The King Air in the background is a bit of a troll move. The Bonanza is probably the best pick. Pressurization is going to add quite a bit of cost to your maintenance when you might not need it as often as you think.
Take a look at the Piper Malibu. Pressurized, 200 kts cruise, 6 seats and long range. search Malibu flyer on UA-cam, his channel will show you what it can do and how much room his family has inside
I know several people with Malibus and I have heard from them and read a lot on that particular plane they have a LOT of engine problems. One friend bought a brand new one and had 2 engine replacements in the first 3 years. Not overhauls, replacements. They are pretty and meet the criteria I mentioned, but safety and reliability are number 1 for me and my family onboard. -Dan
I was an A&P for over 20 years, got out of the field in the early 2000's. My observation was that most of the pressurized piston machines tend to be high maintenance. My old boss and FBO owner for 30 plus years use to say they never built a pressurized piston aircraft that was worth very much and if you cant afford something that burns kerosene, you cant afford pressurization, that being said, you cant go wrong with a Bonanza.
I tend to agree with most everything you said. Plus, with our mission profile, I don't think bouncing around for 6 hours to get 1,100 nm with a 3 year old is practical. We may just have to bite the bullet and go turbine. -Dan
@@danielolivermcelroy8320 What ever you do, don't let some aircraft salesman talk you into something like a Cessna 421, I maintained several in the early 80's, if an FBO could get the exclusive maintenance contract on a pair of 421's, they could stay in business. One of our customers traded their 421 on a Cessna Conquest 1 with the small PT6's, he flew it about 300hrs a year and besides annuals we never touched the airplane. The King Air seems to be the top dog in the turboprop twin market, mainly because they've outlasted everybody else, but the older models have lots of landing gear issues, I maintained a pair of King Air 200's in Alaska for a few years, they're pretty good machines, but nobody ever explained to Beechcraft why you don't generally build square air tanks lol and the Beech 1900's I'll just say, they definitely don't have the electronics figured out like the Japanese car builders lol. I also realize there are a few single engine turboprops in the market nowadays, and I don't have any real experience with those machines but as somebody who has lived and breathed aviation for the better part of my life, I'll give you my personal philosophy on aircraft, which adhered too will serve you and your family well " All aircraft power plants are designed, built and maintained by men, it's impossible for any of them to be 100 percent reliable" What ever your decision, good luck and clear skies.
The P210 may have “icing” equipment but please read it’s POH carefully. I teach the Cessna Citation II and V which also has deice boots. But Cessna says don’t fly it in icing if it’s more than “light” icing. So I doubt with the 210 you could really fly sustained in any kind of icing conditions. All I’m saying is just because you have boots and a hot prop don’t think you can fly in any kind of icing you encounter because you can’t. Read the POH carefully!!
I 100% agree. My parents are both CFI II MEI ATPs and they told me from day 1 you NEVER look for ice. Icing equipment is only there to get you out of it. Or you can use it to go through a layer on descent where there is known VFR/non-freezing temperatures below. -Dan
We haven't bought anything yet. A bunch of things happened right after we sold the Cessna and we are still trying to figure out when would be a good time to pull the trigger on something that expensive. -Dan
Scott Major Best six seat single is a PA32. No question about it cabin wise and anyone who hasn’t figured that out needs to get in line for a brain transplant
Daniel Oliver McElroy I’m just messing with you. I think it’s great you’re going to step it up. 55k a year is a big nut. I hope you guys use it enough to warrant that.
I assume your wife knows the icing systems are to allow you to get out of a bad situation, not to just fly through any icing environment. If you haven't, due your due diligence on the Cessna cantilever wings. I have a feeling there may be more issues with the spars and attach fittings in the near future. Who knows, but I would only buy a low hour airframe, and have a well qualified Cessna tech look over the wing inside and out. They are great airplanes.
Completely agree. FIKI is only ever used as a way to escape icing. Like any car boat or plane I buy, I always talk to as many experts as possible as you don't want to buy something then find there is a $20K bill waiting for you. -Dan
P210 or Piper Malibu/Mirage. $$$$$. If you are hauling family for long distances and at night, I would seriously consider a turbine like an early Propjet or TBM 700 if you can afford it, but experience wise that may be a reach. Otherwise, I would look at Cessna 310 or Piper Twin Comanche but not sure about the de ice. Day flying with no deice maybe also consider RV10
Love to hear the continued story! I'm keenly interested in getting something myself, but as you noticed with the 172 I'm more interested in something USEFUL as well as fun. So I'm curious how the numbers end up running. I've been looking at the Socata TB 21, not sure if it's worth considering for you.
The Socata TB 21 is pretty nice and pretty quick, but I need icing capabilities and a little more space for "hauling" the baby and dog and all the bits that go with it. Let me know what you end up getting! -Dan
If Mooney is on your list I highly suggest looking at the Cessna 177 it has a 4 cylinder engine like the C172 which really helps fuel flow and a the cabin is much nicer then a 172. I am not a 100% percent on the performance number but even the non rg model should get about 125knots. Plus they are a lot cheaper then most of the planes on your list. Also you should be able to find one with icing equipment pretty easily.
I like the 177, but the cabin is too small for us. I completely agree it is like a little mooney. Clean, simple, good speed, and you can get it turbo normalized and cruise at 160+ knots! -Dan
No. I have to have FIKI. Also, I want a 1,200nm range above 175 knots. Also, I won't fly into remote place with this type of plane. That is what my Sonex is for. -Dan
I know it very well. But you are right. Going from $350K to $850K for the exact same cruise speed and a higher fuel burn are not fun. It does beat it in one area though, climb speed! -Dan
I thought the pick was a no brainier, answer on the next aircraft was right behind you lol. @That Pilot Guy , Agreed that was a troll move, but that's ok still enjoy the that background. Great video Dion Markgraf AKA:Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 11 pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast UA-cam: Dionm01
They are fine. They haul a lot, but they are not as quick as they others. Also, the range is not capable of getting us to our destination without a fuel stop. Great aircraft for other missions, jut not what we are looking for. -Dan
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](/img/n.gif)
The King Air in the background is a bit of a troll move.
The Bonanza is probably the best pick. Pressurization is going to add quite a bit of cost to your maintenance when you might not need it as often as you think.
Take a look at the Piper Malibu. Pressurized, 200 kts cruise, 6 seats and long range. search Malibu flyer on UA-cam, his channel will show you what it can do and how much room his family has inside
I know several people with Malibus and I have heard from them and read a lot on that particular plane they have a LOT of engine problems. One friend bought a brand new one and had 2 engine replacements in the first 3 years. Not overhauls, replacements. They are pretty and meet the criteria I mentioned, but safety and reliability are number 1 for me and my family onboard. -Dan
I was an A&P for over 20 years, got out of the field in the early 2000's. My observation was that most of the pressurized piston machines tend to be high maintenance. My old boss and FBO owner for 30 plus years use to say they never built a pressurized piston aircraft that was worth very much and if you cant afford something that burns kerosene, you cant afford pressurization, that being said, you cant go wrong with a Bonanza.
I tend to agree with most everything you said. Plus, with our mission profile, I don't think bouncing around for 6 hours to get 1,100 nm with a 3 year old is practical. We may just have to bite the bullet and go turbine. -Dan
@@danielolivermcelroy8320 What ever you do, don't let some aircraft salesman talk you into something like a Cessna 421, I maintained several in the early 80's, if an FBO could get the exclusive maintenance contract on a pair of 421's, they could stay in business. One of our customers traded their 421 on a Cessna Conquest 1 with the small PT6's, he flew it about 300hrs a year and besides annuals we never touched the airplane. The King Air seems to be the top dog in the turboprop twin market, mainly because they've outlasted everybody else, but the older models have lots of landing gear issues, I maintained a pair of King Air 200's in Alaska for a few years, they're pretty good machines, but nobody ever explained to Beechcraft why you don't generally build square air tanks lol and the Beech 1900's I'll just say, they definitely don't have the electronics figured out like the Japanese car builders lol. I also realize there are a few single engine turboprops in the market nowadays, and I don't have any real experience with those machines but as somebody who has lived and breathed aviation for the better part of my life, I'll give you my personal philosophy on aircraft, which adhered too will serve you and your family well " All aircraft power plants are designed, built and maintained by men, it's impossible for any of them to be 100 percent reliable" What ever your decision, good luck and clear skies.
@@Agwings1960 Well said! -Dan
The P210 may have “icing” equipment but please read it’s POH carefully. I teach the Cessna Citation II and V which also has deice boots. But Cessna says don’t fly it in icing if it’s more than “light” icing. So I doubt with the 210 you could really fly sustained in any kind of icing conditions. All I’m saying is just because you have boots and a hot prop don’t think you can fly in any kind of icing you encounter because you can’t. Read the POH carefully!!
I 100% agree. My parents are both CFI II MEI ATPs and they told me from day 1 you NEVER look for ice. Icing equipment is only there to get you out of it. Or you can use it to go through a layer on descent where there is known VFR/non-freezing temperatures below. -Dan
@@danielolivermcelroy8320 smart man Dan!!
What did you decide on?
We haven't bought anything yet. A bunch of things happened right after we sold the Cessna and we are still trying to figure out when would be a good time to pull the trigger on something that expensive. -Dan
P210 is on my bucket list too. I’m a Cessna guy, so that’s the six seater I’d prefer. Hope u get that one.
There is something very soothing knowing how old and reliable and simple they are. We are leaning that way pretty hard. -Dan
@@danielolivermcelroy8320 familiarity and trust go a long way, even though those bonanzas are so sweet. Good luck.
Scott Major Best six seat single is a PA32. No question about it cabin wise and anyone who hasn’t figured that out needs to get in line for a brain transplant
Definitely faster than a Newell motorcoach, but life is about the journey not the destination. ;)
These planes are about the journey too! -Dan
Daniel Oliver McElroy I’m just messing with you. I think it’s great you’re going to step it up. 55k a year is a big nut. I hope you guys use it enough to warrant that.
I assume your wife knows the icing systems are to allow you to get out of a bad situation, not to just fly through any icing environment. If you haven't, due your due diligence on the Cessna cantilever wings. I have a feeling there may be more issues with the spars and attach fittings in the near future. Who knows, but I would only buy a low hour airframe, and have a well qualified Cessna tech look over the wing inside and out. They are great airplanes.
Completely agree. FIKI is only ever used as a way to escape icing. Like any car boat or plane I buy, I always talk to as many experts as possible as you don't want to buy something then find there is a $20K bill waiting for you. -Dan
P210 or Piper Malibu/Mirage. $$$$$. If you are hauling family for long distances and at night, I would seriously consider a turbine like an early Propjet or TBM 700 if you can afford it, but experience wise that may be a reach. Otherwise, I would look at Cessna 310 or Piper Twin Comanche but not sure about the de ice. Day flying with no deice maybe also consider RV10
Love to hear the continued story! I'm keenly interested in getting something myself, but as you noticed with the 172 I'm more interested in something USEFUL as well as fun. So I'm curious how the numbers end up running. I've been looking at the Socata TB 21, not sure if it's worth considering for you.
The Socata TB 21 is pretty nice and pretty quick, but I need icing capabilities and a little more space for "hauling" the baby and dog and all the bits that go with it. Let me know what you end up getting! -Dan
Get a 310. Six real seats. 175-180kts and 1700 UL and cheap acquisition costs.
Great airplane, but trying to avoid twins as of now. -Dan
If Mooney is on your list I highly suggest looking at the Cessna 177 it has a 4 cylinder engine like the C172 which really helps fuel flow and a the cabin is much nicer then a 172. I am not a 100% percent on the performance number but even the non rg model should get about 125knots. Plus they are a lot cheaper then most of the planes on your list. Also you should be able to find one with icing equipment pretty easily.
I like the 177, but the cabin is too small for us. I completely agree it is like a little mooney. Clean, simple, good speed, and you can get it turbo normalized and cruise at 160+ knots! -Dan
Maybe check out the piper Cherokee 6 and please get on Controller.com and get a used plane way cheaper!!
Guys why not a Cirrus SR22?
They said they were looking for a safe airplane!! That rules the Cirrus out!
All three are nice airplanes. I love the 210. My dream machine is the PC-12. Maybe I'll win the lottery someday. LOL
I have seen the PC-12 in person a number of time. Every time I see it I am struck by how large and powerful a stance it has. -Dan
Ever Consider a taildragger like a 180 or a 185? Pretty fast compared to a 172. Nice accessibility to remote places with bigger tires
No. I have to have FIKI. Also, I want a 1,200nm range above 175 knots. Also, I won't fly into remote place with this type of plane. That is what my Sonex is for. -Dan
The Silver Eagle Cessna 210 would make you drool if you like the piston 210. That money tho.
I know it very well. But you are right. Going from $350K to $850K for the exact same cruise speed and a higher fuel burn are not fun. It does beat it in one area though, climb speed! -Dan
Please get a 210!
Get the cessna it's the better plane for you pressurized cabin and deicing
I thought the pick was a no brainier, answer on the next aircraft was right behind you lol. @That Pilot Guy , Agreed that was a troll move, but that's ok still enjoy the that background. Great video
Dion Markgraf AKA:Dionsol Flight Simulation (X-Plane 11 pilot) & Aviation Enthusiast UA-cam: Dionm01
Have you considered the Cessna Stationair 206?
They are fine. They haul a lot, but they are not as quick as they others. Also, the range is not capable of getting us to our destination without a fuel stop. Great aircraft for other missions, jut not what we are looking for. -Dan
How many hours do you currently have if you don’t mind me asking. I assume you are instrument rated?
Hi! I have a little over 600 hours. I have my private, instrument, commercial, tail wheel, and high performance. -Dan
Money money money money....MONEY.