View Full Version : Match the plane to the pilot & mission
Hi all,
I'm looking for advice. I'm hoping to upgrade next year, and rather than provide you with a preconceived notion of "Is <x> plane right for me?" I thought I'd let you fill in the blanks and see if you come up with the same ideas I do.
The pilot:
1000hr SEL (mix of high perf and complex), 0 MEL (willing to learn)
75-150 hrs/yr expected
Willing to travel once/year to flightsafety or similar.
The mission(s):
200-400 miles typical, up to 800 miles in one leg.
Frequent paved strips between 2000 and 2500 ft at or near sea level.
Occasional grass strips over 3000 ft long at or near sea level.
No rough/backcountry/gravel strips.
up to 1 trip/yr to Caribbean (up to 2500nm one way)
up to 2 trips/yr crossing the rockies (up to 3000 nm one way)
Occasional overwater legs
frequent legs over remote areas unsuitable for an undamaged emergency landing
Sometimes 1 person, often 2, occasionally 6.
Occasional humanitarian flights, usually ambulatory medical. Sometimes light cargo.
The environment:
Based at 45 deg north latitude in the US, most flights are between 40 and 45 degrees north.
Low alt icing is common four months/year
The frequent passenger:
Strongly requests pressurization.
Would like a dispatch rate closer to 90% (currently drops to less than 50% in winter.)
The budget:
400K USD for acquisition, 40K USD/yr ongoing (approximate, some leeway available)
Thanks in advance,
Jim
172driver
4th Dec 2012, 18:14
I'm not sure your acquisition budget is sufficient (I guess not), otherwise the answer is pretty clear - PC12.
PC-12...hmmm...
Acquisition: $2.5M
Operating costs: North of $750/hr at 100 hr/year.
Unfortunately, I have to fly on planet earth, not in the land of sparkly unicorns. ;)
what next
4th Dec 2012, 18:23
Cessna 340? But that's probably not fitting you 40k$/year budget (maintenance...)
Without doubt a Seneca Five twin which also can maintain altitude at 16500 feet on one engine and will handle grass as well as tarmac you will get one in your budget.
Make sure its a Seneca Five and not an earlier model as the five is a totally different animal to the 1234
I have 2500 hrs in the five and they have handled every type of weather and conditions imaginable summer and winter, day and night!
A real baby kingair and almost as fast at 20K plus on oxygen.
Addendum
Sorry missed the strongly requests pressurisation! Cessna 340? AeroStar? Machen? Golden eagle? or in turbines older KingAirs or Pipers my favorite the Conquest 1
Pace
Thanks for the suggestions so far. My thoughts on the aircraft mentioned (feel free to educate me where I'm wrong):
PC-12: Not with *my* wallet.
Seneca V: Fits the wallet & all parts of the profile except pressurization.
Cessna 340: If I can get a low maintenance one (and $350K buys a *very* nice 340) it might fit the operational budget. The R/STOL option makes the short strips quite doable. Payload isn't great, but it's enough on all but the longest trips.
Aerostar, Machen: Sure, I'd love to go 250 knots...but my first hunch is that's too much plane for the amount of time I'll spend staying current. 2000 ft strips will be difficult if I'm only flying 100 hrs/yr.
Golden Eagle: If I can't afford the 340, I *really* can't afford the Golden Eagle's geared engines. The short strips fall somewhere between "challenging" and "stupid" at 100 hrs/yr.
Older King Air, Piper turbine: I might afford to buy it; I doubt I could afford to keep the one I can afford to buy. It won't be in great shape.
Thanks for the tips so far...any other ideas? I hadn't heard of Machens until I looked them up, so I'm sure there's something else I've missed.
Big Pistons Forever
4th Dec 2012, 20:21
2000 foot runways is IMO too short to regularly operate a 300/400 series twin and with over 500 hours on an Aerostar, I can say I would never operate one on a hard runway less than 3000 feet long. The price you pay for the spiffy cruise speeds is poor short field performance.
Personally if you want a comfy cruiser that is happy on short rough fields I would choose a turbo Aztec over a Seneca 5. The big fat wing lets you safely get into short and rough fields.
If you want pressurization then I would suggest a Pressurized Skymaster. Add VG,s and 2000 foot strips are safety doable. The downside is they are maintenance hogs.
Thanks again!
The fields are short, but not rough. Any place I land less than 3000ft is paved, and the grass strips are well-maintained.
Turbo Aztec: It was on my short list before I bought my current single, but I was worried about maintenance on a plane that's been out of production 40 years. I do like the idea of having a steel cage in the event of an "unplanned arrival." Can any current owners in the US speak to parts & service availability?
Pressurized Skymaster:
Cons:
Also out of production, but at least I can get one 8 years newer.
Pressurization is about as low as you can get (3.35 PSI) and still call it pressurized.
Service ceiling is only 20,000 ft.
Known icing is not available, and that might be a dealbreaker.
The P model doesn't realistically carry 6 people, even on short trips.
Pros:
STOL skymasters will take off and land in a parking lot.
Both of the above leave a lot of padding in the wallet for maintenance.
The 340 R/STOL has a published accelerate-stop distance of 1,800 ft, a 50ft takeoff of 1,610 and a 50ft landing of 1,360. That's without VGs or any of the RAM engines. Anyone have any experience with one of these out of a short strip on a regular basis?
AdamFrisch
4th Dec 2012, 21:40
If you're going to the Caribbean, then you should really look into a twin.
My suggestions are:
Piston: Aero Commander 500B. Get's in an out of anything, reasonably fast, low maintenance compared to many other twins, long legs, well supported. Only drawback it isn't pressurised. I wouldn't recommend at pressurised 680FP, FLP or 685 in the above scenario. The 685 is a great traveller with the longest range of any piston twin (322gals), but it's a not a good short field performer and has fire-breathing pistons that are highly strung and not for the faint of heart.
Aerostars, as mentioned, not great short field performers. But they are fully supported and constantly developed. Aircraft is also pretty far down the line for both a diesel and a jet upgrade. And when the diesel happens, you have 1500nm twin that will keep pace with most turbines and will be very cheap to fly. But already with avgas burners, it's one of the most economical twins to fly when it comes to fuel burn due to it's low drag and high altitude capabilities.
Can you support a turbine? Your budget suggest you could get into them at least:
Aero Commander 690A or B. Get's in an out of most anything and is everything the 685 isn't. Rock solid turbine twin.
Mitsubishi MU-2. Don't listen to all the cackle about these. Since the FAA mandatory training started, they have the best safety record of any turbine twin. They can get in and out of anything, built tough and fully supported.
Personally if you want a comfy cruiser that is happy on short rough fields I would choose a turbo Aztec over a Seneca 5. The big fat wing lets you safely get into short and rough fields
Used to operate a Seneca Five into 500 meter strip both have slab wings the Seneca five can fly at 61 kts.
Flew the Seneca and an Aztec F both excellent aircraft.
The Seneca is modern you can buy a 2000 plus aircraft the Aztec 30 plus years old!
Tell your guy its pressurized and buy a Seneca Five :E We would not lie would we :ok:
Pace
Adam,
All the turbines you mentioned are well out of my budget. I'm not interested in buying a "steal" and then skimping on maintenance to stay within budget. They're also quite unsuited to 2000ft strips for a 100hr/yr pilot.
The AeroCommander pistons are interesting. I hadn't given them much serious thought. If pressurization ends up falling off the list (it's the only criterion listed above that's optional) then I'll look closer.
Pace,
Aside from the 30 yr age difference and the horrible hit to the wallet, what would you say the biggest differences are for the Seneca V vs the Aztec? I've flown a Lance and like the cabin (same as the Seneca V) and the big rear doors. I like the very low stall of the Aztec and the steel frame.
How are the doors on the Aztec? What can you get through them?
I'm guessing the Seneca will have lower maintenance costs - 220 vs 250Hp, plus still in production - is that right? About how much will I save per 100hr year, roughly speaking?
Jim
PS - "My guy" can figure out very quickly whether or not she's got a canula stuck in her nose. ;)
AdamFrisch
4th Dec 2012, 22:50
I'm obviously biased as a Commander owner, but they are marvellous short field performers and rugged. Obviously, this, and the fact that they're roomier than most twins, means they are not as fast at the very top end, but it's pretty marginal. And if you can find/upgrade to a Merlyn engined one with the 350hp each side, you can fly in and out of ridiculous strips. This is Dave Phifer's 500 that he flies out of his own tiny grass strip in Washington. It has had the Merlyn conversion. Most wouldn't even land a Cessna 152 there!
Aero Commander landing 15WA, Stanwood, Washington - YouTube
You can also view a clip I did in my much older 520 at El Monte in California. The wheels are off just before the threshold, which is about 600ft there. Obviously lightly loaded, but not much wind. I think one could shave off another good 100ft off that if one was braver than I am - full flaps and yoke in stomach until she climbers off at 52kts stall speed (power off published). An insane 35kts full flap, full power stall speed is published in the POH. Bit marginal for my taste, but it's good to know it's available as a safety margin.
Amazingly short take off in the Aero Commander 520 - only 600ft! - YouTube
flybymike
4th Dec 2012, 23:30
Adam I would have thought the Ipad played havoc with the compass accuracy when mounted in that position?
An insane 35kts full flap, full power stall speed is published in the POH
I bet that also gives a fantastic roll rate when you lose an engine! :eek:
AdamFrisch
5th Dec 2012, 00:05
Mike - it does. I want to relocate it, but everywhere else blocks the view too much. I refuse yoke mounts. I've kind of done my own MD compensation and as I fly mostly VFR it's not as critical. The Ipad Mini is next on the list and hopefully that will help.
Pontius
5th Dec 2012, 00:18
Adam I would have thought the Ipad played havoc with the compass accuracy when mounted in that position?
It does, that's why he steered off to the left of the centreline ;)
It does, that's why he steered off to the left of the centreline
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk219/sheliesinwait/rim-shot-johnny-utah.jpg
In the last 10 minutes, just bought $700 US worth of commercial tickets to an airport 250nm away. Why? It's for a friend's 50th and I can't depend on getting there in my popsicle single until the weather get a bit warmer.
It's time to get reliable year-round transport.
Thanks for all your suggestions.
Big Pistons Forever
5th Dec 2012, 03:00
The 340 R/STOL has a published accelerate-stop distance of 1,800 ft, a 50ft takeoff of 1,610 and a 50ft landing of 1,360. That's without VGs or any of the RAM engines. Anyone have any experience with one of these out of a short strip on a regular basis?
I have about 350 hrs flying a 310hp 340A with VG's. The published rotate speed is 91 kts for the short field takeoff. The distance required numbers for takeoff in the POH are IMO a sick joke. There is no way the aircraft can accelerate to that speed in the distance given in my experience.
The Robertson STOL machines get the great numbers by hauling it off the ground at silly low airspeeds. A bit of windsheer or one engine hiccuping and you are a smoking hole at the end of the runway.
The constraint of the short field greatly reduces your choices IMO. You are almost at the point where you need two airplanes. Something like a nice Cessna 340 for the long trips and a Cessna 206 for the short and unimproved strips, if you want it all.
Big Pistons Forever
5th Dec 2012, 03:08
The AeroCommander pistons are interesting. I hadn't given them much serious thought. If pressurization ends up falling off the list (it's the only criterion listed above that's optional) then I'll look closer.
Adam has not mentioned the 680FLP with the Mr RPM conversion. This adds bullet proof (and wonderfully smooth) 8 cylinder direct drive Lycoming TIO 720's. Most of the conversions included a total refurb of the airframe.
Downsides are that not many where made so it may take awhile to find a nice one, you are still dealing with a mids 60s airframe and they guzzle gas. But the huge wing, rugged gear, and power brakes will handle almost any strip.
AdamFrisch
5th Dec 2012, 04:18
The 680FLP is essentially the same airframe as the later 685 and Turbine models. However, there is a big difference in the way the 680FL/FLP achieves pressurisation compared to the later 685. In the 685 the pressurisation is taken from the bleed air from the turbos, just like on a turbine, essentially. On the 680FL/FLP they're driven by a 3000psi hydraulic cabin pump/supercharger made by New York Air Brake. It's almost impossible to find replacement parts for this pump should it break. Not only that, it doesn't use red hydraulic fluid, but a nasty and expensive compound called Skydrol. This stuff will strip the paint off your plane and is a general nightmare to deal with.
Also, the 680FLP only carries 225gal of fuel as compared to the 322gals of the 685, which makes it a relative short legged long range tourer.
Unfortunately, many of the Commanders from the 50-70's era suffered from what in hindsight has become dead ends. It is unfortunate as the airframe is a marvel of simplicity and sturdy. Almost all the higher end piston Commanders either had some kind of "orphaned" geared engine or some weird pressurisation system/hydraulic system that was shared with no other maker. They finally got it right with the turbine models and they've proven their value. This makes the pistons from this era a little harder to maintain and is also reflected in the pricing. The 500 series is the exception - straightforward with no funny stuff - either IO470's or IO540's, both bulletproof. That's also why the 500A/B/U retain their price on the market whereas the "funny" stuff like the 520, 560, 680-series, don't. An opportunity for the right owner....
I've myself toyed many times with the idea of an 685 as a future update. Insane range, 25K ceiling and a great travel machine. Probably the quietest twin ever to fly in. But that comes with a price - high strung geared engines, crappy short field performance and a bit of a guzzler. Also, I travel by myself most of the time - do I really need to lug 8 empty seats around? As much as I love Commanders, that's probably not the best fit for me.
I wish someone would make a 2-seat twin with 2000nm range, pressurised, high wing, yokes, great short fielder and run by diesels. That would be my plane.
Larscho
5th Dec 2012, 04:28
Epic LT Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_LT_Dynasty)
http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1254409
This airplane seems to fit your specifications. It is not a twin but a single turbo prop is pretty reliable as well.
I have no clue about the price for one of these but I guess you can find out in your research.
Big Pistons Forever
5th Dec 2012, 06:13
The 680FLP is essentially the same airframe as the later 685 and Turbine models. However, there is a big difference in the way the 680FL/FLP achieves pressurisation compared to the later 685. In the 685 the pressurisation is taken from the bleed air from the turbos, just like on a turbine, essentially. On the 680FL/FLP they're driven by a 3000psi hydraulic cabin pump/supercharger made by New York Air Brake. It's almost impossible to find replacement parts for this pump should it break. Not only that, it doesn't use red hydraulic fluid, but a nasty and expensive compound called Skydrol. This stuff will strip the paint off your plane and is a general nightmare to deal with.
Also, the 680FLP only carries 225gal of fuel as compared to the 322gals of the 685, which makes it a relative short legged long range tourer.
.
I believe that most Mr RPM conversions removed the pressurization pump and replaced it with a turbocharger bleed air pressurization source like the one in the Aero Commander 685 and all Cessna pressurized piston aircraft. You are right about the fuel though.
It flies
5th Dec 2012, 06:50
The Lancair Propjet seems to fit your criteria. There's one for sale here:
2005 LANCAIR PROPJET Experimental/Homebuilt Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/LANCAIR-PROPJET/2005-LANCAIR-PROPJET/1186809.htm)
I have about 350 hrs flying a 310hp 340A with VG's. The published rotate speed is 91 kts for the short field takeoff. The distance required numbers for takeoff in the POH are IMO a sick joke. There is no way the aircraft can accelerate to that speed in the distance given in my experience.
The Robertson STOL machines get the great numbers by hauling it off the ground at silly low airspeeds. A bit of windsheer or one engine hiccuping and you are a smoking hole at the end of the runway.
The constraint of the short field greatly reduces your choices IMO. You are almost at the point where you need two airplanes. Something like a nice Cessna 340 for the long trips and a Cessna 206 for the short and unimproved strips, if you want it all.
Just to be clear - many seem to think the short fields are rough fields. They're all paved. The actual distance of the shortest target field is just under 2300 ft (w/ clear approaches and less than 50ft MSL), but 2000 is a round number with safety margins. Anything under 3000 ft for this plane will be paved.
The Roberston conversion says it lowers liftoff speed by 10kts, Vmc by 8kts and accelerate-stop is reduced by 1140 ft. A reduction in liftoff speed by 11% to 81kts (as claimed) results in more than a 30% reduction in ground roll. Your experience is in a plane with just VGs, not the Robertson conversion, correct?
I have no interest in monkeying around with <Vmc rotation in a twin. The goal is to find a plane that will actually do the job with only a reasonable amount of skill required to do it safely.
Anyone with experience using a 340 R/STOL with VGs out of a short field, please chime in! The published numbers say it does the job - but does it really?
PS - I will have two aircraft. I'm not planning on selling the 206 (good call!) I have now. It does a fine job of handling the short *and* rough strips. But it's not deiced or turbo'ed and it sits on the ground in the winter more than I'd like.
This airplane seems to fit your specifications. It is not a twin but a single turbo prop is pretty reliable as well.
I have no clue about the price for one of these but I guess you can find out in your research.
I have no problem with a used single turbine, but this is a new airframe with a new turbine. I don't have to do any research to know it's out of my budget.
The Lancair Propjet seems to fit your criteria
Acquisition cost is over $400K.
It only has 4 seats.
Not deiced.
This seller ($435K) might come down to my budget, or I might go up, but 4 seats in a non-deiced plane is a non-starter.
172driver
5th Dec 2012, 11:32
How about a de-iced 210P ? These ones should fit both your budget and mission profile. Not sure if your acquisition budget stretches far enough, but a 210 Silver Eagle (i.e. turbine) should tick all your boxes. You could then also sell the 206 and free up some capital.
Re: choices, choices, choices in the Aero Commanders.
This is all great info - you guys have definitely brought up a lot of options I didn't know about before. Aviation Consumer's one online article about the AC twins doesn't cover all the variations- not surprisingly, as it seems like there are at least 20 airframe variations, and then several aftermarket conversions on top of that.
Is there a place I can go to do some research into all of these on my own? The Merlyn conversions page has almost no data, and I can't find any page at all with info on the Mr RPM (who was that marketing genius?) conversions.
Although a description of a 225 gallon plane as "short legged" hurts my wallet, I'm still interested in looking a lot further into the Aero Commander options.
How about a de-iced 210P ? These ones should fit both your budget and mission profile. Not sure if your acquisition budget stretches far enough, but a 210 Silver Eagle (i.e. turbine) should tick all your boxes. You could then also sell the 206 and free up some capital.
The de-iced 210P has been on the short list, although a piston single over water is a no-go for me. Since nobody has suggested a plane that fits all the requirements neatly (not surprising) some of the requirements will have to yield. Caribbean trips might be what gets left behind.
The 210 Silver Eagle is out of my price range. The cheapest one on controller.com is currently $525K, and if you buy the cheapest airframe out of a fleet, you're buying problems. If I stretched to buy it, I'd get eaten alive in ownership. If anyone with experience owning a Silver Eagle wants to correct me, please do!
The 206 will stay. I have several other mission profiles (rough fields, bulky loads) that are met well by the 206 that I didn't bother listing here because they aren't even close to compatible with the other requirements I listed. It's cheap to keep and won't free up enough capital or operating costs to be worth losing.
If somebody makes a pressurized Kodiak Quest or Caravan clone for under $500K, then I can sell the 206.
AdamFrisch
5th Dec 2012, 15:28
Hi Jim.
Glad you're intrigued by AC's. If you want to inform yourself about them, the Twin Commander Flight Group has a brand new website with (correct) info and specifications for all models.
Twin Commander Flight Group (http://twincommander.org)
I would suggest a 500A/B/U/S model if you can live with lack of pressurisation. They normally come with booths, but if you want you can get a weeping wing with titanium leading edges as an STC. There's an outfit called Central Air that has developed their own STC and they operate over 30 (!) 500's for freight in the midwest, many of them with excess of 15000hrs on the airframe.
Here are all the Merlyn conversions, if you want more speed.
Merlyn Products, Inc. (http://www.merlynproducts.com/350c.html)
If you need pressurisation, then you're best bet would be a 685. If you don't load them up to max gross, they perform pretty well. I would not recommend the 680FP/FLP unless its had the Mr Rpm conversion. Here's Milt Colcannon's article debunking many of the myths about the 685:
N414C Milt Concannon's 685 | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.147832118601815.37560.144424762275884&type=3)
Hope you get one.
Thanks, Adam.
That site is exactly what I was looking for - great detail! It must be new; it doesn't show up on google searches yet.
The pressurized Commanders look nice, but they seem to be out of my range in either takoff & landing distance, operating costs, or both. If I do end up unpressurized, the 500 series (as you suggested) look like nice alternatives. A 500 w/ deice might be a nice fit.
As far as the Merlyns go, you may have noticed that speed wasn't listed anywhere in my criteria. The turbo is really nice for helping to climb through icing layers and get above weather, however.
Also, I looked at this year's rough expenditures on the 206, and decided that budgeting $40K/yr for what might be a pressurized twin isn't even close to realistic. I'd go up to $60K/yr for pressurization, but wouldn't spend that much if I didn't get it.
gordon field
5th Dec 2012, 16:16
I have been following this thread with much interest as I have owned or flown most of the aircraft mentioned except the Piper, Aerostars and MU2 Turboprops. This includes all of the Cessnas SE and ME with and without STOL, tip tanks or wet wings off grass and paved with only a few exceptions.
An important reservation is the on field service support for the older out of production aircraft. If you buy Commander or MU2 then make sure that there is full service support at your home base, if an Aerostar make sure service at both ends.
The Commander range have fine cabins, good handling but the cost of the engines in the 685 is now $$$$$$+ to overhaul?.
Is you intend to fly overwater in a single piston with family and friends then make sure it is low wing preferably with 2 doors.
Check the useful load on the fully equipped aircraft as later models like pilots gain weight.
The Skymasters should be considered as being suitable for 4 adults + maybe a couple of kids or the dog. The seat base on 5 & 6 is only about 5 inches off the floor and very uncomfortable.
Keep the debate going as there are some good words of wisdom from established posters but lots of crxp from bloggers who obviously have never owned, flown or importantly had to pay for the maintenance on the aircraft upon which they pontificate.
For me a well maintained deiced STOL T337H with upgraded autopilot, avionics and an understanding engineer,wife,bank manager.
Gordon,
Thanks for the reply. Before I posted here, a deiced STOL T337G or H was at the top of my list. You're the first one to make that specific suggestion.
The catch is that doesn't carry 6, even with the seats in. Real-world figures for useful load on some of the fatter ones start at 400-450lbs with full tanks. You'd have to leave a lot of fuel (and all of your baggage) behind to carry 6 adults in a 337. It's also not FIKI certified. On the other hand, I could buy a nice one twice on the given budget.
It also has the safety advantage of very low kinetic energy on arrival. It has about 40% of the kinetic energy of an Aerostar when landing, for example. All that energy has to go somewhere in the event you need to stop suddenly.
More than a few minutes of overwater flight in a single engine piston is a non-starter for me, even in a low wing with two doors, an inflated life raft tied to each wing, and a C130 following me in formation.
Adam,
Here's a pic of a 500 for sale. Where do the passengers' legs fit?
http://www.wildbluellc.com/images/aircraft/ea1331157805.jpg
Airplane for Sale - 1962 Aero Commander 500A*-*Wild Blue - Used Airplane Sales and Acquisitions, Piston and Jet Aircraft Broker and Dealer. (http://www.wildbluellc.com/N800AC.html)
AdamFrisch
5th Dec 2012, 17:10
The seat behind the co-pilots seat has been moved fully back probably to make room for pilots bag. They have much more room than this. Also, forward facing seats (they can be slid on both ways) will give more legroom overall, but the club seating is a bit more social. Most owners remove the 6th seat behind the pilot and keep the floor space empty for storage and bags.
Also, if you're looking into the minutae of 500's, then I'd suggest a B, U or S model. The S model was the last one made and is also certified in the Utility Category, so it's a little beefier. This is the one Bob Hoover used to do aerobatics in. The 500 and the 500A both have the O-470 and IO-470 respectively and only come with 2-blade props (unless they've had a Colemill conversion). They are the cheapest in the 500 series and have a little less performance, but are solid aircraft for the money.
With your budget you could easily get into a fully tricked out 500S with the eyebrow windows modification, the pilot door modification and all the mod cons. Like this one:
[Please resize to 800 x 600 max]
Agree with Gordon that the 685's engines will be at least $50K to overhaul, so they're not cheap. They also have a low TBO and will probably not even make that without some top end attention. 435hp is a lot to pull from 520 cubic inches. However, I do fly geared engines myself, and the myths about them are not true. The gearboxes themselves almost never give trouble, it's the fact that you're running them at higher rpms to get more power out of them that shortens their lives. So if you're willing to pull back a bit, geared engines will last as almost as long as anything else. Another advantage of the geared engines is that they get up to speed much quicker than a direct drive and therefore the takeoff roll is almost always shorter.
http://centralairsouthwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CMDR_21_IMG_0242.jpg
Here's one of Central Air's freighters with the TKS de-ice system and pilot door mod.
I'll shut up now - sick of myself talking so much.:ugh:
Dan the weegie
5th Dec 2012, 19:44
Might not do the short fields you are looking for and may not be quite within budget but consider the Piper Meridian? It's a lovely machine, fits the number of people you're transporting and is pressurised.
Still I think I'd prefer a twin given the kind of flying you're doing and the places you're going.
JimC
With your budget all the aircraft you are looking at are ancient out of production and spares???
The Seneca Five will meet all your goals apart from pressurisations and still in production as well as being a well tried and tested aircraft.
It is all well and good going for a pressurized aircraft like the 340 but something like the Seneca Five will get you up to levels where you need oxygen twice as fast as the 340 or the Aztec.
Why do you need to be high other than crossing mountain ranges? What is the single engine service ceiling of these older aircraft? Pretty pointless if its low!
The Seneca Five will fly engine out and maintain 16500 feet.
If its just to clear mountains persuading "her"to use oxygen (built in in the Seneca) might be your best option for the 30 minutes or so you need to be up there.
Pace
Another advantage of the geared engines is that they get up to speed much quicker than a direct drive and therefore the takeoff roll is almost always shorter.
Actually it's the increased torque, and therefore increased static thrust that does that for you. The 685 is out of the question. The page you sent me to that 'debunked' the 685 'myths' says "This does limit you to 5000' runways east of Denver if you want to operate safely" so that pretty much rules out more than 1/2 my airports.
Might not do the short fields you are looking for and may not be quite within budget but consider the Piper Meridian?
You're right - it won't do the short fields and it's out of my budget. Next!
With your budget all the aircraft you are looking at are ancient out of production and spares???
The Seneca Five will meet all your goals apart from pressurisations and still in production as well as being a well tried and tested aircraft.
Why do you need to be high other than crossing mountain ranges? What is the single engine service ceiling of these older aircraft? Pretty pointless if its low!
I'm used to flying old, out of production aircraft. I've been doing it since my first flight. :)
The Seneca V is definitely on the short list. What makes you say it's so much better than the IV? My neighbor had a III until just recently and sold it for something pressurized. I don't know the difference between the models.
The reason to get high is to avoid summer weather and winter ice. SE service ceiling can be low - if I lose an engine on 95% of my trips, I'll head for the nearest airport and make it easily even with a 6,000ft SE service ceiling. This far north, you don't have to get very high (18K or less) to clear most of the weather - but the 7000MSL optimum altitude of the 206 is right in the middle of the junk.
gordon field
5th Dec 2012, 21:28
Seneca V, last one I sat in had very restricted foot room for seats 5+ 6 and checkout the payload remaining for pax once you have loaded the fuel required for your intended flight.
Most comfortable ones for the pax had forward facing seats but I don't think that you can change the club seating around.
Jim C just how far do you need / want to fly with 6 people and what are the weights and sizes of the folks you want to take along and how much baggage apart from the kitchen sink?
Any Seneca owner willing to state relevant weights of a fully equipped V?
Surprised nobody has mentioned the Pressurised Baron which is marketed as a 6 seater, but like the Duke it needs long runways.
Turbine Duke, look sexy, 6 seats, built in commode for use by really close friends!
Seneca V, last one I sat in had very restricted foot room for seats 5+ 6 and checkout the payload remaining for pax once you have loaded the fuel required for your intended flight.
Jim C just how far do you need / want to fly with 6 people and what are the weights and sizes of the folks you want to take along and how much baggage apart from the kitchen sink?
Surprised nobody has mentioned the Pressurised Baron which is marketed as a 6 seater, but like the Duke it needs long runways.
Turbine Duke, look sexy, 6 seats, built in commode for use by really close friends!
The Seneca V's payload w/ 800nm fuel isn't much worse than some other planes that have been mentioned.
My 6 seat useage surprised me when I looked at my logs. Before I owned the 206, I would have said 4 seats do just fine - but I've averaged almost 1 flight/month with 5 or more since I got the 206. Sometimes it's 6 adults & day carryons, sometimes 4 adults & two kids & bags for a long weekend, once it was 2 adults, 4 kids and a week's worth of bags. Basically, it seems like if I have the capacity, I use it. The "six adult" flights tend to be shorter, but that's mostly because nobody wants to spend much time in the last row of a 206. If I had 6 real seats, I'd use them.
P-Baron...hmmm...it seems like 2300ft is right at the edge. I'd prefer a little more of a comfort zone, but they're cheaper than I expected.
How about a PA-46?
The very low maneuvering speed of this airframe bothers me. The ridiculously long glide range helps compensate for the single piston engine up front, but long overwater legs are still out. The cheaper ones do fit the profile.
JimC
The Seneca five will initially climb at 1400 to 1500 fpm. Even at 18000 feet you will still see 800 fpm ie better than the 340 will do at sea level.
I tested the Seneca against a Malibu Mirage in the climb stakes the prospective purchaser bought a Seneca after that flight from the then Anglo American at Bournemouth.
You have a modern Kitted aircraft with turbocharged Intercooled engines which as twins go sips fuel and parts wise unlike the Baron is cheap.
They handle ice well are stable and Easy to fly and will go into short strips! Tarmac, gravel or grass.
Above all you will get a 2000 plus aircraft within your budget why bother with a 30 year plus aircraft chasing expensive and elusive parts?
As for weight carrying? for ferrying they will happily go way overweight.
For ops within Europe they can be certificated at 1999 KG with no airways charges.
I love the things but with over 2500 hrs in them in all weather and conditions maybe I am biased :ok:
A real trusted servant!
Pace
:D - yep, you're biased.
you will still see 800 fpm ie better than the 340 will do at sea level
The 340 does 1600fpm at sea level vs 1460 for the Seneca V. With the RAM mods (which are very common) it pushes 2000fpm. The SE climb of a RAM 340 is 350fpm vs 250 fpm for a Seneca V. Basically, the 340 outclimbs the Seneca V at all times.
There's no question that if it comes to a 340 vs a Seneca, I'll take the pressurization. But pressurization might get dropped, and if it does - I'll keep the Seneca in mind.
Why bother with the 30 year aircraft? Same reason everyone does - it does something the modern aircraft won't, or it does it cheaper.
What's the difference between the V and the IV? why is the V so much better?
I have not seen the figures you quote in real life on 340s I have flown? The five is turbocharged intercooled and wastegated.
It is not time limited to max power as are the earlier Senecas.
Why it climbs so well???
Pace
AdamFrisch
6th Dec 2012, 01:46
I got my multi on the Seneca and all I can say is that I'm glad to see the back of that one. This is my most personal view and not based on much experience in them, so forgive me Pace. But to me they were impossible to get into and out of, had a fuel system from hell, the manual johnson flap bar always made you jerk the plane when deploying, cramped, ultra high glareshield that obstructed the view, finicky cowl flap management etc. I'll give them that they did land nicely and the gear felt sturdy and they performed OK, but that's about it. Each to their own.
P Baron has a life limit on the airframe and main spar, so that's something to consider. In many ways I think all planes should have that in principle, but when you're shelling out so much money for a piece of equipment, then the economics of it can become a problem.
I have not seen the figures you quote in real life on 340s I have flown? The five is turbocharged intercooled and wastegated.
I have talked to 340A pilots who have seen those numbers. It's not surprising - the Seneca has 10.8 lbs/HP, the 340A has 9.7 lbs/HP.
The RAM 340s are also turbocharged, intercooled and wastegated.
I don't think you're going to convince me the Seneca outperforms a 340 in climb or cruise. There are other reasons one might choose a Seneca over a 340, but those aren't two of them.
I got my multi on the Seneca and all I can say is that I'm glad to see the back of that one. This is my most personal view and not based on much experience in them, so forgive me Pace. But to me they were impossible to get into and out of, had a fuel system from hell, the manual johnson flap bar always made you jerk the plane when deploying, cramped, ultra high glareshield that obstructed the view, finicky cowl flap management etc. I'll give them that they did land nicely and the gear felt sturdy and they performed OK, but that's about it. Each to their own.
Adam come on :ugh:
That description is a bit like saying you will not buy a modern mooney because you do not like the manual gear retract lever bar of a vintage 1960s Mooney?
I do not know what Seneca you did your twin rating on but presume it was an ancient Seneca 1.
The Seneca five has one of the easiest fuel selectors around unlike the 340! There is no manual flap bar but a simple electric selector.
The cowl flaps are simple and rarely need more than cracking partially open.
The Undercarriage is not trailing link so requires some skill to get chairmans landings.
Are you sure it was a Seneca you were flying ;) ?? it certainly was not a Five
Lastly I will put a Seneca five against a straight 340 in a climb race surface to 20K anytime I will even gamble on it ;)
Yes the reengined modified 340s are much better performers if you can afford high fuel costs compared to the Seneca.
Pace
gordon field
6th Dec 2012, 09:44
The actual achieved rate of climb depends upon many factors and when flying with passengers one of the most important ones is passenger comfort often referred to as deck angle.
If you climb a Seneca at 1500 ft/min then the pilot will have no forward view and no view of other possible conflict with traffic from the 10 -2 o'clock positions. On VFR departures I always prefer to see where I am going.
The aft facing passengers will be hanging in their straps.
1500 ft/min is an uncomfortable rate of climb/pressure change for passengers and particularly for the kids who don't know hoe to counter this, anybody with a cold will really suffer.
In the 340 you can keep the rate of change in pressure very low and you can also move around see to the comfort of the passengers and if they feel in flight discomfort move them up front so on a long trip time soon flies by.
The turbo charging system on the the 340 is much superior to that on the Seneca, get the oil warm before take off and you can set full MP on take-off
as they are not prone to overboost.
Pace,
It's not pressurized.
The ones under $400K are near TBO.
I don't give a rat's ass whether or not a Seneca will beat a 340 in a climb to 20K.
Thanks for your input,
Jim