Purchasing a S/E touring aircraft, type?

[Duck Pilot]

I'm considering purchasing a genuine 4 seater (or bigger) S/E aircraft to use for private use around Oz.

Budget up to 150K, considering a Cessna 182, Cherokee 6 or a Beech Bonanza (A36), with good engine times to run and in reasonably good condition and being IFR capable, although not with all the wiz bang gear.

I would like to think I will be able to get in between 100 and 200 hours usage per year out of the machine, if the wife will let me!

I would be keen to get a general idea of what the direct operating costs for any of the suggested machines might be, under private ops only with myself being the sole pilot (no hiring). Excluding purchase costs.

I am an experienced ATPL holder, so I have a far idea what I'm thinking about doing, so please no rubbish responses, I'm not tyre kicker.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I doubt that $150k will get you into an IFR A36 worth owning - but if it did, work on $350/hr to operate it an you won't be far wrong.

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

Start here Avation Trader - Your total aviation marketplace (http://www.aviationtrader.com.au/)

Even a FTDK or F33A if the 3/4 seats are not big people. Prices might be less than an A36 by the margin you talk about.

The USA has plenty, just the hassle of getting them here and all the bugs sorted?

[Ultralights]

how about something along the lines of a RV10?

[Jabawocky]

Too fast and climbs to quick for Bonanza pilots. They can't handle the G's :}

Ya troublemaker UL :ok:

You will not buy one for $150K either.

[Old Akro]

Touring in a C182 would get tedious. Luggage is awkward to pack through the rear hatch and they don't give great speed for pretty much the same fuel burn as a Lance or Bonanza. And I'd much rather have the Century autopilot of a Lance or Bonanza than anything Cessna.

You need to remember the rule that 4 place aircraft are really good for 2 adults & bags, 6 place for 4 adults, etc.

I'd be looking at a 6 seater. Which means the choice is pretty much C210, Bonanza, or Cherokee six / Lance. Maybe a Beech Sierra as an outside contender.

C210's are too expensive due to their popularity with tour operators, which really leaves Bonanza / Cherokee six / Lance. If you look at prices you pretty much pay the same for a Lance as a fixed gear Six. I'd go with the Lance and get the extra speed. In fact, I think there are a number of bargain Lances on the market at the moment. I used to get about 152 kts at about 58 litres / hour.

The Lance is slower than the Bonanza and not quite as nice to fly, but it has a Cherokee's docility (especially at low speed), its not as fussy about loading, the CofG does not change with fuel burn. It has better luggage space including the front locker which is very useful. It also has a wide cabin which is really good on long trips because you can spread out a bit and you're not juggling maps / sandwiches / food, etc. There's not nearly as much space between seats in a Bonanza.

Personally, I find there is something about the Bonanza seating which gives me sore knees. A couple of tall mates have the same criticism. I dont know why, its hard to make sense of it, but its real. So, if you must do a single (vs a twin), I'd get a Lance. There's also a bit of piece of mind from having a Lycoming IO 540 up front instead of anything starting with "C" for trouble.

[Jabawocky]

Akro

Your posts are always full of great stuff :ok: but this?
Maybe a Beech Sierra as an outside contender.

You are not getting too old now are you :E Give me the C182.

Lance is a good option too!

[Old Akro]

I did say outside contender!!

I used to fly the MAG C182 before they upgraded to the current one. It didn't get 140 kts on 60 litres / hour. I think I flight planned at 135. I had it re-rigged and tried a few things, but could never get good speed from it. It's poisoned me a bit against C182's. And I learned in a Cherokee 140, so I have a bias toward low wing.

And frankly, there's nothing the beats a rear door where you can stand back and throw stuff at the cabin instead of the jigsaw approach of loading through the C182 baggage door. You can fit a lot in the C182 - its just harder. The front baggage compartment of the Lance is also good for fine tuning the CofG. After a while you learn to get an extra couple of knots from loading for the optimal CofG.

For touring (especially with wives) 2 passengers in the rear of a club seat Lance / Bonanza can stretch out and take as many books, handbags, neck pillows, drinks containers, etc as they like (The Lance has less "tail wag"than the Bo, so is a little better for 3rd row passengers). And with a 6 place intercom, plug in the iPod or DVD player. Turn the crew isolate switch on the intercom and you can nearly pretend they are not there (oops, did I say that out loud?).

The Lycoming engine operators manual (contrary to John Deakins statements) actually sanctions LOP below 65% power. The Lance will get remarkable economy if you need range. But I like Roy Lopresti's saying: "speed is not the most important thing - its the only thing".

In the Lance I liked about 70 - 72% power at 6 - 8,000ft where from memory I got 152 kts at 58 litres / hour, but it may have been faster after the paint / speed mods, my memory is dimming. Like all naturally aspirated aircraft its fastest at about 6,000ft. Sometimes returning from Woomera on hot days I'd want to be at 10,000ft to get cool / smooth air. On a 40 deg plus day the Lance struggled a bit at those altitudes. It took a while to regain altitude after height lost from bumps.

I run the Seneca at about the same power level, but it needs to be higher to get speed. At 9,000 - 10,000 ft I'll get about 172- 174 kts TAS at about 86 - 88 litres / hour. Flight Levels are better, but I'll only go on oxygen with 1 or 2 on board, so I usually stick to 9,000 or 10,000. Interestingly, if you fly the Seneca at Lance speeds, the fuel burn is only something like 10% higher. Its just that the gap between the throttles and panel is big and it beckons you.

Interestingly, a recent copy of the Aerostar society magazine has an article by an ex test pilot discussing ways to find the best value / highest speed option. Not best range (ie most economical) or fastest, but the best compromise between speed & cost. It seems that for what I fly this is sort of 70% power territory (its a more complicated calculation for pressurised aircraft). It turns out a guy called "Carson" actually wrote a research paper on this in the eighties.

All a bit off topic. For significant touring and a budget of $150k, I think a Lance would be best value - especially with the number on the market at the moment. Good speed, easy to pack, good space, stable IFR platform, good parts support. There is no doubt that the Bonanza is nicer to fly, but in cruise with the autopilot on, who cares? I'll get howled down, but I'd actually prefer to take the Lance into a dirt outback strip than a Bonanza.

And the purchase & parts price premium for a Bonanza is pretty big - especially for a Chinese aircraft!!!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I'll get howled down, but I'd actually prefer to take the Lance into a dirt outback strip than a Bonanza.

I go into some pretty "interesting" strips! Can't think of anywhere I would take a Lance that I wouldn't take a Bonanza.

OK - I've never flown a Lance - but I have plenty of PA32 time.

Dr :8

[Old Akro]

FTDK. Not rising to the Chinese bait?

[27/09]

Another single well worth a look at is the PA24-250/260.

So far as room goes it would fit between the Lance and Bonanza. For all round performance, speed/range/payload/fuel burn I think they are pretty hard to beat. The range is quite prodigous with tip tanks installed.

I would say the PA24 is a bit faster than the Lance and bit slower than the Bonanza, however on a long trip the PA24 will do it in one hop whereas very often the Bonanza will need a drink. From memory I think you can expect around 160 TAS at around 6000'.

Sure they're a bit older than the Lance but there's still good support from more than one source, plus they also use the old faithful 540. The systems are simple and easy to maintain.

The 260C is a very sharp looking aircraft even for its age. If you really want a dragster get a 400, they go fast, but with the Black Knob pulled well back they give fuel burns the same as for the 250/260 versions.

However if you like the idea of a rear door then the Lance is an excellent aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

Yes, Commanche 260 :ok:

Queen of the 4 seat single fleet :ok::ok:

[DC3Qld]

Hey, don't knock the Sierra!
Ok, Ok it's an outside contender, but I'll stand up for it. Solid as a Beech.
If it's just the wife and young kids you can get close to full fuel (210L?) Nice big rear door to throw stuff in too. We used to plan around 120 kts at 65% from memory and fuel burn around 34lph. The one I flew had a third row removable seat - kids use only, would greatly reduce range if you loaded it up, and watch the ZFW! It was nice and comfortable, plenty of room for luggage. Good IFR platform.
I guess they are getting on a bit now, but maybe not as thrashed about as your average 182, cherokee etc. No idea on maintenance, the front windscreen replacement cost the owner a bomb though. Purchase price will leave you plenty of change out of $150K for the inevitable upgrade.

[Arnold E]

And I'd much rather have the Century autopilot of a Lance or Bonanza than anything Cessna.

Nothing wrong with Cessna autopilots.:ok: The 400B is one of the best in the bussiness.:ok:

[EC120]

Go for a Saratoga , price , space , range, all a winner.

[Duck Pilot]

Many thanks to everyone for posting good quality advice/information and also to those who PM'd me.

I am still looking although I am seriously on the hunt for a good Cessna 182, either fixed gear or RG.

Also can anyone give me an indication of what nav charges (or what ever they are called these days) to expect operating a light aircraft VFR into controlled airports, places like Essendon and Albury etc, not Sydney!

[27/09]

If you go the Cessna route be sure you're up to date on the SIDS programme as it could cost you quite a bit of dosh.

[PA39]

There are a couple of "good" A36's on the market for around that money and will haggle. Garmin, tips etc Aviation advertiser.com.au

[kalavo]

RV7

If it's dependant on whether the wife lets you go flying or not, then can almost guarantee 95% of your flights are going to either be solo or with 1 pax. For the 2 hours a year you want to take everything including the kitchen sink, hire something else. Otherwise an RV7 is probably going to cover most of your flights.

Half the fuel burn, twice the fun, decent range and a decent speed. Different levels of kit from basic VFR to full blown IFR panels available. Tend to be newer airframes with cheaper maintenance and well looked after.

[kellykelpie]

How about a Mooney???

[Clearedtoreenter]

If you go the Cessna route be sure you're up to date on the SIDS programme as it could cost you quite a bit of dosh.

That could be true of any ageing aircraft. At least with Cessna you know they now have a proper 'safety' (their word) program in place to take care of the ageing issues and they are ahead of the game. It's not just applicable to old planes either. The latest Cessna Maintenance documents of July 2012 (I think) make it applicable to any 100 series over 500 hours. However, if the LAME's over the last 30 or 40 years have done their jobs properly, SIDS (on 100 series anyway) should not be a be a big deal. However over that length of time, one would have to guess the probability of a 100 series not being maintained entirely to the Cessna manual is high, especially if certain other maintenance schedules, possibly associated with the number 5, appear in its history. There are going to be a lot of tears amongst some owners of ageing 100 series if (when?) SIDS catches up because it could involve the removal, inspection and correction of some very major parts that might not have been touched otherwise, to the extent where it could result in continuous airworthiness becoming economically unviable. But maybe CASA and others will need to mandate SIDS first as they effectively have on 3/400 series before that happens... Who knows... Ask your maintenance organisation but make sure theyre up to date with latest Cessna maintenance manual first.... If indeed they use one at all :)

I'm guessing 'fully signed off SIDS compliant' will become a major selling point on any 100 series. (and even more likely for 200 series)

Here's a vid of 100 series SIDS
YouTube (http://m.youtube.com/?reload=3&rdm=mc3h05hr#/watch?v=-68AdXVHHI8)

[Old Akro]

Lets review:
Piper - no SIDS
Beechcraft - no SIDS
Mooney - no SIDS
Socata - no SIDS
Rockwell. Commander etc - no SIDS

Is it really about ageing aircraft & safety or about bolierplate butt covering? More likely it will hasten many aircraft models slide to oblivion. SIDS is only required for commercial operation, not private. What the Cessna SIDS programme is really doing is making many models too hard for commercial operations, thus reducing the available market size and value of the aircraft.

The Cessna SIDS programme is even a bit haphazard. C310's require it, its sister the C303 does not. Cessna have a SIDS programme for the C441 but the FAA has not endorsed it and its not mandatory in the US.

Most private aircraft (without training history) have less than 5,000 hours, which is about 1/4 or less of their design life. Some information from Cessna infers a 30,000 hour design life for C210.

For low time private aircraft, its still all about maintenance history, incident history, paint & interior condition and your own assessment of how well its been cared for.

[Arnold E]

The fact that the reviewed aircraft dont have a SIDS program does not mean that they are not quietly corroding away, and if it comes to that, the fact that the airframe TTIS is low also does not affect corrosion.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi DP,
I would go with the high wing type, 182 or whatever, as you then get to fly in the shade, which can be a reasonable consideration when flying around AUS.
Plus, the 182 type has a reasonable range, fuel capacity, load etc.
And, if it rains, you can stand under the wing, or camp under it in the sun....

We don't have any 'high strips' here, really, but we do have plenty of 'hot' ones, so the 182 type will get you off most strips comfortably.
And most Cessnas have a reasonable re-sale value.....for when you are finished with it.

Good Luck, and let us know on this site how you're travelling....you might even share a beer or two along the way....

Cheers:ok:

[Arnold E]

182 is good but if the money will stretch just a little further, 210 is the go.:ok:

[gassed budgie]

If you're after a genuine four seater, the 182RG is probably top of the pile. With a light load they'll run along at around 160ktas and with a load, 155ktas.
After serial number R18200583 they came with the bigger integral fuel tanks (88usg as opposed to the 75usg rubber bladders) and the Vno went from 147kias to 160kias, quite a handy increase.
In mid 1980 Cessna changed the latching mechanism on the cabin doors. These close a lot easier and seal up better than the older ones. Well worth the effort to get the later machine.
With all the seats full and bags in the back you can just about, but not quite fill the tanks. The R182 will carry a big load in a big cabin, reasonably fast over a long distance. I reckon it's the best four seat retractable out there.
Negatives? If it's the original O-540, a rude and crude induction system prone to icing under the right conditions (more so than some other aircraft out there). A relatively high fuel burn at around 54l/hr at max cruise. The aircraft also comes equipped with smaller main wheels and tyres than the stock standard 182. It's not a rough paddock aeroplane.
Another thing to consider is that when the engine is due, you have the option of installing a 260HP IO-540 under an STC from Alamo Aviation.
The only problem with all of this is that good, low time 182RG's are getting very, very hard to get hold of. Best of luck.

Someone mentioned a Mooney? They have their fan base, but they're a nasty, fly blown little aeroplane. No room, an ergonomically poor cockpit for the pilot, the ailerons feel like they're stuck in cement and when you stick one on in a strong crosswind, the bounce from wheel to wheel with little damping on those rubber donuts that they use for suspension/landing gear. And when you do go away, you'll have to leave your weekend fluzy standing on the apron with a bemused look on his/her face. They don't carry alot on full tanks.
Go the RG.

[gassed budgie]

182 is good but if the money will stretch just a little further, 210 is the go.

Ah, yes. One of the best things that Cessna ever did. A good one will still set you back around the $240/250k mark. Go s/n 21064536 or later.

[Clearedtoreenter]

The fact that the reviewed aircraft dont have a SIDS program does not mean that they are not quietly corroding away, and if it comes to that, the fact that the airframe TTIS is low also does not affect corrosion.

How very true. Of that list, Cessna is probably one of the ones that least needs SIDS. Can't help thinking that ageing aircraft rules are not far away for all. At least Cessna are ahead of it. Hopefully, this will put many of those old poorly maintained s--t boxes where they belonged years ago... perhaps they'll get buried with the Aussie F1-11's:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Don't you talk like that about my '1942' Tiger Moth or my GENUINE 1950 'Chippy' - BOTH still working and BOTH in the 'Charter' Category.....

Shame on you 'Cleared'.... shame shame shame....
(G'Day Derryn..just in case...)

Cheers:=

[172driver]

182 is good but if the money will stretch just a little further, 210 is the go.

+1 for the 210! Have toured in both and while the 182 is a great machine, the 210 is just that much better and roomier.

[Lodown]

Grab a Lancair for 130K and spend the other 20K on airline tickets for group travel. Seriously...enjoyed Bo's, 210's and Lance/Saratoga/306. Space, access and loading are great in the Piper. 306 feels sloppy with the square wing. 210's can dance off wet and rough strips, but get cramped after 3 hours. Bonanzas are solid and the seats are comfortable from full to almost empty tanks. If I regularly flew with 4 people, on hefty cruises, I'd opt for the Bonanza. If I lived on a farm and had to transport a load of kids around with the occasional bit of farm machinery, then I'd go with a Lance or Saratoga. Avoid the T tail Lance if you fly off grass strips. Its short field TO performance sucks.

[Triple Captain]

I know of a low time 172rg that would fit your budget. Pm me for info if required

[T28D]

Comanche 400 fly fast and its fun.

[Wanderin_dave]

Yak-18T. Go on, live a little! :ok:

[rioncentu]

Cessna. You can see the ground. Big plus IMHO !!

[Duck Pilot]

What about a YAK-18T? There are a few on the market at the moment and they fit what Im looking for. A quick look at the CASA register reveals that all the YAK-18Ts are in the "EXPERIMENTAL" category, can anyone tell me why and what operational conditions are imposed on them as a result? Assume they can't be used for commercial ops, however as a private touring aircraft are there any limitations apart from the depth of my pockets??????

[Avgas172]

If you go the Cessna route be sure you're up to date on the SIDS programme as it could cost you quite a bit of dosh.


Going through that right now .... Modify could to will, make sure your engine isn't on condition and add anywhere up to 30K for your preferred 182, the Bo or Piper range will not cost nearly as much to do if and when required .....

[Virtually There]

Another single well worth a look at is the PA24-250/260.

So far as room goes it would fit between the Lance and Bonanza. For all round performance, speed/range/payload/fuel burn I think they are pretty hard to beat. The range is quite prodigous with tip tanks installed.

I would say the PA24 is a bit faster than the Lance and bit slower than the Bonanza, however on a long trip the PA24 will do it in one hop whereas very often the Bonanza will need a drink. From memory I think you can expect around 160 TAS at around 6000'.

Sure they're a bit older than the Lance but there's still good support from more than one source, plus they also use the old faithful 540. The systems are simple and easy to maintain.

The 260C is a very sharp looking aircraft even for its age. If you really want a dragster get a 400, they go fast, but with the Black Knob pulled well back they give fuel burns the same as for the 250/260 versions.

However if you like the idea of a rear door then the Lance is an excellent aircraft.
They don't call the Comanche the "Poor man's Bonanza" for nothing.

Sounds like the OP has his heart set on a 182, but just to add to the above . . . The Comanche 260B/C has at least 100+lb more useful load; is 15kts faster (than an O-470 R182RG); will TRULY carry four adults with full fuel and luggage (or four adults and two kids/five adults with the optional sixth rear seat and a slight fuel penalty); is built for country strips; has good shoulder and leg room front and back; is no less a PIA to load with the small rear door; flies beautifully; and looks sexier than any Cessna . . .

Best of all, $150,000 would buy you probably the best PA-24 260C in Australia. (Not particularly this one, but you get the idea.)

http://arthurpipeandsteel.com/Aviation/FORSALEVHRUKCOMANCHE260C/dscf0723.jpg

Having only flown O-470 182RGs, I can't comment on the IO-540 models, but I have enough hours in PA-24s to know which I prefer. The Cessna is a high wing and easier to land - a bit more forgiving at low speeds - but they're the only real advantages I see. Being a fairly robust design and with the IO540, the Comanche should be a bit cheaper to maintain, though a little thirstier than the O-470. They have a fairly loyal following (if you haven't already noticed!).

[Jabawocky]

Ducky,

Where are you?

I know of a good…I mean really good Beech that could take a half share for the right person. And right location. NYC is not it either.

PM me if you wish.

[Duck Pilot]

Jab,

Not interested in a share arrangement, I want full control!! Can anyone answer my questions in relation to the YAK, there are currently a few on the market that interest me. I have an idea what I'm getting myself into as I was once an engineer, although not licenced. Second option is a Bonanza with tip tanks. Prepared to spend up to 130k,

[Squawk7700]

Consider one that uses less fuel. $20-30k is a lot of Avgas in one year and some of the engines quoted would cost you at the upper end of that scale.

[4forward8back]

The Yak wasn't certified by the Ruskies, or any one else, to any standard that CASA will recognise. Therefore the only option to fly one is Experimental. I'm not up with the intricacies of Experimental, I'll leave that to other prooners.

Now if you could find an Ex-Air Force Yak-18t it could be flown limited category. This means you could charge punters for jollies!:ok:

[Jenna Talia]

I wouldn't consider a Yak as a touring aircraft. Hardly any range and thirsty.

[Lumps]

Last time I checked there's no approved maintenance schedule for the 18, so can't be put in Limited category.

Aerobatic, built like a tank, a bit thirsty, something different, sounds proper, limited range.

[4forward8back]

Last time I checked there's no approved maintenance schedule for the 18, so can't be put in Limited category.

Bugger. There goes that idea.

[Duck Pilot]

Many thanks for the info on the YAK 18, I won't get one. Seems to be a bit of a buyers market at the moment, seriously considering a Lance/Cherokee 6 or 182RG both have got good range and speed. I want to carry my wife and 2 young kids - not interested in a 4 seater that will struggle up north or in the summer.

Anyone know what a Lance would roughly cost to operate per hour excluding financing and parking/hangar charges? I was thinking somewhere in the range of $300-$350 per hour.