The Cessna Caravan would also do – a hugely versatile plane, very easy to fly, lands anywhere.
Both are non-pressurized and fixed landing gear. I don’t see any as European tourer.
The 900 has oxygen to all seats and is 40kts faster than the bush-designed Kodiak 100.
It’s all a « if I was a US millionnaire » dream 
A chum flies or flew the Cessna Caravan which does the passenger and freight run between Brest and Ouessant. He enjoys flying it.
Another Cessna Caravan pilot I spoke to used to regularly turn up at Niort LFBN to pick up eels from the Marais Poitevin and take them to Gloucester. The registration G-EELS.
He reckoned the running costs were around £100 an hour. I remember being impressed by this as was not paying much less at the time to rent a DR440 or a TB9.
Emir wrote:
Both are non-pressurized and fixed landing gear. I don’t see any as European tourer.
Jujupilote wrote:
The 900 has oxygen to all seats and is 40kts faster than the bush-designed Kodiak 100.
It’s all a « if I was a US millionnaire » dream
It seems somewhat unwillingly I ended up fulfilling both of your dreams with the family airplane I fly nowadays:
Jujupilote wrote:
Finally, I found the aircraft I was looking for :Plenty of room and seats
Several doors [in my case one + one emergency exit]
Not too slow [yes]
Yokes [yes]
High wing, good visibily [yes]
Economical (JetA) [no, but 1/3 the consumption in AVGAS]
The kodiak 900210kts @58gph [well, 205kts @21gph]
156kts @36gph [well, 145kts-190kts dep on altitude from SL to FL200 at 15.5GPH]
1600kgs useful load, 10 seats, flexible load area [ yes 1600 useful, but only six seats, yes flex load area]3,5 million €. [most expensive one in the market 350k]
Most buyers come from SR22 or Barons according to an article. [maybe]
Plus it is pressurized and retractable…
Plus it is pressurized and retractable…
Is it Jet A1 and twin?
It doesn’t contain any surprises, but Plane & Pilot has an article on the subject
Emir wrote:
s it Jet A1 and twin?
Now you are getting picky. The next thing you are going to say is my useful load is in lbs and the Kodiak’s is in kg …hey! And getting even pickier mine is 1500, not 1600…
But who gets that picky about dreams anyway?
And on the useful load ..but wait till you plan any kind of long distance travel (and the fuel load involved) and the difference between the Kodiak’s kg and my P210’s lbs is not that much…
Antonio wrote:
And getting even pickier mine is 1500, not 1600…
But mine is real, the Kodiaks’ is a sales pitch…figure out actual production aircraft useful loads and they’ll probably be closer to 1500 after adding some leather and a few xtras…
What about the obvious stuff an Archer? or Skylane? or Piper Six?
I was thinking family plane = bimble to Ouessant, Alderney, or StHubert with IFR departure and hopefully sunny cruise & arrival for nice views? one does not have to mimick EasyJet !
Taking the wife & two kids to LeTouquet this weekend, it’s likely very bumpy for FL200 cruise in clouds but I promised nice views under VFR between afternoon showers…
Ibra wrote:
What about the obvious stuff an Archer? or Skylane? or Piper Six?
Well the article quoted by @Capitaine would consider those expensive. They are talking more of 172 or AA5….
Ibra wrote:
Taking the wife & two kids to LeTouquet this weekend, it’s likely very bumpy for FL200 cruise in clouds but I promised nice views under VFR between afternoon showers…
I think the combined idea of @Emir and @Juju is that you should be able to do both with their single ideal family airplane…(same as mine, btw)
One possible solution is being member of one or several club/s or partnership/s that own/s both types of airplanes for each kind of trip, but that misses the point.
A turboprop for VFR LL sightseeing is typically expensive, but excels at HL (if pressurized) . A pressurized piston is theoretically good for both, but is limited to one or two types in singles, or a few more in twins…
