View Full Version : IFR Tourer Options
NorthernStar_
1st Apr 2016, 20:24
I'm looking for a short list of aircraft that meet the following criteria:
Single Engine
IFR Capable (by that I mean >FL100)
A compromise between cruise speed ( e.g >150kts) and fuel consumption
Genuine 2 person plus proper baggage or 4 person plus overnight baggage (ie useful load & leg room)
2/3 Hours Endurance
Preferable glass panel
Ideally....no more than £150k purchase price
Thoughts on candidate a/c welcomed.....
The Ancient Geek
2nd Apr 2016, 00:22
You need more than 2 hours endurance for a practical tourer. 500 Nm plus reserves is about right.
My usual suggestion - Cessna 182, you should be able to find a nice one with a modern panel within your budget.
PA-32R-300 Saratoga or Lance
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/PiperSaragtogaIITC.jpg/300px-PiperSaragtogaIITC.jpg
Modern versions have glass...
http://cdn.avweb.com/media/newspics/325/p1957b09781k0fsfkmmnssu1ehh9.jpg
RVF750
2nd Apr 2016, 10:25
I'm in the same "boat" but the budget is about a 1/3 of above.....
currently looking for a 172 or PA28 with HSI... No delusions of glass panel any time soon for me.....
Fly4Business
2nd Apr 2016, 11:14
Single Engine
Piston or Turbine? ;-)
IFR Capable (by that I mean >FL100)
FL100 can be done by an old C150, so no criterium
A compromise between cruise speed ( e.g >150kts) and fuel consumption
It aways is, but >150 already rule out standard 182s, leaving T182/182RG only. Maybe you can think of 135, then the ordinary 182 is back in again.
Genuine 2 person plus proper baggage or 4 person plus overnight baggage (ie useful load & leg room)
4 POB and overnight baggage can easily bring you to the 6-seater region
2/3 Hours Endurance
I assume 2 to 3 hours, not 2/3 = 40 minutes?
Preferable glass panel
Why?
Ideally....no more than £150k purchase price
OK, lots of starter IFR aircraft in that region.
The most common ones I have in mind right away:
Piper Arrow/Turbo Arrow
Cessna 182 / 182RG
Beech Bonanza 33/Debonair
Mooney M20J/K
Cirrus SR20
Socata TB20/21T
Smaller: Grumman AA5 or C172 - both a bit limited, but possible IFR machines
Bigger: PA32, C206 or even C210 - all with increased maintenance costs
MrAverage
2nd Apr 2016, 16:59
How essential is >150knots? If it's a must that cuts out many of the suggested aircraft straight away.............
A Cessna Cardinal (177) RG will get 150 Kts, on about 10 gph. You'll probably have to update the panel.
Jetblu
2nd Apr 2016, 21:06
I went through this exercise 7 years ago and going through all specs I came to the conclusion that the PA32R ticked all boxes. After purchase, it has fitted every need.
A and C
3rd Apr 2016, 16:32
Most of the above aircraft won't do 150kt so with this in mind why don't you look at the Robin DR400 or DR500, Garmin 500 glass is avalable.
The aircraft will give you a TAS of 120 KTS at altitude, meet your payload requirements, exceed your range requirements and do this out of short grass airstrips that some of the above aircraft won't.
The cost is likely to be well within the budget.
tdbristol
3rd Apr 2016, 21:18
If you are looking at the Cirrus SR20 it is worth also looking at an AVGAS Diamond DA40 (~140 ktas @8.5gph). It has better load than the diesel DA40 but still won't do 4 'full size' adults - more like two adults + 2 mid-teenagers + overnight bags. For the money you would get one with G1000 and likely the GFC700 autopilot, which makes a real difference for IFR.
Range is more than fine - easily reach Barcelona from Bristol in a single hop.
Tinstaafl
3rd Apr 2016, 22:21
Singles that I think meet all the criteria (although most would need a panel upgrade if not done already)
C210, BE33 or 36, PA32R, C182RG, Commander 1114, Trinidad (perhaps. Not sure of cruise speed. The Tobago was rather slow for its HP), Mooney M20J or later (more room in the longer fuselage ones, but also a bigger engine with greater fuel consumption).
Others that don't quite meet all the criteria:
C172RG, PA28R, Commander 112, Tobago (the slowest of this group).
You could also consider kit/homebuilts if IFR is allowed in them in your region.
Fly4Business
4th Apr 2016, 08:31
A Cessna Cardinal (177) RG will get 150 Kts, on about 10 gph. You'll probably have to update the panel.
The 177RG is quite a rare bird and sometimes can be cheap to purchase, but it can be incredibly expensive when spare parts are needed. And delivery of parts may take month over month. I.e. the later RG with hydraulics have a chance to get most of the parts, although some for breathtaking money, but for the earlier mechanical gear a lot of parts are no longer to get for any amount of money and have to be machined each.
NorthernStar_
4th Apr 2016, 22:58
Thanks for everyone's feedback. Thought I'd answer some questions to help everyone narrow it down further for me!
FL100 can be done by an old C150, so no criteriumPiston or Turbine? ;-)
Something with a decent service ceiling to allow real airways flight - in UK this would effectively mean up to FL200 so it'll probably have to have a T.
PA-32R-300 Saratoga or Lance
PA32 - still on my short list. I know I stated in my original post 4 pax plus baggage, but this is where I'm willing to make the sacrifice. 90% of my flights will be 3 (including me) plus baggage. A PA28 would be too cramped for example but happy to forgo 6 seats.
I'm not a fan of high wing so have ruled out Cessna 177 & 182x.
Glass panel is not a must
So where does this leave me - by my reckoning
Ruled Out
Piper Arrow/Turbo Arrow/PA28R
Cessnas c172,182, 206, 210
Grumman AA5
Candidates
Beech Bonanza
Mooney M20x
Cirrus SR20/22
Socata TB20/21T
PA32RT
Dare I raise the anti and mentioned the DA42?
If you are looking for serious IFR then deice/anti ice is a must . I flew a Saratoga for a company until we had a bad icing experience coming from Scotland South. The Aircraft was changed for a Piper Seneca with approved deice/anti ice
Saratoga ?Great aircraft but not wildly more fuel efficient than the Seneca with 2 smaller engines compared with the large one engine of the Saratoga
In the scheme of things the Seneca twin won't be massively more expensive to operate than the Saratoga and the purchase price of an older Seneca 3 plus, very low
Also up to FL200 A Turbo is a must
For SEP also look at a Piper Meridian or the Cirrus T with ice protection
Even In Spring summer Icing can be a problem in the plus FL100 region so for serious IFR deice/anti ice and an approved system is vital
Pace
DirtyProp
6th Apr 2016, 08:57
Candidates
Beech Bonanza
Mooney M20x
Cirrus SR20/22
Socata TB20/21T
PA32RT
One of our forum members is the owner of a TB20 and he's quite happy about it.
According to the reports about his trips all over Europe the aircraft performs flawlessly and suits his mission profile perfectly.
Personal opinion: if money was not an issue I'd pick the Bonanza.
Otherwise the TB20.
Fly4Business
6th Apr 2016, 09:04
Candidates
Beech Bonanza
Mooney M20x
Cirrus SR20/22
Socata TB20/21T
PA32RT
And now one more question, to be operated on which airfields frequently? The Bonanza (33-35) will do short runways better then the others and could even life happy on gras. Next the PA32, with more restrictions. After that the others don't like i.e. gras at all - it can be done occasionally, but it is no real fun. So, if you consider small places, short runways and maybe trips to remote gras, you may end up Bonanza easily.
Jonzarno
6th Apr 2016, 09:30
I can't speak for any of the others, but my SR22 is quite happy on grass. I operated it off the grass runway at Cambridge for a few weeks when the main runway there was being resurfaced. I have also landed on several other grass runways.
wsmempson
6th Apr 2016, 17:14
I've owned a Cherokee 6 300 and a Saratoga, and have about 200 and 500hrs in them respectively.
Both are great aircraft, but are better at different things.
The C6 300 is a great load lifter (think 1,400lbs useful load) and will comfortably do grass strips of 450m, at circa 135-140 kts.
The Saratoga needs at least 500m and you have to think carefully about the loading and the wind direction etc to use it down to that size of strip. Useful load is at least 100lbs less (and usually more like 2-300lbs less) but is 15-20kts faster.
I've flown a C6 260 a few times - it has it's devotees, but I have to say I'm not one of them. It's a little slower, and needs a little bit more tarmac, and still has bloody carb-heat!!!
You might find that a good compromise would be a Lance I with the non-T-tail? The T-tail may be a little faster in the cruise than a Lance I, but you can forget short grass strips as the take-off distance required is 50% longer than a normal tail.
On a side note, beware of periods of inactivity in the engine logs, of anything with a Lycoming in it, as the cam-shafts have a nasty habit of rusting as a result, often precipitating an engine overhaul. The cost of an engine overhaul for an O or IO540 is £25k, assuming that nothing significant is rogered. Much, Much more if the crank is subject to the infamous a/d or there is significant crank-case fretting.
NorthernStar_
6th Apr 2016, 21:18
And now one more question, to be operated on which airfields frequently? The Bonanza (33-35) will do short runways better then the others and could even life happy on gras. Next the PA32, with more restrictions. After that the others don't like i.e. gras at all - it can be done occasionally, but it is no real fun. So, if you consider small places, short runways and maybe trips to remote gras, you may end up Bonanza easily.
Hard runway/long non bumpy grass only so not a factor! :-)
KeepItStraight
9th Apr 2016, 10:03
A couple aircraft that haven't been mentioned are the PA24-250 or 260 or the PA30. They run rings around most of the piston aircraft that have been mentioned.
Good robust and usually corrosion free airframe. Unbeatable payload/speed/range combination. Excellent IFR platform.
Yes, they're a bit older than some of the other types mentioned, but can be bought for reasonable money and there's plenty of after market support.
They're one aircraft that's worth putting money into so far as panel and other upgrades go.