My next aircraft

[172510]

I'm a CPL (VFR only) pilot, and in several months I'll be a CPL IR-ME MEP pilot, when I complete my training.
I'll change my aircraft from a 172 to another one.
I'm in the dreaming phase of the research, the most pleasant one, so my budget is unlimited (yet).
I don't want a jet (some airfields I like forbid jets), so it won't be a C510, although I like that aircraft very much.
I'd like to be able to operate from a SL 700 metres runway.
I'd like to be able to use my aircraft for a sight seeing flight in VFR on Sunday afternoon, but I can change my mind, after all, there's always a flight school/club willing to rent an aircraft, but it would be a shame to miss an opportunity to practice handling on a regular basis, as most other flights would be IFR with Auto Pilot.
I need a Jet A1 aircraft, so that I can refuel at airfields where Avgas is not available, unless tanks are big enough for the return trip.
I don't need a huge payload, most flights would be solo, some with my wife and some luggage
Typical mission would be 400 NM solo for business, with a return trip at night, to an Airfield without AVGAS.(*)
Other missions would be 600 to 1000NM with my wife and some (not much) luggage.
I want the maximum bad weather protection/ability: I fly from London ( freezing conditions from September to June), so FIKI seems to be a must (*)
I'd like a twin, but I can change my mind.
I don't want a DA42 (my entire family says it's ugly).

What would be your choice?

[antoine.]

TBM 850 :}

[Boeing007]

Definetly agree with Antoine, the TBM 850 seems like an amazing plane. never had the chance to fly it but from what I've heard and read it's the plane you want to go for.

[AdamFrisch]

Turbo Commander 1000. Long range, fast and can land anywhere.

http://www.adamfrisch.com/images/690.jpg

[petesevenseven]

With the unlimited budget that you have, I'd definitely be going for a twin because two is better than one having flown with the luxury of four engines (big ones) ... I can say that 4 is better than 2 :-)

Also if you're flying ifr at night you really want the second engine despite what the sales man tells you engines do fail! You don't want that at night in a single in IFR....not cool... or over large amounts of H2O also not cool....

My choice would be a B200 not cheap but a sweet ride safe and tested Beechcraft got it soooo right with that bird...also it will get you in to the types of fields you want to go.. It has a bit more performance than a C172....

I'm not a sales man!

Good luck with your search,

Happy Landings!

Pete77

[hingey]

TBM or King Air. However the transition from a piston twin onto either won't be easy, especially if you're fresh out of training with low hours.

h

[gordon field]

I suggest that you have a word with your insurance company to establish what minimum flight experience, initial and recurrent training they will require and at what cost.

I suspect that for probably the first 50 hr they will require you to fly with a suitably qualified pilot.

[PURPLE PITOT]

Can't beat a king air,rugged and reliable. It's not the purchase cost you have to worry about though.

[de fumo in flammam]

I would say, with your level of IFR inexperience, number one priority is a modern user friendly IFR panel, with an ultra reliable autopilot. So older/cheaper king-airs and commanders may be out - Single pilot IFR is intensely demanding - I know.

Ironically you have ruled out the bird I would have chosen. I actually think it has a hawkish appeal.

[INNflight]

I would say King Air or PC12, but can see how they may be somewhat over the top for lower experience, and also they don't fit the VFR sightseeing category very well.

How about a good used Cessna 310 or 340?

Otherwise maybe a Piper Meridian or something similar, but that's single engine again.

[avconnection]

C90GT, PC12NG or Glass converted Turbo Commander. The turbo commander will perform better than the others but they are old; That said, you do have an unlimited budget and my money would be on a renaissance upgrade. The PC12NG will look after you and it does make the job of flying easy. There is always the chance that she could go quiet but it is very survivable over land with smart view and remember, the other two are not designed to crash.

I'd be vary wary with the path you're going down. All three have the potential to turn around and kill a freshly minted IFR pilot who doesn't respect the performance and limitation. Be smart, don't cut corners, don't be a tight arse, respect your supervising pilot and good luck.

[Contact Approach]

TB20. (Making up characters)

[Doodlebug]

Right. Night, IFR, Jet A-1, 400 nm return, decent autopilot, best ice-protection, 700 metres sea-level:

Lightly loaded Cessna Conquest I / Baby King Air / or what Adam said, Commander. Pay an experienced pilot to fly with you and keep an eye on you for the first bit. Turbines can actually be easier than complex piston twins, I found, anyway. (try the C340 single-pilot IFR, that's eight levers you're faffing with just for the engines and the thing isn't really appreciably slower around the circuit than a B200) In order for the project to become massively cheaper you'd have to axe at least the Jet A-1 requirement. If you did you'd have a welter of Barons, Senecas, 310's etc. to choose from, getting cheaper by the day they are, too. I also think that D42-thingy looks heinous, but then tastes differ.

Always fun, these 'let's choose an aircraft' threads! :}

[NuName]

"try the C340 single-pilot IFR, that's eight levers you're faffing with just for the engines" ??????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Tinstaafl]

2 x throttle + 2 x RPM + 2 x mixture + 2 x cowl flaps = 8 knobs/levers. No different to most other piston twins though.

[avconnection]

I think you'll find he was referring to manual waste-gates, not cowl flaps. I didn't think the C340 had them but there sure are a few larger twins with them.

You just get used to where to put the waste gate for take off then limit the MP with the throttle, then reduce the waste gate and increase the throttle to maintain correct MP at WOT after gear retraction. It means you have to make 6 engine adjustments within a minute or so after take off. Same plane with turbines, 2 engine adjustments within 5 minutes after take off.

[pithblot]

If your budget is healthy why not spend some time as a working (and paid) CPL in the right seat of something old that flogs around in all weather day and night?

The experience and knowledge you gain over a couple of thousand hours will be the best safety benefit you can give your family. You will learn about flying and get a 'heads up' about aircraft ownership and who you can and cannot trust in this industry. It is likely your choice in aircraft type will change as you gain experience and as you do you can hire increasingly complex aircraft and take on more complex trips. Hopefully your family will grow with you in the pursuit of private flying.

Moving on from the thread drift: my top three choices are C441, PC12 and B200.
I would prefer modern rather than old. A Conquest with -10 engines & glass cockpit over the original, PC12NG over the Legacy and a Pro Line King Air over the Classic.

In my opinion the C441 is more enjoyable to fly, the PC12 is a delight because it does everything so well & is continuously being developed. In contrast, the B200 is disappointing because of little product development over the years. The King Air is still a reasonable and honest airframe and the Rudder Boost and real Auto Feather are just great.

When it comes to choosing, in my book, it comes down the the quality of initial and recurrent training you have access to. If you don't have access to good and continuing simulator based training in an aircraft type, then cross it off your list.

Having said all that, I'd settle for a sunny, summers day and a Chippy :)

[tommoutrie]

buy a secondhand tucano off the RAF. And can I have a go...

[tommoutrie]

or the Fantrainer 400. One operates out of Freiburg in southern Germany and looks like a right laugh!

[Doodlebug]

Correct Mr Tinstaafl. But as opposed to most little piston twins the C340 has massively effective cowl flaps and the engines won't take kindly to those cowls being mismanaged, another difference to all the also-rans is that the C340 will usually be descending from a higher cruising-level, being pressurised, and will therefore be more vulnerable to cooling in the longer descent.

The honourable Pithblot (best handle on Proone:D) writes truth from beginning to end of his post, methinks. Including the bit about the Chippy.

[His dudeness]

In contrast, the B200 is disappointing because of little product development over the years. The King Air is still a reasonable and honest airframe and the Rudder Boost and real Auto Feather are just great.

Mhhh....to make the best better aint that easy... but I´m biased, I wont touch anything with a Garrett with a fish fork, let alone fly it.... :)

Here is my idea: before you buy anything, try to get in touch with a charter outfit with the plane you want, possibly close to you. Charter with them, with you on the right seat or if you have the rating, fly under supervision of an experienced guy. Do that for a while and get the touch of how is the thing doing for you of all the things you want it to do with your budget in mind.
If that company has a C510 or a CJ too, you could do the trips to airfields allowing Jets in the Tang or CJ and the rest in the turboprop.


Help yourself to a rating on a sim if possible. Even if you won´t buy a B200 or whatever, the experience you gain will always be on the plus side of your aviation cv...

A fairly nice, smaller TP is the Piper Cheyenne, however as with all the out of production aircraft, parts are becoming harder to get by and the newest airframes you could buy are really old already. Which is the same for the Conquests, Cheyennes, Commanders, MU2s...

To fly around with just your wive, the B200 is overkill, but from a pilots perspective (IMHO of course) its a delight to fly, dependable, proven and an eyecatcher.
OTOH you could buy one and let it be operated by an AOC-operator and thus lower your costs.

[pithblot]

An SF260TP looks very interesting. Like a Conquest/Chippy cross, and what could be better than that?

Throw caution to the wind and Ill be your safety pilot
OLD http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1427888.html
NEW PICTURES: Alenia Aermacchi offers new-generation SF-260TP trainer (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-alenia-aermacchi-offers-new-generation-sf-260tp-trainer-381613/)

Very kind words Doodlebug. Thank you.

[Nearly There]

Have a couple of hours in a DA42, you'll love it, simple to operate FADEC engines, G1000, autopilot, excellent endurance, smooth and sips JET A1, comfortable with good performance and does everthing you want and not to big a jump management wise from what you're flying now, although a tech stop would be needed on the 1000nm trips.

[silverknapper]

Pithblot

What parts of the 200 disappoint you due to "little product development"? Are ou saying the 441 has developed? Just curious.

[Pace]

172510

You say you would not look at a jet and need to operate into 700 meters
Worth looking at is the Eclipse which is finally turning into a good aircraft.
It will operate into 700 meters sips fuel less than a KingAir is a lot faster and has a range of 1200 nm with reserves

Pace

[what next]

Worth looking at is the Eclipse which is finally turning into a good aircraft.

You beat me to that :) I just came out of the bathtub where I read the article on the "Total Eclipse" in the March issue of Pilot Magazine. What a cute little aeroplane! If I ever win the lottery, I will certainly consider one of those.

[His dudeness]

Wasn`t his point that there are places he wants to go where jets are forbidden ? Last time I checked the Eclipse was a ..... jet ?

[what next]

Wasn`t his point that there are places he wants to go where jets are forbidden ? Last time I checked the Eclipse was a ..... jet ?

Yes, but maybe we can convince him to swap the "prop only" airfields for a decent aeroplane? He only needs a two-seater and this Eclipse thing comes for half the price of a King Air 200 (or a PC12)! I would know what to choose...

[Doodlebug]

If we stick to the opening posters' parameters (part of the challenge!) another airframe we might suggest is the Cessna F402 Caravan II, I should have thought of it before.

Now I never had the pleasure of flying it myself but friends of mine did and what they said is all good. That thing combines the bomb-proof build of the C404 Flying Outhouse (now that beast I tried my best to break for a long time in another life, to no avail) with idiot-proof paraffin-burners. Still relatively new, so no constant maintenance-hassles yet. Goes like the proverbial faeces off of a shovel, 260 knots on a bad day. I know this to be true because one of them beat me on a 40 minute sector (me in a 200) due to my climbing and descending whilst he simply got airborne, sucked up the gear, climbed a few feet more and then let rip. The thing isn't pressurized, stays low and that's why it resoundingly beat me on that day. And that pressurisation system, or rather the lack of, could be a major selling point in the correct environment, i.e. London = no Matterhorn, makes the machine cheaper. Trailing-links, too, Wife will think Hubby is an ace, what with the constant greasers!

[His dudeness]

for a decent aeroplane

Hmmmm..... okay. Parked beside two of these in UKDD a year or so back and I liked them. They made 'my' Sovereign look reaaaaaally big.

[what next]

I liked them. They made 'my' Sovereign look reaaaaaally big.

Even "my" litte Citation looks like an airliner next to them (we see them regularily at Cannes). :) But when I look into their cockpit and then into ours (Primus 1000 "bronze age" glass cockpit... Most annoying is the minimum of 5 minutes from engine start to stable gyro indications while burning as much fuel in ground idle as the Eclipse would require to fly to Paris in the meantime) it's like being parked next to Starship Enterprise.
The Eclipse is certainly no aeoplane for a commercial operator (I once sat inside one at the AERO trade fair at EDNY - it's very similar to sitting in the back of a Seneca but with no outside baggage space ... I wonder what SAFA inspectors will make of that) but for a self-flying businessperson or a private owner who likes to fly himself it will be hard to beat. At least not for it's price tag and operating cost.

[Pace]

The Eclipse has better range than both the Mustang and the Phenom 100.
Yes it is small a bit like a Seneca with Jet engines but it could be kept at smaller airfields where there are no huge parking charges.
Agreed it would not make a good Air Taxi but for a personal very low cost jet which sips fuel climbs to over 40K trundles along at 360 kts and looks right it deserves serious consideration.

The downside has to be residuals compared to a Cessna but at half the price the drop wont be so great in real terms and that will improve when the aircraft becomes more established or gets bought up by a big name.
We have not seen the last of this one.


Pace

http://internationaljetcollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Eclipse500-1024x682.jpeg

[Booglebox]

My choice for a personal turboprop: Pilatus PC-21. A chap can dream...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUyZJV7zpIU
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/pc_21/images/pc-21_5.jpg
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/uploads/7-2012-4-pc-21.jpg

[maehhh]

I guess I need a few more years to make some big $$$ but then I'm with Bogglebox :suspect:

Pilatus pc-21 demonstration Sion Airshow on Vimeo

[silverknapper]

Eclipse all good and well for personal use. But they've folded once, you would have to make a decision as to your attitude to risk. There are a few still lying around almost abandoned after the collapse. And the original had plenty of issues, especially avionics.

[Doodlebug]

Mr Jstflyin, I cannot entirely agree with your sentiments regarding piston twins and engine failures. I know this is emotive and I really don't wish to open this can of worms, but permit me to just state that a friend maintained a C310Q (the shortnose with the little donks) at just over 7000 feet on one, that's with a good two hours in the tanks and 5 adults on board. He's on this board, drives an Airbus these days, might even confirm this if he reads it. (bitte bestätigen du alter Sack! WAB, erinnerst dich doch? :})

Also, another fellow did a SINGLE-ENGINE GO-AROUND on a C404 after losing one at night, i.e. the other engine was shut down. He tried for an unlit strip (Africa this was), messed up the first attempt, and flew it around for a happy ending on the second approach! Only about 600 lbs in the back that night but about 6 hours' fuel and this strip was at 4000' AMSL. Must have been ISA+, too.

These incidents are documented. These were creaky old work-horses, quite heavily laden, operating in less-than-favourable conditions.

[NuName]

A well trained pilot can use the live engine in a twin to avoid the (potential) crash site, a poorly trained pilot can use both engines to get there much faster, also well documented.

[pithblot]

Silverknapper

Pithblot

What parts of the 200 disappoint you due to "little product development"? Are ou saying the 441 has developed? Just curious.



It's a shame the C441 is out of production. It was a very good aeroplane made better over time, but that is not what I was referring to.

I was contrasting PC12 evolution, not C441, with the B200. The PC12 seems to have a new iteration every year. From the early lighter airframes (was it 42, 45, now 4700kgs), aileron servo tab, and avionics upgrades through to the PC12NG build number...whatever they are up to now. The changes I have seen seem to be well thought out and practical and they are driven by Pilatus, not a third party with an STC. (The NG cockpit was designed by BMW for Pilatus).

The B200 hasn't changed much over the years, and most of the product improvement doesn't come from Beechcraft. Maybe the manufacturer rests too heavily on it's laurels? While a stock King Air was a winner when first rolled off the production line, today without third party mods (like Raisebeck) a standard B200 would be a fairly ordinary turboprop. I think the change from electric/mechanical to hydraulic gear is good, but I see little else that has been improved by Beechcraft/Raytheon. The cockpit ergonomics hasn't changed over the years. Switches are still hard to see and poorly laid out. I still have to look under my left elbow to read the thermometer (although it is now digital). Checking the engine oil in a King Air, or removing the engine cowls has always been a dirty, time consuming affair. It could be made much easier with a bit of Pilatus-like thought and care in the design.

[His dudeness]

It was a very good aeroplane made better over time, but that is not what I was referring to.

Exactly what happened to the B200 IMHO. From electric to hydraulic gear, from very steam driven to Efis (Collins 85) to the now installed Proline 21, from radiant heat to electric heat, the newer, 350 style cabin from 1476 on, from Nicad to lead acid batt... from -41 to -42 and now -52 engines...IMO there was progress. Beech should have bought the Raisbeck kit and put it on as standard, but at least these days you can have it installed in the factory.

Don´t forget the issues they have had with their newer toys, the Starship, Premier, the Horizon/4000, they have cost them so much they could not really invest much in the best product they have. (and thats sort of an irony, here they are, the most conservative company one can imagine, trying to make a real big leap forward (failed...) and in the end some guys say they are not innovative enough...)

We had a company with a 441 as a direct competitor and we sometimes flew for them. Passengers liked the B200 better, at least thats what they said. As efficent as the Garrett is, as noisy it is on the ground, which was (acc. to the pax) a major thing.

The 200 is not outstanding in a single field, nor the most efficient TP there is, but the 'package' is just good. (IMHO)

[POS_INT]

I recently looked in to buying a B200, Purchase price for a late 1980's is around the $500k mark, but here is the killer! it cost's around $1,000 in maintance for every hour flown! plus fuel & insurance you would need an endless supply of cash to keep in running.

the maintance side gets even more expensive with Citation's and Lear's, again you can pick these up from $500k on global plane search.

the Baron or C310/340 are ok but there bloody old dogs now and parts are expensive.

If it was me I would buy the TBM

[Klimax]

TBM - I dont know why really.. But it seems like a great stepping stone and learning curve wise it should be good too.. Simple enough - though challenging enough for quite a while.

Good luck u lucky "punk" ;-)

K.