Airplane for this mission

Ted DuPuis said:
Seneca II onwards are Continental TSIO-360s. Not reliable engines or known for tolerating abuse at all.
Click to expand...

Christ , I thought they were lycomings and wish they were...I was far more impressed with Navajo engine than bos ..continental had some crap cylinders out there and man are those gross with turbos on them.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
True, but most owners of Senecas I've talked to have generally indicated the expenses are high for what you get. I've also never owned one.



My issue is more with the turbo controllers themselves and their poor operation. Both Navajos I flew would creep all over and be hard to set in the cruise power range. Very sensitive. I've liked the Continental turbo controllers much better as a pilot.
Click to expand...

I agree that part much easier to operate and far more simple system
The neverjos did have density controllers though ..that was a plus
 
Skylane81E said:
Hmm, not a problem we have had. I am waiting till one of the controllers pukes an aneroid though.
Click to expand...

The problem mostly existed between 30-33". I recall you saying your typical cruise was below 30". It also got much worse above 10k.
 
I want to say they cruise it around 30, what ever nets about 170kts.

We are far from flogging them
 
taters said:
Christ , I thought they were lycomings and wish they were...I was far more impressed with Navajo engine than bos ..continental had some crap cylinders out there and man are those gross with turbos on them.
Click to expand...

The Navajo engines are probably the most durable high power pistons out there. They just aren't as good from a pilot's perspective vs the Continentals. I've been able to get good life out of Continentals so far, but the Lycoming factory cylinders don't require as good of care to get good life.
 
Skylane81E said:
I want to say they cruise it around 30, what ever nets about 170kts.

We are far from flogging them
Click to expand...

In our case "Boss didn't buy this thing to go slow." :)
 
taters said:
You wont regret flying a A36 turbo w tks and tips but the interiors are way to nice.......for what you guys do

A done right seneca is what would work well ...I even know of a nice one around
Click to expand...

Is it for sale?
 
taters said:
...I was far more impressed with Navajo engine than bos ..
Click to expand...
I don't think I've ever seen such a sentiment, and never expect to again. This must be some sort of candid camera tv show.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One of my friends is selling a RAM I T310Q (300 HP engines) for $65k asking price. Engines are nearing TBO with a fresh top. Avionics aren't as nice as you're used to in the Mooney. If you're interested, I can put you folks in contact. He does 175 kts @ 30 gph ROP.
Click to expand...

Been thinking about this one,

Fuel costs are going to be just about half of the total cost of the trip in the rental 182.

So could you buy, store, insure and maintain this plane for an hourly cost around that of fuel?
 
Skylane81E said:
Been thinking about this one,

Fuel costs are going to be just about half of the total cost of the trip in the rental 182.

So could you buy, store, insure and maintain this plane for an hourly cost around that of fuel?
Click to expand...

I have found that dry costs are a bit higher than fuel costs on the twins I've flown. Not much, but some. That also includes some significant expenses for upgrades, but ultimately you do have more insurance to pay, more parts to fail, etc. Also, it depends on how you fly. If you fly LOP your fuel costs are lower, and I fly LOP. The ROP twin pilots seem to report dry costs about equal to fuel costs.

I've been saying the 310 is a $300/hr aircraft. A T310 would probably be more like $350.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have found that dry costs are a bit higher than fuel costs on the twins I've flown. Not much, but some. That also includes some significant expenses for upgrades, but ultimately you do have more insurance to pay, more parts to fail, etc. Also, it depends on how you fly. If you fly LOP your fuel costs are lower, and I fly LOP. The ROP twin pilots seem to report dry costs about equal to fuel costs.

I've been saying the 310 is a $300/hr aircraft. A T310 would probably be more like $350.
Click to expand...

And is that including purchase cost and depreciation?
 
jesse said:
And is that including purchase cost and depreciation?
Click to expand...

Strictly operating costs. Purchase and depreciation are not included.

Edit: Purchase on the twin will end up being lower most likely. Depreciation benefits may vary depending on the company's tax situation.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Strictly operating costs. Purchase and depreciation are not included.

Edit: Purchase on the twin will end up being lower most likely. Depreciation benefits may vary depending on the company's tax situation.
Click to expand...

That's where it gets tough with limited cash. Renting can be tied to each project versus having to do a major cash outlay with increased risk. Just kind of depends on the business and *HOW BAD* they need to be somewhere. If something can get bumped a week for weather and other income generating jobs can be performed in the same time period then it's not a huge deal.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have found that dry costs are a bit higher than fuel costs on the twins I've flown. Not much, but some. That also includes some significant expenses for upgrades, but ultimately you do have more insurance to pay, more parts to fail, etc. Also, it depends on how you fly. If you fly LOP your fuel costs are lower, and I fly LOP. The ROP twin pilots seem to report dry costs about equal to fuel costs.

I've been saying the 310 is a $300/hr aircraft. A T310 would probably be more like $350.
Click to expand...

So financially that 310 is at best even with the rental 182 cost wise, and likely slightly worse with the added risk of being on the hook for expensive breakdowns.

So now we know about how far 3-4k a trip does (or doesn't as the case may be) go.

Cost wise we may have just pushed this into SE territory.
 
jesse said:
That's where it gets tough with limited cash. Renting can be tied to each project versus having to do a major cash outlay with increased risk. Just kind of depends on the business and *HOW BAD* they need to be somewhere. If something can get bumped a week for weather and other income generating jobs can be performed in the same time period then it's not a huge deal.
Click to expand...

Correct, and David hasn't discussed cost requirements or what level of "We need to get there" exists. Not knowing the business they need to decide that. If you're looking at only a few year need, it's hard to justify an airplane since it will lose more money. But it might make sense if they expect to do this for a while or if their utilization is sufficient.
 
Skylane81E said:
So financially that 310 is at best even with the rental 182 cost wise, and likely slightly worse with the added risk of being on the hook for expensive breakdowns.

So now we know about how far 3-4k a trip does (or doesn't as the case may be) go.

Cost wise we may have just pushed this into SE territory.
Click to expand...

David said 1500 nm round trip. That's about $3300 in a T310 using my $350/hr estimate, and under $3k in he 310 I fly. I don't think it's necessarily pushed into SE, especially when you factor in purchase cost, etc.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correct, and David hasn't discussed cost requirements or what level of "We need to get there" exists. Not knowing the business they need to decide that. If you're looking at only a few year need, it's hard to justify an airplane since it will lose more money. But it might make sense if they expect to do this for a while or if their utilization is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Yep, if they HAVE to get there it can justify the cost to purchase a plane of greater capabilities much faster than if arrival time/date is flexible.
 
Skylane81E said:
Yep, if they HAVE to get there it can justify the cost to purchase a plane of greater capabilities much faster than if arrival time/date is flexible.
Click to expand...

G6502.jpg


:D
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Depends on the required mission reliability. Assuming the mountains you're talking about are west, keep in mind that pistons have some limitations there, especially in winter.

....
Click to expand...

Why issues with pistons in Winter Ted? I get the the turbo/turbine thing for the mountains but pistons in winter, :dunno:

bartmc said:
RV-10
Click to expand...

Now that right there was funny!!:rofl:
 
AdamZ said:
Why issues with pistons in Winter Ted? I get the the turbo/turbine thing for the mountains but pistons in winter, :dunno:
Click to expand...

Basically comes down to insufficient performance for getting through/on top of the weather. Higher altitudes needed and often more challenging weather. Dave alluded to this when talking about a takeoff in the King Air that was comfortable climbing through a thick cloud layer that wouldn't have been so comfortable in the P-Baron. Weather in the flatlands and east is usually not as bad, at least most of the time.

Summer presents its own set of challenges with high DAs, but you'd be a real idiot to fly into the storms that exist there and should be quite obviously visible.
 
Dean V said:
While a 210 is tempting, i'd go with an Aztec
Click to expand...

Only gripe I would have with an Aztec is that it is rather thirsty for the speed you get. It hauls a wicked load but it doesn't seem that much payload is needed so I would personally lean towards something that goes faster and/or burns less fuel.

If they were cheaper I'd say DA-42
 
Skylane81E said:
Only gripe I would have with an Aztec is that it is rather thirsty for the speed you get. It hauls a wicked load but it doesn't seem that much payload is needed so I would personally lean towards something that goes faster and/or burns less fuel.
Click to expand...

21 GPH for 155 KTAS. So a 310 is definitely more economical. If you need the extra space or will be operative from rough strips, go for the Aztec.
 
Someone mentioned a Seneca.

A friend has a very nice Seneca II with ice protection and a lot of bells and whistles in the panel. He was originally flying it for himself to and from his two plants that he runs. Since he closed down the one plant, he doesn't fly nearly as much as he used to, so he decided to sell his twin, and keep his Mooney.

Here is the website to peruse it.
http://www.forestairinc.com/index.html

Logbooks are also on the site. He has installed quite a few niceties in the panel since he was using it for himself and he had the money to put in whatever he wanted.

The website says "no trades" but I believe he is now looking for a simple single engine Cessna for some of his employees that are working on their certificates.
 
Last edited:
When we discuss the subject for business use, the distance limits for turboprops is ~600nm trips. For anything longer, jets are the plane of choice.
 
wabower said:
When we discuss the subject for business use, the distance limits for turboprops is ~600nm trips. For anything longer, jets are the plane of choice.
Click to expand...
the thing that amazes me is how many companies operate jets with most of their travel in the 4-500NM range, when they could run a B200 at a fraction of the cost.
 
wabower said:
When we discuss the subject for business use, the distance limits for turboprops is ~600nm trips. For anything longer, jets are the plane of choice.
Click to expand...

What factors cause the changeover to jets? Why is 600nm the "magic" number?
 
Over 20 years and hundreds of trips, block time for a 550 nm B-200 trip is 1.9-2.1 downwind and 2.2-2.4 the other way. Most pax can tolerate those times without excessive bitching.

JHW said:
the thing that amazes me is how many companies operate jets with most of their travel in the 4-500NM range, when they could run a B200 at a fraction of the cost.
Click to expand...
 
Turbine Caravan seems to be the solution for the need of a truck.

We can talk abut this all freaking day but it needs to be FIKI and it he said reliable which breaks out the turbine card - not turbo. Since the 210 also uses a turbocharged [and not normalized] Continental engine stock - I am not sure I'd want to fly one any length of time - in mountainous areas. Sooner or later sooner or later is going to happen with that set up. . ..

Bash me all you want for being a Continental hater but the facts seem to support such a conclusion.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
Turbine Caravan seems to be the solution for the need of a truck.

We can talk abut this all freaking day but it needs to be FIKI and it he said reliable which breaks out the turbine card - not turbo. Since the 210 also uses a turbocharged [and not normalized] Continental engine stock - I am not sure I'd want to fly one any length of time - in mountainous areas. Sooner or later sooner or later is going to happen with that set up. . ..

Bash me all you want for being a Continental hater but the facts seem to support such a conclusion.
Click to expand...

At least the conti will be running while that Lycoming is down getting the pitted cam swapped out. :stirpot:

Us conti-drivers just changes the jugs with each oil change, and no problems.

FWIW I have seen a lot of turboed Continentals have issues in my limited experience.
 
How many years and hours would be required to prove that conclusion is a crock?

comanchepilot said:
Turbine Caravan seems to be the solution for the need of a truck.

We can talk abut this all freaking day but it needs to be FIKI and it he said reliable which breaks out the turbine card - not turbo. Since the 210 also uses a turbocharged [and not normalized] Continental engine stock - I am not sure I'd want to fly one any length of time - in mountainous areas. Sooner or later sooner or later is going to happen with that set up. . ..

Bash me all you want for being a Continental hater but the facts seem to support such a conclusion.
Click to expand...
 
DavidWhite said:
The problem is we need to make money on these trips.
Click to expand...
What's the cargo, Dave?

For trip you "have to make" you really do need Turbocharging just to make the trip weather-habitable (as in on top). But you will be wearing nose hoses. Boss wanna do that?

Senecas ARE capable with the FIKI package, but you will feel, after 3 hours of FL220, like you were on a long hike, NOT well rested like in a Malibu.

See my Xmas week trip this year....There was the backside of a Noreaster going on down below....
 

Attachments

  • HFD-FDY12.29.12(small).pdf
    284.2 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top