What aeroplane

[Dr Jekyll]

Purely a pipe dream due to my unexplained failure to become a software millionaire yet, but more to provoke a discussion.

Suppose I wanted to fly a couple of friends to the channel Islands or the South of France on a regular basis on a PPL and my own aircraft. Say 150 hours a year flying, budget up to £200K for the aircraft and say £40k a year for running costs (fixed and variable).

Is a modern single reliable enough to consider long overwater crossings or would I be better off with an older twin? Could I stretch to a turbine single? Is there such a thing as aviation bangernomics?
Could a private pilot with a few hundred hours realistically handle a turbine safely for that kind of trip?

[djc206]

We we plagued by Cirrus SR22's in summer flying down Q41 so that seems to be popular choice for the moderately wealthy. Maybe a bit outside the budget

[ecsrobin]

A DA40 would fit the bill. I'd prefer a DA42 but that's outside the budget but may get a secondhand model for that.

[Vitorio]

ecsrobin said:

DA40

For the proposed "few friends to the south of france" trip, that wouldnt be too much use though, 400kg weight limit means 4 blokes would be lucky to pack more then a clean pair of underpants and a toothbrush each, the range probably means at least one fuel stop underway, and the speed isnt that much better then a car, when taking stuff like pre/post flight checks into account... Plus not having a car at the destination.

This might seem very un-man-maths, but im really trying to prove that a maserati QuattroPorte is the sensible option here

[Wobbegong]

Would it be cheaper for two of you to get your licences and buy 2 X two seater aircraft? You can fly in formation then

[ecsrobin]

Vitorio said:

ecsrobin said:

DA40

For the proposed "few friends to the south of france" trip, that wouldnt be too much use though, 400kg weight limit means 4 blokes would be lucky to pack more then a clean pair of underpants and a toothbrush each, the range probably means at least one fuel stop underway, and the speed isnt that much better then a car, when taking stuff like pre/post flight checks into account... Plus not having a car at the destination.

This might seem very un-man-maths, but im really trying to prove that a maserati QuattroPorte is the sensible option here

Flying under an AOC with a DA42 we could take 2 normal sized passengers and weekend luggage not under AOC you'd comfortably take 4 and weekend luggage.

[hidetheelephants]

Seeing as we're dealing with a pipedream, I recommend building yourself a Rutan Defiant; be the first kid on the apron with a push-pull canard! More realistically a Cosy might fit the bill if you could find one for sale. I am mildly obsessed with canards.

[foliedouce]

I'll admit to being bias as I have one, but the Cessna 182 Skylane fits the bill perfectly. For that budget you could get once circa 10 years old (very young in aircraft terms) with Garmin G1000 Glass cockpit in good condition and low hours. And it would cost you less than 40k per year to run.

Rough numbers:-

150 hours x 70 = 10500 pounds on fuel
12 months x 500 pounds for hanger = 6000 (top end, can be got for less)
5000 pounds for an annual inspection / work (could vary a couple of grand either way)
2 x 1000 pounds for 50 hour inspection (likely to be less)
150 hours x 12.5 for savings towards engine fund (replacement cost 25k every 2000 hours) - 1875
Data subscriptions for avionics / GPS - 800

So around 26k per year to run plus landing fees and some other smaller stuff I've probably forgotten, but certainly less than 40k

The 182 is one of (if not the) safest GA aircraft in the world based on accident stats.

Other option would be an early Cirrus but they have Avidyne glass cockpit which I would personally avoid (too buggy).

Avoid Twins / Turbine, silly money to maintain / run. Turbine at that price point would be asking for trouble IMHO.

I'm happy over water in a single, only you can make the call on that risk.

[PanzerCommander]

Cessna 182 is a good shout, more carrying capacity and faster than the 172. There are also the bigger faster Piper aircraft like the Saratoga and the Arrow III to consider.

The Cirrus though a gorgeous aircraft to look at and lovely inside also have the ballistic parachute recovery system to consider; this has to be serviced too and I can't imagine that is cheap, but then what price do you put on being able to get down safely over 'hostile' terrain.

[Penguinracer]

I'd plum for a Bonanza B36TC - superb build quality, fast, can operate through a large altitude range, well suited to IFR operation in typical Western European conditions, decent useful load & range and maintenance costs significantly lower than for a Baron.