Is it a too big jump?

Frostyline said:
I am based in Midwest so flying over high mountains or vast open water might be a rare mission, although flying my family to Bahamas for a vacation has been on my bucket list. Now I am leaning towards a 310 or 210 just trying to make sure I will have enough payload to carry 5 and luggage with full tank. Lance may do it depending on its useful load figure. I have not found any Saratoga that has 1500+ useful load yet ( if we all knock down 20 lbs off ourselves we may make it work as well, lol!) Again Thank you all! will keep you guys posted on what I end up with. I only got 3 months to make this happened before I lose the hanger I have been waiting for 5 years to others on the waiting list. is that crazy?
Click to expand...

Why full tanks?

Maybe this is something that comes with experience, but with many planes there's no point to full tanks. My Mooney will taxi out, take off, climb to altitude and *after* that go for seven more hours until the tanks are dry. That's enough to put me in the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic from here in Wisconsin.

So yeah, with full fuel I can only take 520 pounds... But neither I nor any of my passengers really like to sit in an airplane for that long anyway. If I fly three-hour legs, that's 500+ nautical miles, and with a full hour reserve, now I can take more like 750 pounds. So, if I'm by myself and somewhere fuel is cheap? Yeah, top off! But if I'm 4up and bags, why would I want to give a ride to 3 hours of fuel I'm not going to use?

Also, 310s came with fuel systems that held anywhere from 100 to 203 gallons (240 with aftermarket tanks) in anywhere from two to six (eight with aftermarket) tanks. If you just want to be able to visually verify the amount of fuel you have, then maybe just calculating how much weight you can take with main, main+nacelle, main+aux, and all full would be a good exercise. You certainly don't need to start with all tanks full on every flight.
 
More curiosity and learning experience for me.

How often do you fly now? How often do family members fly with you?

It sounds like money isn’t an issue for you, but this strikes me as an expensive investment for a single bucket list trip.

Do you fly for work or to a lake house or similar very often?
 
Frostyline said:
That might be a solution!!! Lol
Click to expand...

That's a serious suggestion. Any airworthy plane should do to hold the hangar until you settle on what you want to buy. If tying up 25k in a trainer for a few months is an issue, then a pressurized piston twin may not be the right option for you.
 
I lost 7 family member when my cousin's husband went from a 182 to a 401 without a lot of training. He got his license in October, twin rating in May, and crashed in August. Just make sure you have the money and the patience to fly with an instructor until you're very competent in the plane.

You already have an instrument rating, this guy did not. You're on the right path. I can't see anyone owning a 401 without an instrument rating. He had less than 120 hours total time when he flew into IMC conditions and hit a mountain killing them all. I guess what I'm saying is, don't be stupid. It's a lot of airplane.
 
weilke said:
That's a serious suggestion. Any airworthy plane should do to hold the hangar until you settle on what you want to buy. If tying up 25k in a trainer for a few months is an issue, then a pressurized piston twin may not be the right option for you.
Click to expand...

Might not need it airworthy. Projects need hangar space, too.
 
If it were me I'd stay well away from a pressurised aircraft. Spend some time reading Richard Collins' articles. The issue with the pressurised singles is that they put you RIGHT in the weather. Because, why would you fly low if you have pressurisation? So you'll be tempted to fly FL190-FL240 and this is the most active part of the atmosphere. Plus I think you'll find that maintenance on the P210 is eyewatering.

I agree that the 310R is a good option, but I suspect, as usual on POA, the correct answer is a Bonanza A36 with realistic fuel planning goals.
My $0.02

(I wish I had your problem though!)
 
Mike Blackburn said:
If it were me I'd stay well away from a pressurised aircraft. Spend some time reading Richard Collins' articles. The issue with the pressurised singles is that they put you RIGHT in the weather. Because, why would you fly low if you have pressurisation? So you'll be tempted to fly FL190-FL240 and this is the most active part of the atmosphere. Plus I think you'll find that maintenance on the P210 is eyewatering.
Click to expand...

Richard Collins articles are mostly way off base, this is no exception. I wish people would stop pointing to what he said.

Pressurization is a tool, just like anything else on an aircraft. Why would you fly low with pressurization? Easy, because there's weather to stay out of or because the headwinds are bad. When I flew the 414 I had a number of trips I made at 6,000 MSL or less because of those factors. Once I flew from NYC to Kansas at 2,500 MSL the whole way squawking 1200 because of headwinds. It would've been slower at FL180. It was a fun trip.

What pressurization lets you do is it also lets you get above some of the weather, bumps clouds, and it's a tool that can help you stay out of icing and more easily navigate around thunderstorms in some cases. Sure, you can use it wrong, but by itself it's a great tool to have.

As a system it can add to MX costs, but mostly what it does is it works the engine(s) harder. If a windshield or other pressurized window goes out, you're talking big bucks. On piston engines usually the result is increased MX costs, but not appreciably vs. turbocharged piston engines in general. My personal opinion is that turbo piston engines should be avoided because of MX issues. Again, it's a tool and you need to understand the pros and cons that go with it.
 
Rgbeard said:
Might not need it airworthy. Projects need hangar space, too.
Click to expand...

'May'. Look at the terms of the lease with the airport sponsor. Some specify at least one airworthy aircraft and require special approval for a project. Some disallow work to be performed in the hangars.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Richard Collins articles are mostly way off base, this is no exception. I wish people would stop pointing to what he said.

Pressurization is a tool, just like anything else on an aircraft. Why would you fly low with pressurization? Easy, because there's weather to stay out of or because the headwinds are bad. When I flew the 414 I had a number of trips I made at 6,000 MSL or less because of those factors. Once I flew from NYC to Kansas at 2,500 MSL the whole way squawking 1200 because of headwinds. It would've been slower at FL180. It was a fun trip.

What pressurization lets you do is it also lets you get above some of the weather, bumps clouds, and it's a tool that can help you stay out of icing and more easily navigate around thunderstorms in some cases. Sure, you can use it wrong, but by itself it's a great tool to have.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Mike Blackburn said:
If it were me I'd stay well away from a pressurised aircraft. Spend some time reading Richard Collins' articles. The issue with the pressurised singles is that they put you RIGHT in the weather. Because, why would you fly low if you have pressurisation? So you'll be tempted to fly FL190-FL240 and this is the most active part of the atmosphere.

I agree that the 310R is a good option, but I suspect, as usual on POA, the correct answer is a Bonanza A36 with realistic fuel planning goals.
My $0.02

(I wish I had your problem though!)
Click to expand...

My experience has been exactly the opposite. When I was flying the 310 I was in IMC and ice all the time. Moving to the Conquest the exposure time is greatly limited, and the ability to avoid certain weather has been greatly enhanced. Also, I personally enjoy having a sea level cabin when I choose to fly at 9k feet for whatever reason.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
More curiosity and learning experience for me.

How often do you fly now? How often do family members fly with you?

It sounds like money isn’t an issue for you, but this strikes me as an expensive investment for a single bucket list trip.

Do you fly for work or to a lake house or similar very often?
Click to expand...
it all depends on my schedule. I can fly 2-3 hours everyday if I need to. want to keep flying and stepping up on higher performance later on. got one child out of college already and close by us. I know most of time it will only carry 2 or 4, and for 5 it might be once or twice a year for family vacation. Just do not want to get a plane that only holds four or five with only 2 hours fuel in it...90% of the time a 4 or lighter 6 seater might be just fine, but certainly I do not want leave anyone out or limit my choices of destinations.
 
I am looking at both normally aspirated 210 and P210 now. Has anyone had any experience with a P210 that has no AC in it? How long it will take to cool down during a hot summer day given it is pressurized, that means less cool air coming into cabin even you are at 8000 altitude. The regular 210 I am sure will cool down pretty quick with vent open once you are high. I heard the vent air coming into a P210 comes from the exhaust bypass, so will the air be warm?
 
Frostyline said:
I am looking at both normally aspirated 210 and P210 now. Has anyone had any experience with a P210 that has no AC in it? How long it will take to cool down during a hot summer day given it is pressurized, that means less cool air coming into cabin even you are at 8000 altitude. The regular 210 I am sure will cool down pretty quick with vent open once you are high. I heard the vent air coming into a P210 comes from the exhaust bypass, so will the air be warm?
Click to expand...

I have no P210 time, but the 414 I flew had inop AC.

The trick I found that really helped was taking off with the storm windows open (on the 414 they're the little triangle windows towards the front). There was no speed restriction on those windows, I would keep them open and then close them when the cabin cooled off, typically around 8k ft or so on those hot summer days. If I had a lower altitude trip in the summer I learned leaving them open the entire time was a good idea.

I'd imagine similar for the P210. Another option you can go for is get one of those ice-powered air conditioners to "take the edge off". I had one of those and it helped significantly in the 414, but that said the windows were easier and cheaper, just a big noisier.
 
Frostyline said:
it all depends on my schedule. I can fly 2-3 hours everyday if I need to. want to keep flying and stepping up on higher performance later on. got one child out of college already and close by us. I know most of time it will only carry 2 or 4, and for 5 it might be once or twice a year for family vacation. Just do not want to get a plane that only holds four or five with only 2 hours fuel in it...90% of the time a 4 or lighter 6 seater might be just fine, but certainly I do not want leave anyone out or limit my choices of destinations.
Click to expand...

So, what about when your kids start finding spouses and having their own kids? This sounds like the scenario that pushed Dave S into the King Air!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Richard Collins articles are mostly way off base, this is no exception. I wish people would stop pointing to what he said.

Pressurization is a tool, just like anything else on an aircraft. Why would you fly low with pressurization? Easy, because there's weather to stay out of or because the headwinds are bad. When I flew the 414 I had a number of trips I made at 6,000 MSL or less because of those factors. Once I flew from NYC to Kansas at 2,500 MSL the whole way squawking 1200 because of headwinds. It would've been slower at FL180. It was a fun trip.
Click to expand...

Lots of 414 pilots I know regularly fly their planes under 10k feet, and only go up when the winds or weather take them there.
 
N1120A said:
Lots of 414 pilots I know regularly fly their planes under 10k feet, and only go up when the winds or weather take them there.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I normally liked FL180-200 but for me a short trip was 500 nm.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Agreed. I normally liked FL180-200 but for me a short trip was 500 nm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mission is critical, and so is airspace. If someone is tooling around NorCal or SoCal airspace, it is likely that they are going to do a TEC route at 5000-9000' in any piston, regardless of what they are flying. Also depends on direction - I bet you were more likely to sit down low going East to West.
 
N1120A said:
Yeah, mission is critical, and so is airspace. If someone is tooling around NorCal or SoCal airspace, it is likely that they are going to do a TEC route at 5000-9000' in any piston, regardless of what they are flying. Also depends on direction - I bet you were more likely to sit down low going East to West.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was when I had the aforementioned 6000 MSL or lower trips, including the 2,500 MSL flight from NYC to KC.

In reality I don't think my average block times improved any going to the 414 from the 310. What did improve was the load carrying capacity due to interior space and the range (414 had 203 gallons, 310 had 140).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yes, that was when I had the aforementioned 6000 MSL or lower trips, including the 2,500 MSL flight from NYC to KC.

In reality I don't think my average block times improved any going to the 414 from the 310. What did improve was the load carrying capacity due to interior space and the range (414 had 203 gallons, 310 had 140).
Click to expand...

Oh sure - the 310 is a beast. In many ways, a much better aircraft than the 414. Where the 414 beats a lot of planes is on comfort level, and that is what sold and still sells them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Get a couple of hundred hours in a smaller twin first then move up. I bought my Seneca II, did my training, and flew it about 300 hours then moved up to a pa-31p. If you clearly layout with your instructor how you will be doing engine shutdowns you will be fine training it a turbo charged aircraft, just don't let him wreck your engines. I loved my Seneca, it an easy airplane to learn in, simple fuel system, good on one engine, lots of room, 25gph at 170kts, and had one cylinder replaced in 300hours on past tbo engines. I prefer a twin hands down, quiet cabin, actual heat!, typically more room, and can be purchased much cheaper offsetting the cost of fuel and maintenance.
 
Man... more twin talk. The economy must be good.

Have you ever owned before? I feel like owning a plane and facing the maintenance and operating expenses is a learning experience in and of itself, and I sure wouldn’t want to learn that part on a twin, let alone a turbo’ed pressurized twin. As far as I can tell, you don’t have a mission that requires a twin, anyway.

I personally wouldn’t recommend going much past a turbo 210. Super useful, and less painful than a 340 if something goes wrong, although it can still eat you alive.

FWIW, going to a 340 from 30 hours in a Comanche 250 strikes me as, hmmm... let me be delicate, insane.
 
AA5Bman said:
Have you ever owned before? I feel like owning a plane and facing the maintenance and operating expenses is a learning experience in and of itself, and I sure wouldn’t want to learn that part on a twin, let alone a turbo’ed pressurized twin. As far as I can tell, you don’t have a mission that requires a twin, anyway.

I personally wouldn’t recommend going much past a turbo 210. Super useful, and less painful than a 340 if something goes wrong, although it can still eat you alive.
Click to expand...

This...

The way to get into ownership, since you need a 6-seater, is probably via a fixed-gear 6-seater. Cherokee Six, Saratoga FG, Cessna 206.

If you must get a retract, the 210 is an option but the gear system on the high-wings can be expensive. Lance/Saratoga is also a very popular option here.

You *may* save enough on initial acquisition costs of a 310 that the additional maintenance costs are a wash in the short term. Insurance is still going to be pretty bad the first year.

Leave the turbos alone. You don't need them and they're just another way to increase costs. Save them for when you have the experience and pocketbook for that pressurized bird. Your family probably doesn't want to shove straws up their nose. Hell, I have built-in oxygen in my plane and I don't like to either - It dries you out something crazy. It's not fun to have a burning sensation when you breathe.

But in the grand scheme of things - This isn't just about pilot experience, but also about ownership experience. I'd hate for you to be one of the people who buys too much airplane to start out with and loses a crap-ton of money and has to stop flying for many years (which usually means permanently). I've seen that far too many times.

Here's how to tell you're ready for the 340: When you start saying things like "only $10,000" and you're not being ironic about it.
 
A quick update...looked pretty hard on few 340As and got really close on buying one but long story short insurance made me change my mind. I bought a T210M with G500, GTN750, JPI900, STEC 55X, and 796 panel mounted and flew 20 hours so far. Love it. Insurance costs me $3900 annually and only 5 hour dual time. Much more reasonable!!!
 
Thanks for letting us know how it turned out! Glad to hear you are happy with the decision. I think you made one of the better choices, all things considered.
 
Frostyline said:
A quick update...looked pretty hard on few 340As and got really close on buying one but long story short insurance made me change my mind. I bought a T210M with G500, GTN750, JPI900, STEC 55X, and 796 panel mounted and flew 20 hours so far. Love it. Insurance costs me $3900 annually and only 5 hour dual time. Much more reasonable!!!
Click to expand...

Great choice. Enjoy !




200 hrs from now get another quote for insurance and ask for some multi-year maintenance spreadsheets from honest 340 or 414 owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top