Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1819794
Ibra wrote:if you are looking for 2.6537 seaters ...


What size of child equates to 0.6537 of an adult?

Rob P :scratch:
#1819867
Ibra wrote:I flew turbo Arrow, it's a neat machine by all means: it that can take you to any grass and will get you 140ias in +12kft but it's just another PA28

Rockwell if you can afford long (paved) runways and you care about how it looks, I enjoy the ride but never openned engine cowlings


I only add that I guess it depends on your definition of "long". There's been a Commander 114 flying quite happily out of Old Buck on the 798m runway (and 639m before it was extended) for a number of years, albeit they have recently replaced it with another one following a landing accident last year.

Ian
#1819933
So, everyone has ignored my two suggestions of aircraft and this has turned into the usual “ my aircraft “ is perfect for them ! These two guys have only 100 hours and state VFR pilots. I would also suggest that a simple aircraft with fixed U/C and fixed prop will be considerably cheaper to run for a first time two man share.
Pete L, Human Factor, Paul_Sengupta and 3 others liked this
#1819935
john ball wrote:So, everyone has ignored my two suggestions of aircraft and this has turned into the usual “ my aircraft “ is perfect for them ! These two guys have only 100 hours and state VFR pilots. I would also suggest that a simple aircraft with fixed U/C and fixed prop will be considerably cheaper to run for a first time two man share.


Thats why I said earlier a Cherokee 6, cheaper to buy, fixed u/c, faster and a bigger load capacity.
#1819939
Lockhaven wrote:
john ball wrote:So, everyone has ignored my two suggestions of aircraft and this has turned into the usual “ my aircraft “ is perfect for them ! These two guys have only 100 hours and state VFR pilots. I would also suggest that a simple aircraft with fixed U/C and fixed prop will be considerably cheaper to run for a first time two man share.


Thats why I said earlier a Cherokee 6, cheaper to buy, fixed u/c, faster and a bigger load capacity.


Agree 100%
As per my other posts, I think the OP is aiming higher than necessary.
kanga liked this
#1819953
In bought my Commander when I was on 39 hours as a student and at the same time another of the ppl students bought an SR22. Why would someone with 100 hours not buy a turbo aircraft. Perhaps they like going to the Alps. We are not all in the two circuits a month brigade.
Iceman, Kittyhawk liked this
#1819954
@TLRippon, I would agree totally. If you can afford to buy one and can afford the upkeep, I’d go for the highest spec aircraft that I could afford. A good bit of future proofing and a good encouragement to get on with working towards their IRs. If I could afford a PC12 or a PC24 now, I’d go and buy one.

Iceman 8)
Nick, Ibra liked this
#1819998
I hate to say this but a 200hp Commander will take four average people, enough luggage for a week away and about 3.5 hours of fuel off 700m at 125kts burning 10usgph.
I do like a 182 though. Prefer the 260hp version at 140kts.
#1820042
I can't speak for the Commander 112 versions because I haven't flown them but I have flown the 114A. It is a big comfortable aeroplane with a Lycoming I0-540. It does 135kts IAS at 24/24. This is only 10kts faster than a C182Q and about 10kts slower than a C182RG. The turbo Arrows again do 135 kts but don't have a massive payload. You need more than 200HP to lift 4 200lb people. The Comanche 260 is significantly faster than all of the above but is an older aeroplane and might need some modernisation.
The question is whether you need the extra operating cost of RG and forced induction. Unless you plan to fly really high (unlikely without IR) or really long flights it is usually better to go for a more functional utility aircraft and set off 15mins earlier. Most however like to play the top trumps game of mine is faster than your down the pub. Shortly followed by but I used less fuel. One chap I know didn't mind what he bought as long as it had a 3 bladed prop and a shiny spinner!
#1820058
Paul_Sengupta wrote:Iceman's 112TC used to do 135 knots IAS but that was giving it a fair number of beans.

(I say used to do as he has a TB20 now!)

When I flew the (non TC) Arrow IV, I used to cruise at about 120 knots IAS.


I used to fly a turbo arrow 4 and it did about 130kts IAS at low level but would still be doing that at 15,000' and had about a 1800'pm climb rate. There is no doubt that the turbo gives increased capability especially if you are going high and far.
The flip side is that you have a shorter TBO on the engine and if I remember correctly the Commander 112TC is not fuel injected.
#1820094
I think 100h TT is meaningless depends how many hours one does per year on type and their flying budget, if one flies +36h/year on any complex that should be more than enough, altough insurance budget will eat into fuel budget, how much it's worth it is up to them?

Also reflexes at 100h TT at young age clocking 80h/year on type are way more sharper than at 2000h TT at old age doing 12h/year

If they can afford to run (and maybe bend) an Arrow or Commander while clocking load of hours on it, go for it, currency on type is king !

C182 or Piper6 comes in handy for regular short grass and 4pob at full fuel, the advantage is you would rarely have to wiggle in Perf or WnB and wind calculations...

Rob P wrote:
Ibra wrote:if you are looking for 2.6537 seaters ...


What size of child equates to 0.6537 of an adult?

Rob P :scratch:


It's 0.7 today :lol:
Rob P liked this