Does this plane exist?

J

JC150

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
491
Display Name
Display name:
JC150
Helping a friend and his wife find a plane to meet their family's requirements and it has been a real struggle.

Looking for a twin 1980's and newer. We've flown a Seneca III, 1986 Baron 58, and Cessna 310R.

The perfect plane would be a Seneca cabin with IO-550's and 200 gallons with known ice capability.

The Baron is simply too narrow and they're a bigger family so they need the extra width.

The back door is a must, which throws the C310 out.

The seneca doesn't have the range or speed they're looking for.

They really don't want to jump up to the Cessna 340/Navajo territory. There's got to be a plane out there that I'm missing right? If only the baron had a wider cabin or seneca had IO550's with more fuel capacity

The mission is 900 nautical miles one way weekly. 4 people and 1 dog, so a 6 seater is preferred.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
Oh look the perfect plane that satisfies everything we want!... Nah let's disqualify it ;)



Cessna P337/337?

Beech Duke (cringe)
Click to expand...

They don't want turbocharging for maintenance and costs. And pressurization is the biggest reason not to go with the Cessna 340.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Aero Commander 500 Shrike.

^^^ There's your answer.
Click to expand...
Can't comment on the Shrike, but a 690B and me flew similar trips all the time, usually with a pit stop half way. Puh-lenty of baggage space (clubs too). Nice view from the passenger windows.
 
I wonder why piper kept the fuel capacity so low on the seneca. Why not bump up the fuel capacity and make it a 200 knot airplane?

I'll talk to him about the shrike. Not a lot for sale at the moment. Looks quite spacious
 
64 built. good luck lol.

id say commander as well. get one with lycos. twofer.
 
900 miles one way weekly without a way to get on top of the inevitable ice or above the embedded TCU so you can weave around them? More like once a month.
 
Need a Navajo, Cessna 340, or any of the PA46 aircraft for this mission. They are the next step up from the Baron, Seneca and 310's.

If this 900nm destination is a weekly trip a Turboprop or Jet would actually be preferable lol.
 
Malibu is perfect, but the second engine is needed for the over water flights and night IMC over the mountains.

He's thinking Baron 58 mainly because it fits everything besides the cabin width. Its a tight squeeze. Seneca cabin would be perfect but again it doesn't have the fuel capacity and speed as the Baron.
 
Joking aside, get the seneca and split that thing into two legs. The block speed differences don't overcome the comfort factor for the pax imo. That's what I would do if I was intent in doing that kind of trip length with the family with any regularity.
 
Mission:

900nm ish
4 people, 1 dog
Budget isn't really a hard number. But under $400k if possible
Preferably no turbocharged, no pressurization. Twin for over-water flying to the exumas and flying to Colorado

First aircraft we test flew was a Seneca and the cabin of the baron afterwards was very disappointing. But the seneca doesn't meet the mission

Really wish an IO-550 200 gallon twin with the cabin of a Seneca existed.

The Aztec & C310R looks nice too, but they absolutely want the large door access in the rear such as the PA34 or BE58
 
They need to re-evaluate. 900nm weekly XC trips that are not to be cancelled are going to require getting on top and into the high teens. Turbo is going to have to happen to ensure making the trips with consistency.
 
No offense, please, but it would be cheaper to go to Jenny Craig for a year or two and then buy a B58. Being healthier and living longer is a side benefit that is worth something...
 
How are they making that 900-mile weekly trip presently? Where are they finding night mountain IMC without icing? (FIKI doesn’t mean invulnerable.) Who will be flying the thing? What are the consequences if they regularly have to go two days later than planned due to weather or maintenance?

If you don’t know your plan B, then you don’t actually have a plan A. For the 900-mile regularly scheduled gotta be there trip, short of having a spare turbine powered aircraft and at least one extra pilot ready to come get you if you have a breakdown away from home, the only realistic plan B is to have an airline ticket in your back pocket every week. That plan B would be better to use as plan A. That means that you either need to redefine the mission until your plan B is acceptable or just take the airlines.
 
iamtheari said:
How are they making that 900-mile weekly trip presently? Where are they finding night mountain IMC without icing? (FIKI doesn’t mean invulnerable.) Who will be flying the thing? What are the consequences if they regularly have to go two days later than planned due to weather or maintenance?

If you don’t know your plan B, then you don’t actually have a plan A. For the 900-mile regularly scheduled gotta be there trip, short of having a spare turbine powered aircraft and at least one extra pilot ready to come get you if you have a breakdown away from home, the only realistic plan B is to have an airline ticket in your back pocket every week. That plan B would be better to use as plan A. That means that you either need to redefine the mission until your plan B is acceptable or just take the airlines.
Click to expand...

Net Jets!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Of my 3,000 hours, roughly 2,000 of those were spent in naturally aspirated piston twins doing regular trips longer than the amount that you are describing. Then throw in around 600ish hours in pressurized turboprop or turbine aircraft, and a few hundred hours of Navajo time.

My general opinion is the plane your friend wants does not exist. Ultimately you're talking about a trip that's going to be around 5 hours non-stop no-wind in good conditions, and there just aren't many piston aircraft with that kind of range and useful load. Then you have headwinds, which will hurt further. Block time you're looking at a solid 5-7 hours one way.

A 58 Baron with 550s is going to be the closest given the cabin width. A 310R with 550s doesn't have the rear doors, but is more comfortable anyway because of the extra width. It lacks club seating and in my opinion that's a good thing for a plane of that size.

If you really don't want turbos, the first plane that comes to my mind is a very early Navajo that's naturally aspirated. They made a few of them and you can still find some. That said, on Navajos the turbo systems are pretty trouble-free in my experience and a Navajo would be a good choice. I used to fly a Chieftain that was a solid 190 kt airplane and would actually do 200 if you went higher (but then you need O2). Naturally aspirated I think you'd be looking at a 170ish kt airplane. There are also some Twin Bonanzas out there with bigger/supercharged engines that would meet the cabin needs, be pretty fun and cool, and might support the range.

A 340 RAM VI/VII, 414 RAM VII, or 421 would fit the mission. Keep in mind these are all high maintenance aircraft and if you're talking about flying them that often per week, they will require a lot of love. However in the piston world, I think the mission screams 340 RAM VI/VII.

The mission screams Piper Cheyenne I/II, short body MU-2, or Commander 690 given the requirement from the buyers for a twin.

I do help people buy twins if they're interested in discussing.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Of my 3,000 hours, roughly 2,000 of those were spent in naturally aspirated piston twins doing regular trips longer than the amount that you are describing. Then throw in around 600ish hours in pressurized turboprop or turbine aircraft, and a few hundred hours of Navajo time.

My general opinion is the plane your friend wants does not exist. Ultimately you're talking about a trip that's going to be around 5 hours non-stop no-wind in good conditions, and there just aren't many piston aircraft with that kind of range and useful load. Then you have headwinds, which will hurt further. Block time you're looking at a solid 5-7 hours one way.

A 58 Baron with 550s is going to be the closest given the cabin width. A 310R with 550s doesn't have the rear doors, but is more comfortable anyway because of the extra width. It lacks club seating and in my opinion that's a good thing for a plane of that size.

If you really don't want turbos, the first plane that comes to my mind is a very early Navajo that's naturally aspirated. They made a few of them and you can still find some. That said, on Navajos the turbo systems are pretty trouble-free in my experience and a Navajo would be a good choice. I used to fly a Chieftain that was a solid 190 kt airplane and would actually do 200 if you went higher (but then you need O2). Naturally aspirated I think you'd be looking at a 170ish kt airplane. There are also some Twin Bonanzas out there with bigger/supercharged engines that would meet the cabin needs, be pretty fun and cool, and might support the range.

A 340 RAM VI/VII, 414 RAM VII, or 421 would fit the mission. Keep in mind these are all high maintenance aircraft and if you're talking about flying them that often per week, they will require a lot of love. However in the piston world, I think the mission screams 340 RAM VI/VII.

The mission screams Piper Cheyenne I/II, short body MU-2, or Commander 690 given the requirement from the buyers for a twin.

I do help people buy twins if they're interested in discussing.
Click to expand...

Well said. I love the Ram 340. 414 even better. 421! I hope you are rich!
D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bellanca_Pilot said:
Well said. I love the Ram 340. 414 even better. 421! I hope you are rich!
Click to expand...

The engines in 421s will cost you more money to own, no doubt. The 340 is faster, better performing, more efficient, will handle shorter runways than the 414. The 414 is without a doubt more comfortable.

None of these are poor man's toys, so it's just a question of what costs one is willing to absorb, as well as the cost risks associated. Example: The MU-2 has been cheaper than the 414 to operate, but that ignores a hot section in 1000 hours and an overhaul in 1600 hours. However for most people, that's a really, really long ways away that you might never meet. And really, turbines mostly just run.

On a piston? It's constant bleeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top