(Very) small company's first SE airplane ... which one?

[Snakum]

Supposing the boss at your fulltime, non-flying job is starting to ask questions about owning a plane, as your (owner's and manager's) time start to become tighter and tighter. He doesn't have enough money to buy into the small local 'fractionals' with King Airs and Barons (where I fly on weekends ), they don't want to split an aircraft, and you're already pretty sure the budget for the initial outlay is going to max out at $200K ... what would you buy, and why, with $200K being the absolute max, and standing a better chance of making it happen if you can keep it well under that. The missions are usually one to two pax and around 300 nm, no baggage, almost all day trips.

What I've seen (all used, of course):

Commander 114 ... slow, but very comfortable for the right-seat pax so he can work while flying (important), but getting long in the tooth (maint. $$)?

V-35 bonanza ... fast, decent room in front for the pax due to throw-over yoke, can be found in our range with lots of goodies

Cessna 182 ... relatively roomy, lower insurance/op costs, late 90s models can be found in our $$ range with plenty of time left on engines

Cirrus SR20 ... roomy up front, not sure of hauling capacity/range on older models?

Older C210 ... really good specimens may be out of our price range, otherwise this would be perfect, maint. $$ might be rough if you choose unwisely here

Newer 172SP ... surprising range and hauling capacity, especially considering the cost and maint. on a four-cylinder engine

I ruled out Mooneys (too small), A36s (too much money), all twins (insurance and maint. costs).

 

[LearLove]

what part of the US are you flying in? If its in the NE or some other ice prone area you going to have a tuff time in the winter going whenever without taking the wx into account. Unless keeping a sked is not important. If I had a need for an aircraft (no matter what the distance) and the ability to go despite wx (unless its the most severe) I'd want something along the lines of a Navajo/Baron in piston or a King Air 90 in turbine. I know you asked for single but unless you go with a PC12 or TBM700 which would cost more than the KA your going to be limited by the capibilities of your SE piston.

If you don't mind waiting for VFR or mild IFR then I's say 182 or some sort of PA28 or a commander if you want retract.

 

[VSI9k+]

How is a Mooney too small for a one or two pax load? You can get a whole lot of Mooney for the price you are talking about. But if it cant be a Mooney id stick with a fixed gear C-182.

 

[flyboyike]

May I recommend something like this?

http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_view.jsp?aircraft_id=99011&return_url=/i.aso3/search.jspyyyyyiaso3sid=1xxxxxtypeid=1xxxxxsearchid=496593xxxxxregionid=-1xxxxxmode=xxxxxtypeid=1xxxxxmmgid=27xxxxxmodelgroup=truexxxxxsearchid=496593xxxxxregionid=-1

 

[onthebeach]

Suggestion

From previous posts, I believe you work in the NC area. If the prospective purchase can discipline him/herself to fly within the weather limitations of that region, I'd recommend a Cessna 182 as a "first" corporate airplane.

It's a simple yet capable aircraft which readily lends itself to being owner-flown, and can easily do the mission profile you've described, with possibly some growth in payload.

The acquisition, operating, and insurance costs would be relatively low compared to other choices, and certainly within the budget you've described.

Last but not least, if the operator decides flying isn't for him/her, or they want to trade up, the resale market for 182s is strong.

An interesting question...let us know what the decision is. Best to you.

 

[BoilerUP]

I tend to agree with onthebeach...a Cessna 182 is extremely roomy in the back for a 4-place single, has a high useful load if you need to haul cargo/luggage, is stone simple to fly and operate and should be relatively cheap to insure. I'm not sure how the used 182S market is these days, but you might look for a low time Q model.

If you are looking more for a complex 6-place, I might recommend an early 80s Saratoga SP. I have flown the owner of a large car dealership chain around in one of these and his mission sounds similar to yours (300nm or less day trips, needs room to work in back). I think they can be had within your price range, are very stable, roomy (especially if you remove the front club seats) and have a good useful load as well. Plus, its flying characteristics are almost identical to the Arrow, (its just a little heavier and you need more right rudder on takeoff) and if you have any PA28R experience insurance should be a snap.

Let us know what you decide!

 

[ohoh]

i recommend the Beech Bonanza A36.

seats 6 - and more importantly separate entrance
and cabin seating. nice when taking clients and/or
non-flyers.

i've got got a few hrs in the A33 and it's a real
fun to fly and relatively fast.

---

bottom line it depends on who'll be doing the flying
and typical mission.

if a relatively low-time pilot - as others have recommended
Cessna 182 is safe and am sure the insurance will be
lower also.

 

[Snakum]

Thanks for the info ... a twin is out of our price range. Anything much over $150K and he'll stop listening pretty quickly. Twins are out due to insurance and maintenance costs, as much as I'd like one for the ME time. I'll get my multi-time thru my part-time gig anyway, so I want what's best for my employer. They still joke that they promised me a company jet one day if I'd stay thru the lean times (now over ... thank God), so I can be patient.

The more I look around, the more I think a late model 182 is the ticket. I even found a recent Fortune article about a small business owner buying a Turbo 182 and it listed his monthly outlay and terms. Not bad. Certainly do'able for us in the next year or so if things stay on track. One notch up would be a V-tail Bonanza, perhaps. I'm in the southeast, and have personal limits on weather anyway, so I don't need ice protection. Just room, do'able maintenance costs, and reasonable speed.

Today a C182 ... tomorrow a CJ. I got a book about flying CJs ... two wings ... two engines ... I could figure it out. imp:

BTW ... I found that good Cherokee Sixes are getting pretty expensive. That'd be a perfect fit for us, but the really nice specimens are getting pricey.

 

[sstearns2]

You might want to check out the grumman tiger. It doesn't have the useful load of some 182s, but it's just as fast, if not a hair faster, on a lot less fuel. It's a lot more fun to fly too. You can get a nice early 90s one for about 100K, maybe a little less. Maintence and insurance is cheap too with fixed gear, fixed prop, and a 4 cly engine.

Watch out for the new 182s, the useful loads are not what they were in the 70s and 80s. Our old 70s 182 had a 1500+lb useful load, the new 182 had a 1150 pound useful load. I was shocked when my old flight school got some of the first new 182s. If you go with one of the new 182s try to find one with the 2 bladed prop. The 3 bladed prop adds 50 pounds of weight and adds zero performance according to the POH.

Scott

 

[gkrangers]

Thanks for the info ... a twin is out of our price range. Anything much over $150K and he'll stop listening pretty quickly. Twins are out due to insurance and maintenance costs, as much as I'd like one for the ME time. I'll get my multi-time thru my part-time gig anyway, so I want what's best for my employer. They still joke that they promised me a company jet one day if I'd stay thru the lean times (now over ... thank God), so I can be patient.

The more I look around, the more I think a late model 182 is the ticket. I even found a recent Fortune article about a small business owner buying a Turbo 182 and it listed his monthly outlay and terms. Not bad. Certainly do'able for us in the next year or so if things stay on track. One notch up would be a V-tail Bonanza, perhaps. I'm in the southeast, and have personal limits on weather anyway, so I don't need ice protection. Just room, do'able maintenance costs, and reasonable speed.

Today a C182 ... tomorrow a CJ. I got a book about flying CJs ... two wings ... two engines ... I could figure it out. imp:

BTW ... I found that good Cherokee Sixes are getting pretty expensive. That'd be a perfect fit for us, but the really nice specimens are getting pricey.

Yep, I was going to mention the Six. Seems pretty bad ass...300HP, 6 seats, fixed gear, so insurance probably wouldn't be killer.

http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircr...erokee_Six/1975_PIPER_CHEROKEE_6_300/6765.htm

http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircr...erokee_Six/1979_PIPER_CHEROKEE_6_300/7984.htm

a little pricey, but sexy...

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Looking at the controller.com, the first C182 I see under $150K is a 1978 with 180 SMOH. There are plenty of 210s under $150K. The one that stands out is a 1975 turbo 210 with almost 3330TT 840 SMOH. As far as Saratogas go, there are only a couple. One is high engine time and the other is fixed gear. My personal opinion would be to not even consider a "V" tail Bonanza. With their airframe structural problems over the past ten years, you don't want to take the chances that you or your employer won't still be around when the CJ time comes.

Now, I know you said a twin is out of the question, but you might look into it a little harder and go to the boss with some hard facts. My advice would be to purchase a Cessna 310R. You can find many under $150K. If you take your time, you can find a good one with boots, low engine time, and decent avionics for under $150K. As far as insurance goes, since you are running part 91, I would think that it would cost no more than $1500 a year more than the singles you asked about. As for maintenance, don't buy into the talk about a twin being more expensive. Yeah, there is another engine for something to wrong and you have to inspect that engine every year, so maybe add 10 hours to the annual ($500-$600). Yes, you also have to add an additional 10-15 gallons an hour fuel burn to your figures. However, if you figure that the 310 is 50 knots faster than the 182, then the per mile cost is not all that much more. I would assume that your employers time is worth more than $40 an hour. As he would be working and not sitting on an airplane for the additional time. Also, a twin will give him the added comfort to actually get work done while traveling. Good luck with that in a 182.

Again, my strong opinion would be to purchase a Cessna 310R. If you still can't get the boss to go for it, then get yourself a turbo 210. At least when you are pressing your luck with the ice, you will have the power to climb out of the weather. Both aircraft are pretty easy to sell when the time comes, which is another added bonus.

 

[dhc8fo]

As for maintenance, don't buy into the talk about a twin being more expensive. Yeah, there is another engine for something to wrong and you have to inspect that engine every year, so maybe add 10 hours to the annual ($500-$600).

The annual on my Cherokee is $2K a year with nothing major wrong and the annual on my Cessna 340 is $12K a year....a little more than $500-600 dollars difference with the extra engine. Granted the 340 is pressurized, but that doesn't account for the $10K difference.

The annual on a 310 WILL cost you three times as much as a single and there WILL be more maintenance. Plus, he doesn't have his multi yet and insurance will be killer until he has at least 50-100 hours under his belt.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

The annual on my Cherokee is $2K a year with nothing major wrong and the annual on my Cessna 340 is $12K a year....a little more than $500-600 dollars difference with the extra engine. Granted the 340 is pressurized, but that doesn't account for the $10K difference.

The annual on a 310 WILL cost you three times as much as a single and there WILL be more maintenance. Plus, he doesn't have his multi yet and insurance will be killer until he has at least 50-100 hours under his belt.

If you are paying 12 grand a year for an annual, you are getting taken. I got a bridge I can sell ya!!! Try going somewhere other than TAS, Stevens, JA, and a few other unmentionables. Heck, give me a call next time and I will get it done for you for a lot less. Probably 1/4 of the cost.

Now as the 310 goes, I have 2 of them so I know exactly what they cost and what it takes to annual an aircraft. I usually assist the mechs when the time comes, so I can tell you it is not real hard. Just time consuming. I think the manual says 30-35 hours for the inspection only.

Well guess I read Snakum's original post wrong. Thought he was saying that he worked for a small frac. on weekends. Thus I figured he had some time and a multi. If you are correct and he does not have a multi, then you are right, it will be hard to find reasonable insurance. Also, if he doesn't have a multi and is low time, I think he will have a hard time getting to drive a CJ for this company some day. He might be better off just moving on and not investing a lot of time with this company.

 

[Snakum]

This question was for my 'real job' employers. I merely clean, load, and tag along on the bigger stuff for the weekend gig and I hope to get the ME Comm done soon so I can start logging the empties. By the time my regular job employers could actually afford a turbine aircraft I doubt I'll have to worry about ME time. We ain't growing THAT fast.

Thanks for the info Scott ... that's the kind of stuff I was looking for. Even searching thru the posts here and hitting the net there are a lot of things I still don't know about various SE Cessnas. That's good info.

gk ... that's a sweet Cherokee, and not a bad price, either. A Six was among the first aircraft I thought of, but the upgraded low-timers are getting pricey from what I saw. The bosses would be able to take the whole family to the beach on weekends in one of those, and they'd have to take me, too, of course.

I thought the structural issues with the V-tail Bonanzas was remedied in the 70s or 80s (I can't remember exactly) with a beefed up empenage? True? There are some nice V-tails in the under $200K range.

A C310 was ruled out with merely one search on FI. Just the posts I found with one quick search was enough disabuse me of that notion. We don't have the money for the kinds of surprises an older twin can hand us.

I'm one of the luckiest people in the world. Despite seven years of 80+ hour weeks and years of paycuts, I still love my job, I love the people I work for, and I love the people I work with. I know where we started and I know where we're heading now, and I also know exactly what my contribution has been. Flying for a living would be nice, but part-time flying in a Skylane or a Bonanza for my present full-time job would make me the happiest man on earth. Not many people will ever know the kind of job satisfaction I've known over the past few years. And us getting our own air transportation would just be icing on the cake. I ain't going nowhere ... plane or no plane. imp:

 

[Snakum]

Got the PM Lear ... thanks. I sent some questions back about the C210.

 

[bell47]

You might want to check out the grumman tiger. It doesn't have the useful load of some 182s, but it's just as fast, if not a hair faster, on a lot less fuel. It's a lot more fun to fly too. You can get a nice early 90s one for about 100K, maybe a little less. Maintence and insurance is cheap too with fixed gear, fixed prop, and a 4 cly engine.

Watch out for the new 182s, the useful loads are not what they were in the 70s and 80s. Our old 70s 182 had a 1500+lb useful load, the new 182 had a 1150 pound useful load. I was shocked when my old flight school got some of the first new 182s. If you go with one of the new 182s try to find one with the 2 bladed prop. The 3 bladed prop adds 50 pounds of weight and adds zero performance according to the POH.

Scott

Avoid the Tiger...they were made during that time period in my hometown, I've been through the plant many times. Stick with a 182,206, Cherokee 6-300, or maybe a saratoga. I would say stay with a fixed gear non turbo, for cost reasons.

 

[dhc8fo]

Flying for a living would be nice, but part-time flying in a Skylane or a Bonanza for my present full-time job would make me the happiest man on earth. Not many people will ever know the kind of job satisfaction I've known over the past few years. And us getting our own air transportation would just be icing on the cake. I ain't going nowhere ... plane or no plane. imp:

Just don't forget that statement as you gain your experience and you will be the envy of all of your professional pilot friends. Not too many people in aviation are lucky enough to find that perfect combination! Good luck to you in your search.

 

[Headwind]

If it were me, I would go with the V-35 Bonanza. You get honest 165 + @15 GPH at 7 to 9 thousand. Very comfortable for three and baggage. Most are well equipped and well maintained. Some have freon air condition.
My second choice would be a Cessna 182 RG. The RG has the 0-540 engine with 235 HP and the TBO is much longer than the 0-470 on the fixwd gear 182's. They do 150 on about 14 GPH, have plenty of room, and it's easy to get in and out with two doors. Don't buy one with Cessna radios or autopilot.
I have operated both. If you want a single to fly at 7 to 9 thousand feet with no ice protection either will do a good job. I would suggest a back up alternator and vacuum pump. Later if you need to fly in known ice or up in the flight levels, then look turbine.

HEADWIND

 

[knewhigher]

I flew for a small company in a 1979 182RG on those exact type missions you mentioned in the NC area. It was a fantastic plane for those missons, great useful load, 5 hour endurance, and does a respectable 150kts. It was pretty roomy and can easily haul 4 people with bags a pretty good distance.

 

[sky37d]

My plane used to be owned by a group of companies. It has de-ice, radar, basic stack. It now has 7K hours, my last annual was 3K. I cruise at 155Kts, I burn 22 GPH, and I go lots of places. It has six seats and a cargo pod, and including the cost of the new engine, it was 60K. It's a twin, a C337, looks a little odd, has high wing so people can look out, I can get in and out of REALLY short stips, and I don't have near the gear problems that 310's have.
Just a thought.
http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1105190&guid=0C49DF3C987A49FFA3070788ED17E98E

 

[desert pilot]

A `91 trinidad tb-20 in almost perfect shape was sold recently in Arizona for 150,000$,good plane-not much working space.

 

[Lead Sled]

The big issue with the V-tail is the CG envelope - the model 33 (straight tail) would probably be the better choice. The boss is really going to have problems understanding why he can't put four people in his 4-seat airplane and fill up the gas tanks and fly some where; after all, he does it every day in his car.

'Sled