$150,000 budget...

F

Fiji Sam

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
12
Location
Namuka Island
Display Name
Display name:
Fiji Sam
I'm sure this topic has been chin-wagged to death, but maybe there's a few of you that wouldn't mind helping a new guy out. I'm in the market to purchase a used single engine four seater... first time buyer by-the-way, and about to begin my PPL flying lessons journey too.

I live in the south pacific and will be traveling from one island to another on a regular basis regarding work and ministry related issues. My budget is approx $150,000 to $200,000, and although the aircraft may have four seats, the majority of the time it will be flown by myself or with one other person - having said that, there will be periodic times personnel will be filling the seats, and most of them weigh less than 110lbs soak n' wet.

My flights out will range anywhere from 50 to 400+ miles, and virtually all of it will be over water. The airstrips are mostly paved, but there are a few that are not.

I'd like to have an aircraft that doesn't drink up the fuel like my boat, and as far as speed is concerned, I'm not in any hurry nor am I trying to set any speed records - safety and competent flight equipment is everything to me.

So, in a worse case scenario fellas... I need an aircraft that if need be, will allow me to fill the seats, and fill the fuel tank to make the 400+ mile jump in safety and confidence. A very dependable flyer.

I had someone show me a Piper Arrow lll 200hp... unfortunately, he didn't know anything about the aircraft so I couldn't ask him about it's capabilities and whether it was a good candidate for my needs.

So, if you wouldn't mind fellas, give me your thoughts about the Piper Arrow lll 200hp, and also which aircraft you think I should look into also and why.

Very appreciated...
 
An Arrow wouldn't be bad. You could pick a very nice one up for about half your budget. Perhaps a Cessna 182. Both are competing planes and would well fit your mission profile. 10-13 GPH, and weight at your listed profile wouldn't be a factor.
 
Fiji Sam said:
I'm sure this topic has been chin-wagged to death, but maybe there's a few of you that wouldn't mind helping a new guy out. I'm in the market to purchase a used single engine four seater... first time buyer by-the-way, and about to begin my PPL flying lessons journey too.

I live in the south pacific and will be traveling from one island to another on a regular basis regarding work and ministry related issues. My budget is approx $150,000 to $200,000, and although the aircraft may have four seats, the majority of the time it will be flown by myself or with one other person - having said that, there will be periodic times personnel will be filling the seats, and most of them weigh less than 110lbs soak n' wet.

My flights out will range anywhere from 50 to 400+ miles, and virtually all of it will be over water. The airstrips are mostly paved, but there are a few that are not.

I'd like to have an aircraft that doesn't drink up the fuel like my boat, and as far as speed is concerned, I'm not in any hurry nor am I trying to set any speed records - safety and competent flight equipment is everything to me.

So, in a worse case scenario fellas... I need an aircraft that if need be, will allow me to fill the seats, and fill the fuel tank to make the 400+ mile jump in safety and confidence. A very dependable flyer.

I had someone show me a Piper Arrow lll 200hp... unfortunately, he didn't know anything about the aircraft so I couldn't ask him about it's capabilities and whether it was a good candidate for my needs.

So, if you wouldn't mind fellas, give me your thoughts about the Piper Arrow lll 200hp, and also which aircraft you think I should look into also and why.

Very appreciated...
Click to expand...

PA-24, great airframe, nice cabin and has been used to set a few distance related records.

Ether way, I'd get my PPL before spending six figures on a airplane if I were you.
 
Hey James331 thanks for the response. Yah, I need the aircraft whether im flying it personally or not. my boat is just not enough.
 
I'd be looking for a twin with single engine ability. Sorry, all those flights over open water demand a great deal of redundancy. I doubt any single engine float plane could weather blue water conditions. Probably not what the OP wants to hear, but aviation is entirely unforgiving. Don't like to think of the number of airmen who went down in the drink to not come up again.

My mate was flying us back from Oshkosh and took the shortcut to Gary. I asked him if he could swim a mile and a half through cold fresh water to the shore. He confidently said he could. I confidently said I couldn't, and asked him how he would explain himself to my widow if I drowned because he was in a hurry. Later that day a Cub went down doing the same thing. The pilot drowned.

150 AMUs will buy a lot of twin. Spend wisely.
 
There are lots of planes that suit your mission, but given the over water nature of the mission, why aren't you considering a twin? You could buy a good serviceable twin for half your budget and have the other half left over for maintenance if that's your concern.

If you stick with the single, I would remember that you will need to carry survival gear for you and your passengers and that takes up space and useful load. For these reasons combined with the occasional unimproved runway, the Cessna 206 is very popular for your mission. I would definitely take a ditching course given your mission. If you do this long enough, there is a good chance one day you will go swimming with the plane.

If it were me, I'd be looking at twins. It sounds like you would be putting in a lot of hours, so you should be able to stay proficient in a twin unlike weekend fliers like me.
 
I'd be looking at something with retractable gear if you are spending that much time over water. An emergency landing on water with the gear up is far safer than having gear sticking down.

An Arrow might work assuming your unpaved runways are in good shape and you don't need to carry too much load. I have limited experience with the Bonanza/Debonair family of aircraft, but they are a bit bigger than an Arrow, have more loading flexibility, and probably do a bit better on unpaved runways. Not a rugged terrain airplane, but capable on typical grass fields.

The Debonair I flew had been re-engined as was fast but thirsty. (175 knots on 16 to 18 gallons an hour). Smaller engined ones are considerably more economical. I know there are a few owners on this board that can give exact numbers.

PA-24 is a good alternative to a Bonanza, but it sits quite low to the ground... I'd only take on into well maintained unpaved strips.
 
How familiar are you with the strips you'll be using? Do you have connections in the aviation community there already? If not, start the PPL and get an idea of what others use for similar missions.

I think 182, 180, or 185 makes the most sense, but I wonder what sort of Cirrus is available for that money? That would at least get you a composite airframe (thinking salt air corrosion issues). It would also get you the chute if you have to put it down in the forest (jungle)? (I have no idea what the unimproved areas you will encounter look like)

A twin makes sense, too.
 
With a float plane, after you land, you are still in trouble. What do you do now?
 
$150,000 will not buy the aircraft you need for your mission.

Dependability = turbine, twin.

get your PPL first. you will realize what your mission needs.
 
coloradobluesky said:
With a float plane, after you land, you are still in trouble. What do you do now?
Click to expand...

Even the huge sea planes have trouble in open ocean.

Calm beautiful days open ocean has 6'-8' swells.
 
This airplane was built for your mission and maybe you can afford one??? :dunno:

Brittain Norman Islander BN-2A

2047813.jpg


This airplane was purpose built by people that fly your exact mission and you can't afford it.

Angel Aviation Angel 44-

3.jpg
 
Id look at a Piper Twin Commache or a Cessna 310. You can get parts and mechanics know how to work on them (talk to your mechanic see what HE recommends). Float planes are for purposeful landing on water, not for emergencies. A twin makes sense over vast stretches of open water and the Twin Commache is the least expensive decent twin out there. Buy the best one you can afford. Dont need turbo.
 
Last edited:
coloradobluesky said:
Id look at a Piper Twin Commache or a Cessna 310. You can get parts and mechanics know how to work on them (talk to your mechanic see what HE recommends). Float planes are for landing on water, not for emergencies. A twin makes sense over vast stretches of open water and the Twin Commache is the least expensive decent twin out there. Buy the best one you can afford. Dont need turbo.
Click to expand...

I've always heard that the Piper Aztek can carry quite a load and is pretty robust. They are super cheap now. You could almost get three on this budget. The OP said he didn't care about speed, so...
 
steingar said:
I'd be looking for a twin with single engine ability. Sorry, all those flights over open water demand a great deal of redundancy. I doubt any single engine float plane could weather blue water conditions. Probably not what the OP wants to hear, but aviation is entirely unforgiving. Don't like to think of the number of airmen who went down in the drink to not come up again.

150 AMUs will buy a lot of twin. Spend wisely.
Click to expand...

+1 There are lots of deals available in the twin market...:yes: I don't like flying SE over mountains or at night, so 400 miles over open water would be a no brainer for me...:no: YMMV

BTW, Welcome to POA!!!:goofy:
 
Even with 4 engines loosing 1 puts you in emergency procedures.
 
Cirrus with the chute, and carry 2 good 2 man rafts plus some other emer supplies. Since it's plastic, it'll float a little longer than others, and you can crack the door open in water landing with the chute letting you down. Might even have time to toss one of the rafts out and inflate before hitting the water. Put the emer supplies in a skein bag with a self-inflating rubber balloon. Good reliability, decent economy, in budget, 400 miles is no problem. Prolly decent support out there too since it's newer.
 
docmirror said:
Cirrus with the chute, and carry 2 good 2 man rafts plus some other emer supplies. Since it's plastic, it'll float a little longer than others, and you can crack the door open in water landing with the chute letting you down. Might even have time to toss one of the rafts out and inflate before hitting the water. Put the emer supplies in a skein bag with a self-inflating rubber balloon. Good reliability, decent economy, in budget, 400 miles is no problem. Prolly decent support out there too since it's newer.
Click to expand...
Your chances to survive in open ocean in a 1 man life raft is next to zero.

A larger raft requires too much space
 
Tom-D said:
Your chances to survive in open ocean in a 1 man life raft is next to zero.

A larger raft requires too much space
Click to expand...

I'm all ears. If you have a solution we would LOVE to hear it.

OBTW, I said 2 man raft x 2, plus emer supplies. I know for a fact that naval aviators have survived in the south Pac for many days after bailing out of their plane way back in WWII.

Waddya got?
 
200 miles out from land over the ocean is different than putting a single in a lake. I vote twin.
 
Thanks fellas for all the input... some of you have mentioned purchasing a twin instead. Remember, I'm not a pilot yet, so please be patient with my response.

It's to my understanding that when flying a twin, if one of the engines should quit, the aircraft does NOT just continue flying a normal - straight - level flight with just a bit of strain on the working engine... the aircraft is in a world of hurt with regard to attitude, authority and overall controllable performance when one of the engines kicks out... no?? And emergency procedures in that situation with a twin is beyond serious, am I right ?

This was one of the reasons I was told to look into a single, because unless I was going to religiously spend time in a simulator continuously prepared for exactly that type of situation, then it would be better for me to purchase a single, and if that situation should ever happen in a single, at least I had a glider as my worst case scenario.

Remember, I'm not a pilot yet... and I'm responding in ignorance I'm just trying to keep on, with keepin' on, with your feed back to me with regard to my original post. : ) All of this is much appreciated.
 
docmirror said:
I'm all ears. If you have a solution we would LOVE to hear it.

OBTW, I said 2 man raft x 2, plus emer supplies. I know for a fact that naval aviators have survived in the south Pac for many days after bailing out of their plane way back in WWII.

Waddya got?
Click to expand...
You simpy heard about the ones that survived.
 
Tom-D said:
You simpy heard about the ones that survived.
Click to expand...

Tick tock, whatdda got?

Besides criticism.

Cirrus: You come down under canopy, not plowing into the waves at 60Kts. Plastic: floats better than metal, at least for a while. Lets you get into a raft and get a beacon signal out.

If you have a better option, at his price and skill level, post it up!
 
steingar said:
I'd be looking for a twin with single engine ability. Sorry, all those flights over open water demand a great deal of redundancy. I doubt any single engine float plane could weather blue water conditions. Probably not what the OP wants to hear, but aviation is entirely unforgiving. Don't like to think of the number of airmen who went down in the drink to not come up again.

My mate was flying us back from Oshkosh and took the shortcut to Gary. I asked him if he could swim a mile and a half through cold fresh water to the shore. He confidently said he could. I confidently said I couldn't, and asked him how he would explain himself to my widow if I drowned because he was in a hurry. Later that day a Cub went down doing the same thing. The pilot drowned.

150 AMUs will buy a lot of twin. Spend wisely.
Click to expand...

This- :yes:
 
docmirror said:
Tick tock, whatdda got?

Cirrus: You come down under canopy, not plowing into the waves at 60Kts. Plastic: floats better than metal, at least for a while. Lets you get into a raft and get a beacon signal out.
Click to expand...

I was thinking Cirrus until he mentioned unpaved strips. Not exactly something SR20/22 are known for.

Twin is obviously the best option, but if someone asks for a single piston I try to stick with it.
 
Fiji Sam said:
Thanks fellas for all the input... some of you have mentioned purchasing a twin instead. Remember, I'm not a pilot yet, so please be patient with my response.

It's to my understanding that when flying a twin, if one of the engines should quit, the aircraft does NOT just continue flying a normal - straight - level flight with just a bit of strain on the working engine... the aircraft is in a world of hurt with regard to attitude, authority and overall controllable performance when one of the engines kicks out... no?? And emergency procedures in that situation with a twin is beyond serious, am I right ?
Click to expand...

The short answer is it depends on the plane and the phase of flight. Some twins are more benign than others on one engine, and in general having an engine failure in cruise flight is not quite as harrowing as one on takeoff.

You have two big issues in a twin. First, do you have enough power to climb. Climb performance is determined by excess horsepower. Lets assume we have a twin with two 200hp engines that needs 180hp to maintain level flight. With both engines running, we have 220hp to devote to climb..but if one fails, you only have 20 extra hp available. Not much climb happening, but if you are cruising over water you don't need to climb much... just limp to a suitable airport.

The other issue is called Velocity Minimum Control, or VMC. Basically if an engine quits, the other engine wants to turn the airplane. In order to compensate for this, you need to use the flight controls (mainly rudder). But flight controls are speed sensitive--the more airflow they have to push against, the stronger they get. Thus if you get to slow, you might not have enough air to push against with the rudder to keep that engine from turning the plane, and possibly rolling it over on its back! Not good.

Thus, a single engine pilot needs to establish best glide speed and find a place to land if the engine dies. A multi engine pilot must determine if he needs to land straight ahead, has the ability to continue on one engine, and take the appropriate steps to carry out his plan while ensuring he maintains the correct speed. He must be able to do this quickly, confidently, and accurately--hence where training/practice comes in. It may not seem like too much, but in the heat of the moment it can be much tougher, and the wrong choices or procedures can lead to trouble.

Most twins are more complex, burn more gas, and eat up more maintenance dollars, and require more proficiency flying than an equivalent single. That said, it is not rocket science to fly on one engine and, given your mission, you'd gain a lot of options with the second engine in an emergency.
 
I'm biased towards the Cirrus. One of my partners flies across Lake Michigan. Little different scenario, but we do have survival gear in our baggage compartment. Pulling the chute over water to me is better than ditching. OP should check out you tube video of a Cirrus ferry pilot ditching between the mainland and Hawaii last year.
 
TUPilot...

Thank you my friend for that informative bit on twin engine flight characteristics, with regard to limping on one engine only. Having explained all that you shared with me, how do you determine which aircraft (single or twin) to use for my specific needs ?

I get it, that it may not be as intimidating as some people might express, having one of those engines fall asleep on you in the middle of taking off or landing... or, in the middle of flying, if you are competent and keep your skills up with time spent in the simulator maneuvering through emergency exercises like that. Still has a pucker factor I'm sure ill-regardless. : )

But at the end of the day... me, committed to being a competent and safe aviator - simulator time and everything else that's needed whether for single or twin. I still don't have a definitive lean either way with choosing a single or twin engine aircraft at this point for my specific needs. I was hoping some pilots here have or have had jobs that were somewhat mission specific or similar as to mine, and could provide more concrete evidence either way as to what I should purchase.. I don't think I'm any further ahead than when I wrote this thread... haha

Thanks anyways for sharing your thoughts and experiences... it was very appreciated.
 
It is an FAA certification rule that a twin, with a stall speed higher than 61kts, or weighing more than 6000lbs, must be able to climb, fully loaded up and to 5000ft with 1.5% climb gradient as a minimum.

Below 61kts stall speed, below 6000lbs there is no such requirement and they don't even have to hold altitude. That said, in reality - at close to sea level, almost all twins except perhaps the earliest 150hp Aztec would hold altitude with one engine. Over water, low altitude, there is no contest - a twin is safer. It's the difference between certain ditching in the sea or making it to an airport, literally.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
It is an FAA certification rule that a twin, with a stall speed higher than 61kts, or weighing more than 6000lbs, must be able to climb, fully loaded up and to 5000ft with 1.5% climb gradient as a minimum.

Below 61kts stall speed, there is no such requirement and they don't even have to hold altitude. That said, in reality - at close to sea level, almost all twins except perhaps the earliest 150hp Aztec would hold altitude with one engine. Over water, low altitude, there is no contest - a twin is safer. It's the difference between certain ditching in the sea or making it to an airport, literally.
Click to expand...

You are aware of just how meager a 1.5% is, right? Granted, any climb gradient over open ocean is likely beneficial. That said, I'm guessing that climb is demonstrated at standard temp? Not super likely in many parts of the world.

For those who may not know, a 1.5 gradient is 90'/nm. That is less than 1/2 the IFR standard required for terps.
 
Yes, standard temp. It's pretty meager requirements, agreed, but most twins exceed this. A quick way to gage their climb capability is to look at the single engine ceiling. On normally aspirated smaller twins, it's usually around 4000-6000ft. On a turbo charged twin that can get up to about 8000-10000ft. And in some extreme examples, like the Aerostar 700, it's all the way up to 16000ft.

Lightly loaded, and on colder days, the climb performance will increase.
 
stratobee said:
It's pretty meager requirements, agreed, but most twins exceed this quite considerably. A quick way to gage their climb capability is to look at the single engine ceiling. On normally aspirated smaller twins, it's usually around 4000-6000ft. On a turbo charged twin that can get up to about 8000-10000ft. And in some extreme examples, like the Aerostar 700, it's all the way up to 16000ft.

Lightly loaded, and on colder days, the climb performance will increase.
Click to expand...

They still don't give the dependability of the turbine Caravan, nor is it as easy fly, and it will not carry as much, plus it won't go on floats. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top