...

[midwestpa24]

Yeah, that old saying predates PoA by about 5 decades, maybe more.

If you really have time to spare, go by bicycle. But that's another thread.

The corollary is "More time yet, fly by jet!"

 

[Pinecone]

FYI, Global Entry is for returning to the US after a foreign trip.

PreChek is what gets you the shorter line and less invasive security check.

But these days, so many people have PreChek, that the lines can be long. To shorten more, there is Clear, but that is $179 a year, but less with airline status.

One thing that does confuse people is that if you get Global Entry, you get complimentary PreChek. Buying PreChek along is not a great idea, as it is $85 for 5 years, while Global Entry with PreChek is only $100 per 5 years.

 

[Pinecone]

Instead, with your own 170 knot plane, you'll leave the office at 4, drive to the airport, preflight your plane and get it out of the hangar, get a weather briefing, file a flight plan, and with luck you'll be airborne by 5:00 to 5:30. You'll spend 6 hours (or more) in the air, land at MKE at 11:00 (or later), get the plane tied down and pick up a rental car, then be at the hotel and in bed around 12:00 or 12:30. Later, if the winds aren't favorable or if you have to fly around some weather.

I would flight plan the night before. Take a few minutes in the office to do an online (Fore Flight) weather briefing and file my flight plan.

Preflight and pulling out of the hangar is 15 minutes, crank and be gone.

Hmm, leaving at 5 and flying 6 hours and in the hotel by 11????????

 

[MPB]

Things have gotten quiet on this thread and since it’s New Year’s Eve I’ll stir things up - this gentlemen needs to buy a Duke!

 

[Half Fast]

Hmm, leaving at 5 and flying 6 hours and in the hotel by 11????????

No, what I wrote was...

You'll spend 6 hours (or more) in the air, land at MKE at 11:00 (or later), get the plane tied down and pick up a rental car, then be at the hotel and in bed around 12:00 or 12:30.

And I suspect that's optimistic.

 

[SFDukie]

We’ve had “iffy” vfr flying weather in NoCal for the past week or so. Yesterday, decided I’d have a weather window for a New Year’s Day flight and trail run. Got up early, drive to the airport, my planned destination (sea ranch) didn’t look favorable. Reports/forecasts south look favorable. Do a quick flight plan/briefing to marina. Only 61nm, familiar with the route. Had to spend a bit more time (10”?) figuring out radio/avionics setup (rental 172 I hadn’t flown previously)

Get to marina, check weather. Decide I’d better get back now- not enough time to run from airport to beach.

2.4 hrs total Hobbs for 130nm rt.


You may be different. But generally, flying myself takes longer than I expect.

 

[Ghery]

FYI, Global Entry is for returning to the US after a foreign trip.

PreChek is what gets you the shorter line and less invasive security check.

But these days, so many people have PreChek, that the lines can be long. To shorten more, there is Clear, but that is $179 a year, but less with airline status.

One thing that does confuse people is that if you get Global Entry, you get complimentary PreChek. Buying PreChek along is not a great idea, as it is $85 for 5 years, while Global Entry with PreChek is only $100 per 5 years.

And if you travel internationally as I do, the extra $15 is nothing. It certainly was worth it coming back to SEA from FRA earlier this month.

 

[Crashnburn]

If you want concrete examples, I’ve completed almost this exact same route 4 out of 5 times in a spam can, round trip, and cancelled that one time due to weather. Why such a seemingly high dispatch rate? Because my timing was inflexible that one time. A few times the weather was ok. The others I waited to depart a day or two later or I escaped 1-2 days early before the bad weather arrived. So it’s more like 2 out of 10 one-ways that the launch occurred at the exact time I wanted it to.

A big factor in long XC is is that you’re going to cross multiple weather patterns. Rarely is there a nice elongated high pressure system on the starboard side of your plane for the whole flight and at the exact time you need it.

If you can afford the time to adjust your schedule, then it’s doable. But if you have to be there at a certain date, then you’ll need to waste time heading there early or just be late. If leaving a few days earlier is unpalatable, or if you cannot be late, then forget this idea with any $250k plane.

No way am I leaving on a long XC after a full day of brain taxing work.

I truly despise commercial air travel, but it saves time in many cases. I have TSA-pre/Nexus.

And very well could save your life.

 

[EvilEagle]

I "know a guy" selling a Bonanza 36 with tip tanks and built in O2 (IMO clutch for long single pilot ops). I've done Denver to New Orleans non stop and landed with nearly 3 hours of gas in the tanks.

The multi training isn't the long pole in that tent. Staying current - specifically on the stuff that will kill you fast in a light twin - is more challenging. No one wants to go out in their Baron and practice single engine stuff. Insurance (dead horse I know) is also pretty high for low time twin drivers. Some twins have long enough wings that they won't fit in an average t-hangar so make sure you are looking at that. For that matter, SR22's won't fit in the average T hangar for the same reason.

 

[Bell206]

Q: How much more maintenance intensive - TIME, not money - is a twin vs. a single?

For an experienced mechanic or shop there's about a 1/3 more time involved to maintain an average recip twin vs a single. However, it can be a bit more depending on the airframe but the 2nd engine, retracts on most of them, and additional levels of systems add to the maintenance time required.

 

[texasclouds]

Cessna One Ninety Five. Get some!

 

[Salty]

I admit I haven’t read the whole thread.

There aren’t many single engine pistons able to do 900 miles without a stop. You seem to be forgetting about head winds. There’s ALWAYS a headwind.

1000 mile range is not enough if you don’t want to stop. The problem is you’re going to want to go fast, but that’s going to reduce your range, so you’re going to end up stopping anyway.

 

[Salty]

Hence the question re: twins just above.

Twins are going to be costly in many ways. Insurance companies pretty much want them to not exist at this point. Even worse than retracts.

Just make the stop. It's nice to get out and stretch the legs. JMO

 

[Salty]

Also on the stop. I tend to plan for 30 min stop. Refuel, bathroom, check weather with good internet. Checking weather is one that is key imo. A lot can change while you’re flying for 450 miles.

 

[Rockymountain]

To reliably do that mission, particularly the northern latitudes, you need preferably pressurization, flight level capability and FIKI. The bottom end of that is going to be a Malibu type aircraft, and that is not a beginner plane.. Turbo FIKI Cirrus or FIKI Mooney if you don’t mind an O2 mask, but that gets old real quick. Otherwise, the trip out, or the trip back is going to Thwart your plans on a regular basis due to weather. Sorry, not going to be in a 250K price range.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Q: How much more maintenance intensive - TIME, not money - is a twin vs. a single? The reason I ask is that there seem to be more options of XC-focused twins than singles in the used market - Comanche, 310, 340, etc.

Bell206 estimated 1/3 more time for a twin compared to a single, which seems reasonable. It may also be helpful to consider the (often seriously underestimated) time and effort required to find and obtain parts and have components repaired/overhauled. Since most of the light twin fleet is more than 40 years old now, this is becoming a real problem.

Q: How much effort is the multi cert? Even in a large market, I'm having trouble finding a school that has a twin in the fleet, so how do you get this done prior to purchase?

From my perspective, the MEL rating is not particularly difficult for pilots with strong basic flying skills. However, I stress that it is very important to find a great CFI to work with on this rating--there's a lot more to operating a twin safely and effectively in the real world (for the purposes of your intended mission) than what is required to pass a checkride. If you can't find ME training in your area, you might consider delaying your MEL rating until you have decided on a specific aircraft type, i.e. C-340. Your insurance will likely require some kind of type-specific training, so you may be able to combine that with your MEL rating.

I fully realize that twins are a trade-off between capital and expense, and that they are at least somewhat more complex to fly. Just trying to understand those tradeoffs in a way that helps build my long-term plan.

For the mission you described in post #1, a pressurized twin, or single/twin turboprop, appears to be a good fit. Your experience level represents a significant obstacle, as the complexity extends well beyond just operating a more sophisticated airplane.

There are several C340s available on the market sub-$200 right now. They're less than the oldest SR22s with engines beyond TBO. Same for twin Comanches (though they aren't pressurized).

Aside from the obvious challenges of a twin, how do these not meet the mission?

In order to meet your need for high dispatch reliability and to minimize downtime, you will probably be better off spending more than $200k up front to get the best-maintained example available. A nice C-340 with the long range tanks could be a good choice, I think. Oh--your OP listed a requirement to meet basic med limitations, which would rule-out 340s with mods that increase their maximum weight to over 6000lbs.

 

[MackMooney]

I do ksgr to kind quite often in my mooney, usually about 148 to 151 kts tas,
get a good autopilot and plan for fuel stops around memphis, easy. much better than airline.
due to winds, which seem pretty much permanent, ksgr->kind is really fast, coming back can be problematic.
really sux seeing < 125kts gs.

 

[EdFred]

The only way you make this work in a non jet is if you have a travel window on each end of the trip of +/- 3 days.

And if I were wanting to do this non stop like suggested, find a Comanche with 120 gallon of fuel (aux and tip tanks).

 

[Roger Wilco]

That requirement has gone by the wayside, at least for now. I had some concerns about getting a Class 3, which turned out to be unfounded.

That's great news.

I was thinking along these lines, giving budget room to do some restoration/upfitting

Some enjoy buying a solid but tired/outdated airframe and rebuilding it with the goal of creating their perfect airplane. Others prefer to buy airplanes that previous owners have already refurb'd with everything the buyer wants and are ready to fly right away. Restoration/upfitting often (I almost typed "always") takes much longer and costs much more than anticipated, so I find myself in the latter group.

As for the suitability of the Twin Comanche, I like the "Twinkie" but few have de-icing equipment and none (that I know of) are approved for flight into known icing ("FIKI"). This brings-up a point of contention regarding the advisability of operting in known icing conditions in any light GA airplane, a matter which has been much-discussed elsewhere. The routes that you plan to fly do not transit areas of high terrain but a turbocharged or turbine airplane with the ability to climb above icing conditions is, in my view, much preferable to a naturally-aspirated piston airplane with FIKI. I have zero experience with the Twin Comanche, bu those without turbos are not reputed to be strong climbers.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

The only way you make this work in a non jet is if you have a travel window on each end of the trip of +/- 3 days.

And if I were wanting to do this non stop like suggested, find a Comanche with 120 gallon of fuel (aux and tip tanks).

I’ll second this. I do Florida to Ontario in Canada in the Comanche. About the same distance. I don’t have the tip tanks. I stop for fuel once on that trip. If i had the aux, i could do it non-stop, but probably still would have to stop as someone (and that someone may very well be me) on the plane will have to pee. I’m very flexible for timing though so i can pick my days to make sure i have a window of good weather. if i had to be in FL or ON on a specific date with no flexibility, i’d go by airline.

 

[EdFred]

I’ll second this. I do Florida to Ontario in Canada in the Comanche. About the same distance. I don’t have the tip tanks. I stop for fuel once on that trip. If i had the aux, i could do it non-stop, but probably still would have to stop as someone (and that someone may very well be me) on the plane will have to pee. I’m very flexible for timing though so i can pick my days to make sure i have a window of good weather. if i had to be in FL or ON on a specific date with no flexibility, i’d go by airline.

You're pushing it even with tip tanks. Well, depending where in Florida. I did 9D9 to SRQ (923nm - not including slight reroute and pattern) non-stop with tip tanks, but needed a ~10kt tailwind to land with 1 hr remaining.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

You're pushing it even with tip tanks. Well, depending where in Florida. I did 9D9 to SRQ (923nm - not including slight reroute and pattern) non-stop with tip tanks, but needed a ~10kt tailwind to land with 1 hr remaining.

It’s 900 nm runway to runway for me.

 

[iamtheari]

The longest single leg I have flown in the 310 was 860 nm from Texas to North Dakota, which took 4.8 hours that day so I must have had a slight tailwind that day. It was a long day, hand-flown IFR in IMC on both ends and above the clouds over the four intervening states.

Based on my flight planning numbers (which are slightly but not grossly conservative), the 310 has an endurance of 5.6 hours plus a 1-hour reserve (my personal minimum for a long trip, whether VFR or IFR, day or night). It goes about 175 KTAS at reasonable altitudes (8,000 - 11,000, give or take). So I can go just about 1,000 nm with full tanks and no wind. This particular 310 stands out from the crowd with a great useful load of a bit over 2,000 lbs, or a bit over 1,000 lbs payload with full tanks (due to MZFW, max payload of about 1,200 lbs with 5 hours of fuel on board). It's a cross-country monster. It is "full de-ice" which means not-FIKI although I wouldn't change my flying if it were FIKI.

The main upgrade I want is pressurization. I try hard to limit my time above 10,000 MSL for the comfort and health of my passengers, including my dog. A Cessna 340, 414, or 421 would be nice, but at increased maintenance cost. And, most of all, at least for the time being, it would be very hard to find one of those planes that has a useful load and maintenance pedigree worthy of replacing the 310 for my mission. Not to mention the cost of acquiring and probably upgrading something. You can do these long trips single-pilot IFR with steam gauges and no working autopilot, but given what's at stake I believe it's well worth having glass and a modern autopilot to help.

 

[Roger Wilco]

It's a cross-country monster. It is "full de-ice" which means not-FIKI although I wouldn't change my flying if it were FIKI.

If I recall correctly, the certification basis for FIKI in light GA aircraft was introduced in the late 70's (1977 or 78). Therefore, planes with de-ice/anti-ice equipment built before then are not officially FIKI but have essentially the same practical capability, which is to say, they allow operation in light to moderate icing conditions for a brief period of time, allowing the pilot to escape the ice before the aircraft is overwhelmed. My experiences flying light twins with pre-FIKI and FIKI systems is that they perform about the same (except for the windshield). I have no experience with TKS. The FAA has an AC that provides a fair introduction to icing: Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions

The main upgrade I want is pressurization. I try hard to limit my time above 10,000 MSL for the comfort and health of my passengers, including my dog. A Cessna 340, 414, or 421 would be nice, but at increased maintenance cost. And, most of all, at least for the time being, it would be very hard to find one of those planes that has a useful load and maintenance pedigree worthy of replacing the 310 for my mission. Not to mention the cost of acquiring and probably upgrading something. You can do these long trips single-pilot IFR with steam gauges and no working autopilot, but given what's at stake I believe it's well worth having glass and a modern autopilot to help.

Couldn't agree more regarding pressurization. Of the many potential aircraft that the OP might consider, the T310 is desirable for its speed but I'd gladly sacrifice that speed advantage and pay the additional maintenance cost to have the 340's pressurization.

 

[iamtheari]

If I recall correctly, the certification basis for FIKI in light GA aircraft was introduced in the late 70's (1977 or 78). Therefore, planes with de-ice/anti-ice equipment built before then are not officially FIKI but have essentially the same practical capability, which is to say, they allow operation in light to moderate icing conditions for a brief period of time, allowing the pilot to escape the ice before the aircraft is overwhelmed. My experiences flying light twins with pre-FIKI and FIKI systems is that they perform about the same (except for the windshield).

For the 310, the "full de-ice" system is heated propellers, pneumatic boots on both wings outboard of the engines, pneumatic boots on the horizontal stabilizer, and an alcohol sprayer on the windshield. The FIKI system adds pneumatic boots between the fuselage and engines, I think adds pneumatic boots on the vertical stabilizer, and replaces the alcohol sprayer with an electric heated windshield. I think that the same general differences apply to the larger Twin Cessnas.

As I point out every time it comes up, those differences are not enough to change how I fly. If I am picking up ice, I am changing altitude or heading to get out of it rather than hanging out for an hour because of a minimal FIKI certification. (Frankly, although I am not qualified to fly them, I suspect that I would take the same approach in turbines. All that power is there to get above the weather, not to push through it.)

Right.

At the moment, the two that seem to top the list are the Twin Comanche and the 340. The piper seems to have significantly lower operating costs; the Cessna looks more family-friendly.

Either can be acquired for less than a SR22T.

Of course, MESL certification is a hurdle, and the operational and maintenance complexity is not a small differential.

The AMEL rating is not a hurdle in any meaningful sense. There are two kinds of twin-engine airplanes:

1. Those in which you can get your AMEL rating without hurting the airplane, such as a Twin Comanche. The insurance on these will require about the same number of hours of dual instruction as it will take you to get the AMEL rating.

2. Those in which you will get arrested for airplane abuse if you do extensive single-engine training in them, such as a Cessna 340. The insurance on these will require in-plane and initial simulator training and the premium will be high enough that the cost of getting your AMEL rating in a rented Seminole will get lost in the noise.

Very few people who have owned twins would recommend that the first airplane you own have multiple engines. It's not impossible, but the safer and more affordable path to twin ownership is generally going to be by way of owning a single-engine airplane for a while.