$150,000 budget...

stratobee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Indeed.... Impressive in the low country. Take the machine out of a high altitude airport in summer, or even just try to cross the mountains.....
 
Yeah, but a Caravan is a $1+ million airplane. $100K buys a real nice capable twin and leaves another $100K for fuel and maintenance. For the OP's conditions and mission, a twin is the way to go in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Yeah, but a Caravan is a $1+ million airplane. $100K buys a real nice capable twin and leaves another $100K for fuel and maintenance. For the OP's conditions and mission, a twin is the way to go.
Click to expand...

No arguement there... And as I said, open water... No climb issues (well, very few unless it's hot).
 
Last edited:
Good dialog... but let's remember the original post that started this discussion. I'm at sea level in the tropics, down here in the south pacific. Has anyone ever flown this type of topography and what is the best aircraft to be using - make and model - single or twin ? Not a fuel guzzler.
 
Fiji Sam said:
Good dialog... but let's remember the original post that started this discussion. I'm at sea level in the tropics, down here in the south pacific. Has anyone ever flown this type of topography and what is the best aircraft to be using - make and model - single or twin ? Not a fuel guzzler.
Click to expand...

Sea level in the tropics can be equivalent to 40 degrees out of Denver.
Thus, the diverse discussion.

IMO it really depends on the price you put on safety. Single piston? Way below your budget. Twin piston? Likely below your budget. Not dure about something like a used King Air 90... That's a twin turboprop (jet engines with props), but highly reliable safety wise. That said, the more complex the airplane, the more training to fly it.
 
Fiji Sam said:
Good dialog... but let's remember the original post that started this discussion. I'm at sea level in the tropics, down here in the south pacific. Has anyone ever flown this type of topography and what is the best aircraft to be using - make and model - single or twin ? Not a fuel guzzler.
Click to expand...

Cessna Caravan was built for your mission, your temps and humidity won't be the problem for a turbine, as it will be for a recip. engine maintenance, will be less, fuel is Jet A or B. cost there? vs 100LL ? The aircraft are newer, and built for the loads you need.

JMO.
 
I really do hope you lay back a while before you buy. Heck, you may not like it, or are possibly the 1% who can't learn.
Regardless, you'll be in a much better position to make this decision after you have some time logged.
 
Has anyone flown in the tropics before... any real-life experience ? Apples to apples experience ? It's typically 85 degrees and 80 to 100% humidity year round. What four seater aircraft works great out here with full fuel and full seats ? But not a fuel guzzler!
 
Fiji Sam said:
Has anyone flown in the tropics before... any real-life experience ? Apples to apples experience ? It's typically 85 degrees and 80 to 100% humidity year round. What four seater aircraft works great out here with full fuel and full seats ? But not a fuel guzzler!
Click to expand...

The tropics are nothing special. It's temperature and altitude (and to and smaller exten humidity) that affect performance. So in that respect, yes, many here have flown in those conditions.

But, to answer your exact question, yes, I have flown "in the tropics".
 
Kritchlow... thank you for your advice, but like my original post says, I need the aircraft for work related reasons. I don't need to fly the aircraft myself for right now, I can hire a pilot to handle that for me until I am lic. and competent to fly the aircraft myself.

It's a matter of logistics for me right now. My two vessels aren't facilitating my needs adequately enough, so I must depend on air support for the company issues.
 
The best aircraft for your mission is probably a Pilatus Porter.

The best aircraft for your budget is probably a Cessna 180 or 185.

Take your choice and pay your money.

Personally, I wouldn't decide nor spend any cash until after I had my certificate.
 
Last edited:
Fiji Sam said:
Kritchlow... thank you for your advice, but like my original post says, I need the aircraft for work related reasons. I don't need to fly the aircraft myself for right now, I can hire a pilot to handle that for me until I am lic. and competent to fly the aircraft myself.

It's a matter of logistics for me right now. My two vessels aren't facilitating my needs adequately enough, so I must depend on air support for the company issues.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a different spin. Still, I would read my last post. I think it's lost at the bottom of last page.
 
Fiji Sam said:
Kritchlow... thank you for your advice, but like my original post says, I need the aircraft for work related reasons. I don't need to fly the aircraft myself for right now, I can hire a pilot to handle that for me until I am lic. and competent to fly the aircraft myself.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have a pilot in mind or know pilots in the area, ask him/her what kind of aircraft is appropriate.
 
For the right price, I'm available!! :D
 
Thank you Mase... unfortunately, there are none in my area, I'll have to be interviewing some individuals out of New Zealand and Australia in a couple weeks.
 
When I first started PPL training my main mission was to be able to visit family about 500sm away. We planned on flying the same way we drive it, at night. Well that whole plan changed once I flew at night it was much different than I expected I have zero interest in night flying right now. Open water in GA aircraft is serious you could ask a lot of single engine GA pilots if they would fly 400nm over open water and there response would be not a chance. This topic has come up around the hanger and even my CFI with 8000hrs says he wouldn't and hasn't done it. I'm not saying you can't because it can be done but don't buy anything for this mission until you have flying experience and are sure that is a trip you would be comfortable with.

Also keep in mind that some of the guys replying in this have thousands of flight hours and fly for a living. What they consider standard missions would be an intense flight for us.
 
Kritchlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

OP is operating at sea level, literally. Unless he has to climb over mountains right after TO then not an issue. Temp/weight/performance needs to be considered, as with any fight in any aircraft.
 
Kritchlow said:
Sea level in the tropics can be equivalent to 40 degrees out of Denver.
Thus, the diverse discussion.

IMO it really depends on the price you put on safety. Single piston? Way below your budget. Twin piston? Likely below your budget. Not dure about something like a used King Air 90... That's a twin turboprop (jet engines with props), but highly reliable safety wise. That said, the more complex the airplane, the more training to fly it.
Click to expand...

Operating cost of a KA will be his purchase budget every year. But since you mention turbine, how available (and at what cost) is 100LL in Fiji?
 
Tom-D said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

$1 mil for a Caravan. $150k for the floats option alone. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

OPM is great isn't it!
 
Fiji Sam said:
Has anyone flown in the tropics before... any real-life experience ? Apples to apples experience ? It's typically 85 degrees and 80 to 100% humidity year round. What four seater aircraft works great out here with full fuel and full seats ? But not a fuel guzzler!
Click to expand...

I answered your question a couple of times now. If you want to use even less fuel, slow down a bit. Yes, I've flown in Thailand, Philippines. If you want to use even less fuel than a Cirrus, a Bonanza M35 or newer will do it. Fuel use in aircraft is very much a direct function of how far you push the throttle in. I can get my old plane down to 7 gallons per hour going 130MPH. A 400 mile trip would take just over 3 hours, and use 21 gallons of fuel. That's about as good as it gets with four seats. However, the older Bonanza is all metal, and no emergency parachute.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1006630_2005+Cirrus+SR-22+G2+GTS.html

This is a relatively easy plane to learn and fly, it's well supported, and will do the mission you need to do right now, and is in budget.

Cya.
 
asgcpa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting to the raft on your way down. Good luck once you're in the water. And good luck in your life raft in blue water with ocean swells. Parachute just isn't the answer to everything.
 
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.
Click to expand...

People fly them safely all the time. Members of this board have flown them internationally and over huge expanses of blue water.

Fiji Sam said:
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...

It will be in a world of hurt if the pilot isn't proficient.

Fiji Sam said:
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.
Click to expand...

You need more proficiency training in a twin to be certain, but again members of this board fly them quite safely.

Fiji Sam said:
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.
Click to expand...

The salient point here is that you have already chosen a very challenging mission. Huge overwater flights in the tropics are at the edge of the envelope for nearly everyone but the pros, and even then it's stretching it a bit.

When I said a twin with single engine ability, I meant a twin with sufficiently powerful engines that it could maintain altitude or climb on one engine. They are such aircraft on the market. Short of that I suspect you're an accident waiting to happen.

First, I suspect you'll do every flight near gross. Once you have the ability to fly between islands, everyone and their auntie will want to go with your or send something. You'll also need a really good view of the weather, as it can get a bit frisky in the tropics, especially over water. And I'll bet you can't get the good NEXRAD radar down there we get here. Meaning you'll probably want and aircraft equipped with weather radar, which many twins are.

To be honest, I'd say stick with a boat. Way safer, and I'll bet cheaper too.
 
Reach out to JAARS (www.faars.org) for their thoughts. Their mission is very similar to yours.

They are using a lot of Quest Kodiak's these days (awesome plane, but above your price point).

They also use a fair amount of 182 and 206 as well. Either of them are likely a good choice given your mission and budget. You'll also find them easily repairable in the bigger areas.

is 100LL available where you're going? That's often a limiting factor around there....
 
If you get a pilot to fly for you for the time being, get a CFI so that you can log hours during all those flights. Will help a lot with insurance later I bet, single or twin.

As for twin, those minimum climb requirements for one engine I believe are at gross weight (fully loaded). So anything less than that and it will climb better. The basic equation for climb (excluding some fixed factors for the plane) are (Thrust-Drag)/Weight. It gets hot out, thrust goes down (tropics). Have less people in the plane, etc, weight goes down and climb goes up. Drag will pretty much be fixed for the plane as well.

There is a reason the P38 was so popular in the pacific during WWII. Twins can be nice over a ton of water. If it were over land with reasonable terrain, I'd rather fly the single. Remember, even if you ditch in the single successfully, it isn't as easy as people are thinking to find you. I'd rather limp to another airport on one engine.

I wouldn't worry about the emergency situation of single engine ops for a twin. That is what training is for. And yes, some twins have more power, will cruise better on one engine etc. Some early, low powered twins would be a horrible choice (basic Piper Apache).

As for which is better? It is all about risk and your preferences. If there were a perfect answer, this thread wouldn't be three pages of back and forth.
 
Also as a resource you might want to chat with these guys. http://www.itecusa.org/

If you do decide to wing and a prayer it for just moving yourself and one other in a single engine with capacity to do full fuel with survival gear, you may want to look at Mooney Aircraft. They are fast and fuel efficient. Fast means less time over water. Fuel efficient means you could do 400 miles and back on one fuel load. Do all the places you are landing have reliable fuel?
 
as mentioned above, how available is 100LL at your destinations?
 
I am a single engine pilot. There is no way I'd regularly fly 400 mile across open water in a single engine. The engines are really, really good, I'm not willing to bet my life on just really, really good. I think upgrading to multi-engine is the only way to go.

One of the problems with recommending a specific airplane is that there isn't a single airplane that could be highly recommended. If I were looking at similar flights, I would choose the Cessna 310 (twin) based on nothing more than I like the way it looks - price around $100,000. But an Aztec, Seneca, Baron or any number of other airplanes available (in the US) on Controller.com would be absolutely acceptable. I think your options are going to be limited by what is available in your part of the world, not by the types of aircraft.

One thing I will recommend that has not been talked about - talk to a mechanic about corrosion protection. If you can find an airplane that had corrosion protection installed when it was built, that's great. There might not be much to be done with it now, but in a high humidity marine environment, you know what happens to metals.
 
bflynn said:
One thing I will recommend that has not been talked about - talk to a mechanic about corrosion protection. If you can find an airplane that had corrosion protection installed when it was built, that's great. There might not be much to be done with it now, but in a high humidity marine environment, you know what happens to metals.
Click to expand...


That is an interesting point. I prefer aircraft that are factory zinc chromated for that reason. You can take care of any plane in a salty environment with enough effort, but zinc will make it easier. Fewer chances of pre-existing corrosion as well.

On the twin side Apaches, Aztecs and Twin Comanches are zinc from the factory. I believe some model years of Barons are as well.

As far as deciding what aircraft you need, I think it would be helpful to know the length and condition of the strips you intend to land on. A 1500 rough strip is different than 3000 feet of perfectly manicured grass. Both length of the strip and type of surface come into play, and twins tend to eat up a bit more runway.

I also think a better understanding of your current and foreseeable future payload, and what your annual operating budget is expected to be would help rule out some options. As mentioned, fuel can be tough to come by in some places--do you need an airplane that can fly some routes round trip on one tank of gas because the airport you are going into doe snot have fuel. Or would you want to try and find a plane that burns autogas?

Additionally, different airplanes have different support requirements. Virtually any mechanic can take care of a 172, but as you move to more advanced airplanes you tend to have more specialized shops. Twin Comanches, for instance, have finely tuned landing gear systems that require special tooling to overhaul; if your mechanic doesn't know the system or does not have the tools, you likely will need to take it quite a ways to find someone who can perform the work. What type of aircraft are based in the region and who maintains them?
 
No way I'd be attempting those flights over water in a single-engine bird. A Commander 500, Twinkie, 310, etc would all be great, and could be had inside his budget reasonably-equipped. Anything turbine would blow through the purchase budget, much less his operating budget. Caravans a great if you have the 7-figures to drop on one, doesn't sound like that's the case here. Perhaps a nice PBY could be found! :)
 
A SeaBee would be a great airplane for you!!

https://www.barnstormers.com/Amphibian, Seabee Classifieds.htm

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail...Piston/1947/Republic/RC-3+Seabee/2086761.html

.watermarked_0fd93ddab4ee44300073c22656ca2a64.jpg
 
Tom-D said:
That SeaBee has the GO 480 up graded engine and standard tanks ( I know the A/C) try doing 400 miles at 95MPH. see how far the gas guzzler, gets you. :)
Click to expand...

And then see how nicely it handles ocean swells.
 
The Seabee is the one you fly to oshkosh, sit under the wing and b.s. With folks who stroll by. Certainly not meant for this mission.
 
I'm assuming AvGas (100LL) is readily available where you are? Or should we be recommending airplanes that meet your mission and burn Jet A / diesel?
What are fuel costs where you are, per gallon?

You mention your PURCHASE budget. What's your OPERATING budget? How much are you willing to spend per year on fixed expenses, even if the plane doesn't fly at all (insurance, hanger, etc.)? How much per hour are you willing to spend for variable expenses?
 
Tom-D said:
That SeaBee has the GO 480 up graded engine and standard tanks ( I know the A/C) try doing 400 miles at 95MPH. see how far the gas guzzler, gets you. :)
Click to expand...

Jimmy cooper said:
The Seabee is the one you fly to oshkosh, sit under the wing and b.s. With folks who stroll by. Certainly not meant for this mission.
Click to expand...

My dad used to own one. It was a lot of fun. Not sure why so much negativity towards sea planes on here. Sure they are not fast, The original post mentioned that he doesn't need to go fast and needs to fly over a lot of water. I would feel much more safe in the SeaBee landing on rough water in an emergency than I would a typical airplane. He also doesn't have to land in the water.
 
steingar said:
And then see how nicely it handles ocean swells.
Click to expand...

It will do a hell of a lot better than a Lakes, but very few sea planes can handle open ocean swells. I've seen green water over the flight deck, so any sea plane will have its problems.
So it's simply a matter of conditions at the time.

I'm still for leasing the Caravan, because dispatch dependability is better than any old recip twin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top