Help me choose a plane for my mission (Hawaii)

timtower

timtower

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 17, 2024
Messages
5
Location
Honolulu, HI
Display Name
Display name:
timtower
Hi all, I’m a long-time lurker, first-time poster and would love your help choosing a plane for my mission.

About me: I’m based in Honolulu and currently working on my IR. I anticipate I will have about 200 hours by the time I pass that checkride. I’m also planning on doing commercial and multi after IR. All my flight time has been in C172s.

My mission:
  • Three passengers + myself (700 lbs), golf bags (100 lbs), + overnight bags (50 lbs) = approx 850 lbs total
  • 100 to 200 nm trips around the Hawaiian Islands, primarily over open ocean.
  • For sightseeing purposes, I typically cruise around 4,000-6,000’ MSL and operate exclusively out of paved runways, which generally are greater than 5,000’. However, I occasionally land at Kalaupapa (2700’) because it is an insanely beautiful experience.
  • Plane needs to fit in a t-hangar (42’ width x 36’ long)
  • Looking to spend less than $800k all-in, which includes any repairs and ferrying to Hawaii. Having said that, I would prefer to spend less, and I am not sure that I would even be insurable to that amount.
With that in mind, here are the two aircraft that I am considering. Please let me know what you think and if there are any other aircraft I should be considering:

C206 – I feel like this plane would meet my requirements well. I assume that it would not be a difficult transition from a C172 and I prefer a high-wing design because it’s great for sightseeing, which is one of the biggest perks of flying in Hawaii. Since I do not plan on flying with more than 4 people, I would likely remove the aft seats. Do you think I would be insurable in a C206 if with 200 hours and an IR?

Baron E55 or 58. The big caveat here is that I do not have my multi rating and have never flown a multi so I am not sure that I would even like it. Having said that, I operate over very inhospitable terrain - mostly ocean, but jungle/mountainous if I happen to be over land when the engine quits. I have read many articles debating the safety of piston twins and realize that, statistically, piston twins are generally not safer than singles. However, I feel the comparison is more representative of aircraft that are not exclusively flying over water. The reason I chose a Baron over other twins is performance and having enough space for the golf clubs. I don’t want a twin with anemic single engine performance because that defeats the point of having a twin. Hypothetically, though, would I even be insurable in a twin with my multi rating at say 250 hours?

Side comments: I like the Paternavia P68s, which are both high wing and twin engine but I would be concerned about parts support as the Vulcanair website is non-functional. I also like the DA42’s, but unfortunately the long wingspan wouldn’t fit in any of the t-hangars on-island, which rules them out of contention.

Thanks for any input,
Tim
 
The Barons were going to be my suggestion.
 
You can’t go wrong with the 206. If money is an issue get an insurance quote on the twins.
 
If I were you, I would get a 182 P/Q/R with ~1300 lbs of useful load and put a BRS in it (takes up 85 lbs and some baggage room).
With ~1200 lbs of useful (after BRS), you will be able to fill 40 gal of fuel (240 lbs) and have 950 lbs of payload.
40 gals is good for 2 hrs (plus 1 hr reserve), which is good for 260 miles.
In case of an engine out, pull the chute and call ATC to send help.
You can have a very nice 182 for $250K. Save the rest of your budget.


Enjoy Hawaii flying.
 
Came here expecting another “I have 5 hours as a student pilot and want to get a plane to make weekend trips from my unimproved backyard in Fresno to Hawaii.” Glad to be wrong.

I like the 182 and BRS idea. You don’t need more speed for the short trips you’re talking about. You do want downward visibility and you don’t want to ever make a forced landing. A Cirrus would be easier to find with BRS of course, but probably not haul your specified load and they don’t make them won’t transparent wings (yet). A 206 would be awesome but I don’t think you can get BRS for it.

For long distances over inhospitable terrain, a twin that you can remain proficient in is the best choice. Why parachute into the ocean or jungle when you can fly to an airport? You should probably focus more on passenger comfort than speed and single-engine performance. You don’t need a single-engine service ceiling in the flight levels. If it quits over water, 1,000 feet will do. Over land, it won’t just teleport down to the single-engine ceiling, so you can probably make a safe turn and gradual descent toward the shore. And the difference between 150 knots and 200 knots is, in my book, negligible on a 200 nm trip.

One suggestion I have is to look around at the planes you see in Hawaii already. If you see 1,000 of one type and 0 of another, you can reasonably infer that it will be easier to arrange a ferry of the first type than the second (airworthy ferry tanks and a willing ferry pilot). Beyond that, any plane you own is going to make you very happy (and, at times, very frustrated—but compared with golfing you’ll spend more time happy thank frustrated).
 
Brad Z said:
I kinda like the Skymaster for this mission. The hangar size might be an issue though.
Click to expand...
Was thinking the same thing. "Man, a SkyMaster would probably suit this mission pretty well." Centerline thrust with plenty of payload, high wing so you have better downward visibility, and relatively cheap to procure. Not sure about getting one TO Hawaii though, maybe turn it into a flying gas can.
 
timtower said:
Baron E55 or 58. The big caveat here is that I do not have my multi rating and have never flown a multi so I am not sure that I would even like it.
Click to expand...
You will like it. I would almost put money that your first take off and climbout will put a big smile on your face. Remember that everyone that flies a twin did not have a multi rating at one point.

timtower said:
I have read many articles debating the safety of piston twins and realize that, statistically, piston twins are generally not safer than singles.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am sure there is a lot of articles about the twin that crashed, But how many articles are published about all the twins that shut one engine down and returned safely to the airport.??

A twin is not safer to uneducated pilots usually because of lack of recurrency training. Whether a private pilot or an ATP, recurrent training in twins is necessary. Well, required for the pro pilots. And a lot more than the once every 2 year thing. Doesn't the instrument rating require some sort of recurrency?

My real world experience, I have had 3 losses of power in singles. Not total engine loss, just major loss of power that made it impossible to stay in the air. I was fortunate that all 3 times I was close enough to a landing area to set down safely. Otherwise I might have ''landed'' on a grizzly bears dinner table.

One night in a twin I lost oil pressure on the right engine, which had about 10 hours since overhaul. On that engine I reduced power to idle, feathered the prop, pulled the mixture to fuel shut off, turned off the mags, fuel pump, and alternator, then I let ATC know what happened and that I wanted to return to Albuquerque, and did so. Also declared an emergency, then after parking and shutting down at the airport I jumped out and thanked the guys in the trucks for being ready to do their job. If I had been in a single engine that night I would have landed in the Rio Grande.

I think the 206 is my all around favorite plane. One summer I did flight seeing tours around Mt McKinley in a 206. Another summer I did a lot of off airport work in a 206 equipped with bush wheels and tires. I have done really short TOs and landings in a 206. And carried everything I needed.

The 182 would also work for you. While costing a little less to operate than the 206, it also will not carry the unplanned baggage or passenger weights like the 206 will.

Also the 206 and 182 are sort of similar in flight. Transition training from a 172 to the 182 or 206 will not be a problem. Both are just a little more nose heavy when empty than the 172, so whichever plane you choose you might want to load it up to near max weight on one training flight.

Insurance might be a little higher in the 206 for you starting out. The SE comm might help lower the cost a little.
 
Just seconding that a high single engine service ceiling seems unnecessary if you're likely not cruising very high in the first place for sight seeing or short flights. If you go high, you can drift down slowly back towards shore/away from mountain peaks and maintain well above pattern altitude.
 
I'v LOVE my C206 for the 40 years I've flown it. It's too bad amphibious floats on are so expensive to own and operate, along with the reduction in cruise speed, but the only thing that really scared flying in Hawaii was sharks, which seemed to be a reasonble concern if landing on the water and being injured enough to bleed in a life jacket as the plane sank and rescue boats were summoned. People forget that crash landing with floats is safer than crash landing on wheels in most circumstances. But as I say, the cost of insurance and maintenance is nearly prohibitve. Still, a C206 on wheels with four people has plenty of room for an inflatable raft as well as inflatable life jackets for everyone.
 
Wow! There are a lot of well-thought-out replies here. Thanks, everyone! I'm a little new the quote feature, but here we go

MountainDude said:
If I were you, I would get a 182 P/Q/R with ~1300 lbs of useful load and put a BRS in it (takes up 85 lbs and some baggage room).
Click to expand...

I think the 182 is a fantastic plane, I'm just not sure it will fit golf clubs with 4 adults, unfortunately. I know the 182's have an STC for a cargo pod and I wonder if that would fit golf clubs.

Dave Theisen said:
Humble brag, I live in Hawaii and can afford an airplane. :)
Click to expand...

It hasn't always been that way!

Brad Z said:
I kinda like the Skymaster for this mission. The hangar size might be an issue though.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. I forgot about the Skymaster. I'll have to do some more research into them.

Zeldman said:
My real world experience, I have had 3 losses of power in singles. Not total engine loss, just major loss of power that made it impossible to stay in the air. I was fortunate that all 3 times I was close enough to a landing area to set down safely. Otherwise I might have ''landed'' on a grizzly bears dinner table.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a lot! I saw a statistic that the average piston engine failure rate is 1 per 3200 hrs.
 
I got my instrument and CFI while living in Hawaii back in the early 80's. Personally, I would be looking for a retractable airplane to increase chances of survival for ditching. In reality it may not help much, if you ditch in one of the channels between the islands. Winds and seas are normally pretty high in Hawaii as you know. Twin would better your chances of not ditching.

If you buy a plane that needs to be ferried there, I would contact Flight Contract Services. The owner, Fried Sorenson, has been doing it for decades. https://www.flightcontractservices.com/
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
In the 1960s, the Air Force flew quite a few of them from the US to Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Did they fly them or put them on a ship?

I thought most of the O- birds were carried on ships and on and off loaded in port (not flown off).
 
Pinecone said:
Did they fly them or put them on a ship?

I thought most of the O- birds were carried on ships and on and off loaded in port (not flown off).
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that they flew them over there.

From the googler: "Civilian pilots flew O-2s in flights of four from Cessna’s Wichita, Kansas, plant to Hamilton AFB in California. At Hamilton, the Air Force removed all the seats except the left front and installed extra fuel and oil tanks and an emergency radio."

So, it appears civilians got them as far as California, and perhaps military pilots took them the rest of the way. Not a job I would volunteer to do.
 
Interesting. I know their have been ferry flights of GA aircraft to NZ and Australia.

When we are over a beer sometime I will tell you about a former instructor of mine and O-2s. :D
 
First, congrats on getting your IR. After you get that, great that you're planning on Commercial and Multi.

Second, good to do some serious planning now on what plane.

Third, don't buy anything. At least not yet. You've only flown 172's so far. Rent 182's, some 206's, some multi's, other things. Fly for another year or so, another 100 hours or so at least. That will give you a much better feeling for what really fits your needs, what you really like to fly, etc.

I'm guessing the easier to maintain fixed gear 206 will be a great choice eventually for you.
 
Just have to say, you have my respect flying in Hawaii. I've done a couple of flights there and the terrain, wind, turbulence, fog, and over-water flying is more than my wimpy ass could deal with!
 
I went straight to the Skymaster as well in my mind, and a fixed gear 182 or 206 as the less expensive (to operate), less maintenance option.

I think the Skymaster has a 38.x ft. wingspan.. as do the DA-40's, so it's tight but fits in a 40ft hangar.

..and IMO Skymaster wins the coolness factor.
 
WDD said:
First, congrats on getting your IR. After you get that, great that you're planning on Commercial and Multi.

Second, good to do some serious planning now on what plane.

Third, don't buy anything. At least not yet. You've only flown 172's so far. Rent 182's, some 206's, some multi's, other things. Fly for another year or so, another 100 hours or so at least. That will give you a much better feeling for what really fits your needs, what you really like to fly, etc.

I'm guessing the easier to maintain fixed gear 206 will be a great choice eventually for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks WDD, this is probably the intelligent thing to do.

For the rest of the group - any idea whether I would I be insurable in a 206, Skymaster or baron with say 250 hours and IR, commercial and multi ratings? I understand there will likely be some training requirements with the "type" if I were insurable.
 
In your budget are new P2006T. Absolutely nothing wrong with a 58 or a 310, but the Tecnam might be a niche for you.

Just a personal thing, but I just won’t do open water in a single. It takes one engine out experience to form that opinion…and I’ve had mine already.
 
I like the 182 with BRS. But I am biased, I have most of my time in a Cirrus.
A Cirrus SR22 could handle the UL; but I highly doubt it would handle the golf clubs. The baggage area is just not tall enough, unless you are all very short and use kids clubs. I have never tried to carry golf clubs in a Cirrus, so it might be worth looking for a local Cirrus and try it.

In terms of twins, I really love the Aerostar. Pressurized, super fast, incredible fun to fly with extremely well balanced controls all connected via push rods, very high UL.... I had one for over 300 hours in two years, before realizing I was never going to get used to fuel bill. So as much as loved the plane, I realized that after two years and all those hours, I would eventually make a dumb decision because I was aware of the fuel costs; I had it listed for sale within a couple weeks of that realization. For this reason, I would skip the Baron or any of the larger twins; the cost of avgas in HI I would believe would be eye watering.

The twins I would consider, would be smaller ones, where sure the single engine performance at 5K is pretty anemic, but that is not material in HI. Piper Twin Commanche, Piper Seminole, the newer Technam Rotax twin, and there is a Beech one I forget the name. Basically, if you want a twin, I would stick to the ones powered by the smaller 360 range engines or a Rotax. With the Rotax, you can actually burn road gas, which is much cheaper in HI then avgas when I last visited. The question would be if you are allowed to bring in autofuel to the airport (some airports ban if, not going to get into why).

If you are willing to go experimental; I like the Velocity V-Twin. There is a very nice one for sale on Controller right now.

Tim
 
I did my commercial multi in the Twin Tecnam P2006T. I would not choose this plane for your mission. There is enough useful load to fill the tanks, two adults up front and a small human or bags in the back. With half tanks, you can do three adults without bags.
 
farangutan said:
I did my commercial multi in the Twin Tecnam P2006T. I would not choose this plane for your mission. There is enough useful load to fill the tanks, two adults up front and a small human or bags in the back. With half tanks, you can do three adults without bags.
Click to expand...

I recall it being better than that. Not by much, but better. So I went and checked the Tecnam page. Ouch. It would be way too marginal for me. You are correct.

Tim
 
Talked to a guy who owned a Bonanza down in the Florida Keys, and he told me that if you kept the plane down there you had to consider it to be a disposable airplane due to salt corrosion. He said he was fully prepared to scrap it when the time came. Is that something you have factor when having a plane in Hawaii?

Agree with BigMo, open water in a single is not very comfortable. Baron is a great option.
 
tspear said:
No, that was big and slow. But enough of a hint to remember. The Duchess was the one I was thinking of.

Tim
Click to expand...
But he'd look good in a Duke. :smilewinkgrin:

I was actually thinking the model 95 Travel Air would be a good fit for island hopping.
 
iamtheari said:
But he'd look good in a Duke. :smilewinkgrin:

I was actually thinking the model 95 Travel Air would be a good fit for island hopping.
Click to expand...

Ha, I definitely don't think I could get insurance for a cabin-class twin. But if I could, I kinda like the Cessna T303.
 
timtower said:
Ha, I definitely don't think I could get insurance for a cabin-class twin. But if I could, I kinda like the Cessna T303.
Click to expand...
I went from a Cirrus SR20 at around 350 hours to an Aerostar. Required a course with an approved instructor. About 20 hours ground and 10 in the air (plus homework). Was a one week class. Then 25 hours of a mentor pilot. Then a proficiency check at three and six months; which were around a two hour flight each.
This was in 2012; with a no sub-limit insurance policy.

If you are willing to follow the rules, you might be surprised at what they will let you do.

Tim
 
iamtheari said:
I like the 182 and BRS idea.
Click to expand...
I think that is a much wiser approach.
Also, not sure how things work in HI as far as available mechanics and parts, but if you're not in a hurry I would consider an RV-10 build (1000 lbs and change useful load) since you could then get a repairman's certificate and maintain it yourself. Buy the 182 to use in the meantime.
 
timtower said:
About me: I’m based in Honolulu and currently working on my IR. I anticipate I will have about 200 hours by the time I pass that checkride. I’m also planning on doing commercial and multi after IR. All my flight time has been in C172s.

My mission:
  • Three passengers + myself (700 lbs), golf bags (100 lbs), + overnight bags (50 lbs) = approx 850 lbs total
  • 100 to 200 nm trips around the Hawaiian Islands, primarily over open ocean.
  • For sightseeing purposes, I typically cruise around 4,000-6,000’ MSL and operate exclusively out of paved runways, which generally are greater than 5,000’. However, I occasionally land at Kalaupapa (2700’) because it is an insanely beautiful experience.
  • Plane needs to fit in a t-hangar (42’ width x 36’ long)
  • Looking to spend less than $800k all-in, which includes any repairs and ferrying to Hawaii. Having said that, I would prefer to spend less, and I am not sure that I would even be insurable to that amount.
Click to expand...
Bonus points for so clearly defining your mission!

I like the 182 with a BRS idea... Except the idea of ditching in open ocean, where survivability is very much in question. If you always wore some kind of life vest that had dye packs and flares available, and carried a survival raft knowing full well the plane may sink before you can get it out, maybe.

For what it's worth, the Kauai Channel is the largest chunk of open water and it's narrower than Lake Michigan. If you want to go with a single, it's also possible to get one with better glide characteristics and take it up high enough that you can hopefully land on a beach instead of ditching in open water. The 182 is not that bird.

Someone mentioned a DA40, and while it has the best view outside of any by far even though it's a low wing (leading edge is slightly behind the pilot), it's going to be tight in the hangars and will not carry 850 pounds without leaving a lot of fuel behind, probably enough that it wouldn't make it 200nm nonstop any more. 150nm, maybe... Or leave behind 25 pounds of payload (so, 825lb on board) and you'd be able to make it 200nm. It does have a baggage compartment that is great for things like skis and golf clubs though, and it also has excellent glide characteristics, but you'll still have a bit of exposure time in the middle of the channel. The composite airframe means a lot less to worry about when it comes to corrosion as well.

Really, this is a job for a twin. And it doesn't need to be a super-powerful twin. Keep in mind that in theory a twin can still climb 50fpm at its single-engine service ceiling, so it should be able to hold that altitude or one slightly below it. Your biggest concern with your mission isn't the few seconds from liftoff until clearing obstacles, it's the time spent cruising over some very inhospitable terrain. With the lightest twins, you can think of it like being a single where only half the engine can fail at a time. It's not going to be much different from a single if you lose one ten feet off the ground, but once you're well above surrounding terrain it will get you to an airport.

Now, even a Partenavia won't have the greatest of visibility out the side windows due to the nacelles. Pax would be able to see down, but *only* down and not very far to the side. However, if you can find an Observer model, the front-seat view would be spectacular.

I've always been impressed by how slim the nacelles are on the Cessna 310 compared to a lot of the other twins out there. Plus, it's got a very nice, roomy cabin and if you buy the right one (1964 or later) you'll be able to throw your golf clubs in a nacelle locker - I have heard that each nacelle locker is good for two sets of clubs, so you'll want one with the 163 gallon fuel system. The 310R (1975 or later) also has a longer nose with a baggage locker that's good for another four sets of clubs.

If avgas cost is a concern at all, the Twin Comanche is a good option - It's probably the best of the "baby" twins with sub-200hp 4-banger engines: Lots produced and thus easier to find, slightly more speed and efficiency, and a pretty good single engine ceiling of 7,000 feet. You may be able to find one with the "Miller mods" for extended nose with baggage compartment and extended engine nacelles with baggage compartments, though I'm not sure if the nacelle lockers are big enough for golf clubs on this plane (the nose supposedly is).

Keep us posted!
 
Have you considered a Piper PA34-200 Seneca? With counter rotating IO-360 200HP naturally aspirated engines it seems a really good match for your mission over open water. Piper made over 900 of them so there are still some around.
 
I’m not convinced that 200hp can keep all the OP describes airborne with one engine, so IMO it’s all the negatives of a twin with no benefit. Same with the tecnam mentioned prior. Jmo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top