True 4 seat tourer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southern England
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True 4 seat tourer
I'm looking for my dream tourer.
4 x 85kg adults + 40kg luggage = 380kg (836lb).
140 knots (ish) in the cruise.
3 hours + 45 minutes reserve when loaded as above.
And reasonable to buy and run.
Which plane best fits this desciption?
Maybe someone out there is flying one already?
4 x 85kg adults + 40kg luggage = 380kg (836lb).
140 knots (ish) in the cruise.
3 hours + 45 minutes reserve when loaded as above.
And reasonable to buy and run.
Which plane best fits this desciption?
Maybe someone out there is flying one already?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Reasonable" is a very subjective term, especially when it comes to costs.
There are several that meet the other basic criteria, including the Cessna 182, like http://fly.dsc.net/fs/n22nn
The 182 gives up some performance (it'll do 135knots) to things like the TB20 (150+) and a Mooney, but gains on short field performance and maybe price and availability.
There are several that meet the other basic criteria, including the Cessna 182, like http://fly.dsc.net/fs/n22nn
The 182 gives up some performance (it'll do 135knots) to things like the TB20 (150+) and a Mooney, but gains on short field performance and maybe price and availability.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB20 with that loading will give you about 4 hours fuel. If you prefer low wing to high wing it's a definite consideration.
As for price - there are a few reasonably priced examples out there, and they tend to be well equipped. Worth thinking about (I will admit to a bias here - I've got one and love it).
As for price - there are a few reasonably priced examples out there, and they tend to be well equipped. Worth thinking about (I will admit to a bias here - I've got one and love it).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southern England
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks,
The 182 fits the bill, although I have always preferred low wing aircraft.
It's pathetic, but I prefer the way they look. It's also easier to see in the
turn.
I was figuring on running costs of about £90 per hour wet, and a purchase
price of less than £100,000.
The 182 fits the bill, although I have always preferred low wing aircraft.
It's pathetic, but I prefer the way they look. It's also easier to see in the
turn.
I was figuring on running costs of about £90 per hour wet, and a purchase
price of less than £100,000.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 206 or (better yet) 210.
Speed, six seats, excellent short field performance (relative to other "normal" aircraft) ... and yes, the wing's on top, but why spoil your view when you're touring ?
OK, I'm biased too !
FF
Speed, six seats, excellent short field performance (relative to other "normal" aircraft) ... and yes, the wing's on top, but why spoil your view when you're touring ?
OK, I'm biased too !
FF
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: THE NORTH
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£90.00 P/h Wet !
Has anyone seen that part of the post, 182, 205, 210, TB20 £90.00 per hour wet! You would need to put some hours on to get near that figure. I'm sure some owner operators of these types will give you a good idea.
As the fuel cost alone can be as much as 2/3 of that it does not leave much if any room for fixed costs or lifed items.
Cherokee six may also fit the bill.....
As the fuel cost alone can be as much as 2/3 of that it does not leave much if any room for fixed costs or lifed items.
Cherokee six may also fit the bill.....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with the 182 being a great choice. It's a great plane for touring, very reliable, easy to get parts. Anything beyond a 230hp engine in our current fuel situation would be very thirsty when attached to a Cessna Airframe...i.e. the C206 or C210 (310hp).
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Robin DR400 Regent (180) would be close, and I believe that the President DR500 (200) would fit the bill.
I admit that I do like the Robins! Need hangaring, of course.
If I had the wonga, that's what I'd like!
SD
I admit that I do like the Robins! Need hangaring, of course.
If I had the wonga, that's what I'd like!
SD
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA28 235 Dakota - definately. PA28 Archer II possibly(albeit a bit slow in the cruise). PA28 200R maybe, but running costs a concern. Let me know if you find a better answer....
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
easy307,
At least you avoided the temptation of adding "Aerobatic" to the wish list
What about something in the Piper Comanche range or a Balenca (sp?) Viking? The older ones seem to have more lifting capacity.
At least you avoided the temptation of adding "Aerobatic" to the wish list
What about something in the Piper Comanche range or a Balenca (sp?) Viking? The older ones seem to have more lifting capacity.
Last edited by High Wing Drifter; 5th Sep 2007 at 16:22.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 seat tourer
The Piper Twin Comanche can fly at 160 kts on 50 litres per hour and carry 4 or even 6 people if you fly on reduced fuel load.
Bear in mind that they also have the capability to fly for 5.5 hrs without tip tanks and 7.5 hours with tip tanks so reducing the fuel load still gives you more endurance than the average single.
I have owned a Cessna 182 and it burned 55 litres at 130 kts, the Twin com burns less fuel at this speed so MPG is better overall at any speed you care to choose.
Short field grass capability (I use 600 metres regularly ), a stable instrument platform, good spares back up... what else have the Romans ever done for us ? The list goes on.
Bear in mind that they also have the capability to fly for 5.5 hrs without tip tanks and 7.5 hours with tip tanks so reducing the fuel load still gives you more endurance than the average single.
I have owned a Cessna 182 and it burned 55 litres at 130 kts, the Twin com burns less fuel at this speed so MPG is better overall at any speed you care to choose.
Short field grass capability (I use 600 metres regularly ), a stable instrument platform, good spares back up... what else have the Romans ever done for us ? The list goes on.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twin Comanche
PS
If you don't believe me read the article in "Flyer mag" Oct 2006. The author has now bought one himself.
Other articles here:
http://www.planecheck.com/twincom.htm
http://www.fergworld.com/articles/ar...n_comanche.php
If you don't believe me read the article in "Flyer mag" Oct 2006. The author has now bought one himself.
Other articles here:
http://www.planecheck.com/twincom.htm
http://www.fergworld.com/articles/ar...n_comanche.php