Buying a family plane (and performance calculations)

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I think I mentioned it before, but with infants in the house the most precious comodity is time. I have flown for the first time since my kid was born yesterday and she was born on July 1st last year. There is simply no way I could make time to even get away for one afternoon during this time before that.

You tell me! I started with PPL training in November 2015. Our son was born in December that year, our daughter was born this month. Inbetween I also had a 13 months spell as intensive care doctor, which was very exhausting and took more free time away than my regular work. Anyone superseded why I still haven’t finished PPL training?

Mark_B wrote:

The aeroplane you describe is a Piper Aztec.

Like this:
http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=&des=PA27&type=&grp=Piper%20PA-23%20Aztec&id=0
?

It would even fit in the price range. I guess it has a lot of time on it already, though I honestly don’t know yet how to evaluate that.Jacko wrote:

Doc, I think you’re bonkers. But please don’t take that as a criticism, least of all from an Englishman who’s only 14 hours into his second PPL.

At PPL plus 30 hours a year you’ll be in the so-called “killing zone” for a decade or so, but if others can survive that, so can you.

Don’t even consider renting. If you buy a plane you’ll feel obliged to fly it – ideally more than 30 hours a year.

If your budget is finite, the bigger, fancier, more fragile, complicated and expensive your plane, the less you will fly it.

If you want to fly, rather than just pay hangar fees, buy a tough, reliable plane which has good spares availability and is readily bought and sold. Probably like the one you trained in. I bought and flew various Cessna 1xx for more than 500 hours before I tried to kick the habit. I still like them.

And finally, to answer your question: it pains me to say this (not least because it’s rather French) but I’ve seen a Jodel D140 swallow four adults, a few suitcases and some cardboard boxes before proceeding to depart from Megève. Don’t be put off by the somewhat rearward position of the nosewheel. If people who can’t tell a taxiway or lake from a runway can cope with that sort of defect, it can’t be difficult. And, as a friend once remarked to me, “difficile ne veut pas dire désagréable”.

Hehe thanks Jacko, I liked your post a lot, very encouraging and relaxed attitude there

Jacko wrote:

That said, the voice of reason is what you’ve read from more experienced and sensible pilots here. Consider buying a simple two seat spamcan, fly it like you stole it for 2-3 years, and then flog it when you’re ready to step up to a Bonanza – or down to a Maule or C180.

That might be a sensible option.

Timothy wrote:

That was exactly my thought.

Twins get a lot of grief on forums like this, mostly from people who have never owned, operated or flown them.

But there are a lot of people who have been round the block a few times, and who are competent, intelligent businessmen, who choose to operate them, so there must be some logic or reasoning behind it.

The first thing is that when it comes to mission profile, almost every single is going to be a compromise in one way or another, but mostly in payload and physical size, whereas many twins make your profile a doddle.

With the Aztec in particular, you can largely throw away the W & B calculator, it is remarkable what they can carry. This is less true of other twins – the Twin Comanche and early Senecas are very limited in their loads, for example, but there are a number of very competent machines to choose between.

The Aztec will take your family and both the bulk and weight of all you baggage, prams etc You might consider taking out the third row of seats and having a cavernous, freighter sized, loading bay in the back.

I’m actually not dismissing twins at all. Once I am feeling somewhat at ease in a SEP after PPL, the night rating and the MEP rating are possible next goals. Only the higher operating cost of twins is somewhat off putting.

Bobo wrote:

As many have said on this thread, make sure the family enjoys it too, it’s just not as easy as shoving them in a car. And for me flying with the kids is an added distraction and I only fly under CAVOK conditions so I don’t add any extra stress. I fly a Mooney M20K 252 and am 1.97 meters tall, and we all fit fine. It’s a cosy family stationwagon with wings, considering your budget a sindicate could be an option or a M20J for instance. Good economy and you cover some ground in a two hour leg.

Thanks for showing what is possible Bobo. I read somewhere else that the Mooney is cramped but from what you write (and the picture) it doesn’t look that bad.

“A stationwagon with wings” is actually more or less what I am looking for. Basically a VW Touran or Sharan with wings, space wise :)

aart wrote:

Well, Dublinpilot and equally famous mate, how about putting some longer pants on to be considered serious crew..
Or next time ask the photographer to leave out the lower portion.

I was told by my FI on my very first “trial lesson” that being comfortable when flying is essential. He wore shorts as well when we first flew (it was a hot day in July)

@tmo
Thanks for the heads up!

@Alexis
Nice picture, inspiring!