Best plane for first time plane owner?

I hear ya’! I am 75, but climbing in and out of most any plane in which I will be at, or in reach of, the controls is well worth the effort. The most difficult entry is climbing into the right seat of a Citation, but it’s well worth it. Getting in the Mooney or the 140 isn’t easy either, but worth about whatever effort it takes.
 
SFDukie said:
I love Mooney M20s. Have both C and E time.
I don’t think they land similarly to 172s, at all. Completely different feel- the 20s I’ve flown require much more precise speed on round out, or the float a looong way….

That said, I agree they don’t require a particularly long or complex transition from a 172, for most.
ymmv
Click to expand...

MBDiagMan said:
They don’t land the same as a 172, but they are as easy to learn to land as is a 172. I say that but I flew a Mooney long before ever flying a 172. I don’t see one as more difficult than the other.

Just stabilize your approach speed and keep it off until it settles onto the runway.
Click to expand...

Ok, I may have overstated something about it being like a Skyhawk to land. You gents are correct they demand a bit more of ya- a Skyhawk seems like it’ll forgive you for landing fast n such, where the Mooney won’t. But man if ya can hold an airspeed she’s a kitten to land. I guess what I meant is it’s not apples n oranges difference. Hold an airspeed, fly it to the runway and flair. I flew a 180hp Skyhawk and a Cessna 140 before my Mooney. First time around the pattern I landed and was pulling off the runway at the first turn off, it wasn’t a big challenge at all. Though overstated a bit maybe, I meant they aren’t a whole new concept to land as some folks seem to paint them.

I’m not telling OP it’s the absolute make n model for them but it’s certainly worth putting in contention.

In and out is a bit cumbersome but doesn’t seem much different than most other low wings. I think she’s the most comfortable bird I’ve ever sat in once in. I flew mine home a few weeks ago 5.2hr straight through, left full w 64gallons and landed 5.2 later w 25 gallons still on board and was as comfortable as could be the whole way. I love that about her.

Yes insurance and annual will be more but if ya fly a lot 1/3 less fuel than a 180hp Skyhawk makes up or puts a big dent in the price delta rather quickly. Avemco took me w no retract time.
 
Huckster79 said:
Ok, I may have overstated something about it being like a Skyhawk to land. You gents are correct they demand a bit more of ya- a Skyhawk seems like it’ll forgive you for landing fast n such, where the Mooney won’t. But man if ya can hold an airspeed she’s a kitten to land. I guess what I meant is it’s not apples n oranges difference. Hold an airspeed, fly it to the runway and flair. I flew a 180hp Skyhawk and a Cessna 140 before my Mooney. First time around the pattern I landed and was pulling off the runway at the first turn off, it wasn’t a big challenge at all. Though overstated a bit maybe, I meant they aren’t a whole new concept to land as some folks seem to paint them.

I’m not telling OP it’s the absolute make n model for them but it’s certainly worth putting in contention.

In and out is a bit cumbersome but doesn’t seem much different than most other low wings. I think she’s the most comfortable bird I’ve ever sat in once in. I flew mine home a few weeks ago 5.2hr straight through, left full w 64gallons and landed 5.2 later w 25 gallons still on board and was as comfortable as could be the whole way. I love that about her.

Yes insurance and annual will be more but if ya fly a lot 1/3 less fuel than a 180hp Skyhawk makes up or puts a big dent in the price delta rather quickly. Avemco took me w no retract time.
Click to expand...
 
A few years ago an A380 diverted into Hartford KBDL. On taxing out to the runway, he wasn't sure if he could get by a building between the taxiway,and the runway. So the tower called airport ops and sent out a truck to make sure he would clear. Any time, if in doubt call for help. The delta crew had probably taxied by rj's there numerous times without a problem.
 
Mikey52 said:
A few years ago an A380 diverted into Hartford KBDL. On taxing out to the runway, he wasn't sure if he could get by a building between the taxiway,and the runway. So the tower called airport ops and sent out a truck to make sure he would clear. Any time, if in doubt call for help. The delta crew had probably taxied by rj's there numerous times without a problem.
Click to expand...
How is this helping someone buying a light 4 seat plane?
 
I guess it got posted to wrong thread. Sorry about that. Tapatalk just did an update, or I fat fingered it.
 
rickdrey said:
We're currently looking at C182s, 172s, and Grumman Tigers. We're trying to keep insurance and maintenance costs relatively low, so we're not really looking at anything with a retractable gear right now
Click to expand...
Given your mission, the answer is very easy for me… Cessna 172.

The Cessna 172 is the most common airplane on the planet. Every CFI knows how to teach in them and every A&P knows how to work on them.

For your budget, you can buy a better equipped 172 than a comparable priced 182. You can fly a 172 anywhere in the country with proper planning, and when you’re done building hours you can easily sell it.
 
“We're currently looking at C182s, 172s, and Grumman Tigers. We're trying to keep insurance and maintenance costs relatively low, so we're not really looking at anything with a retractable gear right now.”

If all you’re worried about is retractible gear, almost all Mooney M20 C’s have manual gear that is more maintenance free than the nose strut on a 172. It’s as tough as manual gear on a hard landing, maybe tougher. Also, the C model is carbureted and simple. It also makes a wonderful instrument platform. When I bought my first Mooney I had zero retract time and the insurance wasn’t expensive at all.
 
Pinecone said:
Tigers tend to be crazy priced.

I started looking at Tigers and found them to be quite expensive and without modern panels. So I ended up in a Mooney.
Click to expand...
Since nobody else is giving the Grumman perspective I guess I'll leap in.

Like other planes, prices for Tigers and Cheetahs leapt up during Covid, but my impression is they've moderated a bit in the last year. You can pick up a late-70's Tiger in good condition for around $130K, and a comparable Cheetah for less than $100K. In either case you get better cruise speed and more nimble handling (especially in roll) compared to a 172 or Archer/Warrior. I recently thought seriously about upgrading from my Tiger to a Bo to get another 20kts in cruise, but finally decided that I'd miss the ability to fold down the rear seats and easily stow two folding bikes and a ton of luggage. Plus the sliding canopy is great in the summer. So I'm keeping the Tiger.

Potential downsides... parts availability hasn't been an issue so far but it is an orphaned make, so we are all dependent on Fletch Air and Trueflight to keep supplying parts. Grummans aren't fast climbers and I wouldn't recommend one (without an MT prop or Powerflow exhaust system) for high density altitude environments.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
I wouldn't recommend one (without an MT prop or Powerflow exhaust system) for high density altitude environments
Click to expand...
From my time in a tiger - much less time than you have - I’d also agree Tigers need nice long runways. So much so that I wouldn’t take one to a shorter grass strip. Would you agree?
 
rickdrey said:
My wife and I are looking to purchase our first airplane, so we can finish our flight training and build hours. Our end goal is to fly for the airlines, so we want to build hours as quickly as we can, and fly around the country while doing it

We both have our PPL, and are working on finishing our instrument ratings. We're at about 100 hours each.

Our question is, what planes would you recommend purchasing in our situation? Ideally our budget is around $130k or less, but we can spend more if it's a significantly better plane for us. We would like 180 hp at least, and ideally the ability to haul for passengers every once and a while.

We're currently looking at C182s, 172s, and Grumman Tigers. We're trying to keep insurance and maintenance costs relatively low, so we're not really looking at anything with a retractable gear right now

Any tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...

Not enough info, can't be answered with precision.

What time frame do you want to reach 1500 hours?
How is your ongoing budget?
I think you need to better flush out the info pertaining to a need for speed and passengers versus budgetary limitations.
Will you become instructors?
I think 130K is a very tight budget for a TAA aircraft if you can 't handle maintenance items.

Until I knew the above, I'd suggest scrapping the passenger carrying IF the mission is to get to ATP ASAP. Go 2 seat, well equipped but slow. Minimal fuel burn. Maybe a 2 seat Vans RV...https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=VANS&model=RV-12&s-type=aircraft
 
WDD said:
From my time in a tiger - much less time than you have - I’d also agree Tigers need nice long runways. So much so that I wouldn’t take one to a shorter grass strip. Would you agree?
Click to expand...
My personal limit for runway length (regardless of material) at sea level is about 2200', but that's probably a little conservative. I've taken it into a 3000' grass strip with no problem. The issue with landing is that very small variations in airspeed on final can result in floating and can eat up an unexpected few hundred feet of runway. It's nice to say "fly the numbers" but a little gust or change in attitude and suddenly a bunch of runway is passing underneath you! For takeoff I can generally get off the ground in 1000-1500 feet at sea level, but climb rate at high density altitude is pretty anemic. Taking off from Double Eagle at 5800' elevation I got to admire the desert below me nice and close for longer than I really wanted...
 
MBDiagMan said:
The chuckle I’ve had over the years is people that say: “I don’t fit into a Mooney.” When I ask what model Mooney they got into they said “oh I’ve never been in one. I’m 6’1” tall and 200 pounds and I fit in it just fine.
Click to expand...

Al Mooney was 6'-4" Think he made a plane he could not fit into??? :D
 
AlleyCat67 said:
My personal limit for runway length (regardless of material) at sea level is about 2200', but that's probably a little conservative. I've taken it into a 3000' grass strip with no problem. The issue with landing is that very small variations in airspeed on final can result in floating and can eat up an unexpected few hundred feet of runway. It's nice to say "fly the numbers" but a little gust or change in attitude and suddenly a bunch of runway is passing underneath you! For takeoff I can generally get off the ground in 1000-1500 feet at sea level, but climb rate at high density altitude is pretty anemic. Taking off from Double Eagle at 5800' elevation I got to admire the desert below me nice and close for longer than I really wanted...
Click to expand...

Hmm, I did my PP training in a Tiger on a 2000 foot paved runway. I soloed there. :)
 
What's your budget
I am guessing if you are training for the airlines cost is a consideration.
In which case Pa28-181 or aa5b are good choices neither super slow or super fast but can travel distance safely economically two up
 
AA-5B is faster that most 200 HP Retracts (except for the Mooneys).
 
Ah. Join the RV cult …….. :)
 
rickdrey said:
My wife and I are looking to purchase our first airplane, so we can finish our flight training and build hours. Our end goal is to fly for the airlines, so we want to build hours as quickly as we can, and fly around the country while doing it

We both have our PPL, and are working on finishing our instrument ratings. We're at about 100 hours each.

Our question is, what planes would you recommend purchasing in our situation? Ideally our budget is around $130k or less, but we can spend more if it's a significantly better plane for us. We would like 180 hp at least, and ideally the ability to haul for passengers every once and a while.

We're currently looking at C182s, 172s, and Grumman Tigers. We're trying to keep insurance and maintenance costs relatively low, so we're not really looking at anything with a retractable gear right now

Any tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...
I guess I would challenge you to consider maybe an E series Bonanza for $70K and have 60k available for mx and increased insurance. Seems like it would be a great plane for two folks to travel and you'd get retract and complex time.
 
@rickdrey you've gotten a million different answers here, and I think that speaks to your mission not being particularly well defined.

In particular:
1) Do you really need to carry pax, and if so, are you going to be taking someone for more than a day trip? IE, do we need to have the useful load to carry pax and bags?
2) What is your budget for operations? Also, are you planning to keep this plane after you get your airline jobs?

The answers to the above questions will answer whether you just need a 2-seater that can be economically operated to build time, or an economical 4-seater, or a high performance load hauling 4 seater.

In addition, you're probably going to want to do your commercial training in your own plane. That means either a TAA, which needs a minimum of an IFR GPS and a small PFD such as a G5 or GI275; or a complex airplane.

There are plenty of two-seat light sport aircraft that are TAA qualified for reasonable purchase prices that will burn very little fuel (3-4 gph). For example, here's an Evektor SportStar for $49,500. I've flown a SportStar and was quite impressed, it had well harmonized controls, a great outside view, was comfortable, and climbed 1000 fpm with two big dudes aboard. That'll be the best bang for the buck to accomplish your primary goal of building time, and it's a TAA so you can use it for your commercial. You won't be able to take pax in the (nonexistent) back seat, though.

If pax is a must but you'll just be taking them on quick flights or day trips, you'll want something in the 4-seat 180+hp class. I wouldn't automatically discount retracts here - Since you'll want either TAA or complex for your commercial, you may find that a complex aircraft will cost less to acquire, and since you're time building the insurance shouldn't be an issue for long. It'll also develop good habits for your future airline career. So, it's about six of one and half a dozen of the other, as my dad would say. While an Archer or a 180hp 172 is simple to operate, they're also sold at a premium because of the demand from flight schools. You'll find a lot more bang for your buck with a Mooney M20C or M20E (same plane except 180hp for the C and 200hp for the E), or a Piper PA24 Comanche 180 or 250. If you are planning on crossing the Rockies, you'll probably want at least the M20E or maybe the PA24-250. Horsepower is your friend out there.

If you think you want to take friends on overnight trips, well, you get back to my default recommendation for a first airplane to own: The C182. It'll haul pretty much anything you can fit in the door, it'll land on any surface, it'll get places in a reasonable amount of time (though slower than the M20E or PA24-250), and they're easy to buy, easy to operate and maintain, and easy to sell. The only unfortunate bit is that they're not particularly fuel efficient, so you'll spend more money to get to 1500 hours. Because of their utility, they're also fairly popular and eat up your purchase budget too, especially if you get a TAA equipped one (or add a G5 or GI275 after the fact to make it qualify). So, the ability to haul whatever you want is definitely going to cost you money. Cheapest TAA equipped one I found is this one for $94,000: https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/232020567/1963-cessna-182-skylane-piston-single-aircraft

Whatever you decide, please come back to the thread and tell us, and post pics of your bird!
 
Diamond DA40. Safest GA aircraft on the planet, incredibly easy to fly, better performance than most of the recommendations above. I pay $1200/year for full insurance with $250K hull value. Get an XLS/XLT with the ubiquitous Lycoming IO360 and you can have it worked on anywhere plus it is very low cost (comparatively) to maintain. Full Garmin G1000 with WAAS, VNAV, Synthetic Vision. Incredible planes.
 
If your goal is to become airline ATPs, you want to really avoid as much ownership complexity as possible and focus on your flying goals. To some folks that is an Experimental, to others maybe a later model used fully IFR equipped Cessna or Cirrus. Definetly get something still in production. If it's a certificated airplane, don't buy anything from anyone that dosent have instalation records for every instrument and switch in the airplane. If there are still pre-certified used airplanes out there, get one of them. It will be worth the cost in the long run.
 
rickdrey said:
My wife and I are looking to purchase our first airplane, so we can finish our flight training and build hours. Our end goal is to fly for the airlines, so we want to build hours as quickly as we can, and fly around the country while doing it

We both have our PPL, and are working on finishing our instrument ratings. We're at about 100 hours each.

Our question is, what planes would you recommend purchasing in our situation? Ideally our budget is around $130k or less, but we can spend more if it's a significantly better plane for us. We would like 180 hp at least, and ideally the ability to haul for passengers every once and a while.

We're currently looking at C182s, 172s, and Grumman Tigers. We're trying to keep insurance and maintenance costs relatively low, so we're not really looking at anything with a retractable gear right now

Any tips or recommendations would be greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...
Well this won't surprise anybody, 150, 172, or a "Chokie".. Archer maybe?.. complex and high performance rating could be an Arrow or Mooney. After my 172 sold (in a day) I chose a 200hp Arrow and still fly her
 
AlleyCat67 said:
My personal limit for runway length (regardless of material) at sea level is about 2200', but that's probably a little conservative. I've taken it into a 3000' grass strip with no problem. The issue with landing is that very small variations in airspeed on final can result in floating and can eat up an unexpected few hundred feet of runway. It's nice to say "fly the numbers" but a little gust or change in attitude and suddenly a bunch of runway is passing underneath you! For takeoff I can generally get off the ground in 1000-1500 feet at sea level, but climb rate at high density altitude is pretty anemic. Taking off from Double Eagle at 5800' elevation I got to admire the desert below me nice and close for longer than I really wanted...
Click to expand...
Do you have the original McCauley prop or the Sensinich?
 
Pinecone said:
That one is NOT TAA. It must have a coupled autopilot to be TAA.
Click to expand...
Ah, you are correct. I wasn't even looking for autopilots because those are pretty common, it's usually the PFD that is missing.

OP, so you're aware, the requirement is in 14 CFR 61.129(j) and you need three things:

1) PFD that displays depictions replacing all six of the "six pack" instruments
2) MFD that displays at least a moving map (this can be just a modern IFR GPS)
3) Two-axis autopilot coupled to nav and heading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top