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

[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