Just dreaming/thinking here for the long term (if things go right).

If you had a choice of aircraft (single engine, under $200K, and close to or more than 200MPH cruise) to travel between Boise, Idaho and SoCal, what would be your choice? My three favorite are listed in the subject line.

For the most part and on good days, I'd most always plan for about 675-600nm each way to avoid any of the Restricted airspaces (I'm not too worried about MOA's). Direct through the Restricted's is about 645nm. And keeping the flight under 3 hours would be the main goal (If Wx is good).

Some other key points I'd like to think about in a aircraft for this mission.

1. Be able to fly the trip non-stop between Apple Valley/Victorville, CA (Cal. Logistics/KVCV) and Boise, Idaho area with at least 45-60 minute fuel reserve on a good day.

2. Have the option of landing on gravel/dirt runways.

3. Be a comfortable aircraft for four adults plus small luggage (carry on size).

Looking forward to your opinions and suggestions

Thanks!!

I think you like sight seeing so a low wing will alway be in the way. That leaves a 210.

If you did not mind the low wing then a Bonanza would be my choice.

Just get a Maule

Tim

You got me figured out, Tim. I do like the strut-less 210's.

You need a turbo commander much more shoulder room and parts are way cheaper. I was showing 186 Knots last week coming home at 16500.
Two hours 30 mins from brawley to home.

I have about 8 seconds of Bonanza time but have flown both the Lance/Saratoga and 210 in both the normal and turbocharged versions, not recently mind you. Both are very nice flying, haul a pretty good load and are stable IFR platforms. The T tailed Lance was a bit squirrely in pitch at slow speeds but the straight tailed Saratoga took care of that. 5 knots faster, no problem. As I remember they will all require a bit more runway than your 182, but not a lot. I'm not familiar with total operating costs so can't comment there. In general you won't go wrong with any of them.

If it's going to be reliably capable to fly that route, it'll need two things: Turbocharging and de-icing.

Those two "requirements" suggest the C-210, many of which were so equipped. No so many of the others were equipped with either, let alone both.

MTV

All three are good airplanes. I owned a Bonanza long ago, and it's the nicest handling of the three but beware a potentially expensive wing spar AD. I haven't followed the details on the wing spar and it may have been recinded. I know the American Bonanza Society has been wrangling with the FAA. Doesn't matter to me - the words "wing spar" and "crack" in the same sentence are enough to get me to move on to another choice! I don't have more than an hour or two in a Lance - it was the "T" tail variety owned by the local FBO - everyone, including the owner referred to it as a "T-tailed Chance" due to it's runway-loving takeoff characteristics. The straight-tail Lance is a much better airplane.
I have a couple hundred hours in 210s and if I were to buy an airplane in this class, it's what I'd get. It has the best overall performance of the three, will carry whatever you can close the door on, and if you stay away from deep ruts and the like, is a pretty decent backcountry airplane. I've operated them off airport quite a bit. Many have STOL kits of various types installed, and as MTV points out, there are lots of de-iced, turbocharged examples available. In this economy, you can probably find a decent one for under $100K if you look around a bit.

Best, O2

mtv wrote:If it's going to be reliably capable to fly that route, it'll need two things: Turbocharging and de-icing.

Those two "requirements" suggest the C-210, many of which were so equipped. No so many of the others were equipped with either, let alone both.

MTV

MTV - your two added "requirements" suggest filing IFR and going high. If the pilot is IFR rated so as to take advantage of those capabilities, that may work out fine ... but unless you're going to a pressurized airframe, which is likely going to be way more expensive than $200K, being on O2 for hours at a time on a routine basis is going to suck. And the scenery is less enjoyable from the near-flight levels than it is down lower. On the other hand, though, the air is usually smoother up high, especially in the summer.

If you don't fly in the clouds, de-icing is not a big deal. And if you're not flying in and out of high airstrips (the ones mentioned as destinations aren't) or flying in the near-flight levels, turbocharging isn't needed and brings substantially higher maintenance costs.

Going IFR does provide higher probability of manageable flying weather, of course.

So it all depends on your expectations and your pocketbook.

I have an S35 and only bought it because I could take it everywhere I took my 182, and I have. The Bo needs a little more runway to lift off than my 182 did but then is far superior in all other respects. At least 50% better climb and almost 50 knots faster. Better gas mileage to boot. I bought it because it has so much more interior space for camping. There was a Lance on a local ramp here. The guy had an engine failure and crash landed in a swamp. It sat out on the ramp for 18 months while they got it ready to ferry. It has nice double doors but to me it is damn ugly and a ground lover. I investigated 210's a little but the gear is a weak point. Small tires and gear that is not strong enough. There's a long sad story on the red board about a guy with a 70's 210 who felt a thump while taxiing. Turns out the collar that the steering gear attaches to broke in half. It took $20K to fix. It's a problem I can't have.
I have a friend who is doing exactly what you propose and is doing it with an A36. His wife is a vet and they live in Sacramento and travel to Boise once a month to the vet clinic there, they always fly VFR. We met up in Schafer in August. Best advice is you have to get a ride in each and see what you like. I will say this, here in Montana over the last 15 years I've been playing in the dirt you never see the Piper. The 210 is very rarely seen at the mountain strips although they can certainly handle it. For what ever reason i just do not see them around. There are 4 of us with Bo's that you will for sure see at most of the work party's here during the summer. But hey, get the Cessna and be the 210 guy that everybody knows at the back country strips. You can still drink our beer even though you have the wrong plane. I've got lots of pics like these:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/newps/5103444091/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/newps/5104033676/sizes/l/

mtv wrote:If it's going to be reliably capable to fly that route, it'll need two things: Turbocharging and de-icing.

Those two "requirements" suggest the C-210, many of which were so equipped. No so many of the others were equipped with either, let alone both.

MTV

Well, if I can get my brother-in-law talked into it, this might be a good option:
(I can't get the picture put here )
http://www.onaircraft.com/silver_eagle_ii.htm

Thanks for the info so far guys!!

I should mention that this will be a commuter plane between Boise/southwest Idaho and SoCal. If this deal goes through (and this may be a long process. Long story to get into at this point), I'll more than likely commute as little as once a month to every other week (depending on the budget). I'm not IFR rated now, but I won't rule that out later (if that time comes). Personally, I don't really care to fly into IFR/Known Icing in a single engine aircraft. I'm pretty sure my schedule will be very flexible to avoid any crappy weather flying. But, doesn't hurt to be prepared.

I would plan to keep my 182 in Idaho for backcountry flying. Or since my income may triple , I may even be able to afford to get a Scout along with the commuter plane.

The reason why I asked about landing on gravel/dirt, is that the business my brother in law may try to acquire is in the desert and has a gravel strip about a mile down the road. Or may be able to use part of a dry lake adjacent to the business when it's "DRY".

I really dig the 210's. But after reading the comments about the gear, I may want to shy away from that model.

After chattin with Mr Scout today, I'm really digging the Commander. I like the idea of the "Spring Loaded Gear" in case of gear extension problems. But not really the speed I would want. I really would want to keep the commute under 3 hours if at all possible (on a good/fair day).

My airliner friend Joe has a straight tail Lance and I feel very comfy in it and happy with it performance. So, so far the Lance and Bonanza is going head to head here.

Bonanza Man wrote:http://www.flickr.com/photos/newps/5103444091/sizes/l/

Cool picture!!

Hey Bonanza Man are there STOL mods for the Bonanza, besides VGs?

Have you taken a look at an older Cirrus?

I have a 2001 that I've flown regularly for the last three years.

I looked at the your trip VCV-BOI.

In my plane in no wind conditions running at 64% power that would take 3 hours and 13 min. You would burn 43 gallons of fuel. If you wanted a comfortable hour of fuel reseserve you would still able to bring 820 lbs of people and luggage.

You can pick up older Cirrus planes like mine for 140-165K with total times in the 800-1400 hour range all day long. I think used Cirrus's are a real bargin right now because they sold so many the last 10 years the market is flooded now when times got tough.

Any Cirrus you pick is going to have twin garmin 430s and a nice auto pilot plus a large MFD.

I have gone on fly outs with strutless 210 and the cirrus will out climb them and out cruise them and burn less fuel doing it.

Your pocket book will thank you at annual time too. My annuals have been about the same as my 182 annuals used to be, which make sense in that they are both fixed gear singles with 6 cylinder engines and constant speed props.

It has a parachute. While that may not matter much to you and me as pilots, I have been shocked at what it does for your friends and family. Once you show them the handle and explain how it works you can see their tension release and that makes them enjoy the trip more and seems to really reduce the number of ones that get air sick. (there are times like when I'm VFR on top in the mountains that I like the chute myself)

The Cirrus is not the backcountry plane that the 182 is but its fine for maintained dirt or grass strips I have taken mine to moose creek and i keep it at my house where i have a 2000' dirt strip at an elevation of 5000'. It does scuff up the wheel pants over time but i just live with that.

Here is a clip of me landing at my house I use about 800'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMaJZ7AQPRk

In my opinion the over all view is better out of the Cirrus than the 182 do to the lower panel and the larger windows.

Thats what i like here are the down sides:

I don't like the feel when hand flying, its ok but i liked the 182 and my Cub better.

Parts, I havent had any problems getting them but i have to think cessna is a lot more stable in the long term as far as companys go.

Coolness, this goes both ways nonpilots and younger pilots seem to really like them but you get a lot of plastic plane comments from the older crowd.

Anyway thats my 2 cents, I would leave you with this though before you spend 200k on a plane, take a cirrus on a short cross country trip, theres a reason they have been the best selling single engine plane for the last 8 years.

I think the earlier comment regarding a turbocharger is a good one. The point was not that you would be IFR at FL 230 but having an extra 4 or 5 " MAP in the mountains makes a world of difference on any flight.

[quote="Blu"]Have you taken a look at an older Cirrus?

It has a parachute. While that may not matter much to you and me as pilots, I have been shocked at what it does for your friends and family. Once you show them the handle and explain how it works you can see their tension release and that makes them enjoy the trip more and seems to really reduce the number of ones that get air sick.In my opinion the over all view is better out of the Cirrus than the 182 do to the lower panel and the larger windows.

Thats what i like here are the down sides:

I don't like the feel when hand flying, its ok but i liked the 182 and my Cub better.

Parts, I haven't had any problems getting them but i have to think cessna is a lot more stable in the long term as far as companys go.
{quote=}

The plastic comments do have some merit, last week I was at a Cirrus dealer who had repaired a nick in the leading edge by removing a section of wing. Laying up new glass and heating it in an oven. A huge expense
And we haven't seen what age is going do on the airframes yet.
Also its my understanding the parachute was because the design wouldn't pass spin testing. The FAA has a huge amount of data on this, hadn't it been for a money gun we wouldn't get to enjoy the design today.
I do like there performance numbers though.

I'd put one of these together:
http://www.aerocompinc.com/airplanes/CA6/index.htm
I think it meets your requirements as well as anything else that was mentioned. Plus, since it's an experimental, you can do whatever you want like VGs or big tires without all of that stc and 337 nightmare. To me, that's a huge benefit.

mr scout wrote:
The plastic comments do have some merit, last week I was at a Cirrus dealer who had repaired a nick in the leading edge by removing a section of wing. Laying up new glass and heating it in an oven. A huge expense
And we haven't seen what age is going do on the airframes yet.
Also its my understanding the parachute was because the design wouldn't pass spin testing. The FAA has a huge amount of data on this, hadn't it been for a money gun we wouldn't get to enjoy the design today.
I do like there performance numbers though.

Repairs like you describe are no doubt more than similer repairs on a convetional airplane. But the majority of those type of repairs tend to be insurance paid while the extra cost of retractable gear maintance and repair tends to be owner paid.

Your right about the airframe aging, its a new design so how it will hold up when its 40 years old is an open question. Still for 150k you'll be flying an 8 year old plane so you wont have to worry about it for 30 years ( how old will u be in 30 years) How old is that 150 thousand dollar 210 or bonaza with a glass panel going to be? 30-40 years old already? ( can u even get a glass panel 210 for 150k?)

My understanding on the parachute is that the guy that designed the cirrus almost died in a mid air collision. So when he started out the parachute was planned right from the begining.It was not added later because of the spin testing requirement. When it came time to certify the airframe the FAA said they could do spin testing or show that it had a equivelent level of saftey. Since they where a start up company short on cash they just but it in a spin and pulled the chute and said ok. I don't know if it would recover from a spin, I've never spun mine. The level of incompetance needed to get into a spin in a cirrus just boogels my mind though as i have never flown something with such a mild stall and effective alirons even when stalled. (i know i know people have done it, I'm just saying they where incompetent)

Just for the record i like 210's and really like Bonanza 36's. I just think its hard to beat the bang for the buck in the used cirrus market right now.

mr scout wrote:
The plastic comments do have some merit, last week I was at a Cirrus dealer who had repaired a nick in the leading edge by removing a section of wing. Laying up new glass and heating it in an oven. A huge expense
And we haven't seen what age is going do on the airframes yet.
Also its my understanding the parachute was because the design wouldn't pass spin testing. The FAA has a huge amount of data on this, hadn't it been for a money gun we wouldn't get to enjoy the design today.
I do like there performance numbers though.

Actually the Cirrus will recover from a spin just fine using the standard recovery techniques as was demonstrated for it's European certification in over 60 spin tests. In fact the first generation Cirrus POH's included the spin recovery technique in them before it was subsequently removed in future editions. As Blu stated: "When it came time to certify the airframe the FAA said they could do spin testing or show that it had a equivelent level of saftey." It was determined that pilots no longer have to demonstrate a spin recovery to obtain a license and therefore many do not know how to do it when faced with a spin therefore it is safer for them to just pull the CAPS.

Blu wrote:I have gone on fly outs with strutless 210 and the cirrus will out climb them and out cruise them and burn less fuel doing it.

Sure, put 310 ponies under the hood of 3400 lb takeoff and it will out climb a 285 hp with the same MGTOW any day. Equal the HP and see how well they compete...plus the 210 can do it with 2 extra people on board. The Cirrus will not burn less fuel at the same speed nor outrun a 210 at equal HP ratings nor does it have the load or range of the 210. To get 310 hp in a 210 it would be a turbo model and will cruise in the mid 190 kt range as opposed to the 310 hp SR22 which will cruise in the mid 180 range. Just like with comparing a 210 to a Bonanza you must compare the same HP. The 210 has a very wide range of HP options available in the different years.

Blu wrote:Your pocket book will thank you at annual time too.

Don't forget to mention that $10,000 CAPS re-pack that currently must be done every 10 years. If you have a 2001 model you are on the short list.

Blu wrote:The level of incompetance needed to get into a spin in a cirrus just boogels my mind though as i have never flown something with such a mild stall and effective alirons even when stalled.

However, the stall / spin accidents on the Cirrus are not very favorable even for high time pilots. The wing is stall resistant but not stall / spin proof.

A couple other things to consider:

Instrument rating: DO IT!! Start NOW, and get it done. Don't think you'll ever fly in IFR weather? Watch the weather across that route of flight for a while....you're talking a couple different climate zones, and you're going to find a lot of situations where to reliably get there, you're going to need to do at least PART of the trip under IFR. Finally, on that topic, you will be WAY better off operating into and out of SoCal airspace under IFR, believe me. That airspace is complex, and under IFR, life is simpler and better in that world.

The idea behind the turbocharger is to offer options. There's some tall real estate on that route of flight, and sometimes it gets HOT along there as well. Turbocharging (or that turbine conversion) offers LOTS more options when it's hot and high.

The Cirrus may be a good option, but none of the older ones were turbo equipped.

Insurance: If it folds it's wheels or has more than one motor, bring LOTS of money for insurance coverage, at least until you have a couple hundred hours in the thing. Even different airplane models have higher insurance rates as well. Do some research on the different models you're considering.

If twas me, I'd look for a solid 210 with a turbo. Don't be scared by the gear--find a mechanic who understands the gear and knows how to make it work. It's really reliable. With one exception: If it still has gear doors, get rid of them. A large percentage of the gear problems on these airplanes were caused by the gear doors. There is an stc to remove them, and later airplanes didn't have them.

MTV