JamesNoBrakes

Cessna 207. If you were serious, you could make that work well, but what it really comes down to is good maintenance and care. I'm half-kidding about the 207, but piston engines are amazingly good if you take good care of them, like warming up/pre-heating, proper power and mixture management in the air and the ground, changing oil, inspecting fittings and replacing stuff, etc. I'm not adverse to piston engines, even just one, but I have a lot of experience flying them, singles and twins. Some twin-jet drivers may not be able to comprehend something that can't maintain 20,000 on one engine, much less something with only one engine. But as an Inspector, I've seen both sides of the coin as far as piston engines. Those people and airlines that take care of them have nearly bombproof service, while those that let things slide more and pinch the pennies sometimes walk the line of relying on basic certification and FAR rules to save them from themselves, which doesn't always happen. So if you are going to invest in an aircraft and do it right, I'd much rather invest in something with one Lycoming 540 or similar engine and put money into doing everything right with it and taking care of it, rather than being possibly spread thin with a twin with two engines and propellers and retractable gear. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of non-draggy piston singles that can carry that much except the Piper Malibu/Matrix or an old P210, but the Cessna 206 has a great reputation for being work-horse airplane and solid. Flying in the mountainous west, you simply need to plan your flights properly and not take ridiculous chances, which means you might get delayed every once and a while. Turbo is not necessary IME, but you need good experience with density altitude. Can be done safely no problem. Turbo brings a bunch of considerations and operating practices you need to do smartly and safely, from engine management to using oxygen, which can be more complication than practical. Most mountain, high DA and low-performance twin flying is all about ADM and planning, usually no stranger to most 121 pilots, except having to do it yourself, but usually quite different than many yahoos that figure their airplane will work for them at any time under any circumstance. A wise man said these situations are as safe as you make them, from the maintenance performed to your turn out direction. If the risk is too great, you just don't fly that day, rather than push equipment that is marginal for the conditions.

DoUEvenLoopBro

Holy Cow!!! You guys are posting some great advice. Like I said in my opening post, I openly admit to being a newbie in the GA community and everything you guys are saying makes sense. I guess to narrow down my searches a little more, I NEED to narrow down my exact needs better.

Being a ski family occupies most of our time in the winter months (all be it East Coast skiing for now), I need to re-evaluate whether or not a twin is a NEED or WANT......We certainly will use the airplane for other trips along the entire eastern US, but maybe a single is the way to go.

A single-engine has been nice to me for 17+ years, so maybe I was over thinking the NEED for a twin to move the family around? While I would/will certainly put in the time to become smart on doing the routine things that I can do (i.e. anything not requiring an A&P mechanic for), maybe the single engines would suit our needs a little better.

BTW, you guys are awesome!!

PerfInit

Dude, seriously, don't risk your whole family! If it flies or floats, its much cheaper to rent. If you really want to go on ski trips with your family, buy them all tickets on a 121 airline. I've attended way too many funerals and investigated way too many G/A fatal accidents under circumstances for which you are considering. Marginal performance, unknown quality maintenance and less reliable, non-turbine engined airplanes are not worth wiping out a whole family. Just my honest opinion after 30 years in aviation.

JohnBurke

As one twin-jet and quad-jet driver, I comprehend it. I've spent a significant number of years at low altitudes in the mountains in single and multi engine airplanes. When I say low altitudes, I mean close to the terrain between 5' and 200'. Much of that terrain has been on fire at the time. I don't know how many "twin jet drivers" will respond who have experienced not only engine failures in mountainous terrain, but off field forced landings as a result, but I'll respond, having done all of the above. More than once.

I appreciate the notion that a single engine piston airplane ought to be reliable and probably won't fail, but that's a notion that could only be endorsed by someone who hasn't experienced it, and for whom the concept of making a forced off field landing in mountainous terrain is only an academic query.

I flew 207's quite a bit, in some rough country. I had an engine failure in one. I flew single engine piston and turbine aircraft in rough country, and had an engine failure in both single piston and single turbine aircraft, resulting in forced landings.

Personally, I don't do single engine night, IFR, or IMC, though I still do a fair amount of single engine flight in the mountains. Unless someone is fully prepared to make an off field landing in the mountains, I strongly suggest refraining from flying singles in the mountains, and unless one is operating a twin that's capable of an engine-out at high density altitudes, has known ice capability, and good redundancy (a twin with a cheap vacuum manifold on a light piston twin really isn't), there may be better roads to Rome.

As for the Cirrus aircraft...their chief claim to fame, other than automotive decor is the CAPS parachute, which far too many treat like an alternate airport. It isn't. It's also not a suitable substitute for good planning, which doesn't include single engine IMC over the mountains (or a flight by someone who can't execute a forced landing without the parachute...in other words, it ought not be used as a crutch by those who lack the capability, ability, and basic skills). CAPS is an emergency system that should not be used as a shortstop for bad judgement and lack of skill.

PT6 Flyer

DoUEvenLoopBro,

You are saying you want to buy an airplane that carries passengers, luggage, and skis. This assumes you have the money. If you have the money, go for it!

It definitely sounds like you need cabin class. The Navajo immediately comes to mind. I am reminded of Lynn Johnston, the writer of the cartoon strip, For Better or For Worse.

For Better or For Worse by Lynn Johnston | Read Comic Strips at GoComics.com

One time she wrote that her real family had a Navajo, and they sounded like they were very happy with it. It gave them the freedom to pick up and go anywhere within range at a moment's notice. And they live in Canada, so they probably have a lot of winter ops experience. (And she writes a popular, profitable comic strip, so yes, they can afford it.)

ridinhigh

Reading through this whole thing, as much as I love GA flying, I have to say with my family in the winter............buy first class and rent a suburban 4wd.

A single for the rest makes sense. Unless your trying to build some multi time for another reason.

Good luck

Chief Brody

30 years of flying both large Part 121 and small GA aircraft, I would go with a 2011 or newer SR22 (NA). (Don't buy the turbo). I operated 3 of them over the years and they are great planes. The G1000 and G700 Autopilot make the plane easy and a pleasure to fly. I think your chances with the CAPS system is better than your chances of losing an engine in a light twin and trying to fly with the operating one. Not to mention if anything ever happened to you, your family would have a very good chance of walking away if they are well trained on how to handle a CAPs deployment.
Feel free to PM me if you want any more info.

JohnBurke

How many times did you deploy CAPS (or how many times have you landed a round parachute), and how many engine failures have you had in light multi engine airplanes?

joepilot

Seriously consider a Cessna 303. It was a shame that Cessna stopped production in 1985 or so. Very easy to fly, simple systems, and counter-rotating props to make single engine operations easier.

Joe

ugleeual

SR22 is a nice plane but not sure it fits his need for pax and cargo (ski equipment)... and although the CAPS is a nice safety feature you'll still hit the ground pretty hard and will cause some serious injuries. Just flew with a captain that owned a SR22GTS and flies it a lot... he said the purchase/operating cost is high... almost to the point that renting isn't much more of a cost. If you just have to own the plane and have the money then go for it... if not, I'd rent.