cessna 182/cirrus sr20 - for the motherland of Russia

[pbass]

hi

i've got a little project here in russia to pool with a few friend and invest into a second-hand 4seater single engine plane (buy and bring it from the US). we've got a stake in an old soviet small aviation club, so basic infrastructure (albeit old and needing some fixing) is available. the plane park is old and deplorable though.
i'm the only english speaker in the group and unfortunately not a pilot or technician so i would appreciate some kind advice here.

the main use for a prospective 4 seater plane would be business aviation (short trips 300-600km on average, longer ranges; really short trips like a circle around the city for tourists; renting the plane for training etc).

the budget is probably around 200k, give or take 20-25k. i took in quite a lot of info in the past few days and sort of zeroed in on late 90s/early 00s Cessna 182/Cirrus SR20 (or DA40 which seems to have better reviews but i've yet to look into maintenance cost aspect to see how it fares). you can throw in any other models if you feel like they fit better.

first of all, we enjoy temperatures here from 10F negative to 110F. do 182/SR20 survive this temp range well?
and probably i would be most interested to know how much would maintenance cost (a ballpark figure of course) per month or year? does the cost of learning and mechanical training differ for 182 and SR20? obviously we would have to train a pilot and a technician for the project.

thanks in advance for any input

[BackPacker]

My first thought would be towards fuel availability. Is Avgas 100LL available, not only at your field, but at your destinations as well?

If that's the case, fine, any plane you mentioned will do although the Cirrus is not really considered an ab-initio trainer. But if Avgas availability is an issue, you might want to consider something with a Diesel engine. At the moment, there are only a few "mainstream" aircraft that have these. Some as factory default/option, some as retrofit:

Diamond DA40 (factory default)
Robin DR400-135/140 Ecoflyer (factory option)
Cessna 172 (retrofit)
Piper PA28 Warrior (retrofit)

There may be a few others but they will typically be one-off projects.

[pbass]

thanks for the reply. yes, avgas 100ll shouldn't be a problem. it's not as spread as you would expect from an oil-rich country but it's feasible.

one extra question (if my accidently double-posted thread comes through moderator you'll see it there) - are there any problem taking the wings off of any 4-seater 182/sr22/da40/etc? planning to ship it with a 40ft container via ocean freight.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A thought or five

- The C182 is likely to be a much easier aeroplane to manage than the SR20 with the skills and resources in Russia, as well as far cheaper to buy.

- You might consider looking at the UK market as well (Aircraft for sale (http://www.afors.com) is a good start). Britain will be a much easier flight to most of Russia than the USA. Prices and model availability will be broadly similar.

- Don't expect many 4 seaters to take 4 people with full fuel. Ask for a weight and balance report for anything you're thinking about, and run some calculations for the people and range you are interested in. That said, the C182 should be good, also have a look at the Grumman AA5b Tiger (not the AA5a Cheetah which is a bit short on payload), and the PA32 (commonly called the Cherokee 6).

- I've worked (not recently) in a Russian design bureau - you'll be glad to know that technical aviation English and technical aviation Russian are very similar. So long as your colleagues are familiar with the English alphabet, tell them when they hit anything difficult to say it out loud and it'll probably make sense in Russian!

- Instruction will be interesting! I'd suggest finding a good Russian instructor who speaks some reasonable English, and sending them to get checked out in the aeroplane.

- Russian aeroplanes have altimeters in metres, British and American in feet - because of certification issues, it may be pragmatic to fit a second (or third and fourth) altimeter(s). If you are operating into northern Russia you may also want to retrofit a panel-top GLONASS system, GPS and older fashioned navigation aids are quite unreliable up there. South of 70 degrees N however, you should have no issues.

-Also look at what might be available in the Czech republic. They are again a healthy aeronautical country with relatively easy border relationships with Russia.

- For US$200k, you can get a lot of aeroplane - or four still pretty good aeroplanes in the performance bracket you're looking at. Don't feel you need to spend that much money.

- If you leave it on the US or British register, you'll need to have access to an American certified mechanic, or a British licenced engineer. A Russian technician can only legally maintain the aircraft (or at-least sign for the maintenance) if the aeroplane has been transferred onto the Russian register. That may be extremely difficult and expensive if the type has not been operated on the Russian register before.

G

[pbass]

thanks ghengis! definitely lots of food for thought here. and i'm going to get back to researching cherokee 6 which i've dropped from my list at some point for some reason.

200k ballpark is mainly because the main 'investors' out of all of us dictate that it shouldn't be an old piece of junk. not older then 15years with plenty of its airplane future ahead. i found many 182's at around 150-200k in the 1998-2002 years bracket. we'll get this plane and most likely with stick with it for good long time, so the increase in repair costs over time shouldn't increase very abrupt. is my thinking correct? buying 1980s models looks a bit less appealing.
am i correct that lycoming engines resource is about 2000h, and airframe is about 12000h (dont remember where i saw this last figure, but it's in my mind).

[007helicopter]

I am not aware there are any Cirrus operated in Russia so maintenance and spares and instruction will be an issue. A Cirrus instructor can at a cost be shipped in for the duration required and personally I would recommend an instructor experienced on type.

So in effect I would rule the SR20 out

No idea on the other makes but all will be fine in the cold climate with an engine pre heat system.

[peterh337]

A lot can be done if enough resources are thrown at it.

For example there are aeroclubs in Greece which keep their own avgas store, in drums. It reportedly costs them less than buying the stuff from the local BP outlet (which then closes due to lack of sales :) ).

I even know of one individual pilot there who used to buy drums.

And there are airports where avgas is dispensed from drums. The pump is very straightforward. And shipping is easy (it's called a "truck" :) ).

There is no reason why avgas should be a problem if you have co-operation at both ends, and can arrange for a relative lack of official interference.

Don't forget that Russia is a very big place. The distances are potentially huge. Except for specific local missions, the usual spamcans (OK for UK stuff and burger runs) are going to be of limited use.

$200k is a reasonable budget for a used long distance capable aircraft, in a reasonable condition.

[Pilot DAR]

Pbass, A few more thoughts...

Avoid the older Pipers, I have recently had terrible difficulty getting parts from Piper for the older ones, and have permanently grounded one Piper because of that. Pipers seem to be built more with specialty extrusions than Cessnas. You can repair a Cessna with folded sheet metal, not so much a Piper. Repairs could be needed because of damage, or more commonly, corrosion. Otherwise a Piper which will not be a maintenance challenge (a new one) would be an excellent choice. Just bear one thing in mind: If the operating area in Russia is like Canada, you have snowbanks beside runways and taxiways several months of the year. High wing aircraft manage those much better!

A Grumman Tiger is a nice plane, and though primarily aluminum, employs a lot honeycomb structure, and bonded joints - again, specialty repair required if damaged, and parts can be a problem. Same reasoning make composite structure aircraft not so good a choice, where they are farther from factory repair facilities. As your insurer about the hull insurance cost. To some degree, this will tell you what the insurer thinks it costs to fix, relative to the other types.

Any 100LL Avgas burning aircraft will be more difficult to fuel in the future. How much more difficult, and how soon that future are not well understood, but there is no way that 100LL is going to become easier to get. It is my opinion that this is why the Chinese have bought Continental - to get diesel engine technology, so they can make aircraft for their own national use, which can be fuelled form their existing jet fuel infrastructure - no need to bring in Avgas.

So, this takes us back to the 182 as a primary consideration. 1960's and 70's versions are Mogas compatible, and the later ones not too far away. All of them will be eligible for a diesel engine in the future. I have a 1977 182Q here, which we will be converting to diesel soon, and approving by STC. Such a converted aircraft would be just within your budget, if you had an older 182.

The 182 is probably the least expensive of the big four seaters to maintain, and well known as being the statistically safest - for whatever statistics mean to you! You also have the option of the RG, though maintenance costs go up. If you consider one, know all about the landing gear AD. You must buy a plane with this terminated, as the otherwise required recurring inspections will cost much to much.

You can also consider the Cessna 206. A worthy consideration, with lots of choice, and equally easy to maintain. They are farther away from being diesel or Mogas eligible though...

The 182 will container ship easily, we just sent a Lake Renegade in a container, the 182 would be easier. The other thing to consider, is that if you can manage flying in Russia (which is hard for me to comprehend), you might not need to ship it, jut fly it west out of Alaska, and onward to where you want in Russia.

[Hodja]

are there any problem taking the wings off of any 4-seater 182/sr22/da40/etc?
I can only speak for the DA40 - this airplane is particularly easy to dismantle in regards to the wings. It's a standard maintenance procedure and takes 1-2 hrs.

Incidentally the DA40 is also an excellent trainer.

Actually Diamond's got a "DA40 Tundra" available (sporting diesel engines), allegedly built for the Russian market. However, since these are brand new, you're probably looking at 350k. (AOPA Online: Diamond goes Tundra, reveals new engines (http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2011/110415diamond_goes_tundra_reveals_new_engines.html)) And I get the feeling that you're not looking for a bush plane per se.

Otherwise in a mechanical sense I'd tend to favour the C182 as well. But I can also empathise with not wanting an old school non-glass aircraft... - a lot of new pilots don't find these as appealing as the older generation, irregardless of the merits of a steam gauge panel. And this trend will merely intensify in the coming years.

[Robert Jan]

If juice isn't a problem, I would (without doubt) also go for a Cessna 182 ;)

Cessna 182s are well known for their excellent safety record, easy handling qualities, payload, highly reliable (downrated to 230 horsepower) Lycoming engine and straightforward maintenance.

See 4$ale overview (http://www.planecheck.com/aspsel2.asp?man=&des=C182&grp=Cessna%20182%20/%20Skylane&page=0) (PlaneCheck.com)

[achimha]

200k ballpark is mainly because the main 'investors' out of all of us dictate that it shouldn't be an old piece of junk.

A 2011 Cessna 182 is virtually identical to a 1978 Cessna 182, from the outside. just like a Wolga from 1975 and Wolga from 2005 :-) The engine is the same as well. I'd rather invest money in painting the airframe and refurbishing the interior, you can make it look like new.

Maintenance is key for you. You do not have the infrastructure in Russia to easily maintain such aircraft and therefore I'd recommend going for a very reliable and simple design that has plenty of spare parts available.

Don't underestimate the Avgas issue, you'd be much better off with a Diesel (Jet fuel) airplane. The Diamond aircraft are quite popular in Russia, why don't you talk to them and ask them about references? There is a good selection of Diamond aircraft in the used market.

[Robert Jan]

China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co (Cirrus Aircraft Russia) marketing figures.

SR20 versus another plastic plane with plastic switches (http://www.cirrusaircraft.ru/compare/cirrus_vs_diamond/) (Diamond DA40 XLS)

SR20/SR22 versus Cessna 182 Skylane (http://www.cirrusaircraft.ru/compare/cirrus_vs_skyline/)

AOPA Air Safety Foundation:
Cessna 182 Skylane Safety Highlights (www.aopa.org/asf/.../cessna_skylane.pdf) (pdf)

Nice thread: Cessna 182 or Diamond DA40 (http://www.flyingmag.com/forums/aircraft/cessna-182-or-diamond-da40) (Flying Magazine)

BTW If juice become a problem, it's always possible to retrofit ;)

Note: I know one C182 SMA Diesel engine owner, who's plane was more in the maintenance shop than airborne :ugh:

[NazgulAir]

Notice how the Cirrus vs other aircraft links are slanted towards Cirrus, concentrating on features that Cirrus does best. In omitted features, the compared aircraft might perform better than the Cirrus.

I'd take any review made by the manufacturer with a few grains of salt. Get an independent review or several ones before making up your mind.

[pbass]

i looked into the fuel economy yesterday. seems like there's not much gph difference in 182 vs sr20 (i've kind of already dropped sr20 from my list due to above comments and other info, if i need sr20 type i'd rather actually bring back da40 to my list).

how sensible would be to take a 1980s airplane with some 4-5k hours on the frame and put SMA diesel into it? diesel 182's don't seem to come by on listings, but it definitely a good option economy-wise.

[peterh337]

My bet would be that infrastructure (avgas, runways, etc) will be a lot easier to provide in Russia than advanced airframe, engine and avionics maintenance facilities.

This slants the job towards a newer aircraft (less downtime) but perhaps not one with a glass cockpit because those are almost impossible to work on unless you are an authorised dealer and are reasonably competent. As an owner of 10 years of a TB20 (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tb20-experience/index.html) I would definitely go for separate avionics.

[Pilot DAR]

how sensible would be to take a 1980s airplane with some 4-5k hours on the frame and put SMA diesel into it?

That is exactly what we're going to do. There were 47 182's modified by STC to use the original SMA diesel engine. That engine is no longer in production. The new "E" version of the same engine has been EASA approved, and I'm waiting my turn to have my order for one fulfilled by SMA.

We bought a 1977 182Q, which was happily in excellent condition, made some minor repairs and upgrades (including provision to be an amphibian), and it waits now for the engine to come.

Diesel power in aircraft does not have the wide history that gasoline does, and there are going to be lessons to be learned, but it is the way the future must go. We can no longer depend upon a very specialized gasoline, which the environmental people want banned, and is very expensive to produce and distribute......

[BackPacker]

Just out of curiosity, approximately how many SMA diesel engines are actually installed in aircraft, and in use every day?

I'm not keeping a very close watch on them, but my gut feeling tells me they're right now just beyond the prototype/beta tester stage. At that stage of the game, do you want to use an SMA-powered aircraft in Russia?

And how does that stack up against the Thielert/Centurion side of the market, and Diamond/Austro? Anybody have any numbers to hand?

[Pilot DAR]

Just out of curiosity, approximately how many SMA diesel engines are actually installed in aircraft, and in use every day?

When I met with SMA in October, then confirmed that 47 182's are flying with their engine installed. I don't know how many of these fly regularly, but the three owners I have spoken with reported being very happy with them.

[pbass]

on the other hand - is it possible to modify O-540 to use Super instead of Avgas? what are the pros and cons?

[pbass]

there's Lyc-IO540L on sale from a russian dealer for about $70k, which runs on 92 octane gasoline (i guess it's called regular on your side of the pond).
what's the price of a regular new IO540 and conversion to lower octave? google search brought me nothing..

[Jan Olieslagers]

The typo is too nice to go unrewarded: lower octave is in the department of Ребров, Иван and more such... Sorry I can't help with the obvious real question, though.

[Poeli]

92? Think about the effect on the TBO too...? I guess the TBO will be lower than with a regular Lycoming no?

[Pilot DAR]

no?

No.

Without speaking for Lycoming, which I do not, overhaul intervals are much more based upon fatigue and wear of internal engine parts, than factors associated with the fuel burned. As long as the engine is not subjected to the strains of detonation, or physical contamination, or the effects of unacceptable temperatures, there's not much that a different gasoline is going to do to affect engine live.

My O-200 happily went 1700 hrs beyond it's recommended overhaul interval on condition, which mostly using Mogas. When I finally overhauled it, it was still in excellent shape, and had not really needed to come apart. I know of Lycomings with similar success.

[peterh337]

There is some ambiguity on this but the IO540 I have cannot apparently work off lower than 100 octane.

Lyco have recently published a guidance note which basically says that real avgas is being made at the very bottom end of the required octane range (which kind of makes sense, commercially) and this "low octane" fuel is OK for all Lyco engines.

There is another publication which has just come out which suggests 96 octane is also OK for my IO540-C4, but AIUI such a fuel does not currently exist in Europe. There is a 96-something being talked about/introduced but there is some doubt whether it qualifies. There was a lot of stuff posted on flyer (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=71822) but I didn't follow it in detail.

The 91 octane fuel is certainly not OK for an IO540 - except possibly a low compression version (200-220HP?).

Paradoxically, turbo engines may get away with more because in some cases they have a lower comp ratio. For example the TB21 TIO540 engine has a lower CR than the TB20 IO540 engine (which the TB21 pays for with a lower MPG, much of the time).

As regards opinions on the diesel retrofits, there is a massive variation between speaking to owners privately, and publicly. Privately, most of them wish they had never done it. The FTOs who bought into the diesel Diamonds say the same privately, but publicly they all "love it" because if they go public with their dirty laundry they will get chopped off on factory support. I am aware of some spectacular cases of this, where the public FTO story is massively different from the reality. One FTO I know (not UK) says they have almost zero downtime and great support from Diamond; in reality I know from insiders and students they have about 50% of their fleet grounded at any one time and reckon they could run a fleet of TBM700s for the money they have lost or wasted. It is a truly sad story; a huge missed opportunity, but unsuprising in retrospect given the way so many GA businesses are operated. Some argue that people getting shafted is the cost of innovation but I don't buy that.

I would have bought a DA42TDi which would have been great for European touring but it will be at least five years of trouble free existence before anybody who has sense will spend the money. Unless Diamond offer some amazing "uptime" warranty.

[172driver]

In your scenario, I would go with the 182. It's a great a/c to fly, robust and with a decent payload. Another positive aspect is that you can get it in and out of pretty much any strip imaginable. May well be a factor on your business trips. The high wing also makes it a good sightseeing platform. What is it not (well, at least not normally) is an ab-initio trainer.

Another option, as someone has mentioned above, would be a C206/207. Gives you six seats and, if needed, cargo capabilities due to the 'barn door' in the back.

[pbass]

@Jan Olieslagers - indeed, i sure type "octave" more often then "octane" :) i'm a bass player and that's my fave pedal

@peterh337 - thank you for your informed opinion. probably diesels are yet to deserve to be truly "awesome" as only a few owners speak of them now.
the only 92 octane engine i found on the internet is from a russian website - Aero-Shop: (http://www.aero-shop.ru/catalog/27137350). you can see there:
Lyc-IO540L
Lycoming IO-540 235 h.p. 92

Lyc-IO540
Lycoming IO-540 260 h.p. 100LL

i'm not sure however that this "L" modification is russian-moded. although i do know that quite a lot of aircrafts here fly on higher octave car gasoline (95, 97). it's possible to get 100LL but it comes at around $2,5/liter (or $9,4/gallon). 95 costs about $3-4/gallon. i can see why people want to cut costs.

is there any serious not-old plane on the market that flies on lower octane?

[peterh337]

The reality, I bet, is that most 100LL-only engines will run fine on 96 or even 91, so long as you avoid high CHTs i.e. keep them way below the 500F limit.

I say this because GAMI did a bench test on a TSIO-550 to see how much it took to make it detonate and it turned out to be some pretty extreme conditions, which included a 500F CHT at max power. Nobody should ever get anywhere near 500F CHT especially at max power, if they know how to thermally manage the engine.

Also, there are octane enhancing additives, which are illegal here but in Russia....

[pbass]

i scrolled lower on this russian website - it says that these engines are "custom moded" for this russian company (they sell planes and parts). it's unclear whether these modes are factory-made, the way it says in the sentence is actually quite evasive. from one point you might even understand it in the way that it's done by lycoming themselves. the difference in price between 100ll and 92 is $1k markup.

addition: i was probably a bit wrong in previous posts. the most popular airplane fuel here is kerosine. is it close to 100LL?

[kms901]

Pbass, as a fellow bass player (Mainly Rickenbacker 4001).the answer to your last post is a very definite no !!!!!!

[BackPacker]

Kerosine = Jet-A. It most definitely is very different from Avgas 100LL.

The only way (in current aviation practice) to burn Jet-A is in a turbine or in a piston engine that is based on the Diesel design (high compression ratio, direct injection, self ignition). And incidentally, the Thielert/Centurion engine I talked about earlier can use both Jet-A and regular car diesel fuel. Don't know about the SMA engine though.

[englishal]

I'd have thought that the obvious choice in Russia is a Diesel (JET-A) aeroplane. All airports have JET-A (suitable for a diesel aeroplane) and the cost is probably much cheaper. How about a DA40 TDI or something?

[achimha]

@pbass: on which register (i.e. country) do you plan to put the aircraft on? This has a big impact on what you're allowed to do and what not.

If you purchase a pre 1976 Cessna 182, it will come with a Continental O-470 engine that is approved for 87 octane or more (the 1976+ O-470-U is not). This basically means you can fuel it up at the gas station. I presume that high ethanol content is not an issue in Russia (in Europe it's added for "ecological" reasons).

The Cessna 182 hasn't really changed over the years. Get a 70s model and have an expert redo the interior, paint the airframe and it will be virtually indistinguishable from a 2012 model. The only major change from Cessna in the last 40 years was that 4 cupholders replaced the 4 ashtrays.

As Peter said, I wouldn't go for a modern glass cockpit either because they tend to be single point of failures and your options for repair might be rather limited in Russia. With the traditional steam gauges you can easily maintain a few spares and send them via mail to Europe/USA for repair.

Still I think you'd be better off with a Diamond diesel/kerosine aircraft.

[pbass]

@achimha well, it's been commented here twice and in some other forums a couple times that there's not enough info that diesel engines are reliable. so i dont know about that.. i'm still trying to find out what do they do to legally convert io-540 to mogas here in russia. there's a company with a website taunting it, and just today heard the same rumour from a friend of mine.

how is O-470 vs IO-540 in reliability? great reviews for io-540 everywhere. continentals being bashed in lots of sources also..
btw, appreciate if anyone knows the info - how much is a new o-470 and io-540? i googled them up, it gave me results with different prices from different years (forum postings). 30k to 90k. too big of a range
thanks

[peterh337]

There are dozens of IO-540 variants, and they vary in price widely, mainly it seems according to popularity.

Also, in the USA, there are firms which sell them at "cost plus", at prices well below Lyco prices.

I don't think there is much to choose reliability-wise between an O-540 and an IO-540, except that the latter is much less likely to stop running because it cannot get carb icing :)

Lyco versus Conti comparisons are similarly difficult. Both brands have their weak points, but they are different.