FIKI/6 seat aircraft

flyersfan31

flyersfan31

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
14,269
Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
This winter I've cancelled a bunch of flights for ice. I'm tired of that. Next plane will be FIKI. Family would like to bring grandma along on some trips (I have no problem with that). So, I'll need 5 seats. Family also likes club seating, with nice little tables.

Options? As I see them: Seneca, Malibu/Mirage, Malibu Matrix, Cessna 340/421. Saratogas have the "inadvertent" ice protection, which I guess is fine if you don't get yourself into trouble in a known-ice situation and your plight becomes known to the authorities. The Seneca/Sara cabin is a little snug, IMHO, so less attractive from that perspective. A FIKI T210 would be ideal, but the kids don't want to sit in rows.

Twin v single is a wash in my decision making. Most of my trips are 200-300mi, in the Northeast. I don't know whether pressurization would be useful in that case, since I don't know that ATC will let you climb out to take advantage, and time at altitude would be short. Thus, I would think that altitude capability is less important.

Crux of the question is this -- given the aircraft target, and current exp (about 400hrs, IR, now building time in a G1000 T182T), what would be the best strategy for getting myself insurable in one of those type aircraft? I plan to get my commercial (multi & single) this spring, so that should help. Assuming about 25hrs Seminole time in Multi/Comm training I should be insurable in the Seneca with some transition dual. Saratoga would be a slam dunk. The Malibus and cabin Cessnas will certainly require more -- but what? Building time in a Seneca? More complex time? I've seen some claims that you can't get into a Malibu with under 1000hrs, but that seems strange to me.
 
A Malibu/Mirage is a waste on 200-300 mile trips. Because of the engine cooling issues, you have to climb at a high indicated airspeed, so you only get around 500 fpm. So you'd have very little time at cruise speed at the altitudes for which you'd buy the pressurization. The insurance issue on Malibus stems in part from the airplane complexity, but moreso from the fact that they are typically flown in a challenging part of the atmosphere, the high teens and low 20s. That's just high enough to fly through the worst mother nature throws. The Matrix might be a better choice for you, if you want to deal with the price point.

If a T210 would be ideal, I don't see how you can call a Seneca/Toga cabin snug. It's wider, longer and has more headroom than a T210. I don't see a 340/421 fitting your mission particularly well. That's a lot of cost and a lot of airplane to fly an hour and a half at a time. Again, you'd be paying for pressurization you'd seldom use.

For what you describe, I think a Seneca fits the best. Enough oompf to climb through ice, good enough speed -- particularly on such short flights, and it will cost less in every respect (purchase, insurance, mx) than a Malibu or 340. Well, a little more in fuel than a Malibu, but not as much more as you might think. However, a Seneca with enough useful load to carry to carry 5 (adults?) would have to be an older one. The new ones have not much useful load. How much would your max cabin load weigh?

You'd be insurable in a Seneca now. Worst case would be a SimCom type course and a dozen or two hours with a mentor pilot or solo. Premium would be half a Malibu premium.
 
Just because the plane is KI doesn't mean ya'll are ready to pack up & Launch.

There are many times even an ice capable plane with a ice exp pilot should not launch.

If you are not going to spend 30% of you time blasting through ice, You might want to buy a 6 seater & get airline/greyhound tickets for the icy days.

Add that the upkeep of boots can get expensive and you might just past your needs.
 
flyersfan31 said:
This winter I've cancelled a bunch of flights for ice. I'm tired of that.

Next plane will be FIKI. A FIKI T210 would be ideal, but the kids don't want to sit in rows.

.
Click to expand...

I've seen P210Ks with club seating. Can't beat the prices either.
 
Eamon said:
Just because the plane is KI doesn't mean ya'll are ready to pack up & Launch.

There are many times even an ice capable plane with a ice exp pilot should not launch.

If you are not going to spend 30% of you time blasting through ice, You might want to buy a 6 seater & get airline/greyhound tickets for the icy days.

Add that the upkeep of boots can get expensive and you might just past your needs.
Click to expand...
Some people worry about the potential legal issues of launching into "known icing conditions" in a non-FIKI certified/equipped airplane. Even if the practical difference is not great, the psychological difference may be worth it to the individual.
 
Eamon said:
Just because the plane is KI doesn't mean ya'll are ready to pack up & Launch.

There are many times even an ice capable plane with a ice exp pilot should not launch.

If you are not going to spend 30% of you time blasting through ice, You might want to buy a 6 seater & get airline/greyhound tickets for the icy days.

Add that the upkeep of boots can get expensive and you might just past your needs.
Click to expand...

I didn't have space for all the caveats and extra info. My response to your post is:

No duh! :D

Don't worry, I'm not the kind of pilot who thinks a Nexrad link means it's time to play in thunderstorms. I'm, as Ken suspected, more worried about keeping everything nice and legal. I would like an added comfort factor descending through modest icing conditions. You fly in the Northeast a lot, so you probably know better than I do how ATC likes to keep bugsmashers low. I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing I might well be trundling along in an icing layer on long approach. However, there ain't no way in hell I'm flying if SLD is in the forecast.

I view things like FIKI and turbocharging as safety features. Do I really need the turbo in my 182? No, but I like knowing it's there. Same with the FIKI. I've been through icing in non-FIKI craft, no big deal, but it still made me anxious.

The observations about the Malibu/340/pressurization are the same thoughts I had. Since I don't see a lot of 500+mi flights in the future, I'm more than happy to drop those from consideration.

AFA the T210 - my family loves the high wing, and I like the speed, compared to the Seneca. Yeah, the 210 definitely snug for a "6" seater. Seneca useful is ok, not great, speed ok not great, but fortunately I have a light family (420 including me, maybe 570 with the MIL, before bags.)
 
I realize your family's considerations must be considered...however, you are talking about roughly a ONE HOUR trip in a 210. Can't sit in rows for One Hour, heh, heh, leave 'em home. Then again, I have no kids, but my five retrievers couldn't care less.
 
I think that you can add FIKI (via Weeping Wing) to an A36.

Wells
 
I think I had dismissed the A36 because it doesn't have great cargo space. Speed/efficiency over the Sara/Seneca is pretty clear, though. I didn't know you could retrofit FIKI TKS on an A36. I know you can on T210s, at least some of them. More research...
 
You could start with a 55 Baron without boots and move up to a 58 Baron with deice or even FIKI after a few years. Careful though ... you'll fall in love.
 
I recommend you consider a twin because (both engines running) they have substantial excess climb capability compared to an equivalent twin and FIKI or not, the ability to climb in ice requires excess climb power. Given your trip lengths I'd recommend a B58 or a Seneca (II or newer). Assume that you will want to stay at least 100 lbs below MGW to preserve SE climb.
 
Andrew is this becuase you have had to cancel all those angel flight trips? If thats all it is I think ya gotta ask is the frustration worth upgrading again?

If so I agree with Ken's assesment. The Seneca is a nice plane I have flow right seat in one several times. Bruce can certainly give you some good info and I can put you intouch with Paul who owns the Brown Seneca at Wings He has a family of 4 or 5 all bigger than the Morrisons and takes them everywhere in it. Lousiana, Texas others and he just got back from the Bahamas. He has boots on it.

As for the Bonaza There is a beautiful Bonanza that has the weeping wing at UKT. The owner is a friend of Gary's and He has flow with us a few times. If you want I can put you in touch with him as well.
 
Man, you have never tried to get six into a T210. Crazy. There's like, no room between seats 4 & 5 and unless your kids are going in through the baggage door, it's like a 5 place.

First, What is the total cabin load for the mission?
 
flyersfan31 said:
I think I had dismissed the A36 because it doesn't have great cargo space. Speed/efficiency over the Sara/Seneca is pretty clear, though. I didn't know you could retrofit FIKI TKS on an A36. I know you can on T210s, at least some of them. More research...
Click to expand...

They do have a certification for the A36 with TKS, but I do not think the A36 with tip tanks is certified.

What about a T206 with TKS?
 
flyersfan31 said:
I

. Do I really need the turbo in my 182? No, but I like knowing it's there.
Click to expand...

Why have it at all if you are not going to be flying high enough for it to work. On 200-300 nm trips, you probably won't be flying much over 10k msl. Down low its not doing you any good at all. Thats why they are called turbo normalizers.
 
Dean said:
Why have it at all if you are not going to be flying high enough for it to work. On 200-300 nm trips, you probably won't be flying much over 10k msl. Down low its not doing you any good at all. Thats why they are called turbo normalizers.
Click to expand...

Turbo-charged does not necessarily mean the same as Turbo-normalized.
 
AirBaker said:
Turbo-charged does not necessarily mean the same as Turbo-normalized.
Click to expand...

I know that, but I don't recall any certified airplanes that are turbo charged for HP boost. I thought that turbos for airplanes were designed to give them sea level performance at high altitude.
 
There are at least some of the TSIO-520s are 285HP engines, but allow for 310HP for up to 15 minutes.

But you are right that they give you sea-level performance at altitude. Definitely a plus in the 'icing' category in my book. :)
 
Dean said:
I know that, but I don't recall any certified airplanes that are turbo charged for HP boost. I thought that turbos for airplanes were designed to give them sea level performance at high altitude.
Click to expand...

My instructor's Navajo has a pair of TIO-540-A2Cs. They boost to 40 inches (well, it varies on the day, up to 45 or so on a hot day as they use a density controller for the turbos). The newer Malibus with the TIO-540-AE2A engines are boosted to 350 hp, I can't remember the exact number, I think 40-45 inches on a standard day. There's a limit on how long they're supposed to run at those power, but those engines are definitely boosted above standard atmospheric.

Those engines are generally reserved for the larger planes, though. In the class of planes that are being discussed (excpet for the Cessna 4xx series) it will be turbo normalized. I don't know about the TSIO or GTSIOs in the 4xxs.

Have you considered an Aztec? In terms of getting a plane that's good for known ice, has lots of room and useful load, and low price, it's a decent option. My instructor had one for a number of years, and said it was great in ice conditions. The one I flew I liked quite a bit.
 
Dean said:
Why have it at all if you are not going to be flying high enough for it to work. On 200-300 nm trips, you probably won't be flying much over 10k msl. Down low its not doing you any good at all. Thats why they are called turbo normalizers.
Click to expand...

I take it high when it's just me, especially flying east. Haven't tried O2 with the kids yet. As I said though, I like having the flexibility. The small added operating cost is worth it to me. Given the production #s, Turbo 182s of the new generation are far more popular, so from a resale perspective it'll help too. Look how many SR22s are getting turbo'd.

T210 is nice in that it has a high wing. Pax love sightseeing. The seating is definitely tight; I haven't squeezed into one in a while so I'd forgotten. Not worth considering.

Adam - I'm not THAT nuts about Angel Flight that I'd buy a new plane for them!!!! No, I've had to cancel a bunch of family trips for the ice. Plus, we have a bunch of places we'd like to go as a group of 5, so an extra seat is needed. Otherwise I would think long and hard about adding TKS to the T182T and forgoing FIKI.

Aztecs, while cheap and highly capable, lack club seating. At this point, Seneca looks pretty good from a cabin space/mission perspective. The Matrix is a great plane for me, in theory, but I could get a slightly used Seneca V and have $400k left over to spend on gas and that extra engine mx. I ran a bunch of numbers last night with worst case Seneca V useful loads (which, when optioned out, is pretty lousy in the new ones!!!) vs fuel loads/pax loads and it worked with all the missions I envision. Plus, removing pressurization doesn't change the Malibu airframe's delicate nature. My understanding is that they aren't the most robust aircraft out there. Be55 is too small, Be58 hasn't been ruled out but I too like the extra room in the Seneca.

The Da50 Superstar is interesting - absolutely beautiful in and out. I really liked the one I sat in at AOPA. Jury is out on ACTUAL, vs Diamond marketing performance. If it's available when I'm in the market, I'll give it a hard look. A 4+occasional 1 seater would be nice, 'specially with that posh interior.
 
flyersfan31 said:
The Da50 Superstar is interesting - absolutely beautiful in and out. I really liked the one I sat in at AOPA. Jury is out on ACTUAL, vs Diamond marketing performance. If it's available when I'm in the market, I'll give it a hard look. A 4+occasional 1 seater would be nice, 'specially with that posh interior.
Click to expand...
I like them too, except for the big design flaw.

The breakers and a bunch of switches are on the ceiling, where we poor bifocaled lads can't crane enough to read them.
 
340, Aerostar, P-Baron, 58 Baron, Seneca II on up, would be my choices in that order for that profile.
 
Last edited:
Because you're a pilot - not a kid passenger! :D

I really like the 340, but it might be a leap for insurance. Assume 500hrs, comm multi/single +ir, but only maybe 20-30hrs multi (in a Seminole) - even with SimCom they'd probably want a "qualified" CFI to hold my hand for 50hrs because it's pressurized.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Because you're a pilot - not a kid passenger! :D

I really like the 340, but it might be a leap for insurance. Assume 500hrs, comm multi/single +ir, but only maybe 20-30hrs multi (in a Seminole) - even with SimCom they'd probably want a "qualified" CFI to hold my hand for 50hrs because it's pressurized.
Click to expand...

Probably more like like 25, but yeah. Not a horrid idea having a 2 pilot cockpit at least for a while.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I ran a bunch of numbers last night with worst case Seneca V useful loads (which, when optioned out, is pretty lousy in the new ones!!!)
Click to expand...

IIRC, the Seneca III gives you the most options when it comes to weight. The Seneca II's MGTOW is 4570, the III is 4750 so you have 180 extra pounds to play with. Remember to consider the landing and zero fuel weights as well. MLW is 4342 on the II and 4513 on the III; ZFW is 4000 on the II and 4470 on the III. The Seneca IV and V have the same weights as the III, but the options just keep getting heavier so the III is probably the best bet.
 
Dean said:
I know that, but I don't recall any certified airplanes that are turbo charged for HP boost. I thought that turbos for airplanes were designed to give them sea level performance at high altitude.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between a turbocharger and a turbonormalizer. Plenty of planes are turbo*charged* - For instance, the Seneca is boosted to 40" MP.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
IIRC, the Seneca III gives you the most options when it comes to weight. The Seneca II's MGTOW is 4570, the III is 4750 so you have 180 extra pounds to play with. Remember to consider the landing and zero fuel weights as well. MLW is 4342 on the II and 4513 on the III; ZFW is 4000 on the II and 4470 on the III. The Seneca IV and V have the same weights as the III, but the options just keep getting heavier so the III is probably the best bet.
Click to expand...

Just a bit of a precautionary issue here.... While the weights went up, I don't think the power did, so if you fly to a SE Performance specification, the useful load may not have in actallity changed one bit. Just because it's legal, doesn't necessarily make it safe....
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That's the difference between a turbocharger and a turbonormalizer. Plenty of planes are turbo*charged* - For instance, the Seneca is boosted to 40" MP.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, Thanks. Thats what I like about this site. Lots of knowledge here to educate us who are here to learn more about our passion. Me being one of them.:yes:
 
Yea Dean. My A-36 was turbonormalized at 30" of MP up to FL180 (adjusted to conditions). My P-Baron has MP of 39.5 inches and above critical altitude, that can be maintained, but one doesn't because CHTs get too high. I run mine LOP at 35", 2200 RPM and 16.5 gph per side when I cruise up in the flight levels.

I don't disagree with a thing that's been said above but don't see the need to go to a pressurized twin for short trips. The 340 and P-Baron each climb about 700 fpm to keep the engine cool during sustained climbs. Same engines. P-Baron is a bit faster because it's narrower; 340 is cabin class comfort and one gives up a little speed for that. As has been said, there is a K-ice upgrade for the A-36 without tips. If you really like the Beech line; I'd suggest you start with a 58 that's K-ice and move to the P Baron later if the mission calls for it. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of pressurized choices for reasonable prices that were made after the mid 80s and the later models carry a premium.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Let me comment on why I went from a TN A-36 with tip tanks to the P-Baron for just a minute.
If one goes on long trips, one flies over a lot of places at which they'd rather not land <g>. One might not be as familiar with what is below as they would be on a local flight. Many times, in the A-36, there was no problem launching, but one could be over weather conditions that were very bad below. Any critical system failure could cause one to have to descend into those conditions. K-Ice allowed me to try the weather when there were these broad icing NOTAMS over multiple states. I was technically illegal in the A-36 if anything went wrong and I had a couple times Center put me into conditions that were problematic. If I got any ice--ANY--I became concerned. In the Baron, I can deal with some ice and have; just more capability. Many times, just popping the boots solves the problem and they can just proceed. If conditions are worse, one has more time to get out of those conditions before it becomes critical.
I've had a lot of small planes report icing and I've just flown through the area without a problem. If a K-ice plane or RJ reports moderate icing or worse, I plan to avoid the area.

Best,

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Let me comment on why I went from a TN A-36 with tip tanks to the P-Baron for just a minute.
If one goes on long trips, one flies over a lot of places at which they'd rather not land <g>. One might not be as familiar with what is below as they would be on a local flight. Many times, in the A-36, there was no problem launching, but one could be over weather conditions that were very bad below. Any critical system failure could cause one to have to descend into those conditions. K-Ice allowed me to try the weather when there were these broad icing NOTAMS over multiple states. I was technically illegal in the A-36 if anything went wrong and I had a couple times Center put me into conditions that were problematic. If I got any ice--ANY--I became concerned. In the Baron, I can deal with some ice and have; just more capability. Many times, just popping the boots solves the problem and they can just proceed. If conditions are worse, one has more time to get out of those conditions before it becomes critical.
I've had a lot of small planes report icing and I've just flown through the area without a problem. If a K-ice plane or RJ reports moderate icing or worse, I plan to avoid the area.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

And that sums up why I'd like to have a legal FIKI plane. Thanks Dave.
 
Henning said:
Probably more like like 25, but yeah. Not a horrid idea having a 2 pilot cockpit at least for a while.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for dual transition training. I thought the 8hrs I needed for the 182 would be overkill but I was very glad to have done it.
 
Did I miss your estimating what the average cabin load was going to be for your trips?
 
bbchien said:
Did I miss your estimating what the average cabin load was going to be for your trips?
Click to expand...

No, I guess I didn't post that. Family = 440-450 + bags/assorted crap say 50 (but certain to be heavier as the years go on, since I have 2 daughters). That would be the typical load-out. MIL would add another 160ish, which would obviously shorten the range.
 
At 750 in the cabin, mine can take 4:30 of fuel at 65% power, 160 kts and depart 200 undergross, which means it is a fly-away on one after one fails after Vyse (105 mph).

At 750 in the cabin, 6:00 of fuel at 65% power, 160 kts, is okay for an 800 nm trip (zero wind) but I need to depart from the LONG runway.

Seneca II with NICE panel and 1500 useful load, FIKI.
 
Henning said:
Just a bit of a precautionary issue here.... While the weights went up, I don't think the power did, so if you fly to a SE Performance specification, the useful load may not have in actallity changed one bit. Just because it's legal, doesn't necessarily make it safe....
Click to expand...

Nope, they increased max power by 20hp/side on the III as well. :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Nope, they increased max power by 20hp/side on the III as well. :yes:
Click to expand...
....for five minutes on a fuel schedule. If you check out the performance tables, there is still a NET LOSS of SE climb rate at Seneca III full gross to 190 fpm. Really really lousy.

That's why- 200 under gross (5%) is my operational maximum unless I have a huge runway ahead, any CAR 23 light twin.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
At 750 in the cabin, mine can take 4:30 of fuel at 65% power, 160 kts and depart 200 undergross, which means it is a fly-away on one after one fails after Vyse (105 mph).

At 750 in the cabin, 6:00 of fuel at 65% power, 160 kts, is okay for an 800 nm trip (zero wind) but I need to depart from the LONG runway.

Seneca II with NICE panel and 1500 useful load, FIKI.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my 500lbs in a V is equivalent to your 750lbs in the II. I can't imagine ever traveling 800mi non-stop with 3 women in the aircraft.

Does your II have a leather interior? I think that plus soundproofing adds a lot to the gw of the newer planes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top