Thought on a Cirrus G3 or Twinstar for Midwest Air Taxi?

[Boris Badenov]

Another vote for the CE210. A36 is also a good choice, but tends to cost more for essentially the same performance as a T210. MX between the two seems to be pretty much a wash. TKS works great on the 210. If you need three hours of ice protection for a four hour trip, you're doing something wrong.

Who in their right mind would fly into known ice in a piston single anyway? Even in a piston twin it's questionable.

:yup:

 

[roundout]

How the hell do you last three hours? I'm done after 20 minutes if I don't bring a seat pad and a lumbar pad


See my experience with Diamonds has been one of consistent issues, problems, and all too frequent failures.

My job aside from instructing is flying a 1967 T210 for a small corporation. The Boss was originally looking at the Twin Star and I talked him out of it.

We have had that plane for about a year and the only time it has spent in the shop is the Annual, oil changes, and some upgrade work that is being done right now. The plane was purchased for under $100K, has about 400 pounds more useful load than the 42, has 2 more seats, cruises about 40 knots faster (depending on the day and altitude), and dammit the seats are comfy. Yes we burn about 8-10 more gallons per hour, but when you offset the purchase prices it would take us 15,000 hours at todays fuel prices to match the cost of purchasing a 42.

Yes a 40 year old airplane is outperforming the latest and greatest.

I think Diamond has had some wonderful marketing in getting people to believe that their airplanes are better, more efficient, cheaper to operate, safer, etc.......

But the fact is.....they are not any better than most of the airplanes out there.

Most old airplanes have advantages over new ones. Mooney, Bonanza, CE-172/182 (and 210 if they still made it) do not have to comply with newer standards such as 26g seats and such because they were type certified under old regs. Diamond, Cirrus, Columbia/Cessna models are at a disadvantage because they have to be substantially more overbuilt to achieve certification. Hell, if you even look at an old 182 vs a new 182, the new 182 has a suprisingly-low useful load. Same with the Bonanza. Same with the Mooney. Older airplanes have a huge advantage in this regard. New airplanes have advantages with warranty, more advanced aerodynamics, better avionics, and generally fewer maintenance issues.

There is no single-airplane solution for everybody. When somebody develops this aircraft, I plan to apply to work at that manufacturer.

 

[milleR]

Another vote for the CE210. A36 is also a good choice, but tends to cost more for essentially the same performance as a T210. MX between the two seems to be pretty much a wash. TKS works great on the 210. If you need three hours of ice protection for a four hour trip, you're doing something wrong.



:yup:

That's exactly my point. Ice protection on this type of plane is designed to get you OUT of icing, not continue flight in it. A 310hp, 3200 lb airplane has no business continuing flight in any kind of moderate ice, there simply isn't enough excess power. Using the boots to shoot an approach or to climb out of icing is one thing, relying on them to safely get from point A to point B is something else entirely.

 

[theyoungs02]

Looks like the consensus for my original post is essentially a used Baron or C 310 for twin piston OR A36. Narrowing the focus to one of these three, what are your thought...go with the Baron as it offer more for the $ and has better ramp presence or the more economical 310. Would an A36 be the compromise between a Cirrus and Baron 58 in this scenario? Please let me know your feedback.

 

[Boris Badenov]

310 has more "ramp presence" than a Baron. Looks bigger, requires more gymnastics to get in to. Consider that a positive or negative at your leisure. A36 is fine but I'm curious that you've omitted the 210 which is more common, more easily FIKI'd, and generally cheaper to acquire.

Using the boots to shoot an approach or to climb out of icing is one thing, relying on them to safely get from point A to point B is something else entirely.

One can get from point a to point b without spending the entire time in icing conditions if one has the presence of mind to, you know, switch altitudes and stuff. Having known ice on board just gives you the freedom to take off and see where the ice actually is. Ice is where you find it, and sitting on the ground clutching a hot chocolate and whimpering about the scary ice is not where you find it. It's amazing the mail ever got delivered before we had hot wings. Now you need the freaking space shuttle to get from des moines to council bluffs 9 months out of the year!

 

[jdlilfan]

I don't think any of the fixed gear airplanes can get certified for FIKI.

The CE208 has fixed gear and comes with boots or now offered with TKS.