Match the plane to the pilot & mission
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Match the plane to the pilot & mission
Hi all,
I'm looking for advice. I'm hoping to upgrade next year, and rather than provide you with a preconceived notion of "Is <x> plane right for me?" I thought I'd let you fill in the blanks and see if you come up with the same ideas I do.
The pilot:
1000hr SEL (mix of high perf and complex), 0 MEL (willing to learn)
75-150 hrs/yr expected
Willing to travel once/year to flightsafety or similar.
The mission(s):
200-400 miles typical, up to 800 miles in one leg.
Frequent paved strips between 2000 and 2500 ft at or near sea level.
Occasional grass strips over 3000 ft long at or near sea level.
No rough/backcountry/gravel strips.
up to 1 trip/yr to Caribbean (up to 2500nm one way)
up to 2 trips/yr crossing the rockies (up to 3000 nm one way)
Occasional overwater legs
frequent legs over remote areas unsuitable for an undamaged emergency landing
Sometimes 1 person, often 2, occasionally 6.
Occasional humanitarian flights, usually ambulatory medical. Sometimes light cargo.
The environment:
Based at 45 deg north latitude in the US, most flights are between 40 and 45 degrees north.
Low alt icing is common four months/year
The frequent passenger:
Strongly requests pressurization.
Would like a dispatch rate closer to 90% (currently drops to less than 50% in winter.)
The budget:
400K USD for acquisition, 40K USD/yr ongoing (approximate, some leeway available)
Thanks in advance,
Jim
I'm looking for advice. I'm hoping to upgrade next year, and rather than provide you with a preconceived notion of "Is <x> plane right for me?" I thought I'd let you fill in the blanks and see if you come up with the same ideas I do.
The pilot:
1000hr SEL (mix of high perf and complex), 0 MEL (willing to learn)
75-150 hrs/yr expected
Willing to travel once/year to flightsafety or similar.
The mission(s):
200-400 miles typical, up to 800 miles in one leg.
Frequent paved strips between 2000 and 2500 ft at or near sea level.
Occasional grass strips over 3000 ft long at or near sea level.
No rough/backcountry/gravel strips.
up to 1 trip/yr to Caribbean (up to 2500nm one way)
up to 2 trips/yr crossing the rockies (up to 3000 nm one way)
Occasional overwater legs
frequent legs over remote areas unsuitable for an undamaged emergency landing
Sometimes 1 person, often 2, occasionally 6.
Occasional humanitarian flights, usually ambulatory medical. Sometimes light cargo.
The environment:
Based at 45 deg north latitude in the US, most flights are between 40 and 45 degrees north.
Low alt icing is common four months/year
The frequent passenger:
Strongly requests pressurization.
Would like a dispatch rate closer to 90% (currently drops to less than 50% in winter.)
The budget:
400K USD for acquisition, 40K USD/yr ongoing (approximate, some leeway available)
Thanks in advance,
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC-12...hmmm...
Acquisition: $2.5M
Operating costs: North of $750/hr at 100 hr/year.
Unfortunately, I have to fly on planet earth, not in the land of sparkly unicorns.
Acquisition: $2.5M
Operating costs: North of $750/hr at 100 hr/year.
Unfortunately, I have to fly on planet earth, not in the land of sparkly unicorns.
Last edited by Jim C; 4th Dec 2012 at 19:25. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without doubt a Seneca Five twin which also can maintain altitude at 16500 feet on one engine and will handle grass as well as tarmac you will get one in your budget.
Make sure its a Seneca Five and not an earlier model as the five is a totally different animal to the 1234
I have 2500 hrs in the five and they have handled every type of weather and conditions imaginable summer and winter, day and night!
A real baby kingair and almost as fast at 20K plus on oxygen.
Addendum
Sorry missed the strongly requests pressurisation! Cessna 340? AeroStar? Machen? Golden eagle? or in turbines older KingAirs or Pipers my favorite the Conquest 1
Pace
Make sure its a Seneca Five and not an earlier model as the five is a totally different animal to the 1234
I have 2500 hrs in the five and they have handled every type of weather and conditions imaginable summer and winter, day and night!
A real baby kingair and almost as fast at 20K plus on oxygen.
Addendum
Sorry missed the strongly requests pressurisation! Cessna 340? AeroStar? Machen? Golden eagle? or in turbines older KingAirs or Pipers my favorite the Conquest 1
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Dec 2012 at 19:46.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the suggestions so far. My thoughts on the aircraft mentioned (feel free to educate me where I'm wrong):
PC-12: Not with *my* wallet.
Seneca V: Fits the wallet & all parts of the profile except pressurization.
Cessna 340: If I can get a low maintenance one (and $350K buys a *very* nice 340) it might fit the operational budget. The R/STOL option makes the short strips quite doable. Payload isn't great, but it's enough on all but the longest trips.
Aerostar, Machen: Sure, I'd love to go 250 knots...but my first hunch is that's too much plane for the amount of time I'll spend staying current. 2000 ft strips will be difficult if I'm only flying 100 hrs/yr.
Golden Eagle: If I can't afford the 340, I *really* can't afford the Golden Eagle's geared engines. The short strips fall somewhere between "challenging" and "stupid" at 100 hrs/yr.
Older King Air, Piper turbine: I might afford to buy it; I doubt I could afford to keep the one I can afford to buy. It won't be in great shape.
Thanks for the tips so far...any other ideas? I hadn't heard of Machens until I looked them up, so I'm sure there's something else I've missed.
PC-12: Not with *my* wallet.
Seneca V: Fits the wallet & all parts of the profile except pressurization.
Cessna 340: If I can get a low maintenance one (and $350K buys a *very* nice 340) it might fit the operational budget. The R/STOL option makes the short strips quite doable. Payload isn't great, but it's enough on all but the longest trips.
Aerostar, Machen: Sure, I'd love to go 250 knots...but my first hunch is that's too much plane for the amount of time I'll spend staying current. 2000 ft strips will be difficult if I'm only flying 100 hrs/yr.
Golden Eagle: If I can't afford the 340, I *really* can't afford the Golden Eagle's geared engines. The short strips fall somewhere between "challenging" and "stupid" at 100 hrs/yr.
Older King Air, Piper turbine: I might afford to buy it; I doubt I could afford to keep the one I can afford to buy. It won't be in great shape.
Thanks for the tips so far...any other ideas? I hadn't heard of Machens until I looked them up, so I'm sure there's something else I've missed.
2000 foot runways is IMO too short to regularly operate a 300/400 series twin and with over 500 hours on an Aerostar, I can say I would never operate one on a hard runway less than 3000 feet long. The price you pay for the spiffy cruise speeds is poor short field performance.
Personally if you want a comfy cruiser that is happy on short rough fields I would choose a turbo Aztec over a Seneca 5. The big fat wing lets you safely get into short and rough fields.
If you want pressurization then I would suggest a Pressurized Skymaster. Add VG,s and 2000 foot strips are safety doable. The downside is they are maintenance hogs.
Personally if you want a comfy cruiser that is happy on short rough fields I would choose a turbo Aztec over a Seneca 5. The big fat wing lets you safely get into short and rough fields.
If you want pressurization then I would suggest a Pressurized Skymaster. Add VG,s and 2000 foot strips are safety doable. The downside is they are maintenance hogs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again!
The fields are short, but not rough. Any place I land less than 3000ft is paved, and the grass strips are well-maintained.
Turbo Aztec: It was on my short list before I bought my current single, but I was worried about maintenance on a plane that's been out of production 40 years. I do like the idea of having a steel cage in the event of an "unplanned arrival." Can any current owners in the US speak to parts & service availability?
Pressurized Skymaster:
Cons:
Also out of production, but at least I can get one 8 years newer.
Pressurization is about as low as you can get (3.35 PSI) and still call it pressurized.
Service ceiling is only 20,000 ft.
Known icing is not available, and that might be a dealbreaker.
The P model doesn't realistically carry 6 people, even on short trips.
Pros:
STOL skymasters will take off and land in a parking lot.
Both of the above leave a lot of padding in the wallet for maintenance.
The 340 R/STOL has a published accelerate-stop distance of 1,800 ft, a 50ft takeoff of 1,610 and a 50ft landing of 1,360. That's without VGs or any of the RAM engines. Anyone have any experience with one of these out of a short strip on a regular basis?
The fields are short, but not rough. Any place I land less than 3000ft is paved, and the grass strips are well-maintained.
Turbo Aztec: It was on my short list before I bought my current single, but I was worried about maintenance on a plane that's been out of production 40 years. I do like the idea of having a steel cage in the event of an "unplanned arrival." Can any current owners in the US speak to parts & service availability?
Pressurized Skymaster:
Cons:
Also out of production, but at least I can get one 8 years newer.
Pressurization is about as low as you can get (3.35 PSI) and still call it pressurized.
Service ceiling is only 20,000 ft.
Known icing is not available, and that might be a dealbreaker.
The P model doesn't realistically carry 6 people, even on short trips.
Pros:
STOL skymasters will take off and land in a parking lot.
Both of the above leave a lot of padding in the wallet for maintenance.
The 340 R/STOL has a published accelerate-stop distance of 1,800 ft, a 50ft takeoff of 1,610 and a 50ft landing of 1,360. That's without VGs or any of the RAM engines. Anyone have any experience with one of these out of a short strip on a regular basis?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're going to the Caribbean, then you should really look into a twin.
My suggestions are:
Piston: Aero Commander 500B. Get's in an out of anything, reasonably fast, low maintenance compared to many other twins, long legs, well supported. Only drawback it isn't pressurised. I wouldn't recommend at pressurised 680FP, FLP or 685 in the above scenario. The 685 is a great traveller with the longest range of any piston twin (322gals), but it's a not a good short field performer and has fire-breathing pistons that are highly strung and not for the faint of heart.
Aerostars, as mentioned, not great short field performers. But they are fully supported and constantly developed. Aircraft is also pretty far down the line for both a diesel and a jet upgrade. And when the diesel happens, you have 1500nm twin that will keep pace with most turbines and will be very cheap to fly. But already with avgas burners, it's one of the most economical twins to fly when it comes to fuel burn due to it's low drag and high altitude capabilities.
Can you support a turbine? Your budget suggest you could get into them at least:
Aero Commander 690A or B. Get's in an out of most anything and is everything the 685 isn't. Rock solid turbine twin.
Mitsubishi MU-2. Don't listen to all the cackle about these. Since the FAA mandatory training started, they have the best safety record of any turbine twin. They can get in and out of anything, built tough and fully supported.
My suggestions are:
Piston: Aero Commander 500B. Get's in an out of anything, reasonably fast, low maintenance compared to many other twins, long legs, well supported. Only drawback it isn't pressurised. I wouldn't recommend at pressurised 680FP, FLP or 685 in the above scenario. The 685 is a great traveller with the longest range of any piston twin (322gals), but it's a not a good short field performer and has fire-breathing pistons that are highly strung and not for the faint of heart.
Aerostars, as mentioned, not great short field performers. But they are fully supported and constantly developed. Aircraft is also pretty far down the line for both a diesel and a jet upgrade. And when the diesel happens, you have 1500nm twin that will keep pace with most turbines and will be very cheap to fly. But already with avgas burners, it's one of the most economical twins to fly when it comes to fuel burn due to it's low drag and high altitude capabilities.
Can you support a turbine? Your budget suggest you could get into them at least:
Aero Commander 690A or B. Get's in an out of most anything and is everything the 685 isn't. Rock solid turbine twin.
Mitsubishi MU-2. Don't listen to all the cackle about these. Since the FAA mandatory training started, they have the best safety record of any turbine twin. They can get in and out of anything, built tough and fully supported.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally if you want a comfy cruiser that is happy on short rough fields I would choose a turbo Aztec over a Seneca 5. The big fat wing lets you safely get into short and rough fields
Flew the Seneca and an Aztec F both excellent aircraft.
The Seneca is modern you can buy a 2000 plus aircraft the Aztec 30 plus years old!
Tell your guy its pressurized and buy a Seneca Five
We would not lie would we 
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam,
All the turbines you mentioned are well out of my budget. I'm not interested in buying a "steal" and then skimping on maintenance to stay within budget. They're also quite unsuited to 2000ft strips for a 100hr/yr pilot.
The AeroCommander pistons are interesting. I hadn't given them much serious thought. If pressurization ends up falling off the list (it's the only criterion listed above that's optional) then I'll look closer.
All the turbines you mentioned are well out of my budget. I'm not interested in buying a "steal" and then skimping on maintenance to stay within budget. They're also quite unsuited to 2000ft strips for a 100hr/yr pilot.
The AeroCommander pistons are interesting. I hadn't given them much serious thought. If pressurization ends up falling off the list (it's the only criterion listed above that's optional) then I'll look closer.
Last edited by Jim C; 4th Dec 2012 at 22:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
Aside from the 30 yr age difference and the horrible hit to the wallet, what would you say the biggest differences are for the Seneca V vs the Aztec? I've flown a Lance and like the cabin (same as the Seneca V) and the big rear doors. I like the very low stall of the Aztec and the steel frame.
How are the doors on the Aztec? What can you get through them?
I'm guessing the Seneca will have lower maintenance costs - 220 vs 250Hp, plus still in production - is that right? About how much will I save per 100hr year, roughly speaking?
Jim
PS - "My guy" can figure out very quickly whether or not she's got a canula stuck in her nose.
Aside from the 30 yr age difference and the horrible hit to the wallet, what would you say the biggest differences are for the Seneca V vs the Aztec? I've flown a Lance and like the cabin (same as the Seneca V) and the big rear doors. I like the very low stall of the Aztec and the steel frame.
How are the doors on the Aztec? What can you get through them?
I'm guessing the Seneca will have lower maintenance costs - 220 vs 250Hp, plus still in production - is that right? About how much will I save per 100hr year, roughly speaking?
Jim
PS - "My guy" can figure out very quickly whether or not she's got a canula stuck in her nose.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm obviously biased as a Commander owner, but they are marvellous short field performers and rugged. Obviously, this, and the fact that they're roomier than most twins, means they are not as fast at the very top end, but it's pretty marginal. And if you can find/upgrade to a Merlyn engined one with the 350hp each side, you can fly in and out of ridiculous strips. This is Dave Phifer's 500 that he flies out of his own tiny grass strip in Washington. It has had the Merlyn conversion. Most wouldn't even land a Cessna 152 there!
You can also view a clip I did in my much older 520 at El Monte in California. The wheels are off just before the threshold, which is about 600ft there. Obviously lightly loaded, but not much wind. I think one could shave off another good 100ft off that if one was braver than I am - full flaps and yoke in stomach until she climbers off at 52kts stall speed (power off published). An insane 35kts full flap, full power stall speed is published in the POH. Bit marginal for my taste, but it's good to know it's available as a safety margin.
You can also view a clip I did in my much older 520 at El Monte in California. The wheels are off just before the threshold, which is about 600ft there. Obviously lightly loaded, but not much wind. I think one could shave off another good 100ft off that if one was braver than I am - full flaps and yoke in stomach until she climbers off at 52kts stall speed (power off published). An insane 35kts full flap, full power stall speed is published in the POH. Bit marginal for my taste, but it's good to know it's available as a safety margin.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 4th Dec 2012 at 22:53.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike - it does. I want to relocate it, but everywhere else blocks the view too much. I refuse yoke mounts. I've kind of done my own MD compensation and as I fly mostly VFR it's not as critical. The Ipad Mini is next on the list and hopefully that will help.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam I would have thought the Ipad played havoc with the compass accuracy when mounted in that position?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: US
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the last 10 minutes, just bought $700 US worth of commercial tickets to an airport 250nm away. Why? It's for a friend's 50th and I can't depend on getting there in my popsicle single until the weather get a bit warmer.
It's time to get reliable year-round transport.
Thanks for all your suggestions.
It's time to get reliable year-round transport.
Thanks for all your suggestions.
The Robertson STOL machines get the great numbers by hauling it off the ground at silly low airspeeds. A bit of windsheer or one engine hiccuping and you are a smoking hole at the end of the runway.
The constraint of the short field greatly reduces your choices IMO. You are almost at the point where you need two airplanes. Something like a nice Cessna 340 for the long trips and a Cessna 206 for the short and unimproved strips, if you want it all.