Light Duty Commuting Aircraft (??)

[onthebeach]

OK guys, here is the project, let's hear your input:

Looking to identify the aircraft which will do a weekly 400 NM (one way) day/night commute to job location, plenty of airports nearby on each end, most economically.

Looking for single engine, non-retractable, used recip, FAR 91 operation, most likely will be wholly owned by one party.

As far as powerplant, simpler is better, i.e., big carbureted engine preferable to more complicated and sophisticated plant.

Need IFR but not known ice; have flexibility to cancel if wx is too bad, and enough experience to do so.

Four place airplane wanted, will be just one pilot 90% of the time, occasionally with one pax, but need the four place for baggage & contingencies.

Time enroute is not the big constraint.
Operating economy and dispatch reliability, in that order, are the two highest concerns.

Let's hear it, what's the best choice?

 

[erj-145mech]

Piper Dakota (PA-28-236)or Cessna Skylane (182)would be my choices, given the limitations imposed. Your decision is whether you prefer a high or low wing configuration.

 

[ackattacker]

If you can swing the initial purchase price (about $200k), a used Cirrus SR20 will do 155kts on 10gph, and should be fairly trouble free.

 

[Waldom]

You are describing a Cessna 182. Don't be afraid of an old one. The first model year was 1956.

 

[Swass]

I would go with a 182 as well.

 

[Swass]

This Maule would fit the bill nicely:

http://www.controller.com/listings/...858.htm?guid=A09F2DAE6A0E44FEA32C24D590D3531D

 

[propsarebest]

This Maule would fit the bill nicely:

http://www.controller.com/listings/...858.htm?guid=A09F2DAE6A0E44FEA32C24D590D3531D

And Maule's are BADASS!

It is one of the best "for fun" planes you can buy. Just make sure you get the patroller doors option.

 

[navigator72]

I vote for a C182 also

 

[Patriot328]

RV-7 or 8. About $100k loaded and 200mph on 10gph.

Edited: this one is claiming 185 on 8.5gph...

http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_manager/ad_detail.php?ID=212198


And on edit, I see you wanted a 4-place plane... guess the -7 and -8 are out..

 

[eaglefly]

Your requirements almost clearly state a 160 or 180 H.P. four-seat fixed gear.

Choices are :

Cessna 172

Piper Warrior
Piper Cherokee 180
Piper Archer

Beech Sundowner

Since your load requirements 90% of the time are one or two, full fuel can be used on almost all your flights with these aircraft and the "muscle" of the more powerful (and very thirsty) 182 or 235/Dakota seems unnecessary.

You're better off putting money in safety systems on more modestly powered aircraft, such as back-up electric attitude indicators, GPS/Nexrad and traffic alert, then spending that on more expensive aircraft that will only save you a half-hour (or less) on most flights.

Maintenance will be quite a bit more expensive on the thirstier birds TOO.

Of all, I'd say the Archer is probably best for your mission.

 

[Waldom]

Your requirements almost clearly state a 160 or 180 H.P. four-seat fixed gear.

Choices are :

Cessna 172

Piper Warrior
Piper Cherokee 180
Piper Archer

Beech Sundowner

Since your load requirements 90% of the time are one or two, full fuel can be used on almost all your flights with these aircraft and the "muscle" of the more powerful (and very thirsty) 182 or 235/Dakota seems unnecessary.

You're better off putting money in safety systems on more modestly powered aircraft, such as back-up electric attitude indicators, GPS/Nexrad and traffic alert, then spending that on more expensive aircraft that will only save you a half-hour (or less) on most flights.

Maintenance will be quite a bit more expensive on the thirstier birds TOO.

Of all, I'd say the Archer is probably best for your mission.

You can't legally fill the seats, take baggage, and fuel for a 400nm trip in any of these airplanes.

I have operated the above aircraft and frankly don't consider them to have quite enough performance for regular IFR. This is especially true with the range requirement. This was all east of the Mississippi. If you operate in a "hot and high" environment, that really knocks the lighter airplanes out of the mission.

 

[highnpressurize]

How about a Mooney M20C? I know it's a retract but it's stupid simple. Johnson bar operation means no electrical and or hydraulic failures. The flaps are also manual, although they are operated by a hydraulic hand pump, again very low mx. Even has a cool wing step that's retractable by hand crank that's good for at least .5 knots. It flies behind an O360, IMHO, doesn't get much more simple or reliable than that. It's good for an honest 140+ kts at about 9 gal/hour.

Sorry about going outside of your requirements with the retracts, but it's got all the virtues of the fixed gear single, with the performance of a Mooney and a price that's hard to resist. Great for a 400 mile commute if you ask me. And you did!

 

[TrafficInSight]

You can't legally fill the seats, take baggage, and fuel for a 400nm trip in any of these airplanes.

I have operated the above aircraft and frankly don't consider them to have quite enough performance for regular IFR. This is especially true with the range requirement. This was all east of the Mississippi. If you operate in a "hot and high" environment, that really knocks the lighter airplanes out of the mission.

Not to mention, controllers will hate you... I did my instrument rating in a warrior and I got the hairy eyeball all the time.

 

[eaglefly]

Not to mention, controllers will hate you... I did my instrument rating in a warrior and I got the hairy eyeball all the time.

I operate Archers and Warriors IFR all the time east of the Mississippi and have gotten no "hairy eyeballs" and no hassles from controllers. They're not the fastest, but they are quite capable. I wouldn't take a 182 up in weather I'd cancel flying a Warrior for.

Yes, you cannot fill all the seats and all the fuel. Most aircraft cannot and he wanted "light duty" commuter transportation and not necessarily high-performance singles. Said he'd rarely need more than two seats, so full tanks would be available on most all flights.

These aircraft MAY be the types best suited for his mission, not necessarily $125,000 Skylanes or $200,000 Cirruses. A well-cared for engine and newer avionics (and wiring) would be better IFR than a few extra horses and 15 or 20 knots.

 

[JPAustin]

I agree with the simple retract with an O360 or bigger. Just be sure to do return on investment analysis for old versus new (depending upon when you want the break-even point to occur down the line). In fact, pick a couple "dream" aircraft that are new, and use those as your baseline to compare used aircraft to. Then you could get a good comparison between age versus price versus cost of ownership.

 

[Waldom]

Eaglefly, I think that the Warrior and the Archer are both good airplanes that are certainly more economical to operate than a Cessna 182.

I was responding to the original poster whose request specified "four hundred nm range", "big, carbureted engine" and "four-place needed for baggage and contingencies".

My personal concern when operating IFR in the PA-28-161 and-181 is the limitation of a 100/110 KTAS airplane with 5.3/4.8 endurance. As you know, headwinds limit your range considerably when an alternate is required. I know my figures are conservative, but very little headwind makes a 400 nm trip impossible when fuel burn to fly to an alternate and arrive there with .75 hours of fuel aboard are considered.

Headwinds surely effect the 182, but a given headwind has less of an effect on an airplane with a 20 KTAS advantage.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The -235/Dakota has a better engine than the -182.

My dad bought one used, and flew it about 3000-3500 hours all over the place IFR.

You CAN put O2 in it and fly it up high and get a low fuel burn and higher speed.

You can put full fuel, 2 people, and as much baggage as you can stuff in it. Holds 85? gallons, so it is good for a long flight.

One of his best flights performance-wise: He flew from S. MI to Panama City, FL, up high in strong winds. Low fuel burn, and 4 hours flight time.

cliff
YIP

 

[Waldom]

Have to agree with you, ATPCLIFF: the Lycoming O-540 chuffing out only 235 HP is darn near bullet-proof. As Continentals go, the O-470 in the 182 is the most reliable, but.... the same Lycoming you speak of nearly always lasts beyond T.B.O. on a Piper Pawnee doing ag work.

 

[JPAustin]

Take the money you would've spent on the plane and buy an Aston-Martin with a really good jammer and GPS capability with speed-trap memory tied in a network with same model jammers. Seriously though, I saw this anti-radar/laser/beam device that had the GPS in it that was linked in a subscription based system that marked every known speed trap in real time. It was $1500, but pretty sweet.

 

[eaglefly]

Have to agree with you, ATPCLIFF: the Lycoming O-540 chuffing out only 235 HP is darn near bullet-proof. As Continentals go, the O-470 in the 182 is the most reliable, but.... the same Lycoming you speak of nearly always lasts beyond T.B.O. on a Piper Pawnee doing ag work.

My understanding is the Dakota's engine has a dual magneto and these should be avoided. A lot of cardinal pilots dump their O-360A1B6D's for the non-D engines for the redundancy of seperate mags.

Other then that the Dakota's a good (but thirsty) workhorse.

 

[sqwkvfr]

I have a student with a Comanche 250.

I wasn't thrilled about his choice at first, but it's pretty quick, has good load and is very economical.

You can pick 'em up pretty cheap and spend a little money on the panel to get it where you want.

With a little work, you'll have a fast, economical little performer that just might fit your bill.

 

[erj-145mech]

My understanding is the Dakota's engine has a dual magneto and these should be avoided. A lot of cardinal pilots dump their O-360A1B6D's for the non-D engines for the redundancy of seperate mags.

Other then that the Dakota's a good (but thirsty) workhorse.

There's nothing wrong with a dual mag. There have been documented instances with a dual mag failure on a Traumahawk (Note: two Slick mags), causing the FAA to revoke the airworthiness certificate on all PA-38's, as well as D-2000 failures. Every PA-31-325/350 Navajo's has dual mags.

There are a lot of reasons to avoid a certain airplane type, but to exclude an airplane for this reason is assinine. Perform a search in the NTSB accident files and see how many accidents attributed to dual mag failures.

 

[Be 23]

I've got to put a plug in for the BE 23 Sundowner/Musketeer. Low cost compared to the more popular airframes. It's comfortable, but you pay for the space with drag.

However, with any of the airplanes described you can run into serious trouble IFR with single vacuum pump and 70's avionics. Put the money into the panel of a solid airplane with ugly paint and frayed interior.

 

[eaglefly]

There's nothing wrong with a dual mag. There have been documented instances with a dual mag failure on a Traumahawk (Note: two Slick mags), causing the FAA to revoke the airworthiness certificate on all PA-38's, as well as D-2000 failures. Every PA-31-325/350 Navajo's has dual mags.

There are a lot of reasons to avoid a certain airplane type, but to exclude an airplane for this reason is assinine. Perform a search in the NTSB accident files and see how many accidents attributed to dual mag failures.

It's not a question of how many accidents there have been, but a question of vulnerability and risk. Dual mag systems rely on many common parts, the faliure of any results in a guaranteed engine faliure, wheras two seperate mags gives the chance to continue with power.

 

[momalley81]

There's nothing wrong with a dual mag. There have been documented instances with a dual mag failure on a Traumahawk (Note: two Slick mags), causing the FAA to revoke the airworthiness certificate on all PA-38's, as well as D-2000 failures. Every PA-31-325/350 Navajo's has dual mags.

There are a lot of reasons to avoid a certain airplane type, but to exclude an airplane for this reason is assinine. Perform a search in the NTSB accident files and see how many accidents attributed to dual mag failures.

In one year at my freight job where we flew Lance's with the O-540 and dual mags, we had TWO go in following mag failures in that year. Both resulted in off airport landings with no damage, so no NTSB report.

So I'd say its not all that uncommon.

In addition, I also lost count of the number of single mag failures I've had over the years in 402's, Seneca's and assorted singles that didn't end in off airport landings...

 

[erj-145mech]

Dual mag systems rely on many common parts, the faliure of any results in a guaranteed engine faliure, wheras two seperate mags gives the chance to continue with power.

Have you ever seen a dual mag on the bench? The only common parts are the rotating magnet, the impulse coupling (if equipped), and the cam.
There are two seperate coils, two set of points/capacitors, two distributors.

The magnet is a permanent magnet with no moving parts. The impulse coupling is only used during engine start. The cam is a block of steel ground into an oval shape with no moving parts.

 

[A Squared]

Have you ever seen a dual mag on the bench? The only common parts are the rotating magnet, the impulse coupling (if equipped), and the cam.
There are two seperate coils, two set of points/capacitors, two distributors.

The magnet is a permanent magnet with no moving parts. The impulse coupling is only used during engine start.

Uhhhh, no not true at all, the purpose of the impulse coupling is to assist in starting, for an absolute fact the impusle coupling is used as long as the engine is turning. That's what drives the magneto. An impulse coupling failure may render the entire mag inop or so badly out of timing that it might as well be inop. You ever notice how many ADs there are for impulse couplings there are? Obviously the airworthiness folks are concerned about impulse coupling failures, and an impulse coupling failure on a dual magneto. Off the top of my head I can think of 2 magneto failures I've had in GA aircraft. One was an impule coupling failure that would have made a dual mag pretty much usless, and the other was a drive failure that would have made a dual mag inop. (in both cases the engine still ran reasonably well on the other mag)

So, yeah, there *are* failures that could cause an engine failure in a dual mag airplane, which wouldn't in an airplane with seperate mags.

To suggest otherwise, or insist that this is not a concern is, to use your terms, assinine.

 

[eaglefly]

Have you ever seen a dual mag on the bench? The only common parts are the rotating magnet, the impulse coupling (if equipped), and the cam.
There are two seperate coils, two set of points/capacitors, two distributors.

The magnet is a permanent magnet with no moving parts. The impulse coupling is only used during engine start. The cam is a block of steel ground into an oval shape with no moving parts.

No.

The only dual mags I've looked at were two that had failed. One aircraft was on the ground and was towed back to the hanger and the other was an airplane that luckily glided to an airport, although it landed in a grassy area with little damage..........except to the mag that is.

Keep your dual mags.

27 years and 14,800 hours and I've never had a dual mag fail on me and never will. AOPA's sweepatakes Cardinal originally came with a dual mag, but they swapped that out at overhaul..........smart move.