Which airplane for this mission...?

[ronnieh]

Pete, your last couple of comments in your post 108 shows you are beginning to see the big picture. Just take a deep breath and keep flying. Yes build time and get experience. There is no perfect plane as I already said. Speed is important. The 208 is just too slow for long trips and too expensive. I can't imagine what the lease payments would be on a new 208. Then you add operating expense onto that. Whew!
Keep readin, keep sifting through the material and info you get and above all keep flying and gaining experience. Best of luck!!

 

[j1b3h0]

T-210 would come closest for the least money, and, as a practical matter, one should learn how to fly it well before strapping on a twin, as it's more capable than many twins. Don't fly it in icing. Regardless of equipment, there is weather you will have to avoid. FIKI airplanes are heavier. 210s carry 3-400lbs more than a 206 (but have less room inside). Pressurized airplanes are much heavier still. 210s have 310hp. 421s have two 375hp ($60K each) engines...partly because it's so much heavier. C-404 will carry alot more - same engines as the 421, but non-pressurized.
In any case, what you're asking to do is aburdly impractical...particularly with a fresh Private Pilot certificate - Drs in Bonanzas come to mind. So, might I suggest something much safer, easier, and bound to please the wife and family: Call Netjets, give 'em your credit card #.

 

[ronnieh]

Doug, that is the bottom line. Pete, get a years experience and the instrument then ask the same question.

 

[DavidWhite]

Drs in Bonanzas come to mind.

Or morons in Cirri

 

[bbchien]

And I'll wager that you pick your weather vary vary carefully.

I've been in ICE, it's not a fun thing, in your twin if you have a de-ice boot system failure you are a dead man.

That's a hey-no-kiddin. I once nearly did in a crew of ten and a Rear Admiral. Lessons are tough to forget.

 

[Henning]

T-210 would come closest for the least money, and, as a practical matter, one should learn how to fly it well before strapping on a twin, as it's more capable than many twins. Don't fly it in icing. Regardless of equipment, there is weather you will have to avoid. FIKI airplanes are heavier. 210s carry 3-400lbs more than a 206 (but have less room inside). Pressurized airplanes are much heavier still. 210s have 310hp. 421s have two 375hp ($60K each) engines...partly because it's so much heavier. C-404 will carry alot more - same engines as the 421, but non-pressurized.
In any case, what you're asking to do is aburdly impractical...particularly with a fresh Private Pilot certificate - Drs in Bonanzas come to mind. So, might I suggest something much safer, easier, and bound to please the wife and family: Call Netjets, give 'em your credit card #.

I would think a late model cowl Turbo Saratoga would be a better SE choice.

 

[denverpilot]

I'm still thinking auctioning off the two children you like the least, fixes this dilemma.

 

[Ted]

Peter, for your mission you need a turbocharger.

Seeing as I flew the Aztec from LA to NYC in one day, flown it to northern Quebec and Cozumel multiple times, and generally flew all over the country with it (other than the Rockies) and no turbos, I'd say that is not necessarily the case. Turbos will add cost, complexity, and expense. They can give you cheaper $/mile if you go to the right altitudes to make use of them. So as with anything else, it depends.

 

[Tom-D]

That's a hey-no-kiddin. I once nearly did in a crew of ten and a Rear Admiral. Lessons are tough to forget.

Thinking of lessons learned, I once rode a TC-4C back from Minot ND from an A6 rescue, When Cdr Liz Tadte dropped a supercooled TC-4C down thru a icing layer coming off the north cascades and it picked up ICE so fast it scared her, she turn on the de-ice to the fast cycle and that allowed the ice to bridge over the boots. AT 6000' She went full throttle and still had a 250' per minute decent rate. She hit the runway 13 at NUW 250' short of the numbers. That aircraft sat on the ramp for 3 days as a lesson to every pilot at whidbey.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Everyone is forgetting one thing. He will have no need for a large aircraft in just a short time. His kids will get older and not want anything to do with Mom and Dad, and the whole flying bit will get old with them in short order. Then the family will have separate vacation times and spots because the kids have sports and/or friends events over their vacation times, so realistically, he only needs a four place airplane for the vast majority of the time.



This is spoken from a BTDT sort of thing. Bought my airplane to accomodate the family, but only ended up having a need for the twin for a few flights. The kids came up with excuses the rest of the time. Of course, it didn't help that one is scared to death of flying.

I can assure you, though, that it takes a special kind of person to spend hours in a small plane traveling "extensively." No potty break is a problem for many, and the noise and lack of movement are real problems for some smaller children.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I would think a late model cowl Turbo Saratoga would be a better SE choice.

I have done x-country trips with a family of 4 in both 210s and PA32s and I will say this- the PA32 will give you more baggage capacity/space than the 210, but the 210 has a much friendlier and generous W&B envelope. Personally, I prefer the Lance, but that is because I have given up in my battle to get my wife to travel lightly. For us, it is a bulk thing vice weight.

 

[bbchien]

Seeing as I flew the Aztec from LA to NYC in one day, flown it to northern Quebec and Cozumel multiple times, and generally flew all over the country with it (other than the Rockies) and no turbos, I'd say that is not necessarily the case. Turbos will add cost, complexity, and expense. They can give you cheaper $/mile if you go to the right altitudes to make use of them. So as with anything else, it depends.

He'll be flyng the Cascades, at near gross, Ted. 'nuff said.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Any comparison that includes a PA-46 must include similar fuel loads. When those adjustments are made, the PA-46 capabilities are much closer to other planes.

True, but as I have found, the baggage space in a Malibu is MUCH smaller than PA32. I have been inside a PA46 and can't imagine you'd have enough space for baggage to support a family of 6 unless you were doing a day trip.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

He'll be flyng the Cascades, at near gross, Ted. 'nuff said.

Turbos arent all theyre cracked up to be, I manage the CO mountain passes just fine in a 160hp 172 near gross. What's necessary in mountains is training not a turbo. A turbo is still no substitute for training. The Aztec is more than powerful enough to deal with the mountains at near gross. 'nuff said.

 

[bbchien]

.... She hit the runway 13 at NUW 250' short of the numbers. That aircraft sat on the ramp for 3 days as a lesson to every pilot at whidbey.

That's just Jesus calling us to the altar....

Mtn2Skies: he plans to fly it IFR. All his training is in a P28A. I infer you're doing your work VFR- which is just fine. Stay out of cold clouds. But when you have a load of kids and a wife who wants to get there....it's a different tale.

There are options, below the deck, for sure. Just many fewer than on top at 19K. You might be super pilot, but clearly have not seen nor remembered GOD when he is pulling you down. If the pilot has discipline, and never wanders into cloud, heck a C150 will do the job. Very few nonpilot wives will tolerate waiting for the front to pass, say, at Pendleton, waiting to get into BLI.

If you are venturing into mountain ice in a 180 hp 172, well then this conversation is over.....

 

[Henning]

I have done x-country trips with a family of 4 in both 210s and PA32s and I will say this- the PA32 will give you more baggage capacity/space than the 210, but the 210 has a much friendlier and generous W&B envelope. Personally, I prefer the Lance, but that is because I have given up in my battle to get my wife to travel lightly. For us, it is a bulk thing vice weight.

Your situation is not untypical and is represented in his current family weight. It's a good trade off if you accept hauling your family around the inter-mountain west single engine. I would not be, hell, I'm not comfortable doing it solo, that's why I own the plane I do and equipped it the way I did; that's the level of airplane I am comfortable with for a traveling plane. There is no great value in every dollar saved.

 

[jmp470]

Henning,
What are you asking for yours? I don't remember if you posted it or not.

 

[Henning]

Henning,
What are you asking for yours? I don't remember if you posted it or not.

$95k.

 

[Fearless Tower]

$95k.

Wasn't it quite a bit higher when you first listed it?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Henning]

Wasn't it quite a bit higher when you first listed it?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Nope, that's what I first listed it at. When I basically took it off the market for being ridiculed as insane for ever believing that my plane could be worth that, so I just changed the price on Controller to $250k until the ad expired. I'm not looking to sell it, if someone wants to buy it for $95k they will realize the value. I'll even teach you how to operate it on the cheap for a 310. Cheap is a relative term, however I operated 100hrs for <$200 net including what I need to spend currently; right now I can spend $7.5k to make $200hr for the 100hrs; I'm pretty sure I can come in around $6k and $4k of that will still be catch up from long dessert storage.

 

[PeterDudek]

On the subject of having enough experience to do what I want in a plane that can handle it...QUESTION: Does it matter if I take a year to get the experience? Or is it the hours? Time in the cockpit?

By the way, I just got back from a practice flight and am about to read all your posts here again (BEAUTIFUL day for flying!) Today's mission: Soft Field T/O and Slips to Land - Then on to KFAT to practice Class C operations.

2 photos below: 1) me, the trainer I'm renting and 2) the KVIS practice area. (That's Mount Whitney, elevation 14,505 in the distance.)

 

[Henning]

On the subject of having enough experience to do what I want in a plane that can handle it...QUESTION: Does it matter if I take a year to get the experience? Or is it the hours? Time in the cockpit?

The insurance companies place greatest value on time in the insured airframe with a multiplier on recency of experience. Insurance actuaries are some of the smartest people I've met, I'd figure they know what they're looking at.

 

[PeterDudek]

Thanks Henning! Guess I need to meet me some Insurance people.

 

[wabower]

That could be true if you let them take whatever they want to take. If you 'splain it to them in terms they understand ("can you spell the van in vanilla") that space is limited and they are entitled to only a certain cubic ft number, it won't be an ongoing problem. BTDT

True, but as I have found, the baggage space in a Malibu is MUCH smaller than PA32. I have been inside a PA46 and can't imagine you'd have enough space for baggage to support a family of 6 unless you were doing a day trip.

 

[wabower]

Turbos arent all theyre cracked up to be, I manage the CO mountain passes just fine in a 160hp 172 near gross. What's necessary in mountains is training not a turbo. A turbo is still no substitute for training. The Aztec is more than powerful enough to deal with the mountains at near gross. 'nuff said.

That's not the answer we should be discussing. The capability to safely fly in the mountains can't be predicated on flying only in the passes. Does any of your flying a 172 at gross in the summertime include mid-day takeoffs?

 

[Alexb2000]

That's not the answer we should be discussing. The capability to safely fly in the mountains can't be predicated on flying only in the passes. Does any of your flying a 172 at gross in the summertime include mid-day takeoffs?

All I can say is that the first time you get into a mountain wave with 1500' a minute downdrafts against a Vy climb of 150' per minute. Or you're setting on the ground in Flagstaff and the DA sign says 12,000'. The family may take a vote for Southwest and I would be with them if I was flying a 172.

I want the most capability I can get in the rocks.

 

[ronnieh]

Peter, what Henning said about time in make and model is true to a large degree. But you will need a certain amount of time in general. For example a pilot with 1500 hours PIC may can get covered quite well in a Chieften with 100 hours in make and model. However a new private pilot with a fresh ME and 150 hours total time will not get covered in the same plane with the same 100 hours in make and model. It takes both. The one year is of no importance, I and others figure it will take a year to get the time and experience needed to do what you want at a minimum. Does that make a little more sense. As the complexity and number of seats go up so do the requirements, both total time and time in make and model.

 

[PeterDudek]

Peter, what Henning said about time in make and model is true to a large degree. But you will need a certain amount of time in general. For example a pilot with 1500 hours PIC may can get covered quite well in a Chieften with 100 hours in make and model. However a new private pilot with a fresh ME and 150 hours total time will not get covered in the same plane with the same 100 hours in make and model. It takes both. The one year is of no importance, I and others figure it will take a year to get the time and experience needed to do what you want at a minimum. Does that make a little more sense. As the complexity and number of seats go up so do the requirements, both total time and time in make and model.

That makes perfect sense. Just doing some quick math, to get another 900 hours in 12 months I'd need to fly 75 hours a month or roughly 3 hours a day. And although I'm doing a lot of flying, I'm not at that pace. Although, with my certificate and my own "time builder" airplane, I could see myself doing that. Lot's to think about - meanwhile, I'll just keep on flying, learning and paying the rental fees! :wink2:

 

[wabower]

Why so?

I would think a late model cowl Turbo Saratoga would be a better SE choice.

 

[Henning]

Why so?

Volume, with kids you trade off weight for volume and the PA-32-34 fuse has the greatest volume. I say the late/ Lo Presti cowl because it does a better job cooling than the Sturgeon cowl.

 

[wabower]

Many other tradeoffs to consider as well. Fat Albert didn't get his moniker by accident.

Volume, with kids you trade off weight for volume and the PA-32-34 fuse has the greatest volume. I say the late/ Lo Presti cowl because it does a better job cooling than the Sturgeon cowl.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Deleted

 

[Fearless Tower]

Disregard....tapatalk is not playing nice tonight...

 

[j1b3h0]

That makes perfect sense. Just doing some quick math, to get another 900 hours in 12 months I'd need to fly 75 hours a month or roughly 3 hours a day. And although I'm doing a lot of flying, I'm not at that pace. Although, with my certificate and my own "time builder" airplane, I could see myself doing that. Lot's to think about - meanwhile, I'll just keep on flying, learning and paying the rental fees! :wink2:

Peter -

It must be frustrating, what with all these naysayers telling you you gotta have this much time in this and that. I sympathize with you, but allow me to explain: Your preparation for the PPL has ostensibly enabled you fly a relatively low-powered, simple airplane in a relatively benign environment, (good weather) with a couple of three friends...if the wind isn't too strong. Now, what if (after you get the rating) your new task was to learn to fly that Warrior to its limits: As far as it can practically fly, with as much weight as it will carry, in any weather that's legal VFR. Oh, and just to make it interesting, how'bout we place a time constraint: For example, from your pictures I see you fly in California, so, lemme see, so how long (or how much practice) do you think it will take you to be able to (reliably) fly your Warrior from KFAT to Boise, Idaho, and you need to be there by 1PM. I'm just guessing you'd have to make that trip a half dozen or ten times before it became even slightly routine. The learning curve will be very steep while you're learning about weather, the terrain on that route how long you can fly without a potty break, what kind of passenger related issues - other bladders, or if someone has a profound fear of turbulence, or is prone to airsickness, etc. You would probably learn a few things, right? Well, it's just one man's opinion, but you should be able to do THAT really well, before you go to the next step.

In capable hands, a Turbo Centurion can take six fat people from Oakland to Denver, at well over 175kts, up to 25,000ft in all but the worst weather. It will fly circles around the Warrior - with the landing gear extended. But, it has a delicate turbo-charged engine, that has to be monitored very carefully. In the climb it gets too hot, in the descent it gets too cool, and in cruise, it must be leaned for optimum fuel economy (sounds obvious, but there have been scores of accidents in 210s from fuel exhaustion). It flies just high enough to get in a lot of trouble...convective weather, icing, hypoxia, mountain wave, to name a few. And, of course one must be able to fly it IFR, to get the most out of it.

Please don't lead yourself to believe that there are shortcuts to getting the proper experience. You'll cheat no one but yourself. You can do touch and goes for 1000hrs, and while you'll probably be pretty good at them, you'll still be a lackey when it comes to really getting the most/best from an airplane.

So, Learn how to fly VFR really well, in the Warrior, then in an Arrow or similar (or Comanche 260!). And when you feel the weather is holding you back, get an instrument rating. With the instrument ticket, it'll be just like the fresh PPL: It's a whole new world out there. Good luck and happy landings.

 

[Henning]

Many other tradeoffs to consider as well. Fat Albert didn't get his moniker by accident.

Of course there are which is why a single engine plane is wrong for the job, just sayin if you're gonna use a single a turbo 32 R would do it better than a 210. It's not like a Turbo Saratoga is significantly slower than a T210, they aren't speed demons either with a 160 cruise.

 

[wabower]

How many 210's or Saratoga's have you owned or operated?

Of course there are which is why a single engine plane is wrong for the job, just sayin if you're gonna use a single a turbo 32 R would do it better than a 210. It's not like a Turbo Saratoga is significantly slower than a T210, they aren't speed demons either with a 160 cruise.

 

[Henning]

Operated 2 210s and various of the PA 32s, and the 32s are a heck of a lot easier to load. Operationally it's the only difference I ever noticed between the 2.

 

[wabower]

One of the first considerations is whether the pax prefer club seating or row seating. At first blush, the club seating can appear to be more attractive, but many people (including my family) don't like flying while seated backwards with their knees at eye level due to the cant of the passenger seats and the shin-kicking contest that ensues due to the lack of space between the forward-facing and aft-facing seat-cushions. Fortunately (for me) our A-36 seating configuration was interchangeable so I wasn't faced with insurrection at the hangar.

Moms with infants and toddlers seem to like the club configuration since they can attend to multiple needs more effectively, but that preference often changes as the kids become more self-sufficient. As a general rule, my experience has indicated that short folks seem to tolerate club seating more readily than do tall folks.

If your definition of "ease of loading" includes getting all the passengers into the club doors on the L/H side of the airplane, then running around and crawling up the R/H wing and scrooching across the pax seat into the pilot seat and then somehow getting the front-seat passenger up on the wing and into the seat and then closing and locking the door from the pilot seat, your spiritual gift of discernment might come into question. If all the pax are adults with agility limitations, the 210 is clearly not the airplane of choice, if all six seats are filled. With only 5 aboard, however, one middle-row seat can be removed in a few seconds to create a commodious cabin.

Loading bags isn't a treat in either airplane, and both have their talking points and issues.

Anybody who thinks the two airplanes fly at equivalent speeds hasn't flown them much. From a MX and quality-of-build standpoint, the older 210's are less problem-prone than their Piper retrac counterparts, at least in the shops that I have observed. Both have their own idiosyncrasies and type-specific problems, so I'd guess that it would be a luck-of-the-draw as to which plane would cost more to maintain.


If the buyer has "come up through the ranks" flying one brand vs the other, the decision scales may be tipped one way or the other, and the pilot's familiarity and comfort level may become the primary factor in making the decision. If so, nothing else matters.

Operated 2 210s and various of the PA 32s, and the 32s are a heck of a lot easier to load. Operationally it's the only difference I ever noticed between the 2.

 

[PeterDudek]

For example, from your pictures I see you fly in California, so, lemme see, so how long (or how much practice) do you think it will take you to be able to (reliably) fly your Warrior from KFAT to Boise, Idaho, and you need to be there by 1PM. I'm just guessing you'd have to make that trip a half dozen or ten times before it became even slightly routine. The learning curve will be very steep while you're learning about weather, the terrain on that route how long you can fly without a potty break, what kind of passenger related issues - other bladders, or if someone has a profound fear of turbulence, or is prone to airsickness, etc. You would probably learn a few things, right? Well, it's just one man's opinion, but you should be able to do THAT really well, before you go to the next step.

So, Learn how to fly VFR really well, in the Warrior, then in an Arrow or similar (or Comanche 260!). And when you feel the weather is holding you back, get an instrument rating. With the instrument ticket, it'll be just like the fresh PPL: It's a whole new world out there. Good luck and happy landings.

Thanks for the advice! And what you suggest is actually my plan for the next couple of months. In fact, Boise is one of my destinations. I plan to make regular trips to Boise, Provo, Prescott, Seattle, San Diego, Las Vegas.

At the same time, I'm going to be working on my Instrument Rating too. My wife really wants me to have the IFR under my belt before she and the kids do much flying with me. (I know, I'm a lucky guy with my wife encouraging, almost demanding that I go flying !)

 

[PeterDudek]

...and you need to be there by 1PM.

I liked your suggestions except for that "need to be there by" thing...

I have specifically arranged my life so that NO ONE's schedule is imposed on me.

We home school and I have passive income.

Clocks are mostly irrelevant to me.

"Get-there-itis" killed a friend of mine. It will not kill me.