OK : so what to buy next ?

[Hugh_Jarse]

I'm going to change my aircraft, but really can't decide what to look at next. Currently, I fly a high-performance 300+HP complex single, which is very comortable with 4 big people and luggage etc at an average cruise of 160-170kt. It's been great : but the increasing cost of maintenance and avgas pricing (it's very thirsty) are making me wonder about looking at something more "sensible" (aaarrrggghhh - I hate that word!).

So : what do you recommend, dear readers ? I'd like something modern, fast-ish, IFR capable (I have an IR), and able to take 4 people. Something that runs on Jet A1 would be ideal, but I guess mogas would be OK - but absolute preference is for either a non-avgas mount, or at least something which doesn't burn anywhere near 18 gals/hour ! Complex/turbocharged/etc is fine, but so is something "simple" - this is a clean slate situation.

I keep hearing how the "new breed" of glass-cockpitted, sport planes are taking over. Anyone care to point me in a suitable direction ?

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Justiciar]

It seems to me that your IFR, load capacity and speed requirement limit you greatly. If you combine this with the word "modern" (a relative term in aviation as in everything) then even more so. Do you mean modern design or just modern edition of an old design? As regards the former you are probably limited to either Cirrus or Diamond and if your objective is cost cutting I would have thought a Diamond Jet A1 burner is all that is left (the problems with the Diamond diesels have been done to death on here). The latter might encompass a new or almost new C172/182 - there are a few diesel powered 172s for sale at the moment, I believe.

If I had the money and an IR (neither of which I do) then I might look at the Robin DR400 with the 2.0 diesel engine. Reviewed a few months ago in Flyer. There are questions over the long term availability of spares, which links in to the financial stability of the new company which is manufacturing the spares. There is one in the UK and a chat with the owner might help.

I don't think the "sports planes" will be what you want as almost all are 2 seater and limited on load, though the Vans RV10A four seater is for sale at around £110k at the moment (VFR only of course currently). Mogas would appear not to be suitable because of your IFR altitude requirements.

I think you are very limited and you need to consider the overall cost of down sizing, i.e. what is your current mount worth and what extra will you have to spend to buy something new(er) and cheaper to run. How much flying would that cost difference give you. The saving with a more modern aircraft may be illusory if you tie up a huge amount of your capital in a new, depreciating asset.

You have not told us how many hours a year you do nor where you want to go. That would help people in giving useful comment. I assume you are a long distance tourer - in Europe?

[Katamarino]

I would not think a DA40 would be terribly practical for 4 adults. With some luggage, and a sensible amount of fuel, it's hard enough getting 3 in.

Maybe a DA42? There's also the newly certified SMA Engine that can be installed in the 182, which is a combination that I would eventually like to own.

[Rod1]

Why not have a look at the new Tecnam twin which will run on mogas?

----------------------------------------
The P2006T all metal four-seater, has a useful load of 400 Kg, yet still only weighs in at 1,180 Kg MTOW. Powered by two Rotax four cylinder 912S engines of 100 hp each and turning constant speed propellers, it offers a cruise speed of 140 KTAS and a climb rate in excess of 1,100 feet per minute.

This light twin will cruise at 140 KTAS at 75% power to 145 kts with a fuel flow of 36 litres per hour. At 65% power it's just 28 litres per hour. That's the total for both engines!

--------------------------

Or a DR400 ecoflyer

“I keep hearing how the "new breed" of glass-cockpitted, sport planes are taking over. Anyone care to point me in a suitable direction ?”

Depending on your location I can take you up in one, but it is 2 seat and VFR only and costs about £55k. For that you get a 138kn machine which costs about £4000 a year all in to do 75hours. Great fun but not a serious IFR machine. 18.5lph of Mogas.


Rod1

[BackPacker]

Or a DR400 ecoflyer

Great plane but really a 2+2 (2 adults, 2 children) as compared to a proper 4-seater. Cruises at 110-115 knots at 5 USG/hr. The 2.0/155 HP version might be a bit more powerful than the 1.7/135 I'm flying every now and then, but it'll still fall short of your requirements

The DA40 TDI offers roughly the same performance on the same fuel burn. So it'll also fall short.

So if you want something that's more or less compatible with your current plane, the only plane I can think of is the DA42. And to be honest, I don't know what the load capacity of that aircraft is.

[172driver]

You didn't mention any budget, but if you have about 400k to spend, suggest you have a look at the SilverEagle (a modified C210) (http://www.propjetaviation.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2). Here (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=8&Manu=CESSNA&MDLGrp=210&setype=1) is a whole page of the birds. If I had the dosh (which, sadly, I don't...), that'll probably be my choice.

[ShyTorque]

MOGAS and IFR don't mix well because the CAA imposed aircraft altitude limit is 6,000ft.

See section 3:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL04.pdf

[Rod1]

If you want old tec and simple then a DR400 180 is the best of the fix gear fix prop machine. You get IFR and full 4 seat cap at 135kn with 180 hp lyk up front. This is however going to have the same fuel burn as the Tecnam for less speed and less redundancy. If you want to change the game you need JetA1 or a Rotax.

Rod1

[AdamFrisch]

Second the Tecnam - If I had the money I'd go for that twin. It's not as fast as your previous thing, but it's fast enough, cheap to operate, burns less gas on 2 engines than most do on one etc and it has the added nerve calming effect of a twin.

[wsmempson]

I don't think that the useful load of the tecnam 2006 is actually 400kg, once you have the full avionics suite on board, let alone an autopilot. It looks like an agonisingly great piece of kit, which just won't do the trick of lifting four adults, luggage and 3hours fuel plus VFR reserve fuel. Unless, of course, they are more modestly upholstered than I am.

Smarthawke know far more about this than I will ever will and can give you chapter and verse....

In the meantime, how about easing back on the throttle of what you currently fly? Suddenly, it'll become much more economical! I speak as someone who owns a 300hp IFR, complex, machine.:E

[Rod1]

I think the Tecnam is a big leap forward. It runs on fuel, which is 40% cheaper than avgas and is available, with a little imagination, almost any ware. In the UK having a spare engine is a huge advantage. In my young bold days I would fly straight across the North sea single engine no problem, these days I fly round which is much further. Given a 140kn Twin many direct options are possible, which would not be a good idea in a single. The days of the old Lyk 300hp avgas only engines are numbered in Europe. The next step up from the Tecnam is already in development and will give the same fuel burn on the same engines but lift 4 X 85kg people plus bags over 1000miles at 175kn. In Europe these new airframes are being designed around 2 Rotax machines, not a single Lyk.

Rod1

[Sir George Cayley]

How about one of those sexy Socata ST10 Diplomates? Seems like they're all the rage down under:eek:

Could you afford to look at a Piper Malibu JetProp?

SGC

[Deeday]

Have they resumed production of the Commander 115? Not the fastest tourer around, but at 155 kt and less than 13 gph isn't too bad either.

[Heliplane]

Have a look at Grumman Tigers (made by American General post 1992) - I think they strike an excellent balance between speed and complexity.

It'll reliably cruise at 130kts (sometimes a bit more) on 10 US gallons per hour (AVGAS though) but it has a fixed prop and gear which really cuts down on the maintenance bills. I have flown to the same destinations as friends in Arrows and, leaving at the same time, we generally arrive at the same time.

Great planes to fly and very responsive.

The Archer is another alternative - slightly slower than the Tiger but better overall availability of parts and slightly better useful load.

[IO540]

I fly a high-performance 300+HP complex single, which is very comortable with 4 big people and luggage etc at an average cruise of 160-170kt. It's been great : but the increasing cost of maintenance and avgas pricing (it's very thirsty) are making me wonder about looking at something more "sensible" (aaarrrggghhh - I hate that word!).

There is only one way to go for you: a Jetprop (http://www.jetprop.com/).

If you are feeling extra flush, a TBM850 (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tbm850/index.html) will haul a larger number of obese British teenagers :)

If you can't afford to fly your SR22, hmmm... you need to re-examine your mission profile.

[Hugh_Jarse]

If you can't afford to fly your SR22, hmmm... you need to re-examine your mission profile.

:D Now now, IO, no fishing - I don't fly a Cirrus. But since you're on, someone suggested I should look at a TB-20GT - what say you to that ?

Thanks for the advice so far, guys - I obviously am aware of much of this stuff, but I guess I'm hoping someone will come up with an angle I haven't considered yet !

HJ

[IO540]

As a TB20GT owner since 2002, over 1k+ airborne hours, of course I would recommend it highly :)

But can't say it will be significantly cheaper than what you had previously - unless you rely on a 2002 GT having an airframe in good nick whereas your current plane is some old heap, in which case yes you will save substantial "unscheduled maintenance" expenditure.

I flew back from Switzerland this morning and the refill came to ~ £300. There isn't any way to do much about that, and fuel will dominate piston GA flying today (and a PA28-XXX will do much the same MPG as a correctly operated IO540 or similar engine). So you don't same significant money by going down to less capable hardware, as long as you remain in the SEP scene. Unless you fly an old heap in which case "unscheduled maintenance" expenditure may well dominate.

There is no free lunch.

A good late model TB20GT (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tb20-experience/index.html) will set you back the best part of £150k.

[Piltdown Man]

I don't think there is a real answer. We are now paying the price of pandering to Naderism/Consumer Power/Lawyers. It hasn't been worthwhile for any manufacturer to develop a modern, efficient four seater IFR aircraft so we don't have any. The aircraft you have at the moment is probably the best you'll get. As for the future, there won't be one until the last greedy scumbag compo lawyer stops breathing.

PM

[TWR]

If you are a patient man you can wait for the DA50 with the
-still under development- Austro 6-cylinder diesel engine.

That should fit your mission...

[smarthawke]

Someone call?!

Without wanting to sound like a salesman (I'm an engineer), the P2006T (http://www.tecnamuk.com/) is a very capable machine.

I talked to someone who had a lot of hours in an SR20 and in his opinion the P2006T was very similar in performance/load etc to an SR20 - in fact slightly better on useful load. And of course the Tecnam's off-tarmac strip performance is much, much better than an SR20.

In the next few months, the P2006T MTOW should get an increase from 1180kg to 1230kg - no airframe/engine mods, a paperwork exercise (similar to that for Mooneys in the past).

The P2006T is IFR certified and certified to run on either EN228 spec Mogas (up to 10% ethanol) or 100LL. If you run > 30% Avgas then you change oil filter and sparkplugs twice as often. 3 litres of oil per engine, < £4/sparkplug...

We have 250 hrs on our demo machine since last June - in demo, MEP training/renewal, IR renewals and private hire roles.

For those that are allergic to glass, then you can have analogue instruments. For those that don't like fold up wheels then a fixed gear version is available - gain around 20kg of useful load, lose about 6 kts.

Yes, it's the ideal twin for the training market but also as a private owner's mount. The first UK private machine should arrive next month.

It is FAA certified and probably the only thing that might hold it back in the USA is a strange distrust of the mighty Rotax 912 - oh and it doesn't have a parachute and isn't owned by a Chinese company....!

Hugh J - if you're anywhere near Wycombe Air Park sometime then call in and have a look (you might want to call first or PM me as it is in the air most days) - I'm more than happy to give you a guided tour.

[Rod1]

Silvaire1

Would you give us a brake if we sold the aircraft and engine to the Chinese? You can rubbish the Rotax all you like but this side of the pond we have been using it in volume and it has performed very well.

Rod1

[smarthawke]

No reason to let facts get in the way of incorrect rumour.... So let's clear up a few points:

The P2006T does indeed use MT props - BUT they are NOT electric, they are controlled by MT constant speed units mounted on the back of the Rotax gear box. Oil controlled, constant speed, feathering props.

Wood? Well, as MT say: 'Our natural composite blades are made out of high compressed thin layered laminated beech wood, which has a similar tensile strength as steel, in the root section and selected lightweight laminated spruce wood in the remaining part of the blade. The wooden core is reinforced by layers of epoxy fiberglass, Kevlar® or carbon fiber and sealed by several coatings of acrylic-polyurethane paint.'

Yup you have to balance the carbs on a Rotax 912. We've done it twice on our P2006T (100 hr intervals). Does it take long? Nope. Were they far out? Nope.

Now what is it we do on Lycomings and Continentals? Oh, yes - check and adjust the magneto timing every 150 hrs.... Don't need to touch the ignition systems on the Rotax (apart from the plugs).

As for other servicing needs - no need to clean, inspect, test and refit the £20+ spark plugs every 50 hours that Lycomings use - we just fit new plugs at less than < £4 each every 100 hrs (when running > 30% 100LL) or 200 hrs (when running < 30% 100LL). Much quicker/cheaper (both in parts and labour) to change plugs at these intervals than service them every 50 hrs.

PS Silvaire1, may I respectfully suggest that before you write about what the P2006T can do and what is is fitted with you fly one, or at least have a look at one, or at least read the brochure...!!

[smarthawke]

A Tecnam equivalent to the Lycoming DA40?

Have a look here: Tecnam UK Blog: P2010 (http://www.tecnamuk.com/blog.aspx?filterby=P2010)

If all goes to plan there'll be one on public view at a major European show very, very soon....

[Chilli Monster]

IO540 has already mentioned it, your mission profile virtually screams it (4 adults plus bags in comfort). You have an IR, you have only one choice:

Got to be a Jetprop - the DLX version, based on a 1998 or younger airframe. Yes, you're burning 31usg per hour as opposed to your current figure, but it is Jet-A, and you are going places at 240kts TAS.

You will never look back or regret it.

[AdamFrisch]

What's wrong with a turbine 210 Silver Eagle conversion in that case? It's far cheaper than a Jetprop and uses the bomb-proof Allison (Rolls Royce) turbine.

[IO540]

One thing is we have no idea of the man's budget.

If he is trying to save money then going to a Jetprop won't do that :)

If he wants more mission capability then yes. Also you can buy a used TBM for some $1.5M which is only slightly more than a JP in good condition (and based on a recent PA46 airframe with the recent reinforcements around the tail) and you will get a much higher quality and much better built aircraft than anything from Piper.

Is the 210 still in production? All those I have seen were very old, and that is again not a way to save money. I can't think of anything worse than an old turboprop :)

[172driver]

Is the 210 still in production?

No, it isn't. However, as the SilverEagle exchanges pretty much everything except the basic airframe for new components, this shouldn't be an issue. And they go for about USD 600k. From a 'mission capability' POV would definitely be my choice of a/c. I know pretty well what a 210 can do and combined with a turbine should make a great machine that'll get you in - and out of! - pretty much anywhere. Perhaps not as sexy looking, but IMHO much more capable than a JetProp.

The Tecnam P2006T to me looks like a solution in search of a problem. Training, perhaps. Btw, have you looked at the single-engine ceiling of the thing :} ?

[smarthawke]

I think you'll find the single engine ceiling of the P2006T is somewhat better than a single with the engine off and it climbs better than a single with one engine off too....

[IO540]

What is the range of the turbine 210? I don't think it is much more than about 500nm, practically, which gives poor touring utility for Europe's rather sparse matrix of airports with customs, opening hours, etc.

The P2006 is very expensive; I think a lot of people were suprised when it came out. The biggest benefit will be the same as buying any new plane: you get negligible airframe maintenance costs for 10-15 years (especially if hangared).

[172driver]

What is the range of the turbine 210?

According to their website (http://www.propjetaviation.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2) 1030NM. I suspect you could stretch that further by adding the tip tanks. There are standard 210s out there with endurance inxs of 10 hours. Mainly used in Africa because of 100LL supply issues.

The European matrix of airports is a non-issue once you fly a turbine. Most (if not all) problems arise from the 100LL availability or rather lack thereof.

smarthawke, of course - but that's the general single-vs-twin issue. Not everyone flies in a largely flat, sea-level country like the UK. And a 7000ft single-engine ceiling doesn't really sound too great.

[silverknapper]

I was going to suggest a TBM too, though an older pre owned 700. But again without budgetary information it's hard to say. The newer G1000 850 machines are lovely.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned a Bonanza. For four adults and luggage there is no piston single which touches it for range. Plenty of space, config changes very easily and another two seats if you ever need to take more people. At FL90 I have seen something in the region of 14USG per hour which I think is very decent. I wouldn't be too concerned with Turbo ones either, keep costs down with a normal one. New ones have synthetic vision which again is nice.
For your profile though if you aren't going for a turbo prop I don't think there is much to beat a nice big well leaned avgas lump.

Good luck, nice position to be in.

[AdamFrisch]

IO - there's a couple of nice videos of this Swiss Silver Eagle going into the Azores on a trip, so they have pretty good range. Looks like a nice ship.

YouTube - Flying to the Azores - Crosswind landing - Part 1

[IO540]

I must have been thinking of a turbine converted Bonanza.

Most avgas planes lose about 30% of their former range when they are converted to avtur, without enlarging the fuel tanks.

The slight exception is the PA46, which being pressurised can be routinely flown at FL260 or so, and the PT6 delivers a good SFC up there.

But it depends on one's mission profile. With a TB20, you can go up and drill holes in some clouds at 5000ft down the road, and enjoy yourself. With a TB21 (turbo) likewise (though few if any turbo engines make TBO). With these, you can also do long trips (I did Locarno 2 days ago) although obviously they take 2x longer than with e.g. a Jetprop and are more wx sensitive. With a PA46 or a TBM, you won't be doing that at all.... it is a purposeful travelling machine, and while some are indeed very busy an awful lot of them are hangar queens because many former piston owners do not actually have the "frequent traveller to the Spanish villa" (or whatever) mission profile. So their currency is crap and they tend to fly with a permanent instructor in the RHS.