Is it worth it?/Which aircraft

4 people + over 15,000 feet + know icing = either a twin or a turbine single. Asking one reciprocating engine to handle that load is asking too much.
 
FormerHangie said:
4 people + over 15,000 feet + know icing = either a twin or a turbine single. Asking one reciprocating engine to handle that load is asking too much.
Click to expand...

Im inclined to agree with you. A seneca or b58 May be up to the task. Pressurized maybe a 421 or 340.
 
I'll go ahead and suggest what I'm flying now, MU-2F. Expect around 75-80 gallons one way for the trip (which won't be too much different from the TBM), purchase price way lower than the turbines and in-line with a lower cost PA46. Turbine reliability and much faster. Piper Cheyenne is another option that can be had for similar cost to an MU-2F and speeds not different enough to notice for that short a trip.

You've got a very wide variety in your list and most people aren't looking at a 182RG and a TBM in the same evaluation. So it depends on how much the comfort, useful load, and speed matter. On a 270 nm trip you'll see maybe a 1:15 block time in an MU-2 or TBM, and about a 2 hour block time in a 182RG/210, maybe 1:45 in the PA46. With headwinds the slower airplanes will see a much more noticeable change in block times.

A Cessna 340/414/421 would also do the job in about the same time as a PA46 with bigger cabins and better useful load, but I'm still licking my wounds from the 414's inability to stay out of the maintenance shop. Just hard to operate them with any reliability.

One fellow who used to be a regular on here said that for business trips, 1 hour was about all that people wanted to spend on travel to be able to make it to the job site, get a good day's work in, and get back in a reasonable timeframe. When I was flying charters in the Navajo the 1:30-1:45 block times we typically saw seemed to be fine, but we also kept the bar well stocked and it was usually emptied on the flight home.

I think one question is what is your background. The answer today might not be the ideal answer, but might allow you to step up in that direction in a safe manner. For example, if you have no multi time, you can't buy an MU-2. Need a minimum of 100 hours of multi, and it's really not an entry level twin. Cheyenne, that's more doable. But if you're a low time pilot (say 200 hours or so), then starting off with something like a 210 or a 310/Baron/Aztec might be a good way to start getting you in the right direction for some of the other options that will do the job better long term.
 
Tantalum said:
Also, that 6 passenger seating can be misleading, as others said it really isn't a 6 person plane. Frankly most GA are really 2 person planes when full fuel and baggage is considered. You can coax 4 pax out of many GA planes, but once you factor in luggage, the 30 lbs of crap in the back that just flies around with you (oil, chocks, books, etc.) and fuel, you start getting tight on your WB
Click to expand...

Full fuel is generally not needed for 270 mile trip, even with IFR reserves.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Lots of issues arise when a inexperienced pilot is tasked with “providing reliable transportation for passengers.” The OP has said little of his/her experience.
Click to expand...

The first thing that prospective passengers must be told is "We might have to land short and drive," or "We might have to turn around and come back." Letting passenger expectations drive decision-making is the road to ruin.

Bob
 
They buy a ticket. I take them where and when they want to go. Been doing it over 30yrs. Expensive hardware and (some would argue) pilots.
 
wayne said:
Full fuel is generally not needed for 270 mile trip, even with IFR reserves.
Click to expand...
Good point. But I imagine that plane would eventually have more of a mission than just that one trip. Money being no object PC12 / TBM is the plane to go with. Money being an object Bonanza or 210. It will be hard to find a plane though that will do it for cheaper than $50K / year
 
PA46's could be a good place to start. Either piston or turboprop variety.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Pascal Forget said:
You could consider a Diamond DA42. Fast, modern and holding its value, especially the more recent Ng and VI variants.

No fiki though. Use the plane 80% of the time, in vfr or light imc, and use the car when icing or really bad imc is forecasted.
Click to expand...

Huh? DA42 has FIKI TKS as a factory option, and I'm pretty sure all TKS-equipped DA42s are certified for FIKI. (There was never a non-FIKI version like there is/was with the SR22.)
 
Bonanza V35 would be good for that mission!
 
JDACO said:
Bonanza V35 would be good for that mission!
Click to expand...

Uh, I hope this is just the obligatory "you need a Bonanza" post, since it's not really a good airplane for the mission:

4 passengers (ie, 5 people) - Only if you have the baggage compartment seats and one of the pax is small enough to sit back there and is willing to climb back there or go through the baggage door.
15,000 feet - Not really in any reasonable amount of time.
200 knots - Nope.
 
OOOPS! I miss-read the OP... I thought his mission was just a little under 300 x-country a few times a month. Good catch, Sorry!
 
If a piston single is/was an option, you could also add the Corvalis/TTX which I believe also came FIKI equipped. It can also land again at MTOW unlike the SR22 which I though needs to burn off about 100lbs or so to land.

For the SR22T/TTx I would think the chance of 4 passengers all averaging to FAA adult weights will be tough. For example, if the OP would share more info...are the other 3 passengers ladies or guys or a mix. If they are all guys and just one is over average weight, well...."We're gonna need a bigger boat"

And gosh knows you'll be lucky to fly half of the time you want to unless its in a non-winter, non t-storms area.

EDIT: Oops..the OP meant 4 passengers, not 4 people total. I don't think the Corvalis/TTx had a 5th seat.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'll go ahead and suggest what I'm flying now, MU-2F. Expect around 75-80 gallons one way for the trip (which won't be too much different from the TBM), purchase price way lower than the turbines and in-line with a lower cost PA46. Turbine reliability and much faster. Piper Cheyenne is another option that can be had for similar cost to an MU-2F and speeds not different enough to notice for that short a trip.

You've got a very wide variety in your list and most people aren't looking at a 182RG and a TBM in the same evaluation. So it depends on how much the comfort, useful load, and speed matter. On a 270 nm trip you'll see maybe a 1:15 block time in an MU-2 or TBM, and about a 2 hour block time in a 182RG/210, maybe 1:45 in the PA46. With headwinds the slower airplanes will see a much more noticeable change in block times.

A Cessna 340/414/421 would also do the job in about the same time as a PA46 with bigger cabins and better useful load, but I'm still licking my wounds from the 414's inability to stay out of the maintenance shop. Just hard to operate them with any reliability.

One fellow who used to be a regular on here said that for business trips, 1 hour was about all that people wanted to spend on travel to be able to make it to the job site, get a good day's work in, and get back in a reasonable timeframe. When I was flying charters in the Navajo the 1:30-1:45 block times we typically saw seemed to be fine, but we also kept the bar well stocked and it was usually emptied on the flight home.

I think one question is what is your background. The answer today might not be the ideal answer, but might allow you to step up in that direction in a safe manner. For example, if you have no multi time, you can't buy an MU-2. Need a minimum of 100 hours of multi, and it's really not an entry level twin. Cheyenne, that's more doable. But if you're a low time pilot (say 200 hours or so), then starting off with something like a 210 or a 310/Baron/Aztec might be a good way to start getting you in the right direction for some of the other options that will do the job better long term.
Click to expand...

I think that’s a great plane, my buddy has one and flies the pants off it all over. I love taking rides in it. Great plane. But you gotta fly that plane a lot to be great at it. If you are not great at flying that plane, it can kill ya! Plus they cost a lot to fly. Plus MU2 school every year. I’m not knocking The MU2. Again awesome plane. Would love to be able to afford and fly some day. Only cheap shot is it’s a noisy MF:p

My vote would be for piston twin, such as Navajo, reasonably quick( not MU2 quick), reliable, cheaper to maintain but they do like fuel. The 310 imo doesn’t give you that much more useful load then a 182. If this is for a business having the added safety of a second engine is nice. Plus a beefier twin will give you useful load for days.
 
5 People total and FIKI narrow the field. Can't get 5 adults in a Cirrus, at least not more than once.;-) Flight above 15K (really above 10K if you want to be nice) with non-pilot pax means pressurization which further weeds out the field. The PA46 is the cheapest to acquire and operate that meet those criteria but some pressurized piston twins, or a light Turboprop like a Meridian or TBM would certainly shine here. I would lean towards a turboprop carrying employees for safety and get a big insurance policy, which you probably won't be able to get in a piston. Few will write a big liability policy on a piston aircraft. You should have many millions in liability. With fuel for 270 nm and IFR reserves, the Meridian will leave 1080 lbs for people and luggage. For a Mirage will leaves 980 lbs for people and luggage. A TBM or M600 will do that mission all day long with pretty much anything you can stuff in the doors, but are bigger acquisition costs. PC12 is overkill, but if you have 350K/year to run a flight department, is an awesome steed. I Don't have the numbers for the others in my head. As said above. Carrying employees regularly on a time schedule is the big leagues. The PIC needs to be A-game, experienced, and the aircraft needs to be over-capable for the mission for built in reserve.
 
benyflyguy said:
I think that’s a great plane, my buddy has one and flies the pants off it all over. I love taking rides in it. Great plane. But you gotta fly that plane a lot to be great at it. If you are not great at flying that plane, it can kill ya! Plus they cost a lot to fly. Plus MU2 school every year. I’m not knocking The MU2. Again awesome plane. Would love to be able to afford and fly some day. Only cheap shot is it’s a noisy MF:p

My vote would be for piston twin, such as Navajo, reasonably quick( not MU2 quick), reliable, cheaper to maintain but they do like fuel. The 310 imo doesn’t give you that much more useful load then a 182. If this is for a business having the added safety of a second engine is nice. Plus a beefier twin will give you useful load for days.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with your points on the MU-2. It is not a plane for everyone and in talking with friends about it since I've started flying, there are some who've I've suggested it might not be the best fit for them, typically due to the number of hours they fly a year or their experience (especially multi experience).

However, on the expensive to fly, I'll disagree on that when compared to the other aircraft in question. When you poll MU-2 owners, the all-in costs are typically somewhere between $550 and $850 per hour. Keep in mind this is for an airplane that, depending on model and how you run it, does 250-300 KTAS.

The Twin Cessna Flyer (the owner's association for Twin Cessnas) did polls for operating costs of all models. For the 340/414/421, the range ended up being $550-750/hr for planes that do about 185-215 KTAS depending on model and how you run it. The 414 we used to have was ostensibly a 200 KTAS bird, and on doing the same trips in the MU-2 we've found a 25% decrease in block times vs. the 414, which corresponds to the ~25% increase in cruise speed. Total costs of ownership are, if anything, less per mile than the 414, and a Navajo's ownership costs fall right in line with the cabin class Twin Cessnas. Navajos may be a bit cheaper, but they also lack pressurization.

One thing that's important to understand with the big piston twins is that they are always broken and it's hard to get them out of the shop for too long. Nobody I know who has one actually has truly good reliability from them, their expectations just go down. As one person who used to own a 340 I was involved with said "It never let us stranded, but we were never able to fly a trip without a new squawk." That's a pretty accurate statement from what I've found. Once you add turbos and pressurization (or even just turbos) the complexity goes way up, as do the stresses on the engines, and reliability takes a big hit.

The catch is, the maximum bill you might have to pay on a turbine is much higher than the maximum bill you might have to pay on a cabin class piston twin, so that's a risk you have to be prepared for. The other side of it is, these things mostly go between inspections without issue, unlike piston twins.

It's a complex equation when you get into these bigger airplanes.
 
You might also consider the Turbo Commander. A dash ten 690 or later model will give an honest 260-280kt cruise, a comfortable cabin, suitable for (some) rough fields, and is relatively easy to fly. More money, but a c-441 would do, ditto a Merlin IIIb or IVC. The last two being overkill, plus you would probably want two pilots in the Merlins.
 
j1b3h0 said:
You might also consider the Turbo Commander. A dash ten 690 or later model will give an honest 260-280kt cruise, a comfortable cabin, suitable for (some) rough fields, and is relatively easy to fly. More money, but a c-441 would do, ditto a Merlin IIIb or IVC. The last two being overkill, plus you would probably want two pilots in the Merlins.
Click to expand...
Lol. I was just thinking about the older commanders. It’s like flying a bus! Harder to find in great shape with good avionics though. Might spend a pretty penny on an avionics upgrade. Plus a bigger plane that can make hard to hangar.
 
j1b3h0 said:
You might also consider the Turbo Commander. A dash ten 690 or later model will give an honest 260-280kt cruise, a comfortable cabin, suitable for (some) rough fields, and is relatively easy to fly. More money, but a c-441 would do, ditto a Merlin IIIb or IVC. The last two being overkill, plus you would probably want two pilots in the Merlins.
Click to expand...

The 441 has some nice specs, but I have a hard time justifying one. The costs are high and they all have high time, plus Cessna is not a fan of anything with propellers on them.

The Commanders are hard to get T-hangars for because of their size, and I'm not a fan of their ground handling characteristics, nor did I particularly like flying them due to ergonomics (I don't like the column). With that said they're still good values and have good speed/efficiency numbers. The -5 powered 690 I flew gave an honest 270 KTAS @ FL270 on 75 GPH combined. Friends with -10 Commanders have said 300 or so. I can go 270 at a lower altitude and lower fuel burn in the MU-2, but the Commander has a significantly larger cabin.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The 441 has some nice specs, but I have a hard time justifying one. The costs are high and they all have high time, plus Cessna is not a fan of anything with propellers on them.

The Commanders are hard to get T-hangars for because of their size, and I'm not a fan of their ground handling characteristics, nor did I particularly like flying them due to ergonomics (I don't like the column). With that said they're still good values and have good speed/efficiency numbers. The -5 powered 690 I flew gave an honest 270 KTAS @ FL270 on 75 GPH combined. Friends with -10 Commanders have said 300 or so. I can go 270 at a lower altitude and lower fuel burn in the MU-2, but the Commander has a significantly larger cabin.
Click to expand...
Plus you can do feathered engine out 8point rolls like a boss!!!:D
 
j1b3h0 said:
Yeah, and that was in PISTON Commander!
Click to expand...

Yeah, trying to do those maneuvers in a turbine Commander would be harder... the old 540s would restart faster than the TPE-331s.
 
wayne said:
But, I watched it on YouTube. Should be good-to-go now, right? :eek:
Click to expand...

Well, I learned how to drive a semi truck by watching YouTube and nobody died.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Commanders are hard to get T-hangars for because of their size, and I'm not a fan of their ground handling characteristics, nor did I particularly like flying them due to ergonomics (I don't like the column).
Click to expand...

The first time I flew a turbine Commander was from the right seat. As we started taxiing, the PIC said "You take it, I have to look at the approach chart for our destination".

After about four rudder pedal pushes we were headed for the weeds. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top