boscomantico wrote:
What would be the base airport for the aircraft, and what airfields would be the main destinations?
Hi all, thanks for your insights for now. To address this and other questions, base would be in LJMB. Main destination would be LWOH and LWSK as alternate (indeed, main route is longer, but my milage count was aimed as an average, sorry for the confusion here). Secondary routes would include LYKV, LYBE, LDSP, LDDU, LDPL, LDOS, LOAN, LHTL.
Regarding the dispatch concerns – owners are familiar with the nature of GA flying in terms of weather, technical and other problems which could delay or cancel the flight. So as far as I know, impact on business in case of no-go wouldn’t be of essential importance. Flights would be scheduled at least week before, which would give plenty of time to adjust dates and times to coordinate with weather, technical, etc.
Frequency of flights would be one rotation per week. Estimated yearly hour count would be somewhere around 200-250.
Number of PAX is usually two, but another two would be added value. However, this is not a dealbreaker.
I am here to have a honest discussion with you guys, so if I missed any info you think is relevant, please do tell :) Thanks again, looking forward to your further opinions.
If you want to fly in winter, you 100% need FIKI deice (TKS, boots, whatever). And if you want to fly in summer, and it not be an ordeal, you need A/C. Not sure about the DA42 in that regard. The DA62 is a beautiful looking plane but there aren’t many about, also it is wider than normal and apparently won’t fit in a regular T-hangar.
I met someone with an SR22T, with FIKI and A/C, and he claimed that he has the same dispatch rate as an airliner. Another friend (@roznet, on here) has the same, though he does use the airlines if the weather is really bad – in particular convective. The TKS on the SR22 is good but it only has enough fluid for about 1.5 hours, so not for sustained IMC on the whole flight.
The DA42 can be fitted with A/C although it limits the headroom a little in the back. Adding other options, like wx radar, reduces the useful load significantly, so that needs careful consideration. I assume though that the pax in question have sat in all cabins and fit comfortably. As to comfort, the Diamonds are quieter than the Cirrus, also something to consider.
Haven’t all the issues with Austro engines been solved by now? Haven’t followed it closely..
aart wrote:
Haven’t all the issues with Austro engines been solved by now? Haven’t followed it closely..
It is a “fluid situation” – they could always find more problems. In Cirrus’ engine as well. :)
@arj1 wrote:
In Cirrus’ engine as well. :)
Recently I listened to a podcast where a guy had turbo failures in two different SR22Ts – I agree that I’d probably not buy the turbo unless I really needed it.
One of those turbo issues resulted in a chute pull which due to high wind drug the aircraft on the ground quite a long way, and was a real adventure that he doesn’t want to repeat.
In my company we fly a very similar set up. If weather is good, I fly DA40 myself. If it is IFR, with DA42 with an IFR rated pilot and if the weather is too bad, car or airlines.
DA40 and DA42 are a bit narrow inside, not all your colleagues may fit in. Other then this, Avgas is really difficult, when I fly DA40, destination airport is not always where I need to go, but where Avgas is available.
If you can afford and find a hangar, a second hand DA60 is the best option I think. Safety of 2 engines, large cabin, FIKI and Jet-A1.
@9A_Flyer your main sector is a solid 400nm IFR, so a 172 would struggle!
I don’t know the Cirrus except as a success story with a passenger/wife friendly parachute. It is in production and well supported, good ergonomics and cabin.
I do know the DA42 and cabin comfort is perhaps not as good as in a Cirrus.
Both types are not heavy iron, professionally flown, corporate flight department standard, but that is a blinding glimpse of the obvious :)
Having instructed and examined on all three recently, in any kind of exec transport role I would say DA62 all day long. The cabin space, extra power and overall stability/feel is a level above the others. It’s also very predictable and stable asymmetric. The extra 4kts demonstrated crosswind capability is also useful and noticeable in handling as well I find. You may also wish to include the DA50 in your comparisons although it’s a bit of a jack of all trades type …
9A_Flyer wrote:
My own experience is still fairly limited, at around 150 hours total time. I am currently completing the theoretical part of my ATPL training, and the intention would be to complete my IR training on whichever aircraft is ultimately selected.
These are the two lines which stick out to me from your initial post and I have to admit, they make all my alarm bells go off all at once.
So you are currently a 150 hour VFR pilot with no IR yet and you would want to fly for business immediately after finishing your CPL/IR. I am very sorry to rain on that parade but that sounds like a very bad and very dangerous idea. In order to fly for business, where schedules and high dispatch rates are the alpha to omega in this kind of airplanes with inexperienced crews unfortunately very often end up in mostly fatal accidents. Here in Europe you probably would be able to insure a plane like this, but for a good reason, in the US they would most probably turn you down unless you would do some serious training post licence and rating.
Many of us have been where you are now, full of enthusiasm and possibility thinking, most of us have eventually found out that reality is a very long way from what we imagine. In order to do what you are hinting, you’d need a lot of time with a mentor pilot before you can get anywhere near the proficiency you need to fly this kind of missions safely and routinely. I happen to know your main destinations very well indeed from my time in the airlines and I have withnessed two serious fatal crashes both in OHD and SKP involving very experienced folks who fell foul of those places. Both airports are quite demanding, particularly OHD which has a lot of high ground around it but also SKP. In both places you need something which has a serious climb performance particularly on one engine and which can handle a lot of ice and other stuff. Both destinations are notorious in winter for fog and sub zero conditions. Flying there regularly for business needs something a lot more serious than any of the planes you have indicated, more like a twin turboprop or even jet performance. The same goes for alpine crossings to the other destinations.
Out of the 3 you mention, you can rely on Cirrus CAPS to compensate for the lack of experience and options in case of cases. I would not operate a DA42 with it’s limited climb performance on one engine into OHD or SKP in any kind of IMC, my knowledge of performance of the DA62 is too limited, but in order to handle any light twin in this kind of geography, I’d like to see a couple of hundred hours of experience plus significant OEI training.
9A_Flyer wrote:
Depending on specification and equipment, we are looking at roughly €1.2–1.4 million, so purchase price alone does not separate them enough to make the decision obvious.
With that kind of budget, you would be well into turboprop or even jet territory, which IMHO is a much better variant for your mission, provided you will have an experienced mentor for the first year or so of operation. Those kind of airplanes also usually can cope a lot better with the often atrocious weather in that area. Nowadays, you should be able to get hold of a Citation Mustang or an upgraded 500/501 or an early Cirrus Vision Jet (which again has the option of a shute) which would be much preferrable in that kind of terrain and mission.
Sorry if I sound harsh but that is how I see it. Whereby the presence of an experienced mentor in such an operation is the much more important part than the choice of airplane.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
These are the two lines which stick out to me from your initial post and I have to admit, they make all my alarm bells go off all at once.
Thank you for the detailed reply. I genuinely appreciate the concern, particularly coming from someone who knows OHD and SKP and the associated terrain and weather conditions from first-hand operational experience.
I deliberately left my own background largely out of the original post because I wanted the discussion to remain focused on the technical question: which aircraft is the best fit for the mission profile described. But since the human factor has now quite rightly become part of the discussion, perhaps it is worth adding some context.
I certainly do not believe that, with roughly 150 hours, I am in a position to carry a business flying operation on my shoulders immediately after obtaining my IR. Apart from the obvious experience issue, I am an employee of the company purchasing the aircraft and have other responsibilities within the business, so the intention was never for me to be the sole pilot.
The plan is to engage a second, significantly more experienced pilot who would share the flying with me. More importantly, the intention is for him to fly with me as a safety/mentor pilot for at least my first 150–200 hours on the aircraft. I also intend to complete my IR on whichever aircraft we ultimately purchase. That should mean roughly 50 hours of structured instrument training in controlled conditions on the same aircraft that I would subsequently operate. Obviously, none of that magically turns a low-time pilot into an experienced one, but I do think it makes the picture somewhat different from a 150-hour VFR pilot obtaining an IR and immediately launching single-pilot into winter IMC across the Alps or into OHD.
I fully accept your point that experience and mentorship are more important here than the difference between one particular aircraft and another. In fact, that is precisely why I am asking these questions now rather than after buying an aircraft.
There is another distinction worth making. Although the mission profile resembles business aviation, operationally we are still talking about private flying rather than a commercial operation under an AOC. There is therefore no commercial obligation to complete a particular flight, nor is the aircraft expected to provide airline-like dispatch reliability. If the weather is beyond what the aircraft, the crew or I personally consider sensible, the flight gets cancelled, delayed or moved to another day. The future owner understands and accepts that limitation.
I am very conscious of the dangers of “get-there-itis”, particularly when the reason for the flight is business. Having a meeting at 10:00 does not suddenly improve the aircraft’s performance, remove ice from the clouds or add experience to the pilot.
So I hope I am not coming across as an overconfident 150-hour pilot who thinks that a fresh CPL/IR and an expensive aircraft will somehow allow him to conquer the world. Quite the opposite. I am well aware that this is a demanding mission and that there is a substantial gap between being legally qualified to fly something and being genuinely proficient enough to operate it safely. That is one of the reasons I am here asking people with considerably more experience than myself.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
With that kind of budget, you would be well into turboprop or even jet territory, which IMHO is a much better variant for your mission, provided you will have an experienced mentor for the first year or so of operation.
Regarding the turboprop/jet suggestion, that avenue has actually been analysed in quite some detail as well.
You are absolutely right that €1.2–1.4 million puts us into used turboprop and even light-jet territory. The acquisition price, however, is only one part of the equation. A Mustang may be available within that budget, but an overhaul of two engines together with the associated work can very quickly approach a substantial percentage of the acquisition cost of the aircraft itself. The same applies, to varying degrees, to older turboprops and jets generally.
Then there are the considerably higher fixed and variable operating costs, type ratings, maintenance requirements, airport charges and the financial consequences of something as simple as an AOG event away from base. Multi-crew operation may not necessarily be legally required for a particular private operation, but with the experience level we are discussing I would certainly regard it as highly desirable.
There is also only limited scope for recovering some of those costs by making the aircraft available to third parties.
We actually looked at several variants: outright ownership, fractional ownership of a newer aircraft, purchasing a used turbine aircraft and placing it onto an existing AOC so that the operator could use it when we did not need it, and other similar arrangements. None of those options was dismissed simply because somebody looked at the purchase price and decided that piston engines were cheaper.
Ultimately, the preference moved towards simplifying the entire operation by choosing a less complex aircraft with substantially more manageable operating economics.
What that absolutely does not mean is that we are willing to trade safety for simplicity or put our heads in the noose merely to make a meeting.
I completely accept that weather which may be relatively routine for a capable turbine aircraft can be an absolute no-go for a piston aircraft, particularly when icing, terrain and OEI performance enter the equation. That limitation is part of the decision. The price of choosing the simpler aircraft is not accepting greater operational risk; it is accepting a significantly lower dispatch rate.
If that means waiting for better weather, departing six hours later, staying overnight or cancelling the flight altogether, then that is what happens. The future owner understands and accepts this.
Your comments regarding OHD in particular, and the OEI performance of the DA42, are therefore exactly the kind of input I was hoping to get from this discussion. I would much rather identify a fundamental limitation of one of these aircraft now than discover it after the purchase.
And I absolutely agree with your final point: whichever aircraft ultimately wins, having an experienced mentor beside me during the initial period is far more important than whether the badge on the nose says Cirrus or Diamond.
