 SB190 costs? If the 182 is "a tad slow for longer flights" why does he want an even slower, specialised STOL aircraft with relatively high operating costs? He is reluctant to overhaul one Continental, why would he relish overhauling two Lycomings? :ugh:

I normally dislike "cut and paste" posts but in this case I fail to understand why you are seeking to change an aircraft which only a few months ago was deemed perfect for the task and still appears to be a cost effective, multi task solution, even if on the odd occasion it may have some operational limititations? Why throw even more money just to eliminate an occasional operational restriction?

If you understand the principals of depreciation and amortisation, you would realise an overhauled engine is an investment in your own future utilisation and should not be used to recapitalise the air frame. You think if you put an O/H engine in the aircraft you can recapitalise it at $200K then get that price after you put another 1,000 hours on it? :confused:

...helps me build up my hours after 6 years out of the air!

Looking for the boss to pay for you to get something bigger, a bit of multi time or IFR in your log book? :E

If you want an option on the C182, try wheel spats - that adds some bling! :}

[MadMadMike]

BE95 Travellair... Will go all the places you want, very easy to fly, two little engines instead of one larger one to overhaul, ok fuel economy, decent looking, cheapish to buy and run, will give you the all important twin time I am guessing you a chasing and you can pretend to your mates you fly a Baron

[Jabawocky]

Spend the money on the 182 and make a good ship out of her.

TriMedgroup wants to sell his 206 :E

[Modesetter]

Thanks guys, great feedback! if only it didn't take 12 hours for my posts to appear :(

Some great ideas and points of view being put forward here.

This is exactly why I asked the question here, to get this input from experienced folk such as yourselves.:ok:

First off, we can rule out the idea of a twin. Apart from the the bonus of the added safety of a 2nd engine, the increased operating and maintenance costs rule this option out for now.

To answer some points that have been raised:

Forget about your particular aircraft except to factor in it has done an average of 33 hours per annum since 1978. Only 9 hours in the previous year. An "on condition" engine for serious commercial work?

When we purchased the 182, we factored in the engine reco having to be done in the near future. It's done 450 odd hrs TSO, so its out on calendar time. While being a fair way off a "serious commercial operation" just yet, we do want to make sure any money we spend is not thrown after a bad cause.

If your Q is a later model with wet wing, it probably has the same MAUW but is a lot lighter with nothing in it. So if you are carrying 3 big farmers and their gear in a 182T, you will have to offload fuel, but wet wing 182's do carry a hell of a lot of fuel, over 330 litres usable and so even with only half tanks you can still go almost to middle-aged human male bladder range

1978 Model, with a wet wing, 335 usable L. I do like the range this 182 has, a 4 hour flight to YMOR and we still had just under 1/2 tanks. My bum was letting me know about the thin seats though!

or alternatively, you might need a 206H... not many of those without a turbo though, which for some reason the Aus market does not seem to like as much as they do in the US.

As i mentioned, TriMedGroup has a local non-turbo 206H I am looking at next week :)
I saw the 206's as a good step up with the added capacity, another drawcard is the cargo door, as the 182 has a baggage door about the size of a postage stamp, unless you utilize the back seat area.

I look after all of the IT equipment for our business, so If in need to take a replacement server somewhere in a hurry, it would barely fit into a 182.

The 182 was always going to be our "initial" A/C, to see just how much we would use it, and since we started using it, further opportunites had been realised. The idea of "emergency parts drop off" would be a rare occurrence, and not something we would be charging customers for. If a farmer just spent upwards of half a million dollars on a new machine he will turn over in 3 years, and it breaks down - our mission is to get him running ASAP, whatever is needed. Happy farmers stay brand loyal :D

Our business footprint is expanding, and long distance travel is becoming more of a necessity.

[tail wheel]

if only it didn't take 12 hours for my posts to appear

Your first ten posts may not appear immediately if they contain links or images, part of our spam protection which, as an IT person I'm sure you appreciate.

Your posts are appearing immediately without Mod approval.

[Modesetter]

Thanks Tailwheel,

Yes, I fully appreciate the spam protection :)

My last post went straight up. Just the ones I posted yesterday were delayed.
(I didn't want people to think i'd abandoned my own thread!)

In reply to your earlier post:

We always planned to upgrade from the 182, after seeing if in practice, a business A/C would be viable. It just seems to have become more viable for our business than we thought.

I don't think we need a turbo, the only bonus was the additional TAS, but as probably 70% of our flights wont get up to an altitude that will make effective use of the turbo, it is irrelevant, It just "happened to have one".

IFR is what I feel to be the next biggest requirement for our needs, even above speed and payload. If the directors plan a meeting for a specific date, we need to be able to stick to it as close as possible, regardless of clouds and VMC.

Not being pilots, I don't think the directors took into account that weather is a factor, you cant go anywhere at the drop of a hat unless you operate can IFR if needed.

I suppose my initial question could be re-worded, "While we have plans in the future to get a newer, larger, IFR certified A/C, - Is it worth getting our 30 year old 182 IFR-certified, taking into account that the engine will need a reco in the near future?"

Also, our 182 already has spats :)

[Frank Arouet]

Our business footprint is expanding, and long distance travel is becoming more of a necessity.

You just talked yourself into a V35 or 210 I reckon.

Remember the best aeroplane/ boat/ car is the one that's a bit bigger/ faster/ flasher that the one you've already got.

[Aussie Bob]

You all have to be dreamers or kidding!

1. You haven't flown for 6 years
2. You have only had the 182 for a couple of months and only done 20 hours

To assess the impact of an aeroplane on your business you will have to have owned one for at least a couple of years. Without being pessimistic, you will be lucky to recoup your 130K if the engine is timex, IMHO half of that would be optimistic. Selling it for more than this could take loads of time, perhaps put it on the market and see.

Keep the 182 (unless someone will give you your money back) and concentrate on getting the business really cashed up, AG is booming at the minute but the global economy seems fragile and having a cashed up business is good sense! Get some real hours under your belt and live with what you
have! A 182 is a very capable ship. Try not to spend money on it unless you have money to burn.

[osmosis]

In another life the rural-based company I worked for had a clapped out 172, 180, 185, 210, among 1 or 2 others. None of them glorious machines, the first 3 were considered real workhorses, utilities of the air, and were treated as such & used frequently, less so the 210. They were "goto" vehicles & could operate into and out of farm strips. We've all heard of the 3 "F"s, can you not retain the 182 and cross-hire something larger on occasion?

[MyNameIsIs]

You think "emergency parts drop off etc" would warrant around $5 per nm freight delivery costs? Looked at BN2 SB190 costs? If the 182 is "a tad slow for longer flights" why does he want an even slower, specialised STOL aircraft with relatively high operating costs? He is reluctant to overhaul one Continental, why would he relish overhauling two Lycomings? :ugh:




tail wheel
"If the 182 is "a tad slow for longer flights" why does he want an even slower...."
You must have missed the very first sentence in my initial reply that quite clearly said "Remove speed from the equation....."


Do I think that emergency parts may require spending the extra money? Well, yes. The OP has also stated it too.
"If a farmer just spent upwards of half a million dollars on a new machine he will turn over in 3 years, and it breaks down - our mission is to get him running ASAP, whatever is needed. Happy farmers stay brand loyal"
What if his single engine aircraft has trouble fitting a part in thru the door? What if the broken machinery is in the hardest to reach part of the property? Islander can probably carry said part and even touch down much closer to the machinery than many.

Heck, I've done charters in KingAirs for single items weighing less than 2kg! If the part is needed, its needed- and kept the customers happy.


Yes SB190 adds some cost. But all aircraft will corrode and BN have this in place to make your aircraft last longer. Buy a new one, only needs to be conducted after 5 years, from memory.
There are that many Islanders out there that you'll be able to sell one off to somebody at a later date without any real trouble. They fill a need that nearly no other aircraft can- part of the reason why the BN2 and the Twotter are back in production.

I have very limited Conti experience, but I was lead to believe by the mechanics working for us that the Lyco 540's were easier to deal with. It was those guys working on them afterall.
The injected Lycos were even easier to start than the Conti especially hot. Maybe I just had a ****e Conti..

Working on an Islander out in the field isn't overly difficult either.
Surprisingly comfortable to sleep in too, heaps of space. You can remove and replace the 4 rows of passenger seats in less than 5 minutes, and without ANY tooling, not even a screwdriver.



lilflyboy262
"You need to look at the operations that he is doing."
I am looking at the operations that he is doing.
"Again, if we had the ability to take mare that 3 pax, we would use it more often......Once you get 4 average blokes in it (farmers size), you can only put in about enough fuel to get to the end of the runway without going outside the CG limits." - The BN2 will not have any trouble with either payload, range or CofG with the loads he has mentioned.
"We just need it to carry 4-6 people (if only 4, then 4 bigger people) cruise at more than 150-160kts and be IFR ready. Also, we use a lot of dirt strips, so sturdy landing gear and tyres are a must." - Like I said In my first post, remove speed from the equation and the BN2 will be right at home with that sort of operation. Dual mainwheels either side and a solid landing gear construction (no firewall issues that Cessnas have) and no retract complexities. Main and nose wheel itself interchangeable (can't recall if the tyres are the same off the top of my head) so less 'spares' and some commonality. It is also IFR, and with two engines you have dual vac pumps and alternators. Some out there will say that you can put extra gear into singles for redundancy to help them out if an alternator or vac pump fails- yep there's an added cost that they probably overlooked in the cost/maintenance comparison!

"He doesnt need to lift 10."
I was putting the 10 people into an easily-understandable (I thought anyway!) perspective comparison. Frank mentioned that a 210 could do 400m "depending on how fat the passengers are" and I was simply stating that the Islander had a better capacity and capability. What if the OP had 4 fatties to carry? 182 won't work, 210 might struggle, BN2 will eat it up for brekky.


The BN2 is a very easy aircraft to operate. It still has its tricks like any other aircraft and things that will kill you if you don't respect it or are an idiot. But it is stable and does what you tell it to do, fairly forgiving and sedate, will stall before you put it on its back asymmetrically. Takes 30kts of crosswind but cannot remember if this figure is demo'd or limiting. Excellent slow speed handling that can get you out of tricky situations.

The extra capability and flexibility that the BN2 offers I reckon would be highly advantageous for the OP. He can carry parts easily. Operate to crap strips without the risk of damage- it'll take a bigger beating than a 182 or similar. Config the interior easily to carry parts or the bosses, or both, without cramming it in making it too squishy for the pax. Meet and exceed the OP's ability to go IFR and at night in complete confidence.
The aircraft is capable of doing what he does now, with the extra capacity that is likely to be needed in the future- saves upgrading in two stages.


I'll repeat myself- those who bash the Islander really don't know what wonderful things it can do.

Pity you are writing twins off for now Modesetter.
Maybe an Airvan?

[Kulwin Park]

I agree - Modesetter, you have just talked yourself into a V35 or an A36.

Many farmers around the Swan Hill VIC way have always used 182 & A36's.

182's were great for getting through fences on their farm paddocks, and clearance above paddock bushes and channel walls when parking due to their high-wing.

A36's were great for long distance, IFR, weight payload, loading with double doors, and very durable on a dirt strip. STOL performance as well.

I would recommend upgrading the 182 when the time comes, and reassess your business requirements in 1-2 years. Maybe find an A36 that you could cross-hire for long distance, and then assess the figures on that.

Cheers, KP

[Plow King]

Maybe find an A36 that you could cross-hire for long distance, and then assess the figures on that.


Hmmm, possibly like the one in the hangar next door.

Problem Solvered :ok:

[Modesetter]

Hmmm, possibly like the one in the hangar next door.


I didn't know there was one next door.... I wouldn't mind hiring the Matrix next door though!

I shall ask around then. I was going to talk to S O'H about hiring his 210 occasionally as well.

Hope we are thinking of the same hanger, I share one with an E33, RV-10 and R-44.

[dude65]

Is this the 206t you're looking at Cessna 205/206/U206/207 aircraft for sale - PlaneSales (Australia) (http://www.planesales.com.au/product_details.php?listing_id=1701#) ?

[Modesetter]

Is this the 206t you're looking at?

That's the one, although I found it here
Pre-owned Single Engine Aircraft (http://www.aeromil.com.au/PreownedSingle.aspx) when I was looking.

[dude65]

I guess both the owner and Aeromill are on the Sunshine Coast - makes sense.

Nice machine either way

[frigatebird]

We have a network of Ag Machinery dealerships across Victoria, and the main idea of the A/C was to cart directors around between dealerships for meetings, take salesmen out to customers properties, emergency parts drop off etc. - Generally as a time saver.


40 years on - the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Bev Whitaker took a '59 Skylane as trade from a Mundubbera grazier on a few secondhand trucks and tractors, when he was an IH dealer with branches in Maryborough, Gympie and Rockhampton. After 2 years operating it on company running, (and getting a charter AOC to use it for Charter as well) he sold it to a local resort owner and upgraded to a 36 Bonanza for a further couple of years. Then that was traded on a 55 Baron. A couple of years later that Baron was still doing the company running and charter, but was backing up the other aircraft in the fleet on the ANR 203 Exemption commuter service for his company NoosaAir. From that came Sunstate Airlines....
The 36 was nice, it was the early model, - FWZ, - last I heard it was still flying charter out of Darwin. So you never know just what may be in the future.
They all fly well, no matter what age, as long as the maintenance is good.

[Oakape]

In the comments section of the PlaneSales ad it says that they are selling a part share.


I am selling a part share in this 2008 Cessna 206T.


Is that what you want?

[Jamair]

I have been through exactly what you are doing, using a C182 R (R, not RG) for that exact job. It was the perfect aeroplane for the task. It was IFR and had 300lt (usable) wet wings. It went everywhere we needed to go, carried everything we needed to carry, and did it relatively cheaply. Not the worlds fastest aircraft, but still managed a couple of trans-Oz trips in good time.

Despite the ARC radios, the basic wing-leveler a/p and the Garmin 100, it was super reliable. Always cranked up when it was needed, bloody near impossible to kill. With the huge 40+ flaps, it could and did land just about anywhere.

Went through the 'wot if we had a bigger / faster / flasher aircraft' routine, spent a motza, still ended up using the 182 for most of the work and making more out of it than the twin.

Tart up the 182 (a bit, don't go overboard) or get a fresher 182 if that's what floats your boat. Add-on an Airhawk motorcycle seat cushion, your arse and lumbar spine will love you for it.

My two bobs worth.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Modesetter, you don't indicate how much experience you have, but I have been doing similar to what you propose, in a somewhat different senario, for almost 40 yrs now. Have been thinking about this since reading your post - have used the following aircraft: C150/152/172/172RG/182/182RG/T182RG/185/206/210/310/402, PA28, M20, BE35/36/55/58. Often used whatever I could get my hands on, but obviously you sometimes can't take a C402 into places you can go with a 185. I have operated all of the above IFR, bar the 150/152.

I agree with Jamjar that the 182 is a fine, honest aeroplane and a useful IFR platform if appropriately equipped. 20 hrs of ops doesn't seem like enough time to get a feel for what may suit your ops.

Personally, I would not touch a turbo'd single (unless someone gave me a turbonormalised V35B!), even though I enjoy operating in the flight levels. For most ops in Oz they just burn more fuel, and I can get to the flight levels I am happy operating in quite comfortably in a NA aeroplane.

For what I do, a C206 is probably the ideal aeroplane (give me a couple of months and I will tell you what a G1000 C206 goes like), but I am having a Bonanza affair at the moment - Townsville to Darwin and return in 12 hrs total flying time is hard to beat.

If you need to cart machinery bits rather than bods, the double doors of the 206 and A36 are useful.

My two cents worth.

Dr :8

PS: Can't say I have ever considered an Islander - not likely to either!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Remove speed from the equation and I know of a minibus that can carry 10 people and their bags way cheaper than any aircraft.:E:}

[jas24zzk]

I liked the crosshire idea.

If you NEED something IFR or more loadable for a task, then x-hire. won't take you long to work out if you should replace the 182 or not based on your number of x-hires.

You also mentioned that one of the directors is doing his PPL atm. He is surely going to want to make some use of the company bird. Being low time, the insurance co might get a bit antsy with him in something bigger. They will make enough noise about him in the 182 to begin with, tho that could be alleviated with getting a new engine in it, returning it to AWK and getting him to finish his ticket in it, at least that way he will have some supervised time on type to appease the bean counters at the insurance Co.

Looking at the initial price on your current 182, there is going to be no escaping a new donk, either to keep using it or sell it.

Unfortunately no 1 aeroplane is perfect for ALL your needs.

A couple that were mentioned but not commented on.

PA-32-300 GREAT bus!!! we call the one we have available, The Family Truckster. You'd get 5 fatties, full fuel and plenty of catalogues to keep the farmer reading until the next years models were released, all at 135 kts cruise.
Downsides, most getting a tad old now, crap visibility forward on the ground when loaded, and a bit of a handful for low time pilots.

Beech Travel-Air. I love these things.....thats the plus. :p
Bit old now, out of production for just a lil too long, parts are hard to get and the power calculator (computer a lot like a whizz wheel) is no longer available, so most people use generic settings and then complain when they struggle to get 150 knots out of them. Also, tho don't quote me, (not got the figures to hand to check) but i seriously doubt you can load as much into the Travel-air as you could into a c182.

Cheers
Jas

[jas24zzk]

Remove speed from the equation and I know of a minibus that can carry 10 people and their bags way cheaper than any aircraft.

For half the price of a new Garmin 430 installation, I do have the skills to assist you with your minibus's lack of speed...........:O

soz for encouraging the thread drift :\

Jas

[Clearedtoreenter]

For what I do, a C206 is probably the ideal aeroplane (give me a couple of months and I will tell you what a G1000 C206 goes like), but I am having a Bonanza affair at the moment -

Be warned... after a few G1000 approaches in that thing, there'll be no more love affair with the steam age FDTK and you'll probably be lusting for nothing less than a G36! :)

[Plow King]

Also, one of our directors is halfway to his PPL, so it needs to be "L" plate friendly....

I missed this part; this should be actively discouraged at all costs, lest you spend more time in the office Modesetter!!

[Mimpe]

There are a few Saratoga late models around with 300 hp engines. You might find one that is ifr. They are usually owned by carefull types. Theres an older one owned by the Alice Springs aero club used for charter that is well maintained...I think it would have too many hrs for your taste, but it is for sale.

They carry another 30 kg or so than the 182 and if you ditch an hour ortwo of fuel,then about 5 people. They are dead easy to fly, and beginner proof as well. They do Tas up to about 156 knots.

One thing about 182's. They will go all day...the airframe is rugged, and it lands on a dime. Also you can make a case for high wing aircraft on sun protection alone in australia...thats a major safety factor. I didnt really like the 182 when I first flewit, but it grows on you, and you end up loving them! Dont front load it too much,as most people dont flare them enough and often end up erecking the nose gear.

Otherwise a Cessna 206 or higher,I suppose.

[Azzure]

Modesetter Check PM :ok:

[Kulwin Park]

Hey Modesetter

What about a GA8 Airvan, high wing, 8 seats, large rear doors for farm machinery, big tyres for dirt strips - ideal for what u want! And farmers can see out a high wing when you are flying them around.

Is there any Airvan flyers out there recommend this over a 182 or A36?? I've never been in one. KP

[HarleyD]

I have a couple or three thousand hours in Airvans, normally aspirated and Turbo charged. it would seem to fit the bill for this job about perfectly, except that you won't be picking one up for the price of a 182. the operating costs are about comparable to a 182, but the capacity is double. leave a few seats out and you have 4-6 pob with luggage and full fuel. cargo pod is HUGE! and doesn't affect speed or performance.

Cruise is 125-130 KTAS, exactly the same as an old 206 and most 182's. don't be fooled by the IAS (or even the indicated TAS on the special ASI rings) as the airspeed error in the 1960's (70's, 80's,90's) cessnas is way optimistic. the H model is faster, but doesn't carry anything worthwhile.

The get benefit from a turbo charged Airvan/206/182, whatever, you need to go high, and the whole oxygen thing can be a pain. so stay away from TC unless you need to go high or climb fast. For 95% of flights in country Vic 10,000 ft is heaps, VFR or IFR. Normally aspirated is definitely cheaper and less complicated for maintenance and operations.

Consider your fixed, annual costs and divide these into the annual hours flown. this can give you quite a surprise if your hours are low, especially when finance and insurance need to be considered. An Airvan will be much more expensive than an old 182 with an on condition engine to acquire, newer construction, newer design to later safety standards, greater commercial capacity means they are holding prices well, if you can find a second hander. The factory was advertising some trade ins late last year/early this year.

Forget an Islander - money pit.

Be prepared to maintain whatever you settle on to high standards and don't look for the el cheapo or shonky quick fixes. Fix things properly and you will be rewarded in the long run with significantly better reliability (and safety).

Victoria is not a huge place and even if going into southern NSW and SA 182/206 speeds are Fine as the legs are not huge. you actually need to fly a few hundred miles at a time to get a significant benefit from faster aircraft, unless they are bloody fast, and then they usually come with their own disadvantages and complications, that negate many of the advantages. (capacity, maintenance, acquisition cost/finance, complexity) although the good old 210 is not a bad option, unless you crash one, then it is very bad indeed, but you still need long legs to get the advantage. That is why they are popular up in the top end where long out and back legs mean that the extra speed can get the day's work done within FDT daily limits. VIC not so big as NT, I know that for a fact.

A 182 will work for the tasks you have indicated very well at fairly low costs even with low utilization, BUT, if you NEED greater capacity and are looking at greater annual hours (404-600) Airvan would work very well, and there's plenty of room for an esky and even a porta loo down the back with a couple or three seats out, that is 5-6 seats remaining.

Horses for courses. Do your sums. Airvan may work, or maybe stay with what you got. hire a twin when you need it, usually you won't. To get the equivalent capacity that you are indicating that you MAY need would require a Nevergo, or a chieftain and you are a world away from a 182 by then.

Hope this helps,

HD

[Modesetter]

Thanks for all the input and suggestions Guys.

I think for now we will hold onto the 182, and we are looking at the option of Cross-hiring a local C206 as needed.