Purchasing a S/E touring aircraft, type?
Thread Starter
Purchasing a S/E touring aircraft, type?
I'm considering purchasing a genuine 4 seater (or bigger) S/E aircraft to use for private use around Oz.
Budget up to 150K, considering a Cessna 182, Cherokee 6 or a Beech Bonanza (A36), with good engine times to run and in reasonably good condition and being IFR capable, although not with all the wiz bang gear.
I would like to think I will be able to get in between 100 and 200 hours usage per year out of the machine, if the wife will let me!
I would be keen to get a general idea of what the direct operating costs for any of the suggested machines might be, under private ops only with myself being the sole pilot (no hiring). Excluding purchase costs.
I am an experienced ATPL holder, so I have a far idea what I'm thinking about doing, so please no rubbish responses, I'm not tyre kicker.
Budget up to 150K, considering a Cessna 182, Cherokee 6 or a Beech Bonanza (A36), with good engine times to run and in reasonably good condition and being IFR capable, although not with all the wiz bang gear.
I would like to think I will be able to get in between 100 and 200 hours usage per year out of the machine, if the wife will let me!
I would be keen to get a general idea of what the direct operating costs for any of the suggested machines might be, under private ops only with myself being the sole pilot (no hiring). Excluding purchase costs.
I am an experienced ATPL holder, so I have a far idea what I'm thinking about doing, so please no rubbish responses, I'm not tyre kicker.
Last edited by Duck Pilot; 22nd Aug 2012 at 18:15.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Start here Avation Trader - Your total aviation marketplace
Even a FTDK or F33A if the 3/4 seats are not big people. Prices might be less than an A36 by the margin you talk about.
The USA has plenty, just the hassle of getting them here and all the bugs sorted?
Even a FTDK or F33A if the 3/4 seats are not big people. Prices might be less than an A36 by the margin you talk about.
The USA has plenty, just the hassle of getting them here and all the bugs sorted?
Touring in a C182 would get tedious. Luggage is awkward to pack through the rear hatch and they don't give great speed for pretty much the same fuel burn as a Lance or Bonanza. And I'd much rather have the Century autopilot of a Lance or Bonanza than anything Cessna.
You need to remember the rule that 4 place aircraft are really good for 2 adults & bags, 6 place for 4 adults, etc.
I'd be looking at a 6 seater. Which means the choice is pretty much C210, Bonanza, or Cherokee six / Lance. Maybe a Beech Sierra as an outside contender.
C210's are too expensive due to their popularity with tour operators, which really leaves Bonanza / Cherokee six / Lance. If you look at prices you pretty much pay the same for a Lance as a fixed gear Six. I'd go with the Lance and get the extra speed. In fact, I think there are a number of bargain Lances on the market at the moment. I used to get about 152 kts at about 58 litres / hour.
The Lance is slower than the Bonanza and not quite as nice to fly, but it has a Cherokee's docility (especially at low speed), its not as fussy about loading, the CofG does not change with fuel burn. It has better luggage space including the front locker which is very useful. It also has a wide cabin which is really good on long trips because you can spread out a bit and you're not juggling maps / sandwiches / food, etc. There's not nearly as much space between seats in a Bonanza.
Personally, I find there is something about the Bonanza seating which gives me sore knees. A couple of tall mates have the same criticism. I dont know why, its hard to make sense of it, but its real. So, if you must do a single (vs a twin), I'd get a Lance. There's also a bit of piece of mind from having a Lycoming IO 540 up front instead of anything starting with "C" for trouble.
You need to remember the rule that 4 place aircraft are really good for 2 adults & bags, 6 place for 4 adults, etc.
I'd be looking at a 6 seater. Which means the choice is pretty much C210, Bonanza, or Cherokee six / Lance. Maybe a Beech Sierra as an outside contender.
C210's are too expensive due to their popularity with tour operators, which really leaves Bonanza / Cherokee six / Lance. If you look at prices you pretty much pay the same for a Lance as a fixed gear Six. I'd go with the Lance and get the extra speed. In fact, I think there are a number of bargain Lances on the market at the moment. I used to get about 152 kts at about 58 litres / hour.
The Lance is slower than the Bonanza and not quite as nice to fly, but it has a Cherokee's docility (especially at low speed), its not as fussy about loading, the CofG does not change with fuel burn. It has better luggage space including the front locker which is very useful. It also has a wide cabin which is really good on long trips because you can spread out a bit and you're not juggling maps / sandwiches / food, etc. There's not nearly as much space between seats in a Bonanza.
Personally, I find there is something about the Bonanza seating which gives me sore knees. A couple of tall mates have the same criticism. I dont know why, its hard to make sense of it, but its real. So, if you must do a single (vs a twin), I'd get a Lance. There's also a bit of piece of mind from having a Lycoming IO 540 up front instead of anything starting with "C" for trouble.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Akro
Your posts are always full of great stuff
but this?
You are not getting too old now are you 
Give me the C182.
Lance is a good option too!
Your posts are always full of great stuff
but this?
Maybe a Beech Sierra as an outside contender.
Give me the C182.Lance is a good option too!
I did say outside contender!!
I used to fly the MAG C182 before they upgraded to the current one. It didn't get 140 kts on 60 litres / hour. I think I flight planned at 135. I had it re-rigged and tried a few things, but could never get good speed from it. It's poisoned me a bit against C182's. And I learned in a Cherokee 140, so I have a bias toward low wing.
And frankly, there's nothing the beats a rear door where you can stand back and throw stuff at the cabin instead of the jigsaw approach of loading through the C182 baggage door. You can fit a lot in the C182 - its just harder. The front baggage compartment of the Lance is also good for fine tuning the CofG. After a while you learn to get an extra couple of knots from loading for the optimal CofG.
For touring (especially with wives) 2 passengers in the rear of a club seat Lance / Bonanza can stretch out and take as many books, handbags, neck pillows, drinks containers, etc as they like (The Lance has less "tail wag"than the Bo, so is a little better for 3rd row passengers). And with a 6 place intercom, plug in the iPod or DVD player. Turn the crew isolate switch on the intercom and you can nearly pretend they are not there (oops, did I say that out loud?).
The Lycoming engine operators manual (contrary to John Deakins statements) actually sanctions LOP below 65% power. The Lance will get remarkable economy if you need range. But I like Roy Lopresti's saying: "speed is not the most important thing - its the only thing".
In the Lance I liked about 70 - 72% power at 6 - 8,000ft where from memory I got 152 kts at 58 litres / hour, but it may have been faster after the paint / speed mods, my memory is dimming. Like all naturally aspirated aircraft its fastest at about 6,000ft. Sometimes returning from Woomera on hot days I'd want to be at 10,000ft to get cool / smooth air. On a 40 deg plus day the Lance struggled a bit at those altitudes. It took a while to regain altitude after height lost from bumps.
I run the Seneca at about the same power level, but it needs to be higher to get speed. At 9,000 - 10,000 ft I'll get about 172- 174 kts TAS at about 86 - 88 litres / hour. Flight Levels are better, but I'll only go on oxygen with 1 or 2 on board, so I usually stick to 9,000 or 10,000. Interestingly, if you fly the Seneca at Lance speeds, the fuel burn is only something like 10% higher. Its just that the gap between the throttles and panel is big and it beckons you.
Interestingly, a recent copy of the Aerostar society magazine has an article by an ex test pilot discussing ways to find the best value / highest speed option. Not best range (ie most economical) or fastest, but the best compromise between speed & cost. It seems that for what I fly this is sort of 70% power territory (its a more complicated calculation for pressurised aircraft). It turns out a guy called "Carson" actually wrote a research paper on this in the eighties.
All a bit off topic. For significant touring and a budget of $150k, I think a Lance would be best value - especially with the number on the market at the moment. Good speed, easy to pack, good space, stable IFR platform, good parts support. There is no doubt that the Bonanza is nicer to fly, but in cruise with the autopilot on, who cares? I'll get howled down, but I'd actually prefer to take the Lance into a dirt outback strip than a Bonanza.
And the purchase & parts price premium for a Bonanza is pretty big - especially for a Chinese aircraft!!!
I used to fly the MAG C182 before they upgraded to the current one. It didn't get 140 kts on 60 litres / hour. I think I flight planned at 135. I had it re-rigged and tried a few things, but could never get good speed from it. It's poisoned me a bit against C182's. And I learned in a Cherokee 140, so I have a bias toward low wing.
And frankly, there's nothing the beats a rear door where you can stand back and throw stuff at the cabin instead of the jigsaw approach of loading through the C182 baggage door. You can fit a lot in the C182 - its just harder. The front baggage compartment of the Lance is also good for fine tuning the CofG. After a while you learn to get an extra couple of knots from loading for the optimal CofG.
For touring (especially with wives) 2 passengers in the rear of a club seat Lance / Bonanza can stretch out and take as many books, handbags, neck pillows, drinks containers, etc as they like (The Lance has less "tail wag"than the Bo, so is a little better for 3rd row passengers). And with a 6 place intercom, plug in the iPod or DVD player. Turn the crew isolate switch on the intercom and you can nearly pretend they are not there (oops, did I say that out loud?).
The Lycoming engine operators manual (contrary to John Deakins statements) actually sanctions LOP below 65% power. The Lance will get remarkable economy if you need range. But I like Roy Lopresti's saying: "speed is not the most important thing - its the only thing".
In the Lance I liked about 70 - 72% power at 6 - 8,000ft where from memory I got 152 kts at 58 litres / hour, but it may have been faster after the paint / speed mods, my memory is dimming. Like all naturally aspirated aircraft its fastest at about 6,000ft. Sometimes returning from Woomera on hot days I'd want to be at 10,000ft to get cool / smooth air. On a 40 deg plus day the Lance struggled a bit at those altitudes. It took a while to regain altitude after height lost from bumps.
I run the Seneca at about the same power level, but it needs to be higher to get speed. At 9,000 - 10,000 ft I'll get about 172- 174 kts TAS at about 86 - 88 litres / hour. Flight Levels are better, but I'll only go on oxygen with 1 or 2 on board, so I usually stick to 9,000 or 10,000. Interestingly, if you fly the Seneca at Lance speeds, the fuel burn is only something like 10% higher. Its just that the gap between the throttles and panel is big and it beckons you.
Interestingly, a recent copy of the Aerostar society magazine has an article by an ex test pilot discussing ways to find the best value / highest speed option. Not best range (ie most economical) or fastest, but the best compromise between speed & cost. It seems that for what I fly this is sort of 70% power territory (its a more complicated calculation for pressurised aircraft). It turns out a guy called "Carson" actually wrote a research paper on this in the eighties.
All a bit off topic. For significant touring and a budget of $150k, I think a Lance would be best value - especially with the number on the market at the moment. Good speed, easy to pack, good space, stable IFR platform, good parts support. There is no doubt that the Bonanza is nicer to fly, but in cruise with the autopilot on, who cares? I'll get howled down, but I'd actually prefer to take the Lance into a dirt outback strip than a Bonanza.
And the purchase & parts price premium for a Bonanza is pretty big - especially for a Chinese aircraft!!!
I'll get howled down, but I'd actually prefer to take the Lance into a dirt outback strip than a Bonanza.
OK - I've never flown a Lance - but I have plenty of PA32 time.
Dr
Another single well worth a look at is the PA24-250/260.
So far as room goes it would fit between the Lance and Bonanza. For all round performance, speed/range/payload/fuel burn I think they are pretty hard to beat. The range is quite prodigous with tip tanks installed.
I would say the PA24 is a bit faster than the Lance and bit slower than the Bonanza, however on a long trip the PA24 will do it in one hop whereas very often the Bonanza will need a drink. From memory I think you can expect around 160 TAS at around 6000'.
Sure they're a bit older than the Lance but there's still good support from more than one source, plus they also use the old faithful 540. The systems are simple and easy to maintain.
The 260C is a very sharp looking aircraft even for its age. If you really want a dragster get a 400, they go fast, but with the Black Knob pulled well back they give fuel burns the same as for the 250/260 versions.
However if you like the idea of a rear door then the Lance is an excellent aircraft.
So far as room goes it would fit between the Lance and Bonanza. For all round performance, speed/range/payload/fuel burn I think they are pretty hard to beat. The range is quite prodigous with tip tanks installed.
I would say the PA24 is a bit faster than the Lance and bit slower than the Bonanza, however on a long trip the PA24 will do it in one hop whereas very often the Bonanza will need a drink. From memory I think you can expect around 160 TAS at around 6000'.
Sure they're a bit older than the Lance but there's still good support from more than one source, plus they also use the old faithful 540. The systems are simple and easy to maintain.
The 260C is a very sharp looking aircraft even for its age. If you really want a dragster get a 400, they go fast, but with the Black Knob pulled well back they give fuel burns the same as for the 250/260 versions.
However if you like the idea of a rear door then the Lance is an excellent aircraft.
Last edited by 27/09; 23rd Aug 2012 at 02:22.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, don't knock the Sierra!
Ok, Ok it's an outside contender, but I'll stand up for it. Solid as a Beech.
If it's just the wife and young kids you can get close to full fuel (210L?) Nice big rear door to throw stuff in too. We used to plan around 120 kts at 65% from memory and fuel burn around 34lph. The one I flew had a third row removable seat - kids use only, would greatly reduce range if you loaded it up, and watch the ZFW! It was nice and comfortable, plenty of room for luggage. Good IFR platform.
I guess they are getting on a bit now, but maybe not as thrashed about as your average 182, cherokee etc. No idea on maintenance, the front windscreen replacement cost the owner a bomb though. Purchase price will leave you plenty of change out of $150K for the inevitable upgrade.
Ok, Ok it's an outside contender, but I'll stand up for it. Solid as a Beech.
If it's just the wife and young kids you can get close to full fuel (210L?) Nice big rear door to throw stuff in too. We used to plan around 120 kts at 65% from memory and fuel burn around 34lph. The one I flew had a third row removable seat - kids use only, would greatly reduce range if you loaded it up, and watch the ZFW! It was nice and comfortable, plenty of room for luggage. Good IFR platform.
I guess they are getting on a bit now, but maybe not as thrashed about as your average 182, cherokee etc. No idea on maintenance, the front windscreen replacement cost the owner a bomb though. Purchase price will leave you plenty of change out of $150K for the inevitable upgrade.
And I'd much rather have the Century autopilot of a Lance or Bonanza than anything Cessna.
The 400B is one of the best in the bussiness.
Last edited by Arnold E; 23rd Aug 2012 at 09:17.
Thread Starter
Many thanks to everyone for posting good quality advice/information and also to those who PM'd me.
I am still looking although I am seriously on the hunt for a good Cessna 182, either fixed gear or RG.
Also can anyone give me an indication of what nav charges (or what ever they are called these days) to expect operating a light aircraft VFR into controlled airports, places like Essendon and Albury etc, not Sydney!
I am still looking although I am seriously on the hunt for a good Cessna 182, either fixed gear or RG.
Also can anyone give me an indication of what nav charges (or what ever they are called these days) to expect operating a light aircraft VFR into controlled airports, places like Essendon and Albury etc, not Sydney!
Last edited by Duck Pilot; 27th Oct 2012 at 07:17.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV7
If it's dependant on whether the wife lets you go flying or not, then can almost guarantee 95% of your flights are going to either be solo or with 1 pax. For the 2 hours a year you want to take everything including the kitchen sink, hire something else. Otherwise an RV7 is probably going to cover most of your flights.
Half the fuel burn, twice the fun, decent range and a decent speed. Different levels of kit from basic VFR to full blown IFR panels available. Tend to be newer airframes with cheaper maintenance and well looked after.
If it's dependant on whether the wife lets you go flying or not, then can almost guarantee 95% of your flights are going to either be solo or with 1 pax. For the 2 hours a year you want to take everything including the kitchen sink, hire something else. Otherwise an RV7 is probably going to cover most of your flights.
Half the fuel burn, twice the fun, decent range and a decent speed. Different levels of kit from basic VFR to full blown IFR panels available. Tend to be newer airframes with cheaper maintenance and well looked after.