Next step up from a Warrior?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a Bonanza, that's what you will end up with anyway.
You can get a good deal on the A36. You passengers will love entering the plane true the door on the side without stepping on the wing. It's a true 4 seat plane, fast and well build.
You can get a good deal on the A36. You passengers will love entering the plane true the door on the side without stepping on the wing. It's a true 4 seat plane, fast and well build.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sternone
While I would not contest for one moment that the Bonanza is a very good aircraft the cost is far too high for the mission requirment, to quoite the guy who started the thread..........
What I'm looking for ultimately is something to comfortably fit myself, wife and 2 kids in (plus some baggage) to head off to South of France, Cornwall, Devon etc. and would prefer something a little sportier than a Warrior but also that is relatively frugal?
For info, I'm not a millionaire (yet!)!
I am sure that his flying costs would go up by 200% if he got a bonanza mostly from the fixed costs doing the relativly low number of hours in a year.
The Bonanza only makes sense if you are doing a 400 + hours a year, thats when the superb build quality and reliability of the Beech aircraft vs the high cost of the annual check start to work the hourly cost.
I the 26 years that I have owned aircraft I have had the chance to buy almost all the aircraft quoted above and with a mission profile much the same as that required by VMC-on-top I found that dispite liking the Rockwell 114 that my wife had a share in I found that the only replacement for my Robin was another Robin. This is based on low ownership and maintenance costs for the aircraft as well as low hangarage costs because the Robin will fly out of small farm strips that the other aircraft could not use.
What I'm looking for ultimately is something to comfortably fit myself, wife and 2 kids in (plus some baggage) to head off to South of France, Cornwall, Devon etc. and would prefer something a little sportier than a Warrior but also that is relatively frugal?
For info, I'm not a millionaire (yet!)!
I am sure that his flying costs would go up by 200% if he got a bonanza mostly from the fixed costs doing the relativly low number of hours in a year.
The Bonanza only makes sense if you are doing a 400 + hours a year, thats when the superb build quality and reliability of the Beech aircraft vs the high cost of the annual check start to work the hourly cost.
I the 26 years that I have owned aircraft I have had the chance to buy almost all the aircraft quoted above and with a mission profile much the same as that required by VMC-on-top I found that dispite liking the Rockwell 114 that my wife had a share in I found that the only replacement for my Robin was another Robin. This is based on low ownership and maintenance costs for the aircraft as well as low hangarage costs because the Robin will fly out of small farm strips that the other aircraft could not use.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all
R114 - isn't parts availability an issue? - especially on the pre 79 versions?
Robin -yes, on paper looks ok and still a definate possibility.
Commanche - don't like 'em - sorry!
Bonanza - would love to but initial cost, GPH, etc. on the heavy side?
Mooney - does anyone have one I could try out?
R114 - isn't parts availability an issue? - especially on the pre 79 versions?
Robin -yes, on paper looks ok and still a definate possibility.
Commanche - don't like 'em - sorry!
Bonanza - would love to but initial cost, GPH, etc. on the heavy side?
Mooney - does anyone have one I could try out?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: purley
Age: 69
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't understand why you do not like the Comanche, better looking than the Saratoga or Lance and will carry more weight than a R114. Our Comanche flew to Australia and back in the 1969 race. Also if it was good enough for the two famous long distance fliers - Max Conrad and Sheila Scott, it must be a good a choice for European touring. Actually nobody has mentioned the Robin DR500/200 which is like the DR400/180 but with wider cockpit, better panel and ventilation and a VP prop for short strips.
Few in UK and about 90k second hand, but you may get one in europe.
Few in UK and about 90k second hand, but you may get one in europe.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is still too broad........you need to nail down a few more variables.
Budget is, of course, the main factor. Purchase budget and running budget should both be considered. Where will you keep it? Five thousand feet of tarmac or 1000 feet of grass?
Add to this the need for extra training (initial and recurrent) because you will need an instrument rating to be able to do these trips in any sort of reliable fashion. Even with an IR you may still not make it every time unless you can afford an aircraft with decent ice protection. Passengers can be unforgiving when their ride is cancelled.
On a tight budget you could actually do well with a Comanche (please spell it properly). Forget 6 seats and you have room for 4 real adults plus baggage. The fuel options range from 60usg to 120usg and it will go for longer than most bladders can manage! But maintenance will require more effort on your part than something newer. Twin Com gives more warm fuzzies for long water legs with a family and deice possibilities.
Another option is a Cessna 210 - again forget the 6 seat options in favour of space and baggage.
But budget is the main consideration - does your pocket fit an old Cherokee 6 or a Malibu Mirage? Can you travel light in a C172 or take the kitchen sink in a Caravan?
Budget is, of course, the main factor. Purchase budget and running budget should both be considered. Where will you keep it? Five thousand feet of tarmac or 1000 feet of grass?
Add to this the need for extra training (initial and recurrent) because you will need an instrument rating to be able to do these trips in any sort of reliable fashion. Even with an IR you may still not make it every time unless you can afford an aircraft with decent ice protection. Passengers can be unforgiving when their ride is cancelled.
On a tight budget you could actually do well with a Comanche (please spell it properly). Forget 6 seats and you have room for 4 real adults plus baggage. The fuel options range from 60usg to 120usg and it will go for longer than most bladders can manage! But maintenance will require more effort on your part than something newer. Twin Com gives more warm fuzzies for long water legs with a family and deice possibilities.
Another option is a Cessna 210 - again forget the 6 seat options in favour of space and baggage.
But budget is the main consideration - does your pocket fit an old Cherokee 6 or a Malibu Mirage? Can you travel light in a C172 or take the kitchen sink in a Caravan?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin DR500/200
The DR500/200 is an interesting aircraft, I don't think that the panel and ventilation was any differedt from the DR400's built at the same time.
The question with this aircraft is one of trading the extra comfort of the slightly wider cabin with the cost of ownership. The Lycoming IO360 overhaul cost is about 30-35% higher than that of the O360 in the DR400/180 and then you have the VP prop that will require overhaul on a four year cycle.
The added performance of the DR500 is mainly in the take off run and climb not the cruise, the DR400 airframe is the limiting factor when it comes to cruise performance with the DR400/160 being the most economical true four seat aircraft in the Robin range.
For those of you tempted by a cheap deal on a shabby thirty year old metal aircraft take a look at this:-
engineering
The question with this aircraft is one of trading the extra comfort of the slightly wider cabin with the cost of ownership. The Lycoming IO360 overhaul cost is about 30-35% higher than that of the O360 in the DR400/180 and then you have the VP prop that will require overhaul on a four year cycle.
The added performance of the DR500 is mainly in the take off run and climb not the cruise, the DR400 airframe is the limiting factor when it comes to cruise performance with the DR400/160 being the most economical true four seat aircraft in the Robin range.
For those of you tempted by a cheap deal on a shabby thirty year old metal aircraft take a look at this:-
engineering
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few answers
Budget circa £50 - £60k at the moment but hoping that in 2 - 3 years closer to £90 - £100k - so certainly not Malibu money.
WIll be kept at large airport, possible hangarage issues so no guarnatees of space under cover.
I have an IMC rating.
Comanche (sorry for previous spelling!) - just don't like the look of them!
Thinking about the answers given, it looks as though either an Arrow or a R114 may be the answer? - Are there still issues with availability of Rockwell parts though?
Might look into MEP rating too. thanks!
Budget circa £50 - £60k at the moment but hoping that in 2 - 3 years closer to £90 - £100k - so certainly not Malibu money.
WIll be kept at large airport, possible hangarage issues so no guarnatees of space under cover.
I have an IMC rating.
Comanche (sorry for previous spelling!) - just don't like the look of them!
Thinking about the answers given, it looks as though either an Arrow or a R114 may be the answer? - Are there still issues with availability of Rockwell parts though?
Might look into MEP rating too. thanks!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wise move to stay away from the Comanche, it was a good aircraft in it,s day but the maintenance is now the killer on cost grounds.
I still dont think that the Arrow has enough speed or lifting power to make it worth the extra cost above a Robin DR400/180 however another option is the Piper Dakota it has the O-540 engine (230HP) but fixed gear, it is an aircraft that can lift a good payload a long way without the cost of retractable wheels.
If you are going for the retractable option the R114 or TB20 would get my vote above the Arrow they cost more but the extra cost above the DR400/180 is balanced by enough extra performance to make it worthwhile.
The last comment I would make is that you will not save any money if you keep your aircraft outside rather than in a hangar, the cost of re-painting along with the cost of fixing avonics & interior trim due to moisture will be about the same over ten years.
As to light twins................. that is another ball game!
I still dont think that the Arrow has enough speed or lifting power to make it worth the extra cost above a Robin DR400/180 however another option is the Piper Dakota it has the O-540 engine (230HP) but fixed gear, it is an aircraft that can lift a good payload a long way without the cost of retractable wheels.
If you are going for the retractable option the R114 or TB20 would get my vote above the Arrow they cost more but the extra cost above the DR400/180 is balanced by enough extra performance to make it worthwhile.
The last comment I would make is that you will not save any money if you keep your aircraft outside rather than in a hangar, the cost of re-painting along with the cost of fixing avonics & interior trim due to moisture will be about the same over ten years.
As to light twins................. that is another ball game!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a Socata TB20GT since 2002, since new, and have done ~ 1000hrs in it.
Would buy another one without question. It is perfect for this mission profile. A really classy plane which everybody likes to fly in.
If you did a survey among non-anorak passengers, a TB20 (or a similar 2-door classy type like a Commander) would win over everything else flying. People much prefer the 2 doors (no silly climbing in and out through the one hole) and the big windows.
With all types, there is a big tradeoff between buying something newer (more money but less hassle) and something older (cheaper but more hassle and downtime).
With a TB20 or a Commander I would avoid something very old (20+ years); however you don't give your budget. If you have £50k then you will end up with a right old dog. £150k will buy a nice machine. There is a lot to consider e.g. avionics.
There is an excellent 2002 TB20GT (not mine) for sale right now; M-reg.
VMC - you have a PM.
Would buy another one without question. It is perfect for this mission profile. A really classy plane which everybody likes to fly in.
If you did a survey among non-anorak passengers, a TB20 (or a similar 2-door classy type like a Commander) would win over everything else flying. People much prefer the 2 doors (no silly climbing in and out through the one hole) and the big windows.
With all types, there is a big tradeoff between buying something newer (more money but less hassle) and something older (cheaper but more hassle and downtime).
With a TB20 or a Commander I would avoid something very old (20+ years); however you don't give your budget. If you have £50k then you will end up with a right old dog. £150k will buy a nice machine. There is a lot to consider e.g. avionics.
There is an excellent 2002 TB20GT (not mine) for sale right now; M-reg.
VMC - you have a PM.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well why not something with character and class, a Yak 18T? I was going to suggest a Pitts (just about the most fun you can have with a pair of wings strapped on), but then you have two kids, you could send em in the bus tho.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't buy something that fits the budget now with the intention of trading up in a couple of years. It takes a couple of annuals for you, and your maintenance provider, to get "in tune" with the aircraft and bring it (and the paperwork) up to a condition that you both like. These are the expensive years..........don't fettle something and then sell it; you won't get your money back.
When you do buy - take somebody with authority from your chosen maintenance provider to do the pre-purchase inspection. It won't be cheap but you then have leverage when they "discover" something nasty at the first annual.
When you do buy - take somebody with authority from your chosen maintenance provider to do the pre-purchase inspection. It won't be cheap but you then have leverage when they "discover" something nasty at the first annual.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for all the response so far.
To re-cap then ....... (not taking into account budget for now)
Comanche - fits the mission but maintenance could be the killer
DR400 / DR500 - again, fit the mission but can't be left outside so if no hangarage, forget it?
Commander - fits the mission but availability of spares a major issue
Mooney - again, fits the mission but a (disputed) issue over internal size [also, a VERY minor point, I really do not like the push / pull "rods" for throttle / mixture etc. - can they be changed to be more like "Piper" throttle etc.?]
TB20 - fits the mission but possible issue over load capacity (for longer trips)
Malibu - great, but mega ££££££ - ok, said i wouldn't account for budget!
Saratoga / Lance - again, fit profile but old design and thirsty(?)
Bonanza - again, fits mission but more GPH than the others?
Hmm, this is difficult. So, maybe the original question should have been, forget budget, which aircraft
1. Will cruise at 130+ kts
2. Have range of 600+ nm?
3. Fuel consumption not more than, say 15gph?
4. Can comfortably carry 2 adults, 2 children and say, 30kg of baggage with full tanks?
5. Costs less than £300k
Would i be right in saying, it doesn't exist? ie. its a compromise on one of the above?
thanks.
To re-cap then ....... (not taking into account budget for now)
Comanche - fits the mission but maintenance could be the killer
DR400 / DR500 - again, fit the mission but can't be left outside so if no hangarage, forget it?
Commander - fits the mission but availability of spares a major issue
Mooney - again, fits the mission but a (disputed) issue over internal size [also, a VERY minor point, I really do not like the push / pull "rods" for throttle / mixture etc. - can they be changed to be more like "Piper" throttle etc.?]
TB20 - fits the mission but possible issue over load capacity (for longer trips)
Malibu - great, but mega ££££££ - ok, said i wouldn't account for budget!
Saratoga / Lance - again, fit profile but old design and thirsty(?)
Bonanza - again, fits mission but more GPH than the others?
Hmm, this is difficult. So, maybe the original question should have been, forget budget, which aircraft
1. Will cruise at 130+ kts
2. Have range of 600+ nm?
3. Fuel consumption not more than, say 15gph?
4. Can comfortably carry 2 adults, 2 children and say, 30kg of baggage with full tanks?
5. Costs less than £300k
Would i be right in saying, it doesn't exist? ie. its a compromise on one of the above?
thanks.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vigo-Spain
Age: 40
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
very interesting thread!
I have never been an a/c owner nor did I fly many different a/c.
Hope you guys don't mind I make a few comments.
- As flyingfemme said, if you think about making a gradual step up, don't buy something "cheap" now to buy something else in 2 years time. I'd suggest renting for 1-2 years until your budget and your desired a/c match.
- TB20 is really nice in many aspects (also TB200 and TB9).
- I loved the DA40 but I'm not sure they will do 600NM on max payload.
- Maybe some of the Cirrus can do the job.
About the last 2 options... not really inside your budget but you could consider renting. Probably if you can book ahead of time you can take them for a trip. If after a couple of trips you change your mind... the a/c is not yours so you can go on and rent another kind of airplane.
That's if you are not really adamant about purchasing and don't mind renting.
Then you have the added advantage of glass cockpit (I really love it!).
And if you can rent, the Bonanza (I only flew the 33) isn't a bad choice neither.
I'd not consider twins as an option mainly because of price and ease/complexity of flight.
The arrow II/III ... I'm sorry but I hate that plane. I think it might be a nice trainer but not a/c for touring and not sure about payload and range (although I never flew the turbo-arrow or the arrow V to be honest).
Just one final note about the range... 600NM can be kinda tight for most typical light SE a/c so maybe you may want to consider the idea of a quick fuel stop and besides stretch your legs etc... or even use the opportunity to stay overnight in a nice new place.
+4hrs of flight in a row can be tiring. Consider autopilot also!
Cheers / Pablo
very interesting thread!
I have never been an a/c owner nor did I fly many different a/c.
Hope you guys don't mind I make a few comments.
- As flyingfemme said, if you think about making a gradual step up, don't buy something "cheap" now to buy something else in 2 years time. I'd suggest renting for 1-2 years until your budget and your desired a/c match.
- TB20 is really nice in many aspects (also TB200 and TB9).
- I loved the DA40 but I'm not sure they will do 600NM on max payload.
- Maybe some of the Cirrus can do the job.
About the last 2 options... not really inside your budget but you could consider renting. Probably if you can book ahead of time you can take them for a trip. If after a couple of trips you change your mind... the a/c is not yours so you can go on and rent another kind of airplane.
That's if you are not really adamant about purchasing and don't mind renting.
Then you have the added advantage of glass cockpit (I really love it!).
And if you can rent, the Bonanza (I only flew the 33) isn't a bad choice neither.
I'd not consider twins as an option mainly because of price and ease/complexity of flight.
The arrow II/III ... I'm sorry but I hate that plane. I think it might be a nice trainer but not a/c for touring and not sure about payload and range (although I never flew the turbo-arrow or the arrow V to be honest).
Just one final note about the range... 600NM can be kinda tight for most typical light SE a/c so maybe you may want to consider the idea of a quick fuel stop and besides stretch your legs etc... or even use the opportunity to stay overnight in a nice new place.
+4hrs of flight in a row can be tiring. Consider autopilot also!
Cheers / Pablo
I realise you prefer low wing but that knocks several aircraft that could meet your requirements out of contention. Namely Cessna's C172 RG, 177 RG and C182 fixed & RG. Advantages for high wing include giving people more opportunity to view the countryside passing by, lets you load in the rain without getting too wet and has doors on either side for loading without having to clamber onto a wing.
The C182 series are a rather good 4 seater with range and baggage capacity but with the downside of 6 cylinders to pay for compared to 4 cylinders on the others.
172RG will manage about 135-140kts @ ~40lph
177RG about the same with more leg room but I find a bit less headroom @ ~40 lph
182 about 130-135 kts with great of payload/range ability @ 45=50 lph
182RG about 150kts and similar payload/range ability @ 45-50 lph
No matter what you get I strongly recommend you have an all cylinder engine data monitor & fuel flow installed if it's not already fitted. Pity Europe doesn't have satellite weather available 'cos that's about even on the 'recommend' list.
The C182 series are a rather good 4 seater with range and baggage capacity but with the downside of 6 cylinders to pay for compared to 4 cylinders on the others.
172RG will manage about 135-140kts @ ~40lph
177RG about the same with more leg room but I find a bit less headroom @ ~40 lph
182 about 130-135 kts with great of payload/range ability @ 45=50 lph
182RG about 150kts and similar payload/range ability @ 45-50 lph
No matter what you get I strongly recommend you have an all cylinder engine data monitor & fuel flow installed if it's not already fitted. Pity Europe doesn't have satellite weather available 'cos that's about even on the 'recommend' list.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a table would be the best way to look at things.
DR400 C172 C182RG PA28-235 PA28R R114 TB20
1 130kt Cruse yes no yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+
2 600NM range yes no yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+
3 15 GPH yes- yes - yes yes yes yes yes
4 Payload yes no yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+
5 Cost yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
6 Cost to run £ £ ££££ ££ £££ ££££ ££££
Note, The Robin can do the mission profile but it is at the limits of what it can do but is all round a the most flexable aircraft being by far the cheapest to run.
It is clear that the PA28R and C177 dont offer enough performance above the Robin or PA28-235 to be worth the money, it is only when you get to the C182RG, R114 & TB20 that the performance vs cost makes sense.
DR400 C172 C182RG PA28-235 PA28R R114 TB20
1 130kt Cruse yes no yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+
2 600NM range yes no yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+
3 15 GPH yes- yes - yes yes yes yes yes
4 Payload yes no yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+ yes+
5 Cost yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
6 Cost to run £ £ ££££ ££ £££ ££££ ££££
Note, The Robin can do the mission profile but it is at the limits of what it can do but is all round a the most flexable aircraft being by far the cheapest to run.
It is clear that the PA28R and C177 dont offer enough performance above the Robin or PA28-235 to be worth the money, it is only when you get to the C182RG, R114 & TB20 that the performance vs cost makes sense.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C - thanks for the table, very helpful.
No mention of a Bonanza / Saratoga?
Assume we rule out DR400 (lack of hangar space) and the 172 (high wing and doesn't meet requirements), which one would be first to not meet the criteria if the speed was 140kts and gph reduced to 12gph?
thanks.
No mention of a Bonanza / Saratoga?
Assume we rule out DR400 (lack of hangar space) and the 172 (high wing and doesn't meet requirements), which one would be first to not meet the criteria if the speed was 140kts and gph reduced to 12gph?
thanks.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC,
Your new "budget" and requirements look exactly like the Twin Star, but the TS has a few added advantages over the single:
Second engine / with all benefits that go with it
De-ice option
Glass Cockpit
JET-A - Cheaper and more available around the globe
Long range - 1200nm+
160 ktas at 8000' at 12 USG per hour of JET
But if you decide on a single....the Commander is a very lovely aeroplane. Spares haven't been an issue for us, and we're rebuilding one that was crashed. When ours is finished it should support a zero timed engine, new 3 blade prop, new avionics including glass cockpit (G500) as well as lots of other new and overhauled stuff. Grand total will be about £70k but that is far cheaper than a newer glass cockpit aeroplane. If we sold her we'd probably only just get out money back, but that isn't the mission. The mission is to have a nice aeroplane to fly with a lot of the modern features available on new gen aeroplanes for a lot less cost. Plus it is faster than aeroplanes line the DA40....and looks nicer 
Your new "budget" and requirements look exactly like the Twin Star, but the TS has a few added advantages over the single:
Second engine / with all benefits that go with it
De-ice option
Glass Cockpit
JET-A - Cheaper and more available around the globe
Long range - 1200nm+
160 ktas at 8000' at 12 USG per hour of JET
Commander - fits the mission but availability of spares a major issue
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Vigo-Spain
Age: 40
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
only flew the DA42 once myself but the school I was working, weren't really happy about the engine reliability and spare dispatch by Diamond.
But it's a really nice a/c to fly, I enjoyed it much more than the Seneca, and SE handling and performance I found it better also (but I'm not really experienced on ME). Probably transition is much easier also.
And that commander you are rebuilding sounds like a nice plane also.
If it's properly rigged and can fly properly sounds like a good deal.
lovely!
cheers / Pablo
only flew the DA42 once myself but the school I was working, weren't really happy about the engine reliability and spare dispatch by Diamond.
But it's a really nice a/c to fly, I enjoyed it much more than the Seneca, and SE handling and performance I found it better also (but I'm not really experienced on ME). Probably transition is much easier also.
And that commander you are rebuilding sounds like a nice plane also.
If it's properly rigged and can fly properly sounds like a good deal.
new avionics including glass cockpit (G500)
lovely!cheers / Pablo