Need help. Searching for a 200+ kt cruise, 6 seats, +/- 300K.

Unfortunately, the amount of discipline actually required at the time of the event is significantly more than that in the tank of many pilots when the time comes. When combined with the highly artificial "simulate this" training that is available in the airplane, I don't know how a pilot can be sure how he might react.

Skylane81E said:
If you loose an engine on take off you are either going fast enough to continue or you are not. If you are not you close the throttles and land strait ahead, just like in a single. If you are going fast enough you can then continue the departure.

It takes some discipline but up till you achieve sufficient speed to fly away on one you just have to remember to treat it like a single and abort
Click to expand...
 
A nice one is for sale here. Don't make an offer unless you want to own one.

Jeff K said:
Another thing I miss on my Aztec compared to the PA32. Big barn doors like the Baron 58 has.

Now on my bucket list is a T-bone.
Click to expand...
 
Which model?

JasonM said:
Interesting how this thread is going. I agree with many of you completely. This is a partnership with someone much more qualified and very open to options. I was basically told, go find what I like and he's in for 2/3. Its a great opportunity. I have to step back and look at the direction we should be taking now. He really wants something that's fast. He said over 200 kts. Maybe he set me up for failure on my research? I really don't want to get into something overly complex based on my current skill level, but I do want something to grow into that is capable of doing what we want.

so, whats the Pro's VS Con's of the Baron vs 310?
Click to expand...
 
JasonM said:
ok.. possible scenarios would be (3 adults and 2 teenagers) @ approx 750 lbs or (2 adults and 2-3 kids) @ approx 650 lbs. Need some extra margin for luggage, say 100 lbs or so.
Click to expand...
Then the 6-seat singles I mentioned should do. Only word of caution is that due to improvements in cabin comfort and avionics over the years, the empty weights out of the factory have increased significantly without corresponding increases in max gross, so useful loads and payloads have gone down on newer models. Take a good look at the actual W&B data on planes at which you are looking to make sure you can carry what you want as far as you want.

Like the room inside the Saratoga for the passengers, but i'm 6'1 tall and heard the seat position isn't good if you over 5' 8".
Click to expand...
Go fly them all, see which you like, and then buy the one your wife likes best. :wink2: With $300K available for purchase, you should be able to find a very nice one.
 
JasonM said:
Interesting how this thread is going. I agree with many of you completely. This is a partnership with someone much more qualified and very open to options. I was basically told, go find what I like and he's in for 2/3. Its a great opportunity. I have to step back and look at the direction we should be taking now. He really wants something that's fast. He said over 200 kts. Maybe he set me up for failure on my research? I really don't want to get into something overly complex based on my current skill level, but I do want something to grow into that is capable of doing what we want.

so, whats the Pro's VS Con's of the Baron vs 310?
Click to expand...

310 has larger cabin, Baron is slightly faster. 310 is the insurance preferred step up plane to the 401/402/404/340/414/421 because they fly basically the same profiles and bottom end numbers with the same handling characteristics. In the lower cost 55 series Barons, the back seats are short range seats and use up the aft luggage space leaving you just the nose and require climbing over the middle seats or through the luggage door. The 58 Baron has the big back doors and club seating in back and limited baggage. The 58 Barons in your price range have high time/runout engines.

The early 310s like mine have a three across bench back for 5 with generous baggage aft, the later ones 6 seats in commuter configuration with ample baggage in the back. The 310R series add a luggage compartment in the nose.

The 310R and 58 Baron use a IO 520 engine which requires more, and more expensive maintenance that the IO 470 engines which were on the earlier 310s and 55 Barons. All of the above have multiple engine conversions up to the IO/TSIO 550 series (There is even a TIO 540 Lycoming for the 310 that Jack Riley did), so that may all change by specific aircraft.

There are also the 58P Baron which gives you pressurization but a 10,000hr end of life time, and a 56TC Baron which is the 55 airframe with a set of TIO 541 Lycomings at 380hp a piece. These are extremely expensive engines to overhaul, but if you keep the speed down to 200-210 and really pay attention to leaning, they do ok. I wouldn't particularly recommend either of these to you.
 
For three years (84-87) I had both a T-210 and C-340. The block times were the same, the 210 would carry 600# more load in the cabin with full fuel. That has now changed since the advent of the VG kits. The 210's advantage has been reduced to only 300#. MX costs of the 340 will bring tears to your eyes.



JasonM said:
What about the cessna 340?
Click to expand...
 
JasonM said:
What about the cessna 340?
Click to expand...

Shrunk down 421 without a potty, may as well get a 421 and have a quieter plane with a potty and extra range and wider, more comfortable cabin. All the training requirements and other gotchas are the same.
 
JasonM said:
...so, whats the Pro's VS Con's of the Baron vs 310?
Click to expand...
Purely a matter of personal preference between the 310 and the 55 Baron, but if you're looking at the 58 Baron, the back door makes loading passengers and cargo a whole lot easier, and with your crowd, that could matter.

As for the issues of learning to fly and then safely flying a light twin, you just have to remember that light twins have two engines not for redundancy, but because (as I said above) you can't get enough power out of one horizontally-opposed air-cooled piston engine to haul that much load that fast. That means the second engine is there because you need the power of both engines to fly safely. Yes, if you lose one in flight on a twin, you have more options than if you lose one engine on a single, but don't ever think you've got significantly more options if you lose one on takeoff before being up and clean above Vyse (best single engine rate of climb speed). As long as you understand the implications of that, and fly the plane accordingly, light twins should be safer than light singles. You just need to maintain your proficiency and get recurrent training on an appropriate schedule, say, annually or semi-annually so you stay proficient on engine-out operations.
 
wabower said:
For three years (84-87) I had both a T-210 and C-340. The block times were the same, the 210 would carry 600# more load in the cabin with full fuel. That has now changed since the advent of the VG kits. The 210's advantage has been reduced to only 300#. MX costs of the 340 will bring tears to your eyes.
Click to expand...


so the 210 could carry 600 or 300 lbs more than the 340??



sheesh.. I'm just gonna buy a C150 and pull the extra family members behind in a glider. :mad2:
 
After the 340 crashed (I wasn't in it) I got a straight-leg 421-C for a while. Much better pilot visibility due to windshield shape and slope and elimination of tip tanks. Geared props turn much slower and quietly. Cabin is much more comfortable and accessible with wider aisle. Mine was amazingly maintenance-friendly, but most aren't. I was just lucky.

Henning said:
Shrunk down 421 without a potty, may as well get a 421 and have a quieter plane with a potty and extra range and wider, more comfortable cabin. All the training requirements and other gotchas are the same.
Click to expand...
 
T-210 empty was 2500#. Full fuel 534# plus 1,000# cabin load was possible with MGTOW of 4,000#.

340 empty was 4,550#, full fuel was ~1,100# (almost exactly the same amount of fuel tankage per engine and almost identical TSIO-520's) with max cabin load of ~400# with MGTOW of 5,995#.

VG STC's now allow increasing Max Weight to 6,295#, so the advantage is cut to only 300#.

Buy a Yukon XL.

JasonM said:
so the 210 could carry 600 or 300 lbs more than the 340??



sheesh.. I'm just gonna buy a C150 and pull the extra family members behind in a glider. :mad2:
Click to expand...
 
You won't get insurance in any of the airplane you are looking at without an instrument rating. (You may, but your premium will probably be 10% of hull)
 
JasonM said:
so the 210 could carry 600 or 300 lbs more than the 340??



sheesh.. I'm just gonna buy a C150 and pull the extra family members behind in a glider. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is that you are looking for something that doesn't really exist.

You want 200 kts and 6 seats? Get a P/T-210. But wait, it's too cramped / steep deck angle for you? Then get a 310. But you just lost useful load and MX / fuel burn shot up. Then get a BE-58/421. Oops, useful load's back but MX and fuel went up more.

Basically, instead of looking for the ideal plane, decide on what tradeoffs you are willing to make.

But from your description, I would say a 210 (maybe with an IO-550 / turbine conversion) or the Piper equivalent would get closest to what you want, especially with kids taking up 3 of 5 filled seats.
 
No. It's 58KS, I think he has ads running in various places. It was in our hangar for a minor stuck (dripping) fuel valve that was easily fixed.
Jeff K said:
RE: T-bone. The guy's name is Chester.



Was a link supposed to be there? If so, please repost.
Click to expand...
 
How much retractable time do you have? Knowing you have no ME time, insurance on a pressurized twin with a brand-new ME rating (you do have IR already, right?) is going to be staggering the first year unless you have someone riding shotgun.
 
ronnieh said:
He does not have his IR yet
Click to expand...

So? I flew ME for 200hrs VFR before I got my IR and flew across the continent several times during that period. In the 2000hrs+ since then I have rarely flown a private flight IFR. If you don't have a hard schedule to meet, it's pretty easy to remain VFR.
 
Was answering Ron's question. Post #98
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
So? I flew ME for 200hrs VFR before I got my IR and flew across the continent several times during that period. In the 2000hrs+ since then I have rarely flown a private flight IFR. If you don't have a hard schedule to meet, it's pretty easy to remain VFR.
Click to expand...
It is, but the insurance companies feel there is higher risk of a weather-related accident when a non-IR pilot flies a serious travelling machine like a 6-seat HP/complex single, no less a twin, and they charge accordingly. Of course, if you have $300K to spend on an airplane it may not be that big a concern to you, but it is an issue to consider. And when you're talking about a pressurized twin for someone with no IR, low or no retractable time, and no ME experience, their jaws get real tight.
 
Ron Levy said:
It is, but the insurance companies feel there is higher risk of a weather-related accident when a non-IR pilot flies a serious travelling machine like a 6-seat HP/complex single, no less a twin, and they charge accordingly. Of course, if you have $300K to spend on an airplane it may not be that big a concern to you, but it is an issue to consider. And when you're talking about a pressurized twin for someone with no IR, low or no retractable time, and no ME experience, their jaws get real tight.
Click to expand...

The first year insurance for him will be high regardless in any 6 seater, if in that time he gets his IR done and completes a few of those trips, next year's insurance drops drastically. If he would go with a pressurized twin, he'll need 75 hrs in the plane to even qualify for insurance, so in all that dual traveling with a CFII he gets his IR done. The twin will not add a premium over a comparable HP SE, in fact, my initial insurance in the Travelair was less than half what the insurance guy could find me coverage in a Bonanza for, and that was with no IR.
 
No piston powered plane will do close to 200kts down low without your own oil well to feed it. Going fast means going higher with turbo(s) and oxygen. That means an instrument rating. If you want to carry a load in the bumps down low just get a cherokee 6.
 
What are we really looking for?an expensive single that are close to required mission,or an older twin that can meet the mission and give all your money to the insurance co.,doesn't look like you can have it both.
 
frfly172 said:
What are we really looking for?an expensive single that are close to required mission,or an older twin that can meet the mission and give all your money to the insurance co.,doesn't look like you can have it both.
Click to expand...

Not all, his first year insurance on a $100,000 310 is going to be around $7k, his second with an IR will be <$3k, mine costs $1700. One of the advantages to 'buying your last plane first' is you only pay that high first year upgrade premium once.
 
Not enough budget for a Turboprop - which meets speed range and payload needs.

You could do it for $300k more or less for a P210R - but thats about 180ktas in the high teens -

Not sure you'd really notice the loss of 20kts at those ranges and speeds -
 
comanchepilot said:
Not enough budget for a Turboprop - which meets speed range and payload needs.

You could do it for $300k more or less for a P210R - but thats about 180ktas in the high teens -

Not sure you'd really notice the loss of 20kts at those ranges and speeds -
Click to expand...

There wll be a straw poll before each leg to see who sits in the rear seats...
 
Then why didn't you buy the 310 for your first plane?

Henning said:
Not all, his first year insurance on a $100,000 310 is going to be around $7k, his second with an IR will be <$3k, mine costs $1700. One of the advantages to 'buying your last plane first' is you only pay that high first year upgrade premium once.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Then why didn't you buy the 310 for your first plane?
Click to expand...

Almost did, but the turbo Travelair was an all around better deal and plane than the 310B my boss had for sale (even he told me to buy the Travelair). It's hard to find a 310 in top condition, and that Travelair was, as is this 310. Besides, I've had 20 years education and hindsight between then and now, one thing I knew back then though was buy quality.
 
Two adults and 4 college kids did it for 6 years. 90% of the naysayers have never seen the back seat, let alone sat in it.

warthog1984 said:
2 adults, 3 kids it's very doable. 4 up front and 1 kid stretched across the back by themselves.
Click to expand...
 
421C or slightly less comfortable and lots noisier, PA-31-350 Chieftain. C-90 would be the best, but big $$.
 
IOW nobody has any idea what their last plane, last car, last house, last job or last wife will be when they get the first one. Carry on.

Henning said:
Almost did, but the turbo Travelair was an all around better deal and plane than the 310B my boss had for sale (even he told me to buy the Travelair). It's hard to find a 310 in top condition, and that Travelair was, as is this 310. Besides, I've had 20 years education and hindsight between then and now, one thing I knew back then though was buy quality.
Click to expand...
 
I think I just need to think slower and find something comfortable for the long haul. I just cant see myself in a twin at this stage and I don't have that longing desire to own or fly one. We wanted speed to make the legs quicker going out west, but after really thinking hard about it and realizing that I am not in any rush anyhow, we just need to settle in at the 160-170 kt range and more than likely save some money from what our initial thoughts were. We do want to fit the family and that's definitely more important than speed. I appreciate all your input fellas. :)
 
Be sure to try several test seating sessions, maybe even with bags. They feel different when everything and everybody is loaded. For example, some people like clubs seating, others think it's a shin-kicking exercise from start to finish and hate it. My group hated it. Even the A-36 we bought had row seats.

[QUO6TE=JasonM;1264085]I think I just need to think slower and find something comfortable for the long haul. I just cant see myself in a twin at this stage and I don't have that longing desire to own or fly one. We wanted speed to make the legs quicker going out west, but after really thinking hard about it and realizing that I am not in any rush anyhow, we just need to settle in at the 160-170 kt range and more than likely save some money from what our initial thoughts were. We do want to fit the family and that's definitely more important than speed. I appreciate all your input fellas. :)[/QUOTE]
 
Although I've never flown one, a T-Bone could work a crowd like that. Cheap to buy but gas alone will be expensive.
 
wabower said:
IOW nobody has any idea what their last plane, last car, last house, last job or last wife will be when they get the first one. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Most people can tell what their needs are for the next ten years, and that's close enough, when you have the "upgrade plan" it's gonna waste a lot of money and usefulness in the time it takes to be able to do what you want to do. Not to mention you can sour the family on flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top