What a/c is right for me?
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: High seas
What a/c is right for me?
Ladies & gents,
I need an aircraft, and for the life of me I cannot decide on the best for my profile.
I will fly Europe (regularly fly a 680nm route, UK - S.France) all year around. Normally 2 adults and 2 kids plus baggage (460lb total). Would prefer 6 seats though.
Realistically I know I need a reasonably fast and capable a/c, with known ice, but cannot decide on a type.
Types I am considering:
Single - C210 or Bonanza
Twin - C310R or T303 Crusader
Obviously twins vs singles arguments rage on in other threads, but if you were me right here, which way would you go, and why? (The Crusader is the one I know least about, but like the more I find out).
How important would pressurisation (or lack of) be in this scenario?
Budget 200K Euro purchase, to be flown +/- 200hrs pa.
Thoughts?
I need an aircraft, and for the life of me I cannot decide on the best for my profile.
I will fly Europe (regularly fly a 680nm route, UK - S.France) all year around. Normally 2 adults and 2 kids plus baggage (460lb total). Would prefer 6 seats though.
Realistically I know I need a reasonably fast and capable a/c, with known ice, but cannot decide on a type.
Types I am considering:
Single - C210 or Bonanza
Twin - C310R or T303 Crusader
Obviously twins vs singles arguments rage on in other threads, but if you were me right here, which way would you go, and why? (The Crusader is the one I know least about, but like the more I find out).
How important would pressurisation (or lack of) be in this scenario?
Budget 200K Euro purchase, to be flown +/- 200hrs pa.
Thoughts?
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
I will not delve completly into the answer you need, as that is quite a large discussion. In the realm of the two twins you have mentioned, I have a fair amount of time in each. I ferried a Crusader from Canada to the UK decades ago, A nice aircraft though definiately with its pros and cons, like any aircraft. If you have specific questions, feel free to PM me. There is one based in Bremerhaven Germany, which I see flying frequently when I am there, perhaps you can contact that owner. I'll get more info on that one if you need to find it.
The 310 is wonderful for the role for which it was designed, though they are getting old now, and there are very costly maintenance requirments imposed upon them, of which you should be aware. Again, if you have specific questions PM me.
Unless you need the multi engine capability for specific safety, I'd stick with the singles. a C210 is good, but for what you want to carry, you should also consider the C182RG. I've flown both, and certainly prefer the 182RG for several reasons, of you're not trying to actually carry six people.
Pilot DAR
The 310 is wonderful for the role for which it was designed, though they are getting old now, and there are very costly maintenance requirments imposed upon them, of which you should be aware. Again, if you have specific questions PM me.
Unless you need the multi engine capability for specific safety, I'd stick with the singles. a C210 is good, but for what you want to carry, you should also consider the C182RG. I've flown both, and certainly prefer the 182RG for several reasons, of you're not trying to actually carry six people.
Pilot DAR
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Can't help with your listed a/c types but
depends on your / your passengers' tolerance for wearing cannulas.
IME, I have always managed fine with cannulas, and I've been to FL200 to remain VMC on top.
I've not had to turn back yet, so this approach seems to work.
The caveat is that I generally avoid flying through fronts unless I can check its likely tops and they are low enough to overfly - a policy some will strongly disagree with
Obviously frontal weather can have much higher tops so you either accept the conditions and press on in IMC (with de-ice available), or you need something with a ~ 25k ceiling (which will clear most warm front weather) but oxygen gets very tedious up there so pressurisation gets highly desirable.
However I have rarely done long trips (> 500nm) below FL120, and most were done at FL140-160 to remain above the wx, so that means oxygen on nearly every flight, so if you are really talking about carrying 4 people, you are looking at the inside of the plane being plumbed up like an operating theatre, and no matter how big your o2 cylinder is, it isn't going to last very long, and with refills being a real bummer, you should be seriously looking at pressurisation.
OTOH much depends on your desired despatch rate. If you are happy with say 75% (and usually departing the next day on the other 25%) then you don't need a "flying tank" to do that. Even my TB20 will do it. If you really want say a 99% despatch rate, and your passengers are "averagely robust" then you need to think more carefully, IMHO. And it will cost you a lot more.
How important would pressurisation (or lack of) be in this scenario?
IME, I have always managed fine with cannulas, and I've been to FL200 to remain VMC on top.
I've not had to turn back yet, so this approach seems to work.
The caveat is that I generally avoid flying through fronts unless I can check its likely tops and they are low enough to overfly - a policy some will strongly disagree with
Obviously frontal weather can have much higher tops so you either accept the conditions and press on in IMC (with de-ice available), or you need something with a ~ 25k ceiling (which will clear most warm front weather) but oxygen gets very tedious up there so pressurisation gets highly desirable.However I have rarely done long trips (> 500nm) below FL120, and most were done at FL140-160 to remain above the wx, so that means oxygen on nearly every flight, so if you are really talking about carrying 4 people, you are looking at the inside of the plane being plumbed up like an operating theatre, and no matter how big your o2 cylinder is, it isn't going to last very long, and with refills being a real bummer, you should be seriously looking at pressurisation.
OTOH much depends on your desired despatch rate. If you are happy with say 75% (and usually departing the next day on the other 25%) then you don't need a "flying tank" to do that. Even my TB20 will do it. If you really want say a 99% despatch rate, and your passengers are "averagely robust"
then you need to think more carefully, IMHO. And it will cost you a lot more.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
In your budget and with the current eurocontrol IFR fees we have here in Europe the best you can buy for your money from your list is :
A36 with a Tornado Alley Turbo addition (turbonormalized) and TKS.
A36 with a Tornado Alley Turbo addition (turbonormalized) and TKS.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: London
Single - C210 or Bonanza
Twin - C310R or T303 Crusader
Twin - C310R or T303 Crusader
What IS your budget?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
I am too bored by the single/twin argument to want to re-inflame it, but your mission profile seems to me to scream for a twin, particularly if you want to dispatch in all weathers.
The thing about their safety records is that like is not compared to like. Yes, you are approximately equally likely to die in either, but only because people push the mission profile envelope so much further in twins. If you treat a twin like a single it is much safer, but if you accept the same risk level (see Risk Compensation) you will despatch far more often in a twin.
If you accept that argument and look at twins, the three that I would focus on would be Senecas, Barons and Navajos. I could go into all the whys and wherefores, but you asked what I would do and that is the answer, if I had your capital.
Personally I have much less capital and I have an Aztec, which is comparable to the first two but much cheaper to buy, somewhat more expensive to operate, but is now getting very long in the tooth.
If you look at Senecas, look at later models, definitely not the I.
The thing about their safety records is that like is not compared to like. Yes, you are approximately equally likely to die in either, but only because people push the mission profile envelope so much further in twins. If you treat a twin like a single it is much safer, but if you accept the same risk level (see Risk Compensation) you will despatch far more often in a twin.
If you accept that argument and look at twins, the three that I would focus on would be Senecas, Barons and Navajos. I could go into all the whys and wherefores, but you asked what I would do and that is the answer, if I had your capital.
Personally I have much less capital and I have an Aztec, which is comparable to the first two but much cheaper to buy, somewhat more expensive to operate, but is now getting very long in the tooth.
If you look at Senecas, look at later models, definitely not the I.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: High seas
Thanks so far!
Yes the single vs twin is the biggest decision. I've flown lots of singles in situations that I'd rather have a twin with the family on board (one recently in NZ), but can that justify the huge financial penalty? That, I guess is my first dilemma.
With regards operating budget, I would hazard a guess at 30K Euro pa for fixed. I get recompensed for fuel/parking through work, so that is less of an issue.
When I couldn't afford to go flying I would never have predicted these tough decisions you have to make when you can!!
Yes the single vs twin is the biggest decision. I've flown lots of singles in situations that I'd rather have a twin with the family on board (one recently in NZ), but can that justify the huge financial penalty? That, I guess is my first dilemma.
With regards operating budget, I would hazard a guess at 30K Euro pa for fixed. I get recompensed for fuel/parking through work, so that is less of an issue.
When I couldn't afford to go flying I would never have predicted these tough decisions you have to make when you can!!
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, USA
C337P ?
Twin, but benign handling on 1. Pressurised and I think some are cleared FIKI.
A lot of 'plane for the money, Sir.
Sir George Cayley
Twin, but benign handling on 1. Pressurised and I think some are cleared FIKI.
A lot of 'plane for the money, Sir.
Sir George Cayley
Like all retractable Cessnas, they had a reputation for gear trouble, but this isn't true if you keep after them. And with the gear door removal STC, the problem - if there ever was one - is virtually eliminated.
I also happen to think they look dead stylish, but I do appreciate that the blow-suck design is not for everyone. If I wasn't so in love with Lake Buccaneers, then this would def be the aircraft I'd go for. You can pick them up in the US for less money than most singles.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
The Cessna push-me/pull-yous have a good following, and plenty of people that swear by them, but they have disadvantages as well:
Accordingly, safety following an EFATO is not a reason to buy a 337. You might miss it altogether if it is in the rear engine, so not respond quickly enough and feather while you have the chance, and anyway applying a bit of rudder is not such a big deal.
- The rear engine is prone to overheating
- It is rather easier to miss a power failure (particularly a partial engine failure)
- the gear is an issue (but so it is on the more conventionally geared C310
- They are so noisy that they are banned from some airfields.
Accordingly, safety following an EFATO is not a reason to buy a 337. You might miss it altogether if it is in the rear engine, so not respond quickly enough and feather while you have the chance, and anyway applying a bit of rudder is not such a big deal.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, USA
They have an 1800hr TBO and the rear engine could get a little bit hot on the older ones, but this was mainly due to improper use or blocked cowlings. According to many owners they regularly get well over 2000hrs out of them. And the later T and P-models also had a bigger scoop for the rear engine, so it's only a problem on the oldest ones.
The US Skymaster club has a good forum.
Skymaster Owners And Pilots Site (SOAP) C336, C337, O-2
The US Skymaster club has a good forum.
Skymaster Owners And Pilots Site (SOAP) C336, C337, O-2
