What plane would you buy in my situation?

N

Nikhiln25

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 16, 2024
Messages
43
Display Name
Display name:
nikhiln25
I’m in my 30s, have a career outside of aviation I enjoy and this is not a career change aspiration for me. I fly for the joy of it.

I have a family, who would be the main people flying with me. I will never need more than a 4 seater. I do go a lot of places around the country for work so flying there my self sounds like a great way to get long cross country trips in. Outside of that the plane will largely be used for occasionally weekend trips within 500nm and then just the local events etc. I don’t see my self flying more than 125-150 hours a year.

my question is- as a first time plane owner should I just go for the plane I want (leaning between a 182 p/q/r or Dakota) or get a simpler plane first like an archer or Cherokee, experience ownership in something similar and get a more capable plane later? For people insimilar situation that went one route or another - do you have any regrets and wish you did it differently?

As a pilot I have 125 hours, got my license earlier this year, and am currently enrolled in instrument training about 50% through. I will probably stop their with ratings. My daughter is young enough where I don’t NEED the full weight capabilities of a 182/dakota today, but probably will in 6-8 years.
 
Get a 182, won't regret it. Plus you can see what's under you aka "flying above" in a high wing. Everyone can fix it, simple systems, etc. May not even outgrow it, and climb performance will be appreciated, particularly when under gross as implied by don't "need" the full weight capabilities. Much better short field capabilities as well.

Experience with each aircraft proposed, including ownership, and still recommend the 182.
 
Nikhiln25 said:
I will never need more than a 4 seater.
Click to expand...
There’s a gotcha here. Many if not most 4-seaters do not have the useful load to carry 4 people, especially with baggage. That’s one of the reasons the 182 and Dakota are popular - they can. The others you mentioned, like a basic Cherokee, can’t. Useful load is also a reason for 6-seaters. To seat 4.

Not necessarily related to what you purchase, but I would also think about your 125-150 hour per year estimate. I think that’s unusually high for a recreational aircraft owner as opposed to someone who uses their aircraft regularly for repeat missions, like business, visiting family members regularly, or charity work.
 
Listen here, jack. What you need is a Cessna 195.

Picture this. You are clear to land. As you ease the throttle back, your Jacobs engine purrs like a kitten. You gracefully slip in base to final to touch down on the 1000 footers in two point configuration. The tail lowers like the setting sun in Maui, and you taxi off on the first exit. The first exit every time. Tower clears you to preferential parking “with me” so he can ask you what year she is. Rampers are fighting to park you. The FBO girl wants to marry you. They give you the courtesy car for the week, if that is long enough for you. Airport burger is on the house. And you son, I mean Sir. Yes, Sir Cessna 195 owner. You have arrived! Welcome back Sir!
 
Honestly a dakota or 182 are great choices. They are a perfect place to start your ownership journey. Not super complex, easy to find a mechanic who knows them, parts are available, fast enough and enough UL to be...useful. There's a reason these planes are popular... and expensive.

I usually suggest finishing up your instrument before buying. It will ease getting insurance and lower the rate you'll pay. If you buy a plane in the middle of your instrument training, it will set you back quite a bit, as you pause your training to learn the new plane. Buying an airplane and dealing with all the "stuff" surrounding that (arranging mx, insurance, hangar, taxes, registration, etc,etc) if about as much effort and learning curve as another rating.

Take your time and find the right plane. Research ADs. The Dakota is subject to a wing spar inspection currently, and there is a new one that's in the rule making process that you would be wise to read and understand before buying. Have a hangar lined up... in a lot of places that's the hardest part.
 
I’d buy the one I could pay cash for that’s been regularly flown, well maintained, and has the upgrades I wanted. I’d be ready for an engine overhaul in the first year and be grateful if the budget for that wasn’t blown on other things that cropped up in that first year.
 
500nm weekend trip id want something faster. That will get old fast. I’d look at an A36 bonanza, speed, and a true 4 place with luggage and room for extra pax if ever needed.
 
Jim K said:
Have a hangar lined up... in a lot of places that's the hardest part.
Click to expand...

@Nikhiln25 - definitely this. Get on hangar waiting lists at your local airport NOW, so that you're closer to getting one by the time you actually get a plane. In many parts of the country they can be very long. You don't usually need to own a plane yet to get on the list.
 
1) Even with the IR, there will be far too many times you'll need the airlines for your business trips.
2) Finish the IR, your insurance will be cheaper.
3) If available, do a few of your training flights in a 182 or Dakota or A26 or other aircraft that meets the requirements.
4) Have sufficient cash for those surprise repairs on the aircraft.
5) Set up a trust/college fund for your offspring BEFORE you sink any $$$ into an airplane.

Have the family flown in small airplanes? For long periods of time?

6) Just because the family is in favor of it now, they may not in the future. Surprise! I know too many people who got caught in this trap.
 
Go with the airplane that fits your mission,the c182 or Dakota would be good choices,also check on the insurance rates.
 
Jim K said:
Take your time and find the right plane. Research ADs. The Dakota is subject to a wing spar inspection currently, and there is a new one that's in the rule making process that you would be wise to read and understand before buying. Have a hangar lined up... in a lot of places that's the hardest part.
Click to expand...
There's 2 AD's on the spar. Corrosion and and cracking. I believe the Dakota was not subject to the spar cracking AD. But it is on the list for the proposed AD.

OP...Really the Dakota is just a Cherokee with a franken wing and 2 extra cylinders, and a few inches of rear leg room. And Jim's second favorite subject, the dual magneto.
 
A Cessna 182 fixed gear will definitely work. I recommend a P model with a BRS, for added peace of mind and safety for your family. Even with the BRS, the useful load is ~1200 lbs, which means you can carry 800 lbs of payload with 5 hrs of fuel.
Here is an article on different C182 models that may be helpful:
goodnewtimes.blogspot.com

Cessna 182 fixed gear - a mini review and models with the best value

If you are trying to find the perfect plane, this article may help you. A bit of my flying background: I have almost 800 hrs in two Cessn...
goodnewtimes.blogspot.com goodnewtimes.blogspot.com
 
Your situation is very close to what mine was. This is a good problem to have.

182 is fantastic, and a pretty forgivable airplane for low hours pilot. Easy to get kids in the plane as well.

But…. Kids get bigger, and you will want something faster, larger in the future.

182 if you want to buy another plane in 5 years, Bonanza if you want to buy just 1 plane.
 
Yes. Nice. But an airplane like that make good occasional hobby fliers, not daily drivers like a 182.

The 195 was last built in 1954. Its engine was last built in 1957. Parts could be a big problem. There are outfits that overhaul the engines, but I don't know what a current price might be.
 
What is you mission payload? People + luggage? You usually need 2 seats more than your people payload to have enough useful load to fly anywhere with a reasonable fuel load. I have a 4-seater and it is great...for 2+luggage and a 3-hour range plus ample reserves. Keep in mind that even with an IFR rating and currency/proficiency, there will be days where the weather is simply not conducive for travel by GA. "Time to spare, go by air" is the GA mantra. If taking trips by GA, it helps to be flexible in your travel plans.
 
Last edited:
Having owned a Cherokee 235 (the precursor to the Dakota) I can attest what excellent planes they are. The Dakota is a longer 235 with the tapered wing. Some people don’t like the magneto setup in the Dakotas. However, with the Piper spar issues resulting in AD and SB on a regular basis, I’d be concerned in making an investment in an affected airframe. I’m not sure what the market will look like for Pipers that fall within this issue (and the list is expanding). Plus, right now Dakotas seem unreasonably priced.

I’d recommend a well cared for and regularly flown 182. I’m not a Cessna guy but these are great planes that would fit your mission.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
There’s a gotcha here. Many if not most 4-seaters do not have the useful load to carry 4 people, especially with baggage. That’s one of the reasons the 182 and Dakota are popular - they can. The others you mentioned, like a basic Cherokee, can’t. Useful load is also a reason for 6-seaters. To seat 4.

Not necessarily related to what you purchase, but I would also think about your 125-150 hour per year estimate. I think that’s unusually high for a recreational aircraft owner as opposed to someone who uses their aircraft regularly for repeat missions, like business, visiting family members regularly, or charity work.
Click to expand...
I travel a decent bit for work. I like on the east coast and can envision at least two trips from Ny to FL a year on a recurring basis, multiple trips to Chicago from nyc and frequently Boston as well. I would agree with you if all I did was family travel 125 would be aggressive. But given I have reasons to go to these other cities frequently doing this trips in my own plane would be how I’d get there
 
Jim K said:
Honestly a dakota or 182 are great choices. They are a perfect place to start your ownership journey. Not super complex, easy to find a mechanic who knows them, parts are available, fast enough and enough UL to be...useful. There's a reason these planes are popular... and expensive.

I usually suggest finishing up your instrument before buying. It will ease getting insurance and lower the rate you'll pay. If you buy a plane in the middle of your instrument training, it will set you back quite a bit, as you pause your training to learn the new plane. Buying an airplane and dealing with all the "stuff" surrounding that (arranging mx, insurance, hangar, taxes, registration, etc,etc) if about as much effort and learning curve as another rating.

Take your time and find the right plane. Research ADs. The Dakota is subject to a wing spar inspection currently, and there is a new one that's in the rule making process that you would be wise to read and understand before buying. Have a hangar lined up... in a lot of places that's the hardest part.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I’m on all reasonable hangar lists near by. Unfortunately not sure how realistic it is in the near future
 
murphey said:
1) Even with the IR, there will be far too many times you'll need the airlines for your business trips.
2) Finish the IR, your insurance will be cheaper.
3) If available, do a few of your training flights in a 182 or Dakota or A26 or other aircraft that meets the requirements.
4) Have sufficient cash for those surprise repairs on the aircraft.
5) Set up a trust/college fund for your offspring BEFORE you sink any $$$ into an airplane.

Have the family flown in small airplanes? For long periods of time?

6) Just because the family is in favor of it now, they may not in the future. Surprise! I know too many people who got caught in this trap.
Click to expand...
My wife is fully on board. My daughter is young and for the time being hates how loud the engines are (she is 3) but has gone with me and usually falls asleep.

I have 20 hours in a 182 and flew with someone in their Dakota. No time in an archer. All other time is 172
 
Nick Geber said:
Having owned a Cherokee 235 (the precursor to the Dakota) I can attest what excellent planes they are. The Dakota is a longer 235 with the tapered wing. Some people don’t like the magneto setup in the Dakotas. However, with the Piper spar issues resulting in AD and SB on a regular basis, I’d be concerned in making an investment in an affected airframe.It not sure what the market will look like for Pipers that fall within this issue (and the list is expanding). Plus, right now Dakotas seem u reasonably priced.

I’d recommend a well cared for and regularly flown 182. I’m not a Cessna guy but these are great planes that would fit your mission.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this
 
Nikhiln25 said:
I travel a decent bit for work. I like on the east coast and can envision at least two trips from Ny to FL a year on a recurring basis, multiple trips to Chicago from nyc and frequently Boston as well. I would agree with you if all I did was family travel 125 would be aggressive. But given I have reasons to go to these other cities frequently doing this trips in my own plane would be how I’d get there
Click to expand...
...in which case, don't discount the advantage of speed. It may skew things like cost and complexity but given your trips you want to include it in your mission calculation. It's not something the 182 nor Dakota are particularly known for.
 
simtech said:
500nm weekend trip id want something faster. That will get old fast. I’d look at an A36 bonanza, speed, and a true 4 place with luggage and room for extra pax if ever needed.
Click to expand...
I’m really surprised that it took 8 responses before the Bo came up! I figured it would be in all caps in post #2!
 
Buy your last plane first.

You can still get 4 people and almost full fuel in most 182s of that era.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Buy your last plane first.

You can still get 4 people and almost full fuel in most 182s of that era.
Click to expand...

So many people say that, but I can't agree with it. Had I bought my last plane first I'd be broke. When I bought my first plane, I bought one that I could afford (not just purchasing but also keeping it airworthy) and fit my mission at the time (or better, I adapted my mission to fit my budget). As my mission changed and my bank account grew, I sold previous planes (usually for more than what I bought them for) and bought the next plane that fit the budget and mission at the time. I now have what I think will be my last plane (although I'll keep upgrading it with new toys and gadgets every annual), but had I bought that plane first five years ago, I would have been very broke.
 
I’d agree with the above.

I bought my first plane when I was old and the bank account was decent. My kids were teenagers then. It’s taken me some years to buy most of the upgrades I wanted - GPS Nav Com, ADSB, engine monitor, and I did most of that labor with oversight. I have a few more to go. Stuff I couldn’t have afforded when I was plane shopping. Plus, it didn’t hurt my conscience knowing that the plane was appreciating without any upgrades due to price escalation.

So the only thing I would add for consideration is that many people think the market prices have maxed at least for the time being, so buying low and selling high to upgrade may not be a feasible strategy if true.
 
Before I opened this thread I mouthed the words "one eighty two".

The OP's message confirmed it. It will be the easiest transition. The lowest insurance, easiest to buy, easiest to maintain, and if the desire for something bigger/faster/whatever happens, it will be easier to sell.

Get a P or Q model, add a fresh pick STC for a 3,100 lb takeoff weight increase, and fly the heck out of it.

Full disclosure: I'm a 15 year 182 owner with a 9yo son. He's flown since birth. Now he's a plane crazy dude who wants to fly it...in due time, lol.
 
Brad Z said:
Before I opened this thread I mouthed the words "one eighty two".

The OP's message confirmed it. It will be the easiest transition. The lowest insurance, easiest to buy, easiest to maintain, and if the desire for something bigger/faster/whatever happens, it will be easier to sell.

Get a P or Q model, add a fresh pick STC for a 3,100 lb takeoff weight increase, and fly the heck out of it.

Full disclosure: I'm a 15 year 182 owner with a 9yo son. He's flown since birth. Now he's a plane crazy dude who wants to fly it...in due time, lol.
Click to expand...
Love it. Thanks
 
midlifeflyer said:
...in which case, don't discount the advantage of speed. It may skew things like cost and complexity but given your trips you want to include it in your mission calculation. It's not something the 182 nor Dakota are particularly known for.
Click to expand...
My 235 might not have the speed (130kts) but it has the range to avoid that fuel stop. Full fuel has a 5.5 hour range, 700+ mile range, all with still 800# of useful load…… best bang for the buck out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top