She said "Let's just buy a King Air"

jesse said:
I'm fortunate enough to get to fly a '86 Malibu. It has the STC Continental TSIO-550 (versus the stock 520). We run it LOP and it's incredibly efficient that way. Climb high and you can do 200 KTAS LOP at 15 gph (maybe a bit less than that). You can certainly run it hard if you wanted to and pickup another 15 knots but it's totally not worth it. The engine is VERY happy and very smooth LOP plus the cylinder temps stay much happier while LOP.

The newer Mirage's with the 540 I understand are not run LOP..and as a result I too would not want one.
Click to expand...

I'd love a Malibu. Is it safe to assume that any pressurized plane will have ac? Or not necessarily?
 
Cruiser said:
At 97 hrs., you're a looooooonggggg way from any of these planes. Focus on the instrument training and fly a lot, like two or three times a week. If you are looking at twins and King Airs, buy a trainer for your instrument training and then sell it after the get the rating. You will know what to move up to at the right time.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know. It was more of a funny anecdotal story and distraction from a Monday, than anything. Like I said earlier, I'm really thinking something in PA32 line may be the way to start looking. Big enough for them to stretch, heavy enough to handle some bumps, but manageable after some hours with the CFI. Most should be equipped for me to get my IR, too.

Plus, I can say "Look how much money I saved us" by buying a smaller plane.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Doc; There has been a 1978 601P listed on the AOPA board for much less than that. http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=93383

Last posted price was $135K

Found out he posted it with a seller's rep, "Aerostar World". Aircraft details can also be found at this link.
Click to expand...

This is my Aerostar that's for sale. Can't say enough good things about them, really. They're great twins. And extreme bang for the buck. Also, once you've gone pressurized, you'll never turn back. It's great. And not a maintenance heavy item either. It just works.

LOP I could run her 25gal/hr doing 200ktas up high.
 
Cruiser said:
At 97 hrs., you're a looooooonggggg way from any of these planes. Focus on the instrument training and fly a lot, like two or three times a week. If you are looking at twins and King Airs, buy a trainer for your instrument training and then sell it after the get the rating. You will know what to move up to at the right time.
Click to expand...

The distance is measured in $$$ bills. The bigger the bills, the less the distance.
 
stratobee said:
This is my Aerostar that's for sale. Can't say enough good things about them, really. They're great twins. And extreme bang for the buck. Also, once you've gone pressurized, you'll never turn back. It's great. And not a maintenance heavy item either. It just works.

LOP I could run her 25gal/hr doing 200ktas up high.
Click to expand...

Ah, beat me to it. Was on my short list until found it won't fit in a T hangar :sad:
 
Norman said:
I agree with Henning. The 340 is a good family (2.8 kids) plane. Pressurized, air conditioning can be had, and fairly reasonable operating and maintenance costs for a light twin. It will cruise nicely in the flight levels.
Click to expand...

I've been drooling over one that's in for some work at my AP's hangar; unpleasantly surprised how tight it is up front, Cherokee considerably roomier. But great for pax who don't have to climb on top of the wing.

Fuel flow for RAM about 30gal/hr.
 
FWIW I've found that operating a C90 costs about 6X as much as operating my little beech travel air.
 
JHW said:
FWIW I've found that operating a C90 costs about 6X as much as operating my little beech travel air.
Click to expand...

Dave S said his Baron ran about 3x the cost/hr of his Bo, and his KA ran 3x what the Baron did/hr. I don't even want to know what the next step up ran.
 
EdFred said:
Dave S said his Baron ran about 3x the cost/hr of his Bo, and his KA ran 3x what the Baron did/hr. I don't even want to know what the next step up ran.
Click to expand...
he had a pressurized 58 baron, and a really nice one. So don't take that as typical baron cost
 
JHW said:
he had a pressurized 58 baron, and a really nice one. So don't take that as typical baron cost
Click to expand...

I was going to say. I wouldn't call the Baron a cheap plane, but I'd be surprised if I could operate a Bo for a third of what it cost to run the Baron. I suspect a Bo would be a little less than half my cost.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I was going to say. I wouldn't call the Baron a cheap plane, but I'd be surprised if I could operate a Bo for a third of what it cost to run the Baron. I suspect a Bo would be a little less than half my cost.
Click to expand...
I'd guess a 55 baron vs a V35 would cost you 50-60% more over the years, on a $$/mile basis
 
Frogs97 said:
Man, I love the way y'all think! With only a PPL and a whopping 95 hours, though, I'm not going to be jumping right into any twin. Though Doc's offer for halfsies made me go out and look a bit!

I'm going to be looking at the single pistons for now. Probably something heavier and with more wing loading than the planes I've been flying. Maybe the Toga/Lance/Cherokee 6 family.
Click to expand...


While I understand the hesitation on getting a bigger plane right from the get-go. Something to factor in is the acquisition and sales cost of the first plane, versus say flying with an instructor in the 2nd plane for say 100 hours.
 
What about a turbocharged single engine aircraft? Mooney M20K or maybe a turbocharged Cessna 182 and a portable a/c?
 
paflyer said:
I've been drooling over one that's in for some work at my AP's hangar; unpleasantly surprised how tight it is up front, Cherokee considerably roomier. But great for pax who don't have to climb on top of the wing.

Fuel flow for RAM about 30gal/hr.
Click to expand...

Then you want a 421, the Wide Oval fuselage takes care of that. The prices I'm seeing on some nice 421Bs with good engines are coming in under $200k.
 
What sort of operating budgets would you have for the Bo/Baron/KA?
Assuming 100hr/year, how much are we talking about?
 
Minus hangaring, 100 hours? I'd budget 15K for the Bo, 30 for the Baron. I have no idea for the KA. 60K maybe? All in with hangar in an urban space limited market, looking at another 5K-15K/yr Bo to KA.

I budget around 12K for my Arrow w/ cheap hangaring, and almost always beat it. Mx is my biggest expense due to the highish labor rate my AP commands (remote one horse town). Other than that it's not terrible. I wish I had another 30 knots and the second engine would inspire an added sense of comfort when flying with the family, but the added mx expenses prove too much for my taste at this point.
 
12K for 100hrs in an Arrow? Damn, it's cheaper than I thought!
Arrow would fit my mission perfectly, and I have around 70 hours in them, hmm....

I'm 9 months from buying a plane (that is: getting the hell out of Asialand), and I thought for 10-15k/year I need to look at C150s...
 
mtuomi said:
What sort of operating budgets would you have for the Bo/Baron/KA?
Assuming 100hr/year, how much are we talking about?
Click to expand...

It's very hard to budget unless you've owned the aircraft for a long time. My two annuals on the Aerostar were $13K and somewhere around $7K for the second year. I also bough the aircraft with run out engines. They were 300hr over TBO. I flew it for another 100hrs before I overhauled. So you could say I flew it a 100hrs completely free. Or one can deduct that hourly price saved from the subsequent overhaul or operating cost. It all depends on how you count.

But a complex twin should cost somewhere between $10K to about $30K a year to run in maintenance. A turbine will probably cost $30-60K. My friend runs his older Turbo Commander for $550-650/hr. But the general consensus is normally that a newer turbine twin is around $1K/hr to run, all in.

In the end for me personally - I don't count anything but fuel. Fuel burn is my hourly cost. The rest is just your yearly membership cost that varies. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Then you want a 421, the Wide Oval fuselage takes care of that. The prices I'm seeing on some nice 421Bs with good engines are coming in under $200k.
Click to expand...

Issue is the cockpit is tight (not much shoulder/leg room), not the back which is adequate in the 340.

I do want a 421 but it's overkill for present mission (not to mention 25% increase in OpEx and higher MX due to geared engines); a nice RAM 414A would do the trick but don't know if it would fit in hangar.
 
Henning said:
Then you want a 421, the Wide Oval fuselage takes care of that. The prices I'm seeing on some nice 421Bs with good engines are coming in under $200k.
Click to expand...
I would love this plane. But even if the buy-in is free, you need plenty of cash to run one. I flew one (older C model with straight main gear legs) with overhauled motors from California to Iowa a few years bacd. Owner wanted it run rich. Here's a picture of the fuel flows IN CRUISE. Those are scary fuel costs. Scary.
I did love flying it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0776.JPG
    IMG_0776.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 56
Lance F said:
I would love this plane. But even if the buy-in is free, you need plenty of cash to run one. I flew one (older C model with straight main gear legs) with overhauled motors from California to Iowa a few years bacd. Owner wanted it run rich. Here's a picture of the fuel flows IN CRUISE. Those are scary fuel costs. Scary.
I did love flying it.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's King Air territory, and JetA is a lot cheaper than avgas.
 
First they say "let's buy a King Air", then they say "Let's invite another woman to join us". You have to nip this in the bud now.
 
In TX if your driving you need AC if your Flying you need to be able to get to altitude quick. Any plane with AC will more than likely be expensive to operate and maintain. Get a RV 7,8,or 10 depending on seats needed.
 
The first question is what you can afford and what you need. For short trips (<200 nm) you'll spend a lot of time and fuel getting to altitude. Actually, the 310 I fly with 300 HP engines will get to altitude pretty quickly, and is comfortable with an ice cooler. To get better climb rates out of the pressurized piston aircraft than I see in the 310, you will need to run the engines very hard, which most people don't do. At that point, the only real benefit is AC, which you don't need pressurization to get.

If you don't need pressurization (and it's really only beneficial on long trips), it's an expensive thing to have. Inconel exhausts, turbochargers, lots more places for air leaks within the induction and exhaust system, extra weight of the turbo systems, $25k windshields, the list goes on and on.

We have 3 kids, and the 310 is the only plane we take family trips in. On Sunday, all 5 of us flew from Ohio to Kansas City for our move there. Out of the blue, my wife said "This plane is awesome. We can all fit in here, all our luggage." A 310R with a Colemill Bearcat (300 HP 550s) would maybe be a bit better for us thanks to the nose baggage and the hunchback cabin. But even with the short nose, skinny body 310N that we fly, we do just fine.

Not all pressurized aircraft have AC. Not all aircraft with AC are pressurized.

If you do decide you want pressurization and cabin class, the Malibu has the benefit of being relatively easily insurable, even with low hours. It is an airplane that was designed with passenger comfort in mind, and it does it very well. It's also designed for the higher altitudes where it can get that efficiency. Excellent range. That said, I am surprised how low of time 340/414/421 owners are getting insured with no difficulty, even going straight from a weekend multi rating right into a 421. I don't recommend this, but it can be done.

I would not buy a 421. The GTSIO-520s have, especially recently, suffered a lot of expensive issues. Crankcase cracks are more common on those than the TSIO-520s. In addition, they seem to suffer more engine failures right on takeoff, which is the worst time, and 421s are very challenging to fly until you get the one engine caged. So, you have to ask yourself one question.

do-you-feel-lucky-punk.jpg
 
mtuomi said:
What sort of operating budgets would you have for the Bo/Baron/KA?
Assuming 100hr/year, how much are we talking about?
Click to expand...

Operating, $150hr for the Bonanza, $250 for the Baron, $1000 for the King Air. However hourly isn't a good way to figure these costs due to speed differential, better to figure it on a per mile/mission basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top