I thought I would post a question here on a choice of plane. Ok, so I want to go from Bigggin Hill to South Brittany, let’s say Lorient, on a weekly basis, the days cannot be alerted, it would be Friday and Monday. I accept sometimes I will have to take some form of alternative due to weather, but I want to limit this as much as possible by choice of aircraft. If this is the mission, what would be the best plane at say sub £100,000 and sub £70,000, or maybe it’s just a non-starter without going for something much more expensive. The pilot would be IFR rated , the route over water would be IOW to Cherbourg, and it would be a maximum of 3 adults on-board with raft and survival suits on.
I guess there’s only one good choice that fits all these requirements: a slightly tatty Seneca II.
Has two engines, turbos and known ice.
You will need de-icing for your dispatch rate and a turbo or very strong NA for the same reason. Your 100kGBP price tag limits the choice to very old aircraft.
Just be flying the Seneca II with two 200HP turbo engines, boots and anti/de-icing equipment. I don’t know the price of such an aircraft, but it could do the job. It would not be my personal selection, but at a price range of just 100k you might indeed have not too many other choices.
Ideally a Baron – the only piston twin I think (without getting into turbines and much more exotic pistons) at a half sensible price that doesnt suffer from the usual single engine limitations, properly de-iced, good speed and performance etc.
Significantly less costly, a good condition Aztec, but I think ideally with the hydraulic pack on both engines. A very solid workhorse with pretty good single engine performance and excellent full fuel dont worry about the load.
I am not sure any single is really up to the task, although some will say a Cirrus amoung a small number of de-iced singles, but for that journey with reliance on a wet wing and one engine may be a step too far.
You could expect a despatch rate above 80%, but not 100%.
(on second thoughts the budget will probably not stretch to a Baron, but an Aztec be fine).
I am sure you are aware you can reckon on 28 gallons per hour.
PS and you could ditch the survival suits in either twin, although the raft would be a sensible precaution.
DavidA wrote:
survival suits on
Ask anyone working in the North Sea (oil) how they love these survival suites while sitting in cramped seats in a “tin can” 
I have only used them as a passenger myself travelling to oil rigs. There it is a requirement. I think the people travelling with you would get very tired of them very soon. With a twin, is it really necessary?
What is your annual budget? would be my first question. Even the most pristine of tatty twins has a bunch of old systems and wiring that have not been touched for decades.
FIKI in a piston is somewhat academic. Some aircraft are reasonably ice capable, for example the Aztec with both engines running and a fat wing profile, others I would suggest the protection is less robust.
My risk appetite in a non turbine despatch into known icing is asymptotic. Piston de icing is not a despatch tool it is a get out of icing because I goofed on my planning device. Careful strategic planning should keep the despatch rate reasonable, and also out of icing other than trace to light conditions.
Night, low IFR and extended oversea legs does suggest a piston twin as a candidate. If you are set on a twin, I would suggest the simplest, easiest to spanner twin. My candidates would be the Seneca 1 or the Partenavia. The Seneca 1, would need to be reasonably low total time as many are high time working aircraft. Ideally without de icing, although heated props are not too maintenance intensive. Good useful load, good safety record, no airways charges and an honest 145 KTAS on 17 usgph. A Seneca 1 with low time engines and props commands less than £50k.
Alternatively a well maintained 182, Dakota, or Arrow. I would prefer to spend more of my budget in ensuring an excellent maintained aircraft kept in a hangar, hence a bias towards simple, fixed gear, good load carrying singles.
On first glance, the choice for your budget is obvious – a C182. You can actually get a TKS system for certain 182 models, see here. I would father spend my money one a very well maintained single than on some old, tired twin.
On the subject of immersion suits – your pax will fly with you exactly twice – the first and the last time. I had to wear these things when working in Antarctica. Great fun – not. I would rather fly a slightly longer route that minimizes the over-water time, something that is perfectly doable on the run you propose.
On first glance, the choice for your budget is obvious – a C182
The European market prices of used C182’s are higher than those of Twin Comanches or certain Senecas. Additionally, the mission of the OP seems to be one of those where 2 engines really pay.
