The Pre-Purchase Homework

From my previous post, my next aircraft must meet the following criteria:

Speed: 130kts
Useful Load: 1,000lbs plus fuel
Seating Arrangements: Six seats
Endurance: 350nm plus 45min reserves.
Pilot Comfort: Autopilot, possibly slaved to a GPS
Passenger Comfort: Heating must be good for cold Chicago flying and Ventilation good enough for summer flying

After a long discussion with my wife, I ended up drawing a triangle with three points. At each point was labeled the main three factors for which aircraft we'd end up with:

• Family Hauling
• Long Trips
• Regularly Affordable

The choice was for her to pick two of the three; realistically that's what we'd be able to afford.

It really was the most realistic option for us.

The candidates came in as follows:

The Affordable Family Hauler is the Piper Cherokee Six.  

After piloting the Flying Sweet Potato for a few years, the speed of a Cherokee Six is familiar to me. Where it really holds its own is in her useful load. She can be fitted with 7 seats and has upwards a 1600 lbs. useful load.  Not only this, but being a fixed-gear single the insurance rates will be significantly lower than my other options. The maintenance costs should be lower as well overall, as there are fewer systems to break. Lugging the whole family around on 14gph makes this plane very affordable. Mid-week fun flights become more of a reality than with other higher-maintenance higher-fuel-burn aircraft.  This makes the Cherokee Six very attractive.

It may surprise some that I've listed the Cherokee Six and not its retractable gear counterpart the Piper Saratoga. There is a large difference between these two planes in both cruising speed and useful load. It would seem that the retractable gear system was simply installed as a compromise. For about a 300lbs decrease in useful, the Saratoga travels about 20% faster.

Piper Cherokee Six, an excellent load-hauler if slow is your thing.

The Affordable Cross-Country Machine would be a Turbo Twin Comanche.

I personally consider the Turbonormalized Twin Comanche to be one of the best light twins ever produced. With tip tanks and oxygen it's possible to cruise for over 1100nm at 180kts. This is a traveling machine that can take two adults and three children from Chicago to the Florida Keys on a single tank of fuel. At the same time, you're only feeding two Lycoming IO-320s which sip fuel compared to other aircraft capable of this range and speed.  Run it LoP to 11gph, and you're cruising at 16mpg! The biggest downside in our chart is that it really isn't a family hauler. Though the B and C models could be fitted with a 5th and 6th seat, the useful load would only make this practical for the whole family while our children are babies and toddlers.

Still, it wasn't ruled out entirely; depending on the financials my wife and I agreed that we'd keep these considered.

B or C-model Twin Comanche with Tip Tanks

The Family Hauling Powerhouse is a Piper Navajo.

During our day-dreams of hauling the family to Barbados or England or Freeport, the Navajo came up several times. It would be capable of the long flights we want, while also bringing the whole family. The only problem is that it isn't really too affordable for operation.  While a recent demonstration flight showed a Navajo will easily pull more weight than I'd be able to throw at it with a huge range and high travel speed to match.  The general maintenance costs don't actually look too much worse than what I've been paying on the Apache.  However, feeding those two thirsty TIO-540s would bump up the fuel consumption to about 36gph.

That's pricey. At $6/gal (which would be a hunt these days!) that's $220/hr in fuel alone.  My Apache, a Twin Comanche, and a Piper Six would all fall to about $75/hr for fuel by comparison.

The overhaul on a TIO-540 is roughly three times the cost of an IO-320. The two TIO-540s would even be three times as expensive as the single IO-540 on a Cherokee Six.  This plane would be a much larger financial responsibility, and would have to be treated almost as an alternative to airlines for us.  Sadly, we ruled this one out as soon as we started seriously discussing the money.

A cabin-class 8-seat aircraft. Sexy.

Back to the mission:

• Speed: Cherokee Six and Twin Comanche both satisfy the 130kts, even the non-turbo version of the TC and the 260HP version of the Six.
• Useful Load: The Cherokee Six actually meets this requirement with full fuel. The turbo TCs I've looked at have had the useful load for either the 1,000 lbs plus about two hours, or extend the endurance by sacrificing a good chunk of the useful load.
• Endurance: The Cherokee Six is capable of 840nm at full fuel, which she can do with my load of people. The turbo TC can have up to a 1200nm endurance, but at a significant loss of useful load.
• Passenger Comfort: A Cherokee Six will heat well at cruise, but since the engine must warm up first, my passengers will likely be sitting cold and huddled for warmth during taxi and takeoff.  The twin comanche has the benefit of its own combustion can in the nose. This can be used to heat the cabin during pre-flight so that by the time people are climbing in, the inside is nice an warm. It might seem a simple thing, but these Chicago winters can be harsh!

Those darn Chicago winters.

Finance: The Deciding Factor

So it's down to the Twin Comanche and the Cherokee Six.  Or so I thought.  I'll cover this in my next post, but I spent some time today calling around to some aircraft loan companies. The impact the terms of the loan offered had a significant impact on our decision. We will be looking for a Cherokee Six. The affordability swing was so wildly in favor of this it wasn't even a question.

So in my next post I'll cover the raw numbers of my financial homework, and what I plan to do for the next steps!

Have a Great Night Everyone!

Steven