Advice on a new plane

[Newlands]

Hi all,

I have recently obtained my PPL and am probably going to start my instrument rating in a couple of months. However, I am looking to buy a six seater plane for my family. It would have to have a large useful load. I have four people in my family so i figured we would probably need a six seater plane.

I would need a plane with a tough landing gear as I will mainly be operating off grass strips of about 620 metres long. I have looked in to a Cessna 206 and an Expedition E350 but I still dont know what would be the best option?

Also any other suggestions would be good, as I am very unsure.

Ben

[Jan Olieslagers]

Four people in the family? What age? and even more important, what weight?
And what's the mission? Seeing you want the IFR ticket, you might well be planning "serious" travelling?

[maxred]

Could I also suggest that it may be best to learn to walk before you run. The type of aeroplane you appear to desire/want, should I would suggest come after solid hour building and experience. Of particular concern may be a 620metre grass strip. If what you describe is wholly accurate, it may not be possible for the mission profile, particulary at the stage of flying you aré at.

[AdamFrisch]

There aren't many 6-seater planes that can go very far with 5 people on board and get off in 650m. You won't be carrying very much fuel. Still, there are some options.

206 is one. The 210 can just about do it, but has a slicker wing than the 206, so doesn't get off as quick, but a nice tourer. The Lancers/Saratoga can probably do it. A Matrix/Malibu will fit the people, but won't get off in that distance. A Lake Renegade 250 can def do it, but they're rare seabirds in Europe. A Bonanza could probably just about do it.

I'm a high wing dude myself, so I'm biased in this regard - but if you're operating from a grass strip, I'd chose a high wing aircraft myself. A 206 is probably the best choice or if you want to do some serious touring, then the 210. A pressurised P210 is a nice plane to do long IFR touring in. Depends on your needs and how much money you want to spend.

[fernytickles]

How about a Murphy Moose? You might have to do a wee bit of building first, but end up with a cool plane :ok:

[n5296s]

If what you need is four seats (and not four pax) then a 182RG is perfect. It will be fine in 620m (not many aircraft of that capacity will be) and will burn around 14GPH. Cruise around 160KIAS depending on altitude (no point in the turbo version in Europe).

[achimha]

I own a TR182 (Cessna Turbo Skylane RG) and I wouldn't recommend it to people operating out of a grass strip. I know there are pilots that do this and claim to not have any issues but the landing gear with its very small tires cannot be compared to the fixed gear Cessnas. Uneven surfaces put stress on the pivot assembly which is known to crack -- costs $25,000 plus labor per leg.

However, I strongly disagree that the turbo version does not provide any advantages over the normally aspirated R182. First of all, it's turbo-normalized, i.e. the max MP is the same as with the non turbocharged and therefore the turbocharging does not put the typical extra stress on the engine. It doesn't add much weight either and it is manually controlled through a wastegate, letting you decide whether and by how much to turbocharge the engine. If you do a little bit more than flatland low level cruising, the turbocharger greatly increases your capabilities and safety. I like flying in the Alps and 1100fpm after takeoff is a lot safer than 500fpm. I would not want to go back to a normally aspirated airplane.

[dont overfil]

Hi Newlands,
You say four in your family so I assume that includes yourself.

I can see your logic wanting a six seater as most four seaters can't really carry four. As has been suggested the C182 is one of the few genuine four seaters around and there are plenty to choose from.

The RG models are a bit scarcer but about five knots faster. I have a reasonable few hours in both types and have found them hugely capable.

Cruise at 65% in the RG I've found to be 140kts TAS at FL75 at 50lph.
'98ish (fixed gear) onwards fuel injected, 135kts TAS 40lph.

There is usually around 1100lbs useful load and the later ones hold up to 330ltrs of usable fuel.

D.O.

Edited to say I agree with Achimha. The small wheels are a pain on the RG. They allow the brake calipers to drag in the grass.

[2high2fastagain]

Ben
I had exactly the same requirements as you and ended up with a TR182, though a normally aspirated fixed gear 182 would have been fine. I reckon you lose 10-15kts vs the RG in the cruise when you don't put the dangly bits away.

Realistically, with a family of 4 (2 teenagers) and a bit of luggage (you have to be harsh on the ladies) I can fill up with 260 litres (334 litres is capacity). This will give me 6 hours endurance at 42lph and 138kias without reserve. Frankly, 2-3 hours is plenty in a light aircraft with my family.

I beg to differ with achima on the grass. I fly mine off a very short grass strip very successfully. The only issue with the small wheels is that they can sink into soft runway and taxiways more easily than other aircraft in the wet uk winters, particularly if you are 4 up. I've needed a push a couple of times over the years.
And the grass is more forgiving for the odd 2g landing vs Tarmac, provided it isn't too frosty.

The turbo is nice to have but not essential. With it you can get full power (31 inches of MP) on takeoff no matter how hot the weather. You also get superior performance at altitude. I have no issues cruising around at 140kias at 42lph (though you need an edm700 to watch CHTs). I've also cheerfully cruised along at 171kias, thought it's not economic. Most of your fuel is used to cool the engine!
Landing a 182 is a doodle. I've put one down with 4 adults on board on a 261m grass runway. To be fair there was a thumping headwind, but the 182 in all her variants is an impressive aeroplane and I am chuffed to bits with mine.

I would strongly suggest you try out all the options before coming to a conclusion. It's still a buyers market out there.

[frontlefthamster]

If you're serious about being able to use that instrument rating in Europe, and go places, and want to be cautious with your family's safety, then you need a de-iced twin, and a lot of caution at the outset, which you can then swap for experience.

For a short grass strip, the only piston twin I would trust routinely is the Islander - a fabulous machine in many ways, a right pain in the posterior in others!

[AdamFrisch]

Or an Aero Commander 500;)

Here's one that belongs to Dave Phifer in the AC club. It's got a Merlyn engine conversion, so puts out a bit more grunt. As you can see, he's off in almost less than 2/3rd's of his 2000ft grass airstrip!

Aero Commander takeoff 15WA - YouTube

On tarmac, and lightly loaded, I can get my old 520 off in 600ft! The 520 is the quickest to get off of all the Commanders, as it is the lightest. Here's a video I took. Wheels are off just at the threshold and I could have climbed a lot steeper than I did, but I didn't want to push the old girl too hard with my then oil leaking right engine.

Amazingly short take off in the Aero Commander 520 - only 600ft! - YouTube

[Newlands]

Thank you for all of the replies, they have been very useful. I has been very interesting to read about other peoples opinions on the planes. I will definatly look into a 182 more. I haven't thought about getting a twin engine before as I didn't think they would land I such a short distance. Does anyone else think a twin is a good choice? If so what other twins are out there that fit my criteria?

My typical journey distance would be around 250 miles, and the furthest I would travel would be around 500 miles. Almost all of the time I will be travelling with 2 Adults including myself, 2 teenagers and luggage ( my family doesn't like to travel light)

Does anyone have any experience in an expedition E350?

Ben

[AdamFrisch]

The twin versus single debate is as old as flying and I'll avoid it here for the benefit of our collective sanity. Suffice to say is that one thing is for certain; owning and operating a twin in Europe with the horrendous Avgas prices here is not for the faint of heart. There is however one exception:

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/p2006t.jpg

The Tecnam P2006T has two Rotaxes and burns less than 10gph (8.8gph economy cruise) in total, Mogas or Avgas, still delivering twin engine safety. And as you know, Rotaxes are cheap to overhaul and have become very reliable. Granted, this is a new aircraft, so you have to shell out some mullah to get it which will offset some savings. About $420K new or $300K used. That said, I just did the calculations for 100-150hrs usage per year, and the Tecnam ends up being cheaper to operate per hour than my old twin.

[NutLoose]

Whatever you buy, get a licenced engineer to do a survey on it first, might save you a lot of money in the long run.

[peterh337]

If and when Diamond ever finish their DA50, that might be interesting. It's designed for four fat Americans (or four fat Brits :) ) plus golf gear.

Otherwise, few singles apart from a C182 kind of thing will carry four big people, any distance.

Whichever way you go, if you want load hauling like that, you will pay a heavy price.

It seems to have been regarded as a marginal market for decades, and a big cockpit will directly hit the MPG even if it is flying empty.

My TB20 has a 500kg payload and will carry four "modern size" people and about 4hrs' fuel, which in practical terms (alternates etc) is almost halfway into France, from the UK s. coast. That's quite good actually. But it would be cramped if they were fatties :) It also won't do 650m grass, at MTOW, ISA+something, etc. 800m of very good grass OK or 500m tarmac, but not 650m "average" grass.

A friend has a C182 with the canard kit (N-reg obviously) which is awesome on grass.

These forums get regular posts like this... somebody new to flying who is looking to transport their family. I might have been at that stage when I started flying. One has no idea which way the design compromises in GA have been positioned, and it is a bit of a shock to learn how much you have to pay to get that capability, with the ability to do e.g. foreign trips. And within the UK one can usually drive in less or similar time...

[AdamFrisch]

Yes, unfortunately it takes 45mins to get to the airport for me, then another 15 mins to pre-flight, 15 minutes of runup, warming engines, taxiing etc. So now you're already 1hr 15mins behind if you'd left in the car. Same at the other end. 2-2,5hrs. So for short distances, it's not at all time effective. For longer distances, but not too long, then it starts to kind of make sense. Too long and airline travel makes more sense time wise. Sweet spot is probably somewhere between 250-600nm as a guess. Can be expanded slightly if one considers two points with bad transportation links or you have a fast aircraft.

[peterh337]

The issue I come across is that most people (myself included) cannot do a decent number of such longer trips to stay current.

So one needs to do regular local pop-ups, and having to drive say an hour to the airport has a very corrosive effect on one's enjoyment of flying.

Also local flights are the best way to stay current on instruments, because one can just drill into the nearest cloud layer (Class G) and practice procedures around some real or imaginary navaid. When flying to some airport for real, one tends to use automatics to the maximum, because ATC tend to expect accurate flying.

[twelveoclockhigh]

How about a Cessna 185?

[Pilot DAR]

With great caution* I will tell you that the mission you describe is best accomplished with either a C 182 fixed gear with a STOL kit, or better, an older C 206, with a Roberston STOL kit. Such a C 206 would best be a "P 206" version, if you can find one, and with an IO-550 conversion. Such an aircraft will easily, and safely operate in 600 meters under normal conditions, and carry the load you suggest.

*That said, this is an expensive, and extra training required operation. Though very doable, this is specialized flying. It requires additional training, specifically on that aircraft type, and that operating environment. If your insurer does not demand it, your care for your family certainly should.

Consider very carefully the cost to operate such an aircraft, these are very expensive, compared to 172's. Many a new pilot aspires to such aircraft types, and operational capabilities, many fewer can actually manage the skill and finances to make it work.

I have lots of experience in Robertson STOL C 206, and very recently a Horton STOL P206. Light, either is able to be off the ground in about 100 meters, and back on in not much more, when flown with great precision. A STOL fied gear C 182 will do nearly as well (older, narrow body 182 is better yet). Which takes you to the 185. A very good choice, but again, lots of training and skill required.

[wwelvaert]

In my opinion you can't go wrong with a C206 or C182. The newer models are available with TKS which is nice to have in Europe. The IO-540 C182 (1996 and newer) can be easily upgraded to 260hp for better takeoff and climb performance, but the stock aircraft is already quite good. For a proficient pilot a 600 m strip is a piece of cake in either airplane.

If you're into the glass-cockpit thingy (not bad to have for resale purposes) you can get the newer ones with G1000 or retrofit the GTN, G500 or various other flavors of glass cockpit in the pre-2005 models.

To me if $ was no object, I'd get a late model turbo 206 with TKS.

[wwelvaert]

c182 gunzburg « Contract pilot tales (http://contractpilot.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/ferry-pilot-pictures/img_3479/)

A 182 at Gunzburg, which is 580m grass. This is a stock 230hp (turbo) C182.

[Shorrick Mk2]

I frequently operate a PA28-236 out of our 456m TODA grass strip. In summer when it's really hot it can be a bit restrictive though.

Cruise at around 135ktas (though the book says 140+) on 12-13gph. No problem with 4 real adults and bags + full fuel.

[JimNtexas]

Here in Texas the drug smugglers have pretty much the same requirements, and they favor the C206 and C182 (fixed gear).

There's bunch of big engine and even canard mods to the C182 (http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/skylane0012.html) available if you like.

[mary meagher]

Dear Father Newlands - are you absolutely sure this is the best way to keep your family intact? Especially as they want to take a lot of luggage on their holidays....

How many hours do you have in your logbook driving a car? how many in your pilots logbook? would you trust a low time pilot with your family? be objective.

Teenagers get bored. There are no toilets on light aircraft. Passengers get airsick. Would your wife know how to land the plane if you were incapacitated?

I witnessed a family of six - Mom, Pop, 3 kids and Granny - try to fly 500 miles for a Thanksgiving Weekend. Weather intervened. Attempts to land at 3 different airports unsuccessful, the family returned safely, but nobody enjoyed it, not even the father; he was responsible for everyone's misery.

Suggest much shorter hops by yourself until you have lots of hours, then the odd naughty weekend with your lady love, say in Ireland where the natives are glad to see you and they speak English - or when you have a bit of mountain flying experience, Spain or Italy are not too far. Use the money you save by buying a Cessna to splash out on a really good hotel, or perhaps a few diamonds.....and without the kids she can take all the luggage she wants!

[Pilot DAR]

Mary has said with much great directness, exactly what I was thinking, and trying to subtle about. Though I always want to encourage our industry, a new pilot with his family is a six seat plane is extreme high risk. I have mentored a number of new pilots in their big 4 and 6 seat airplanes, and too frequently been reminded that new pilots don't know what they don't know.... and it can be fatal....

I have a wife and four kids, and 36 years of flying. I have never had all of them up flying together, and have no intention too. I have nothing to prove to them. If we need to get somewhere together, we drive (two cars these days, for comfort), or travel by commercial air. In a few parts of the world, flying the family around is the only way - but not for me....

Before you retort, yes, we've been hit four times by other cars while driving - but never hurt, and always with my same daughter with me. She's my beautiful blonde driving jinx....

[AdamFrisch]

Mary and DAR have some good points. It is very, very easy to kill oneself in a small aircraft. There isn't much room for experimenting or error. I'm not very experienced and I've managed to scare myself a few times already..:ooh:;)

I often compare with driving. How many of your friends and family are really, truly good drivers? I bet not many. Sure, they can drive from A to B. But do they slightly ease up on the brakes just before the full stop so to avoid that nodding brake jerk? Do they know where every car is in every lane around them, without having to nervously crane their neck and look? Do they parallel park with perfection every single time? Do they adapt and never drive too fast, nor too slow for the surface conditions? Are they pro's?

I bet very few.

I have so many friends that I've thought about encouraging into aviation, but after seeing them not even mastering the very basic skills of driving safely and well, I've changed my mind. It can't be learned - if you haven't figured out how to drive well after 20 years of doing nothing but, what hope is there for these people in an aeroplane flying 10hrs/year?

Many of the latest fatal crashes have been with super-experienced ex-airline or military pilots with 15.000hrs, so that just goes to show that experience in itself isn't the the solution. There's something else - an X-factor of some sort involved. It's not skills alone. If I'd have to venture, I'd say it's the ability to adapt one's risk-taking and capacity to the given circumstance and condition at hand.

[Hodja]

I've gotta agree - I generally don't take non-pilot passengers on longer trips, and when I do, I never bring more than 1-2 passengers on board.

In particular I'd never fly a large group of family members at the same time.

I just don't find it 1) worth the unnecessary risk (and GA flying does carry inherent risks, like it or not), nor 2) fun for the passengers.

Something I've been wondering about...

There's been a lot of talk about the accident rate of Cirrus aircraft, incl. the recent Avweb article.

What strikes me when reading articles on COPA, is how routinely the owners seem to fly their entire family around in their aircraft, almost treating it like an SUV.

I wonder if this mindset is somehow correlated with the documented accident rate, considering how safe the aircraft itself is actually built.

[AdamFrisch]

Hodja - I quite like to see pilots flying around with their family and toddlers, but I agree that my immediate reaction is always the same as yours. But then I have to tell myself that it's not necessarily a riskier thing to do than many other activities. I think it should be encouraged.

It's a bit like when I grew up in the city as a kid. Me and my mates we're alway out on the street with our bikes, climbing scaffolds, up to no good, exploring derelict buildings etc. You simply do not see any kids on the street today because the great paranoia has set in. We as a society see perverts, pedophiles and child snatchers in every person we meet, yet there are no more of those than there were in the 20's when all kids - no matter what age - played in the streets.

I digress, but it's just a sad state of the times we live in that our kids are not allowed to go out by themselves and play, explore and learn. So a little flying with the family, a little risk taking should be encouraged, I think. But then again I'm not a parent, so I might feel differently if they were my kids.

[peterh337]

There's something else - an X-factor of some sort involved. It's not skills aloneYou could start with picking a suitably nice day to fly :)

The passengers will also enjoy it a lot more.

Even when flying alone, I will chuck it in and drive instead. Despite really disliking driving, I drove to a meeting at an airport the other day (150 miles each way) - because the return trip would not have likely been possible due to wx.

On my long trips to the south, usually with Justine my girlfriend, we set aside 3 days to get out of the UK, and about 75% of the time we get out on the planned day. I avoid drilling holes through frontal weather, which is an obvious recipe for collecting ice, not to mention scaring the hell out of passengers with turbulence in IMC. Even though a lot of warm frontal weather is smooth, and you may get lucky on icing, if you badly scare passengers just once they will never fly with you again.

Most people know there is an increased risk in GA flight, but they take it on trust that you won't kill them. If they get scared even once, that trust is gone and that's it, game over.

Piloting skills come into it of course but only to a limited degree, during takeoff and landing. With modern cockpit automation, the flight should be pretty straightforward and is largely a process of constantly evaluating the wx ahead, climbing, etc. Not having oxygen and an IR also cuts off your best wx avoidance options.

It takes a lot of judgement to suss out the likely wx - an area very poorly taught in the PPL. In my PPL (done 2001) the internet was never mentioned and today this would deprive you of 99% of the required information.

I find that most of the 20k-hour pilots one reads about getting killed actually had little GA experience. They built the time flying fully deiced big jets with a 5000+ fpm rate of climb and enough TAS to completely avoid icing enroute due to the airframe heating (AF447 was a case where even this didn't work). Of the airline pilots who fly GA, the huge vast majority avoid IFR; they prefer basic rag-and-tube flying, which is understandable (makes a nice change I am sure) but this deprives them of getting any experience relevant to going A to B in real wx.

but it's just a sad state of the times we live in that our kids are not allowed to go out by themselves and play, explore and learnThey can if you live somewhere where they won't get run over if they step outside the door. That unfortunately usually involves spending more money on the house purchase :)

[Hodja]

There's something else - an X-factor of some sort involved. It's not skills alone
You could start with picking a suitably nice day to fly :)


Yeah, the X-factor is called "luck" :O

But seriously, Adam, point taken - life, and the general progress of human civilization is all about taking risks.

I guess my point was, that I don't equal light aircraft with family transportation, both for feasibility and numerous practical reasons as Peter explains so well, and in terms of risk.

Actually I have to conclude, that most of the flying enjoyment is really for our own personal selfish reasons as pilots of the aircraft. Passengers tend to have a separate experience.

[Pilot DAR]

Actually I have to conclude, that most of the flying enjoyment is really for our own personal selfish reasons as pilots of the aircraft. Passengers tend to have a separate experience.

For my experience, the passenger's desired experience is usually nothing more than getting there. This, from flying with each of my kids over the years (three of whom are in their 20's now). They have zero interest in flying the plane, they just wanted to get where I could take them. My youngest can be coaxed into a bimble, but after 30 minutes is usually declaring boredom, if there is no clear objective. I have done many 1000+ mile trips with my wofe, who really seems to enjoy the charms of a fair weather trip.

I have considered the "x-factor" for decades, trying to hone and optimize it. I have reached the following conclusion:

The "x-factor" is the opitimum point in between very well informed decision making (personal skills and equipment capability considered) and complacency.

I have seen new pilots, who I obsevered to be complacent right from the start - they would have a hard struggle to overcome that to become well informed decision makers.

I have seen new pilots who seemed to be great decision makers, but had yet to develop the broad experience upon which to base those decisions - they have time to improve, and have th potential to be great.

I have seen (and fear becoming) complacent pilots, who were now flying only on luck, 'cause they were not applying skill very much. I've been to a number of their funerals. Others I have sat down and chatted with....

At the height of fearing personal complacency, I trained for my helicopter license - that straightened me out!

Flying which is high challenge, but low risk is excellent for skills development and warding off complacency. I do not notice new pilots attempting to refine their skills after being licensed, they are sometimes riding the high of being licensed, and imagining the vista of opportunity in front of them, without realizing what those who are doing the bigger vista, have put into that flying.