Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Advice on a new plane

Wikiposts
Search
Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Advice on a new plane

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Feb 2012, 18:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Advice on a new plane

Hi all,

I have recently obtained my PPL and am probably going to start my instrument rating in a couple of months. However, I am looking to buy a six seater plane for my family. It would have to have a large useful load. I have four people in my family so i figured we would probably need a six seater plane.

I would need a plane with a tough landing gear as I will mainly be operating off grass strips of about 620 metres long. I have looked in to a Cessna 206 and an Expedition E350 but I still dont know what would be the best option?

Also any other suggestions would be good, as I am very unsure.

Ben
Newlands is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2012, 20:44
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansião (PT)
Posts: 2,786
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Four people in the family? What age? and even more important, what weight?
And what's the mission? Seeing you want the IFR ticket, you might well be planning "serious" travelling?
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2012, 21:03
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could I also suggest that it may be best to learn to walk before you run. The type of aeroplane you appear to desire/want, should I would suggest come after solid hour building and experience. Of particular concern may be a 620metre grass strip. If what you describe is wholly accurate, it may not be possible for the mission profile, particulary at the stage of flying you aré at.
maxred is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 01:31
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There aren't many 6-seater planes that can go very far with 5 people on board and get off in 650m. You won't be carrying very much fuel. Still, there are some options.

206 is one. The 210 can just about do it, but has a slicker wing than the 206, so doesn't get off as quick, but a nice tourer. The Lancers/Saratoga can probably do it. A Matrix/Malibu will fit the people, but won't get off in that distance. A Lake Renegade 250 can def do it, but they're rare seabirds in Europe. A Bonanza could probably just about do it.

I'm a high wing dude myself, so I'm biased in this regard - but if you're operating from a grass strip, I'd chose a high wing aircraft myself. A 206 is probably the best choice or if you want to do some serious touring, then the 210. A pressurised P210 is a nice plane to do long IFR touring in. Depends on your needs and how much money you want to spend.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 02:49
  #5 (permalink)  

Life's too short for ironing
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How about a Murphy Moose? You might have to do a wee bit of building first, but end up with a cool plane
fernytickles is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 04:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LFMD
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
If what you need is four seats (and not four pax) then a 182RG is perfect. It will be fine in 620m (not many aircraft of that capacity will be) and will burn around 14GPH. Cruise around 160KIAS depending on altitude (no point in the turbo version in Europe).
n5296s is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 11:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I own a TR182 (Cessna Turbo Skylane RG) and I wouldn't recommend it to people operating out of a grass strip. I know there are pilots that do this and claim to not have any issues but the landing gear with its very small tires cannot be compared to the fixed gear Cessnas. Uneven surfaces put stress on the pivot assembly which is known to crack -- costs $25,000 plus labor per leg.

However, I strongly disagree that the turbo version does not provide any advantages over the normally aspirated R182. First of all, it's turbo-normalized, i.e. the max MP is the same as with the non turbocharged and therefore the turbocharging does not put the typical extra stress on the engine. It doesn't add much weight either and it is manually controlled through a wastegate, letting you decide whether and by how much to turbocharge the engine. If you do a little bit more than flatland low level cruising, the turbocharger greatly increases your capabilities and safety. I like flying in the Alps and 1100fpm after takeoff is a lot safer than 500fpm. I would not want to go back to a normally aspirated airplane.
achimha is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 11:38
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Newlands,
You say four in your family so I assume that includes yourself.

I can see your logic wanting a six seater as most four seaters can't really carry four. As has been suggested the C182 is one of the few genuine four seaters around and there are plenty to choose from.

The RG models are a bit scarcer but about five knots faster. I have a reasonable few hours in both types and have found them hugely capable.

Cruise at 65% in the RG I've found to be 140kts TAS at FL75 at 50lph.
'98ish (fixed gear) onwards fuel injected, 135kts TAS 40lph.

There is usually around 1100lbs useful load and the later ones hold up to 330ltrs of usable fuel.

D.O.

Edited to say I agree with Achimha. The small wheels are a pain on the RG. They allow the brake calipers to drag in the grass.

Last edited by dont overfil; 24th Feb 2012 at 14:27.
dont overfil is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 16:37
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angel

Ben
I had exactly the same requirements as you and ended up with a TR182, though a normally aspirated fixed gear 182 would have been fine. I reckon you lose 10-15kts vs the RG in the cruise when you don't put the dangly bits away.

Realistically, with a family of 4 (2 teenagers) and a bit of luggage (you have to be harsh on the ladies) I can fill up with 260 litres (334 litres is capacity). This will give me 6 hours endurance at 42lph and 138kias without reserve. Frankly, 2-3 hours is plenty in a light aircraft with my family.

I beg to differ with achima on the grass. I fly mine off a very short grass strip very successfully. The only issue with the small wheels is that they can sink into soft runway and taxiways more easily than other aircraft in the wet uk winters, particularly if you are 4 up. I've needed a push a couple of times over the years.
And the grass is more forgiving for the odd 2g landing vs Tarmac, provided it isn't too frosty.

The turbo is nice to have but not essential. With it you can get full power (31 inches of MP) on takeoff no matter how hot the weather. You also get superior performance at altitude. I have no issues cruising around at 140kias at 42lph (though you need an edm700 to watch CHTs). I've also cheerfully cruised along at 171kias, thought it's not economic. Most of your fuel is used to cool the engine!
Landing a 182 is a doodle. I've put one down with 4 adults on board on a 261m grass runway. To be fair there was a thumping headwind, but the 182 in all her variants is an impressive aeroplane and I am chuffed to bits with mine.

I would strongly suggest you try out all the options before coming to a conclusion. It's still a buyers market out there.
2high2fastagain is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 18:10
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you're serious about being able to use that instrument rating in Europe, and go places, and want to be cautious with your family's safety, then you need a de-iced twin, and a lot of caution at the outset, which you can then swap for experience.

For a short grass strip, the only piston twin I would trust routinely is the Islander - a fabulous machine in many ways, a right pain in the posterior in others!
frontlefthamster is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 19:15
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or an Aero Commander 500

Here's one that belongs to Dave Phifer in the AC club. It's got a Merlyn engine conversion, so puts out a bit more grunt. As you can see, he's off in almost less than 2/3rd's of his 2000ft grass airstrip!


On tarmac, and lightly loaded, I can get my old 520 off in 600ft! The 520 is the quickest to get off of all the Commanders, as it is the lightest. Here's a video I took. Wheels are off just at the threshold and I could have climbed a lot steeper than I did, but I didn't want to push the old girl too hard with my then oil leaking right engine.

AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2012, 21:33
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you for all of the replies, they have been very useful. I has been very interesting to read about other peoples opinions on the planes. I will definatly look into a 182 more. I haven't thought about getting a twin engine before as I didn't think they would land I such a short distance. Does anyone else think a twin is a good choice? If so what other twins are out there that fit my criteria?

My typical journey distance would be around 250 miles, and the furthest I would travel would be around 500 miles. Almost all of the time I will be travelling with 2 Adults including myself, 2 teenagers and luggage ( my family doesn't like to travel light)

Does anyone have any experience in an expedition E350?

Ben
Newlands is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2012, 00:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The twin versus single debate is as old as flying and I'll avoid it here for the benefit of our collective sanity. Suffice to say is that one thing is for certain; owning and operating a twin in Europe with the horrendous Avgas prices here is not for the faint of heart. There is however one exception:



The Tecnam P2006T has two Rotaxes and burns less than 10gph (8.8gph economy cruise) in total, Mogas or Avgas, still delivering twin engine safety. And as you know, Rotaxes are cheap to overhaul and have become very reliable. Granted, this is a new aircraft, so you have to shell out some mullah to get it which will offset some savings. About $420K new or $300K used. That said, I just did the calculations for 100-150hrs usage per year, and the Tecnam ends up being cheaper to operate per hour than my old twin.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2012, 00:21
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes on 1,252 Posts
Whatever you buy, get a licenced engineer to do a survey on it first, might save you a lot of money in the long run.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2012, 07:18
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If and when Diamond ever finish their DA50, that might be interesting. It's designed for four fat Americans (or four fat Brits ) plus golf gear.

Otherwise, few singles apart from a C182 kind of thing will carry four big people, any distance.

Whichever way you go, if you want load hauling like that, you will pay a heavy price.

It seems to have been regarded as a marginal market for decades, and a big cockpit will directly hit the MPG even if it is flying empty.

My TB20 has a 500kg payload and will carry four "modern size" people and about 4hrs' fuel, which in practical terms (alternates etc) is almost halfway into France, from the UK s. coast. That's quite good actually. But it would be cramped if they were fatties It also won't do 650m grass, at MTOW, ISA+something, etc. 800m of very good grass OK or 500m tarmac, but not 650m "average" grass.

A friend has a C182 with the canard kit (N-reg obviously) which is awesome on grass.

These forums get regular posts like this... somebody new to flying who is looking to transport their family. I might have been at that stage when I started flying. One has no idea which way the design compromises in GA have been positioned, and it is a bit of a shock to learn how much you have to pay to get that capability, with the ability to do e.g. foreign trips. And within the UK one can usually drive in less or similar time...
peterh337 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2012, 11:56
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, unfortunately it takes 45mins to get to the airport for me, then another 15 mins to pre-flight, 15 minutes of runup, warming engines, taxiing etc. So now you're already 1hr 15mins behind if you'd left in the car. Same at the other end. 2-2,5hrs. So for short distances, it's not at all time effective. For longer distances, but not too long, then it starts to kind of make sense. Too long and airline travel makes more sense time wise. Sweet spot is probably somewhere between 250-600nm as a guess. Can be expanded slightly if one considers two points with bad transportation links or you have a fast aircraft.
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2012, 19:13
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The issue I come across is that most people (myself included) cannot do a decent number of such longer trips to stay current.

So one needs to do regular local pop-ups, and having to drive say an hour to the airport has a very corrosive effect on one's enjoyment of flying.

Also local flights are the best way to stay current on instruments, because one can just drill into the nearest cloud layer (Class G) and practice procedures around some real or imaginary navaid. When flying to some airport for real, one tends to use automatics to the maximum, because ATC tend to expect accurate flying.
peterh337 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 00:19
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: england
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How about a Cessna 185?
twelveoclockhigh is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2012, 00:46
  #19 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,618
Received 63 Likes on 44 Posts
With great caution* I will tell you that the mission you describe is best accomplished with either a C 182 fixed gear with a STOL kit, or better, an older C 206, with a Roberston STOL kit. Such a C 206 would best be a "P 206" version, if you can find one, and with an IO-550 conversion. Such an aircraft will easily, and safely operate in 600 meters under normal conditions, and carry the load you suggest.

*That said, this is an expensive, and extra training required operation. Though very doable, this is specialized flying. It requires additional training, specifically on that aircraft type, and that operating environment. If your insurer does not demand it, your care for your family certainly should.

Consider very carefully the cost to operate such an aircraft, these are very expensive, compared to 172's. Many a new pilot aspires to such aircraft types, and operational capabilities, many fewer can actually manage the skill and finances to make it work.

I have lots of experience in Robertson STOL C 206, and very recently a Horton STOL P206. Light, either is able to be off the ground in about 100 meters, and back on in not much more, when flown with great precision. A STOL fied gear C 182 will do nearly as well (older, narrow body 182 is better yet). Which takes you to the 185. A very good choice, but again, lots of training and skill required.
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2012, 15:42
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Cusco, Peru
Age: 50
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In my opinion you can't go wrong with a C206 or C182. The newer models are available with TKS which is nice to have in Europe. The IO-540 C182 (1996 and newer) can be easily upgraded to 260hp for better takeoff and climb performance, but the stock aircraft is already quite good. For a proficient pilot a 600 m strip is a piece of cake in either airplane.

If you're into the glass-cockpit thingy (not bad to have for resale purposes) you can get the newer ones with G1000 or retrofit the GTN, G500 or various other flavors of glass cockpit in the pre-2005 models.

To me if $ was no object, I'd get a late model turbo 206 with TKS.
wwelvaert is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.