Single or Twin?

[trey kule]

One final word from me on the thread drift. For those that think any deice system on any small plane will allow them to fly in continuos icing conditions, read up the TSB report that was in the safety thingie that TC puts out about some guys in a King Air that thought the same.
The antiice de ice systems on small planes are intended to allow you to get out ASAP , and even the FIKI systems are certified for moderate icing, and should be thought of the same way.
Again....read about that King air...A completely avoidable situation by actually paying attention to the firecast and flying a couple of thousand feet higher.....but hey,,.they had de ice equipment...right?

I think Iilya nailed it. Best advice I read on this thread

[esp803]

Trey,

I had a long response written, and then just saw this latest from you. I completely agree with everything you said. I think you took an extreme interpretation of what I wrote. TKS give you options for how to deal with icing when you encounter it, just like boots. I do not condone continuous flight into known icing, I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted what I wrote. It's a more efficient system for dealing with ice with two major caveats: You have a limited amount of time of de-ice and it MUST be on before you enter icing, hence me turning it on for any departure into IMC when the temperature is below 5 degrees, and turning it off again while not in icing, and then turning it on again for approach when there might be a chance of icing.

E

[cncpc]

It's great for taking off and climbing through a layer and then turning back on for approach, but not for a long flight in icing

Why in the world would you fly a long flight in icing in any plane in general, and a caravan in particular.

TKS only deals with ice, not poor judgement.....just saying.

As to the thread itself, perhaps the OP can give us an idea of their experience level..i think that might make a difference. As Illya mentioed, performance on smaller twins can be really marginal.IIRC, on the 337, raising the gear after an engine failure on takeoff will cause a negative climb rate while it is retracting..
No such thing as a "cheap twin". The labour and parts are priced in todays dollars, and the plane will need lots of it if it is older no matter how well it was maintained.

Aren't we missing something in this picture?

As you say, the experience level. This sounds like Thurmon Munson daydreaming. Malibu? How the hell is a guy who has so little experience he has to start this thread going to acquire a Malibu and start running it IFR in winter, when he didn't even know you needed Customs to stop for gas in the States.

True that about the Bugsmasher. If I remember, you need 100 to raise the gear.

[trey kule]

I must explain, that when I read anything about pilots flying in prolonged icing I go to max torque.
And I dont think I took your " long flights in icing" out of context.

There are youngins on here who have posted that they feel it is perfectly OK to fly in icing conditions , just to experience them. So yes, when someone posts about long flights in icing conditions I get kinda revved up. Nothing personal. Just my own way of hopefully instiling some common sense in the less experienced. If one says it is OK....that is all they hear. Not it is OK under certain circumstances.

If I knew how to post a picture, I would post the picture of the Caravan that crashed just outside yellowknife last winter..Icing kills. And the Caravan in particular is both very susceptable to it, and because it is not pressurized, its exit options can be limited.

The whole FIKI thing on small aircraft is an open invitation to those who really dont understand the danger to just try it. And if they get away with it, it just makes them bolder the next time.

Anyway, thread drift. Sorry if I offended you.

Illya gave good advice. Unless you have a well equipped, high performance airplane or lots of time, the proposed trip is best done in a car, though I suspect that the OP does really not want to hear that.

[goingnowherefast]

Get a pressurized turbine single. That's a lot of trips to be making, one every 20 days. With weather across that route, you'll be cancelling more than flying if you try to use anything non-pressurized.

There's also a bunch of aircraft management companies in Toronto to consider. Should consider going to talk to them. Depending on budget, you might be able to get into a partnership, or some sort of deal. Aircraft management isn't my area of expertise, so I'll leave it at that.

[PilotDAR]

If thinking twin for safety, this article is worth a lot of consideration before deciding...

http://www.avhf.com/html/Library/Leave_ ... An_Out.pdf

[springlocked]

First if you are worried about cost and direct routing you don't have enough money or likely experience to do it properly. Buy a block of airline tickets and rent a car from Fort Frances or leave a used car there - less cost than an aeroplane. Sounds like you want a million dollar solution on a 100 dollar budget. I'm not being unkind here. You have not supplied much information but at the very least you need to have the experience to back this up and have total confidence in your flying skills and IFR experience. You will always be dealing with wx over such an extended east/west route with limited IFR facilities unless you are willing to land in the USA at either International Falls or Baudette or Fort Frances. A piston single is almost like spinning the chamber and pulling the trigger - some one suggested a twin commanche - damn - it's the only aircraft I have flown that I would never set foot in again -- now an option is a beech travelair - they were pretty cheap for a good well equipped IFR aeroplane and have range and reasonable speed or something like a PC12 but at the end of the day I can see no reason to get into this. It's great to dream but for a private guy to commute that far and be able to stick to a schedule is a bit of a pipe dream.

If you have the resources why not explore the idea of a composite solution. Commute to a major centre commercially and keep your aircraft there and now you only have a couple of hundred miles or less to contend with.

[Rookie50]

If thinking twin for safety, this article is worth a lot of consideration before deciding...

http://www.avhf.com/html/Library/Leave_ ... An_Out.pdf

Dar,

Fantastic article. Read the whole thing and will send to a friend of mine.


Btw to be clear to all, I don't advocate continued flight in actual icing either, FIKI or no FIKI. I meant it may add options to depart on cloudy days Without forecast icing -- then of course monitor the situation closely. I don't think light airplanes and continued actual icing mix too well for very long --

[esp803]

Thanks for the clarification Trey. With you 100%

I think to sum up this thread:

Icing is bad. Always, regardless of aircraft or equipment (off the top of my head I can think of several King Air Crews, MU-2 Crews, Caravan Crews who are no longer with us or came so close to no longer being with us that they are no longer flying).

Driving would be infinitely more practical.

Unless you have very deep pockets AND the experience flying to go with a high performance aircraft, it's probably better to charter. If time is of no issue, as Illya said, you COULD do it in a 150, but whether or not that is a wide decision is another topic. Most high performance singles have the earned nickname of "Doctor Killers", because people get in WAY over their heads, and end up... well....

What ever route you choose to take, please do it safely.

E

[gwagen]

Thank you all for your opinions and advice.

Lots to ponder.

Clear skies and tail winds

[Meddler]

I can't remember the question but the answer is a king air.

[MoonRay]

If this was my mission, I had the money, and schedule was not a big issue, I would consider one of the Cirrus products or a Malibu (no experience with them) fully understanding that even with a single piston there is no way to justify the cost. An SR20 is a late 90's airplane so its something a bit newer in GA terms. You could probably get a pre-1986 updated Cessna or Piper for a similar price but maintenance on the older airframes will add up.

If I had to keep a schedule I think pressurization, turbocharging, and known ice would be a must over the winter months. Cessna's 340A/414A/421C would do a great job as would a pressurized Aerostar. Budget 30k for the first two or three annuals and maybe 15k/yr for the other scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and you shouldn't get too much of a surprise when you see the bills... just don't break that heated windshield!

At 45gph for the 421 and 40gph for a 414/340 (RAM VII conversion) in addition to the maintenance, they're not cheap to run. Depending on the exact location I need to be at, I would consider clearing customs and picking up fuel on the U.S. side maybe at Green Bay or Saginaw then continue on to land at Baudette, and as someone previously suggested drive my used 4x4 across the boarder. The 1$ or 2$ a gallon in savings (even with the exchange rate) you will realize on the U.S. side adds up when you're purchasing 150 gallons at a time.

[Strega]

hmmmmm a 340 @40 GPH = $300/hr in fuel.. 30k per annual (@150 hrs/year) = $200 hr So between Fuel and Annual maintenance you have $500 HR... And rookie thinks he should pay $500 to rent one.... a 340 is a VERY expensive aircraft to operate. Most private operators I speak to budget around $1000 per hour.

[Strega]

And FYI anyone that says a twin is more dangerous to fly, has never had a an engine quit in a single..

I have gotten out of a single in a field.. I have never gotten out of a twin in any place but an airport.... Just sayin...

[lownslow]

I suggest not one but TWO twins: a Q400 to YQT then a Metro to YAG. Both fly high and fast (enough) and are pretty good at keeping a schedule while you alternate between beers and naps in the back.

[CpnCrunch]

The best option would be a TBM 900. There's a review in this month's Plane & Pilot. 330kt cruise, 53kt stall speed when lightly loaded, 1700nm range.

[skymarc]

Whats the budget?
Easy flight in a TBM.

[Rookie50]

hmmmmm a 340 @40 GPH = $300/hr in fuel.. 30k per annual (@150 hrs/year) = $200 hr So between Fuel and Annual maintenance you have $500 HR... And rookie thinks he should pay $500 to rent one.... a 340 is a VERY expensive aircraft to operate. Most private operators I speak to budget around $1000 per hour.

Called comparison shopping. Try google, works pretty good!

http://www.tandgflying.com/rental-rates.html

$469 wet rate for members.

Better deal than, what was it $1400 per hour Strega? Sorry that's what -- 3 X as much?

[dirtdr]

This WAS a good discussion about about finding a good airplane for ones mission.

Rookie; with all due respect, if you don't like the terms, scroll on. I personally wouldn't rent my 310 for any less than $1000/hr. Only Partly because of he cost of running and maintaining it

If Anyone could rent a 340 In canada to use for 20 round trips a year on their own schedule for $469/hr, I don't see why anyone in their right mind would buy a plane themselves

[dirtdr]

Sorry... Forgot to actually add anything to the discussion....

I chose a light twin for a similar mission profile. I went this way mostly because of initial cost, but with a high price to pay per hour in the air for maintenance, upgrades, and fuel. So far after 1 year of ownership, I have put out over double the initial airplane cost on the above items.

I am very low time and have to pick and choose my trips well. If I really have to get somewhere on time (and get back home), I sit in the back of a big jet