There are actually a number of planes which can carry four people and enough fuel for 1000nm.

It depends on how heavy the four people are :)

In the 1950s, they may have averaged 70kg each (male) or 50kg (female). Today it will be more like 90kg for the males, 70kg for the females, and with very frequent "excursions" towards the 120kg mark (for either sex :) ). That makes a massive difference to the loading, obviously.

Well, you have to make special allowances for any Ed Swearingen or Ted Smith design;)

This is a pretty easy question. If you are flying to a station, then you need to carry stuff. So the rear door of the Cherokee six / Lance / Saratoga / Seneca II is invaluable. I've carried everything from car parts to coffee tables in ours. Can't do that in a 310 or Twin Comanche or Aerostar. The Seneca II has better loading flexibility than a Baron (only other twin with a rear door) and is cheaper in every regard. If you want to get above the bumps on a hot day, the Seneca will do that easily (unlike a loaded six). The SIDS programme makes any twin Cessna other than the T303 problematical in terms of both maintenance & resale. The Seneca II has good shortfield performance if you need it and (unlike the Comanche) parts are easy and relatively cheap. There is less labour in the 100 hourly's too. If you cruise it a Lance / Saratoga speeds (ie 45% / 55% power) the fuel burn increase is not much. At 8 - 10,000 ft I pretty much get 175 kts & 86 - 88 litres / hour. I moved to the twin after I did one too many outback flights at dusk. Once you've moved to a twin, there's no going back to a single.

Another important consideration is what the aeroplane looks like. I am not a big fan of aeroplanes that look like they should be in Back To The Future - you know when Marty goes back to the 50's. I'd rather have something looking modern and sleek. IMHO neither the Twin Com, Aztec, Baron or any of that ilk look particularly nice. Of course the Commander DOES look nice....but then I am biased towards them :)

Actually we're missing the "most economic twin". Isn't that the Cri Cri ;)

Englishal has a huge point and that is basically why Cirrus are selling new planes for best part of $750k (no kidding) when you could get the same capability for $100k, chuck another $100k to sort it out and throw some avionics in, and the $550k saved will pay for more flying than most humans would be able to do in the rest of their lives.

I think some new piston prices are obscene, especially when a Jetprop in good condition can be had for $1M, will totally and comprehesively beat an SR22 into dust on every parameter (except the BRS, and perhaps the extra training before you can get insured), will more than beat an SR22 (and perhaps every piston aircraft) into dust on straight mission capability, and anybody with 750k will have 1M.

A DA42 is a nice civilised plane which appeals to "modern" passengers. It is just a huge shame that they trashed the whole deal with their engines and their way of treating customers. Every DA4x owner I know would not trust the company as far as he can throw them.

Does anybody know what the P2006T service single-engine ceiling is in not-so-warm IMC (e.g. with carb heat on)?

What is that?

Carb heat is not related to flying in IMC.

I guess Cirrus just marketed it well, and went for a market of non aviators by convincing them they could get a PPL and jump in their shiny new Cirrus for not much more than their Ferrari cost them.
Agreed, and I know what I would have. However some people just like what they know, won't go the distances which keep turbines economical and are put off by the potential bills an old turboprop may bring compared with a brand new warrantied piston airplane. Also not everyone is capable of the transition, the good ones know this and stick with what they are comfortable with.

One thing you can get in new planes is decent access, with a door each side.

The one-door designs which have tended to dominate the non-Cessna scene are awful.

The worst thing is a 6-seater with just one door.

Back in 2002, before I got the TB20, I looked at getting an old plane and throwing a lot of money at it. The thing I soon discovered is that such a project, done here in the UK, would be fraught with problems because there is so little expertise about. The options I was presented with would have involved parting with 5 digits but if you asked too many questions you would be asked to go elsewhere. This is not the USA... Today I would be able to manage a big refurb project, but not as a fresh post-PPL case. And I am sure that is true for most GA pilots. They are smart enough to know their limits and won't even try it. Until you have been in the ownership game for a few years, you don't have enough good contacts, and most other owners are of limited help because most buy a plane, run it down, and flog it...

Does the P2006T even have carb heat? I mean the traditional kind, where the air is heated by sending it through an exhaust muff, before it enters the carbs.

The Rotax 912S installations I know of either have no carb heat at all, or have heated carbs (using the engine coolant). With heated carbs, there is no performance loss so the usual configuration is "always on".

The P2006T does have carb heat and it is via hot air ducted off the exhaust muffler. Controlled by levers on the throttle quadrant.

In my experience, the P2006T (like most Rotax installations) suffers little from carb icing once the engine is up to operating temperature.

Heated carb systems are not certified. My own Rotax has Conair coolant jackets around the carb outlets so the carb body remains warm. Negligible power loss as it isn't hot air being fed to the engine, the warmth just prevents ice from forming.

Okay, so heated carbs not certified. I see.

Actually what I understand is that the ice still forms (after all, the drop in temperature due to the venturi effect and evaporation of fuel is still there) but it cannot stick to the carb walls. So it either melts when it hits the walls, or is simply sucked as ice into the cylinders - where it evaporates real quickly...

However it's a very minor technical detail. The net effect is the same.

I think what you need is an 11 seat Tecnam which runs on Mogas.

Aircraft P2012 Traveller - Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam

Rod1

My vote would be for twin com .. believe lo-presti did some rather good go faster/less fuel mods ? .... that said there is another one well worth a look so long as all the AD's are done, I'm also unsure on the spares situation .. that is the Partenavia P68B /C.

Operated one in the 90's, very fuel efficient, great load carrying ability, good field performance, all round performance very similar to the Pa34, and good visibility, benign single engine characteristics, fixed spring leaf landing gear is also hard to break !! big drawback on a hot day was the cockpit became very warm if no sunshields were fitted, otherwise it was an absolute joy to fly.

The early AD's were to do with clumsy riveting of the firewalls after that pretty minor stuff..

bit more research it seems they are still being made, therefore spares support is available Vulcanair Aircraft - Fine Italian aircraft design and manufacturing in the general aviation business

Surely you wouldn't be flying in cloud (IMC), OAT = 5°C with carb heat off? Or am I missing something here?