1st plane

[wabower]

With respect to comfort, why do pilots worry about an inch of cabin width and totally ignore air conditioning? Anybody here ever lived in Kansas? Helloooo!

Whatever you decide on, make sure it's comfy for your wife. The 182 really has an edge here, plenty of room, easy to get in and out of, enough room for 'stuffs'. If you buy an older one, consider putting in a new interior in, womensfolk like nice-stuff that smells good :wink2: .

You may want to solo in a school owned 172. Then transition into your own 182 to do cross-countries, instrument instruction and the night flights. That way, by the time you are heading for the checkride, you have the 10hrs or so dual the insurancerequires anyway.

Given the amount of usage you mention, getting into an existing partnership may be a good option for you. This may allow you to get into a nicer plane than one you can swing yourself. If that is something you would consider, dont limit yourself on the type of plane. The money you save on fixed expenses every year could more than make up for the cost of additional training, e.g. to get into a T206, Cirrus or a Bonanza.

 

[weilke]

With respect to comfort, why do pilots worry about an inch of cabin width and totally ignore air conditioning? Anybody here ever lived in Kansas? Helloooo!

You wanna be cramped and hot in a mooney or have elbow room and be hot in a 182 ?


What would you say are good air-conditioned options ?

 

[Steve]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1215197.html

Fixed gear = lower insurance, faster than the 172, less fuel burn than the 182, easier access, better visibility, great radios, low TT, good paint/interior. with in his budget.

What's not to like?

Despite the top, that engine is near TBO (2000hrs). And at 35+ years on the original engine indicates to me the plane has been a hangar queen for at least part of its existence.

You can get a lot more airplane for that kind of money, imho. If the seller would take $50k for it it might be a good deal, but $75k in this economy is just wishful thinking.

plus, its got that dreaded Lycoming engine...

Just my 2¢

 

[Tom-D]

Despite the top, that engine is near TBO (2000hrs). And at 35+ years on the original engine indicates to me the plane has been a hangar queen for at least part of its existence.

We must remember TBO means nothing in part 91, low timed new engine well below the 2200 hour TBO with new cylinders is better that 90% of the engines in service.

That's a good thing, probably why the top was done.

You can get a lot more airplane for that kind of money, imho. If the seller would take $50k for it it might be a good deal, but $75k in this economy is just wishful thinking.

That's tire kicker thinking, tire kickers can always fine an excuse to not buy.

plus, its got that dreaded Lycoming engine...

This is true.........but it is a 180 horse.

Just my 2¢

Your post is very typical of the internet. Going by the numbers given in the AD and not actually knowing the material condition of the aircraft, and injecting personal opinions, based upon preconceived ideas.

 

[wabower]

Anything that has one. Double points for Keith or similar technology.

You wanna be cramped and hot in a mooney or have elbow room and be hot in a 182 ?


What would you say are good air-conditioned options ?

 

[Ted]

I'd agree to look at a few more options. If you're doing trips, you'll quickly yearn for something with more speed. 400 nm in a 172 gets old fast.

Do your training in a 172 or whatever else is available at your school. Then look for something like a Comanche 250 or a Mooney M20F. The Comanche will do your 400 nm trips in 3 hours with a good headwind. It may not seem like a big deal now, but trust me, you'll come to appreciate it. The planes aren't difficult to fly. I started flying the Mooney with about 120 hours, and someone else was on the insurance with about 100 hours and no instrument rating. Quite doable in either case.

If you want the room, the 182 is nice as well, but even with that you'll probably be wanting for more speed.

 

[wabower]

And yours is an even better example.

Your post is very typical of the internet. Going by the numbers given in the AD and not actually knowing the material condition of the aircraft, and injecting personal opinions, based upon preconceived ideas.

 

[tonycondon]

i think i'd look for a 172 with long range fuel so that you could do the 400 miler non stop. 182 would be nice but a bit overkill for mostly running to hays and back. Shoot I flew my glider to Hays and back from Sunflower last year.

 

[poadeleted20]

For the trips you describe (150 miles monthly, occasional 400 miles, with 2 adults and a couple of suitcases), with an $80K budget, any plane in the O-320-powered 4-seat class (Cessna 172, Piper Warrior, Grumman Cheetah/Traveler, and Beech Sport), through the O-360-powered 4-seat class (180HP STC’d Cessna 172, Cessna 177, Piper Archer, Grumman Tiger, Beech Sundowner) up to the 230HP-class 4-seaters (Piper Dakota, Cessna 182) would do the job, although the 230HP planes might be a bit of overkill – I’d consider the 180HP planes more optimal. While the 230HP planes may add 2-5 hours to your PP training, that won’t matter much in the grand scheme of things as long as you aren’t going to get discouraged if first solo doesn’t come as soon as it does for folks flying simpler planes.

I recommend against the 200HP retractables because on a 150 mile trip, you get little benefit from the extra speed, you can go just as fast with just as much just as far in a Tiger as an Arrow, and you pay more in insurance and maintenance. In addition, while it’s entirely possible to get your PP in an Arrow, it’s going to make training longer and more expensive, especially the insurance for a Student Pilot flying one solo.

Also, I suggest that you don’t limit yourself to the three planes you mentioned. While they are perfectly good planes, you should examine the other choices in those classes, too, so you don’t skip something you might wish later you had looked at before buying.

Finally, you didn't mention where you are in training or what you're flying now. For a lot of reasons, unless you're absolutely certain you will continue to completion in whatever you buy, it might be a good idea to finish your PP training in what you're flying now, and then buy a plane after you're rated, or at least get through solo before buying.

 

[zaitcev]

I recommend against the 200HP retractables because on a 150 mile trip, you get little benefit from the extra speed, you can go just as fast with just as much just as far in a Tiger as an Arrow, and you pay more in insurance and maintenance.

This is a good point, but how much more are we talking about here? At BeechTalk they are talking about annuals on Bonanza ranging from $800 (very owner-assisted and nothing's broken) to $4000 (ower-assisted) to $10K (which is also normal for some people who are getting squeezed by their maintenance or too hands-off). What is realistic and what is not?

 

[PittsDriver]

I might also add a Mooney to the mix. Getting the complex endorsement is fun and a F or J model will go 150 kts on around 10 g/h. The speed difference over a 172 or Archer is worth the complexity IMO.

Within some reason, I wouldn't worry too much about getting in to "too much airplane" and I'd focus more on the plane that meets your mission and grow in to it. With 115 hours in my log book and no instrument rating I bought a Commander 115 HP retract and put over 400 hours on it in the first year because my wife thought it was a comfortable airplane to spend time in. Sure, I spent some 25 hours or so flying around with a CFI for insurance but I also used that time to get started on my instrument rating so it wasn't like it was anything extra.

 

[rpadula]

This is a good point, but how much more are we talking about here? At BeechTalk they are talking about annuals on Bonanza ranging from $800 (very owner-assisted and nothing's broken) to $4000 (ower-assisted) to $10K (which is also normal for some people who are getting squeezed by their maintenance or too hands-off). What is realistic and what is not?

Well, as with anything aviation, it depends.

At minimum, there's labor cost involved in swinging the gear and doing the associated checks for that.

Other than that, you've got to account for all the items on a RG that are not on a FG. None of it needs to be fixed each and every year, but there's always something. On Arrows and Commanders, you've got the hydraulic power pack that will need rebuilding every X years. Figure $1,000 for that? How you amortize that over the years is up to you.

 

[tonycondon]

hey there's a wood wing Mooney for sale on Wichita Craigslist for 15K...
http://wichita.craigslist.org/for/2218719433.html

 

[Ted]

I think a lot of people have a tendency to go with something simpler and slower because they convince themselves it costs less per mile to operate. If your goal is to spend time in the air, then slow and cheap per hour is more important. If your goal is to get where you're going, cost per mile is more important, plus the value you put on your time. You can then get into things like failure modes (single vs. twin), weather equipment, etc., but that's not relevant for a first plane discussion in most cases.

Sure, there are plenty of people who happily own and fly 172s. I'm happy that they're happy. But I also think a lot of people convince themselves that less is more, without looking at the realities of more.

 

[Fearless Tower]

This is a good point, but how much more are we talking about here? At BeechTalk they are talking about annuals on Bonanza ranging from $800 (very owner-assisted and nothing's broken) to $4000 (ower-assisted) to $10K (which is also normal for some people who are getting squeezed by their maintenance or too hands-off). What is realistic and what is not?

Annual cost depends on a lot of things. For starters, retracts typically will run you from 100-300 more just for the inspection - assuming nothing is found. When it comes to repairs, it's anybody's guess way too many variables to put a real dollar amount.

It is fair to say that retracts are going to cost more to maintain than fixed - there are more parts that need to be greased and more parts that can break.

 

[wabower]

I don't think the greed for speed ever (totally) goes away, no matter what you fly. At one point in my flying career I was plssed when the G-V groundspeed was less than 400 knots on westbound legs.

But I also think most owners at some point recognize that trip times simply aren't going to change much no matter what they fly, especially when budgetary considerations are included in the decision tree. Once they understand and accept the reality of the time required, everything else gets a lot easier. That said, a 30-knot headwind is 20% of a 150-knot TAS, but groundspeed is still 120 and you can still look down and see that you're going faster than the trucks on the interstate. If you're flying a 120-knot airplane in the same wind, the groundspeed 90 knots, the trucks are in sight a lot longer and the close rate is much less.

I'd agree to look at a few more options. If you're doing trips, you'll quickly yearn for something with more speed. 400 nm in a 172 gets old fast.

Do your training in a 172 or whatever else is available at your school. Then look for something like a Comanche 250 or a Mooney M20F. The Comanche will do your 400 nm trips in 3 hours with a good headwind. It may not seem like a big deal now, but trust me, you'll come to appreciate it. The planes aren't difficult to fly. I started flying the Mooney with about 120 hours, and someone else was on the insurance with about 100 hours and no instrument rating. Quite doable in either case.

If you want the room, the 182 is nice as well, but even with that you'll probably be wanting for more speed.

 

[Ted]

I don't think the greed for speed ever (totally) goes away, no matter what you fly. At one point in my flying career I was plssed when the G-V groundspeed was less than 400 knots on westbound legs.

But I also think most owners at some point recognize that trip times simply aren't going to change much no matter what they fly, especially when budgetary considerations are included in the decision tree. Once they understand and accept the reality of the time required, everything else gets a lot easier. That said, a 30-knot headwind is 20% of a 150-knot TAS, but groundspeed is still 120 and you can still look down and see that you're going faster than the trucks on the interstate. If you're flying a 120-knot airplane in the same wind, the groundspeed 90 knots, the trucks are in sight a lot longer and the close rate is much less.

I think that pretty much hits what I was getting on. A lot of it depends on your expectation and what you're trying to do. I'm a bit weird in the sense that I'll fly a 310 from Houston to New Hampshire in a day (and have flown an Aztec from LA to NYC in a day). In the 310, I get angry if the speed drops below 150. In the Aztec, I get made if it drops below 120. Amounts to about the same headwind.

The latter paragraph speaks to the real issue. A 400 nm trip in a 172 is doable on a good weather day with no or little headwind. Get a little headwind, it's less doable. If you don't care, that's fine. Personally, for trips that I'm doing regularly, I like to be able to do them non-stop, especially when the cost is similar. Ed's Comanche cost less than what I'd expect to pay for a similar 182, and you get a lot more plane.

 

[weilke]

Jw, you may notice a trend here:

- owners of marginally faster planes allways fly into a headwind and never experience a tailwind
- aircraft owners have a tendency to recommend whatever worked for them
- maintenance cost will vary by a factor of 10 between owners
- everyone is right, all the others are wrong
- plenty of grumpy old men in aviation :wink2: .

And seriously, ask your wife to come along, sit in the different planes, sit in the back while you do a demo flight with an instructor. If she doesnt like the 'if you have time to spare, travel by air' concept, you might as well buy a single-seat Pitts and have some fun.

 

[Ted]

- aircraft owners have a tendency to recommend whatever worked for them

I haven't done that yet. So, go out and buy a de-iced FIKI twin.

- plenty of grumpy old men in aviation :wink2: .

Ain't that the truth!

 

[weilke]

Ed's Comanche cost less than what I'd expect to pay for a similar 182, and you get a lot more plane.

Love the Comanche, it's all I fly these days. While you get a couple of knots over a 182, you also get a couple of maintenance and parts headaches along with it that you wont see in a 182.

AOPA is refurbishing a late 70s 182 right now, their conversion includes a Air Plains IO550 engine (300hp instead of 230). I have flown something similar to what they are putting together before and it is as much fun as you can have in a 182 and with Flint tanks and/or tip wing extensions you have all the range you need.

 

[tonycondon]

300 hp on a 182 seems to me to just be major overkill unless you are towing CG-4A's out of Leadville or something.

 

[wabower]

As a former Comanche owner (3 of them) and current 180 owner I'd take issue with the Comanche being a lot more plane. They are certainly good airplanes with some talking points, but so are the 180-series airplanes.

Ed's trip times and mine are going to be almost identical, as are the fuel burns. Depending on which model we own, either of us may have significantly more tankage.

Ed's airplane might be considered prettier (if he got rid of that dog-shlt paint job when I saw it) but I'd bet mine generates as much ramp envy as his does. But maybe that's partially because I'm so much better looking.

But there's much more to the selection process than those two issues, as any new owner will discover when the head-to-head comparisons start in earnest.

Some of the lesser lights even like Mooneys.

The latter paragraph speaks to the real issue. A 400 nm trip in a 172 is doable on a good weather day with no or little headwind. Get a little headwind, it's less doable. If you don't care, that's fine. Personally, for trips that I'm doing regularly, I like to be able to do them non-stop, especially when the cost is similar. Ed's Comanche cost less than what I'd expect to pay for a similar 182, and you get a lot more plane.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just how much block-to-block time do you save on a 150nm trip by going 150 KTAS in cruise versus 120 KTAS in cruise? Enough to justify a few hundred dollars more on each annual and $700-1000 a year on insurance (especially for a Student Pilot)? Since the once/twice-a-year 400nm nonstop is within the range of the 180-230HP planes mentioned even with some headwind or the need for IFR/alternate reserves, retractable gear just doesn't seem worth the cost to me, but that's a question only the OP can answer for himself.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Jw, you may notice a trend here:

- owners of marginally faster planes allways fly into a headwind and never experience a tailwind
- aircraft owners have a tendency to recommend whatever worked for them
- maintenance cost will vary by a factor of 10 between owners
- everyone is right, all the others are wrong
- plenty of grumpy old men in aviation :wink2: .

One of the best summations of aviationisms that I have seen!

And seriously, ask your wife to come along, sit in the different planes, sit in the back while you do a demo flight with an instructor. If she doesnt like the 'if you have time to spare, travel by air' concept, you might as well buy a single-seat Pitts and have some fun.

Very good point - owning an airplane is a whole lot easier if your wife is onboard with it. Make sure it is something your wife likes riding in. I personally prefer low wing Pipers over Cessnas, but my wife much prefers the ease of getting in and out of a Cessna. You can probably imagine which type I'd probably have a better chance of getting her to agree to.

 

[weilke]

300 hp on a 182 seems to me to just be major overkill unless you are towing CG-4A's out of Leadville or something.

300 may be overdoing it, but the 182 definitely benefits from getting another 30-50 extra from something like a P-Ponk conversion of by hanging an IO-520 pulled off a twin. At 9000ft, that 520/550 is still going to make plenty of power.

 

[wabower]

+1. My most disappointing day in aviation was when I first calculated the actual trip-time difference between my Mooney F and the S-35 Bonanza I wanted. Instead of the half-hour (or more) that I had envisioned, I think the actual difference was about 11 minutes, and that was for a long trip. So I looked at a lot of other single-step upgrade comparisons (172 to 182 etc.) and found the meager gain factor was the same. Bummer.

Just how much block-to-block time do you save on a 150nm trip by going 150 KTAS in cruise versus 120 KTAS in cruise? Enough to justify a few hundred dollars more on each annual and $700-1000 a year on insurance (especially for a Student Pilot)? Since the once/twice-a-year 400nm nonstop is within the range of the 180-230HP planes mentioned even with some headwind or the need for IFR/alternate reserves, retractable gear just doesn't seem worth the cost to me, but that's a question only the OP can answer for himself.

 

[tonycondon]

in my experience 8-9000 ft has always been the sweet spot for 75% cruise in most normally aspirated engines regardless of HP. if you're regularly operating heavy out of very high DA airports then i could understand the desire for 300 hp on a 182. otherwise it just seems to me to be showing off (my 182 has more power than your 182)

would make a fantastic towplane though

 

[Tom-D]

Just how much block-to-block time do you save on a 150nm trip by going 150 KTAS in cruise versus 120 KTAS in cruise? Enough to justify a few hundred dollars more on each annual and $700-1000 a year on insurance (especially for a Student Pilot)? Since the once/twice-a-year 400nm nonstop is within the range of the 180-230HP planes mentioned even with some headwind or the need for IFR/alternate reserves, retractable gear just doesn't seem worth the cost to me, but that's a question only the OP can answer for himself.

that's exactly why I recommended the C-177 fixed gear. I have never talked to a C-177 owner that didn't love their aircraft, and they are so easy to fly. and the low airframe time is a big plus.

 

[jsstevens]

in my experience 8-9000 ft has always been the sweet spot for 75% cruise in most normally aspirated engines regardless of HP. if you're regularly operating heavy out of very high DA airports then i could understand the desire for 300 hp on a 182. otherwise it just seems to me to be showing off (my 182 has more power than your 182)

would make a fantastic towplane though

For cruising I can see your point. But part of the purpose of the Crossover Classic is short field performance. Wouldn't the 300HP help with that?

John

 

[poadeleted20]

that's exactly why I recommended the C-177 fixed gear. I have never talked to a C-177 owner that didn't love their aircraft, and they are so easy to fly. and the low airframe time is a big plus.

While I agree that a 180HP fixed-gear 4-seater would probably be the best fit for the OP, the C-177 isn't the only 180HP fixed-gear 4-seater out there, and the OP should consider more than just one brand in the class. Without also evaluating the 180 HP STC'd 172, the Tiger, the Sundowner, and the Archer, he's not doing all his homework.

 

[tonycondon]

For cruising I can see your point. But part of the purpose of the Crossover Classic is short field performance. Wouldn't the 300HP help with that?

John

my observation is the real purpose of the AOPA conversions is to showcase the businesses that do the modifications.

Stock 182 at gross still has a takeoff roll well under 1000 ft if you are east of the rockies. 300 hp will have a shorter roll and a higher climb rate. like i said, if you are flying heavy at leadville then yes i can see why you'd want the extra power. but for 99% of the flying that most people do its just overkill.

 

[weilke]

Stock 182 at gross still has a takeoff roll well under 1000 ft if you are east of the rockies. 300 hp will have a shorter roll and a higher climb rate. like i said, if you are flying heavy at leadville then yes i can see why you'd want the extra power. but for 99% of the flying that most people do its just overkill.

Why wait 1000ft if you can be off by the second runway marker

One mans overkill is another mans enjoyment. Why drive a 911 turbo if a plain 911 will do ? Why do they sell the Honda Accord with a V6 in addition to the I4 models ?

 

[jsstevens]

my observation is the real purpose of the AOPA conversions is to showcase the businesses that do the modifications.

Well, yes, that's the real point.

Stock 182 at gross still has a takeoff roll well under 1000 ft if you are east of the rockies. 300 hp will have a shorter roll and a higher climb rate. like i said, if you are flying heavy at leadville then yes i can see why you'd want the extra power. but for 99% of the flying that most people do its just overkill.

Thanks for a polite answer to a polite question.

I agree that very few folks would need the extra performance. I wonder how much difference it really makes? That 182 would make a sweet airplane for me. Moving up from a succession of 172s to a capable cross country and IFR platform. Hmm....

John

 

[dmccormack]

Moving up from a succession of 172s to a capable cross country and IFR platform. Hmm....

John

A36 Bonanza with a 540.

You'll love it.

 

[rpadula]

Jw, you may notice a trend here:

- owners of marginally faster planes allways fly into a headwind and never experience a tailwind
- aircraft owners have a tendency to recommend whatever worked for them
- maintenance cost will vary by a factor of 10 between owners
- everyone is right, all the others are wrong
- plenty of grumpy old men in aviation :wink2: .

- And we love spending other peoples' money!

 

[tonycondon]

Well, yes, that's the real point.



Thanks for a polite answer to a polite question.

I agree that very few folks would need the extra performance. I wonder how much difference it really makes? That 182 would make a sweet airplane for me. Moving up from a succession of 172s to a capable cross country and IFR platform. Hmm....

John

I guess someone forgot to tell me that a 172 well equipped isn't a capable IFR platform.

Don't get me wrong, when AOPA calls me that I won the 182 I won't say no

 

[Tom-D]

While I agree that a 180HP fixed-gear 4-seater would probably be the best fit for the OP, the C-177 isn't the only 180HP fixed-gear 4-seater out there, and the OP should consider more than just one brand in the class. Without also evaluating the 180 HP STC'd 172, the Tiger, the Sundowner, and the Archer, he's not doing all his homework.

This is true, but the 177 is well supported by its manufacturer, and has a great type club, Is well known thru out the industry by almost every mechanic, and has a descent re-sale.

The one I linked, has every thing he needs already installed, there will be no need to upgrade or retrofit any old equipment, a perfect example of the "you can buy better than you can build" theory.

And we all know most of the old aircraft on your list, that are for sale in today's market will need the old equipment up dated.

Plus the 177 has none of the extra equipment to slow the learning curve you so like to point out.

this 177 beats the upgraded 172 hands down, box stock it is a better aircraft all the way around. and with the low TT the chances of prior damage, and major repairs is a lot less.

with all that said, all the pre-buy procedures still must be applied.

 

[Tom-D]

I guess someone forgot to tell me that a 172 well equipped isn't a capable IFR platform.

but there are better traveling machines, plus when you upgrade the market average 172 to a good IFR aircraft, using the modern equipment, you will be in it upside down.

The 177 I linked is ready to go. It really pains me to see owners watch their aircraft lay up for maybe 6 months getting the engine overhauled/replaced, and the panel up graded. when they can buy what they need today.

 

[Ted]

I flew in a 182 once that had 315 hp. Yeah, it was probably overkill. But man oh man was it fun...

I like having extra power personally. If given the option of more power vs. less power, I'll always take more. It's a lot easier to throttle back than to throttle past 100%.

 

[weilke]

Oh, I forgot one more characteristic of 'which airplane threads':

- pilots and owners are like little flowers who will easily get their feelings hurt if someone looks down on their particular chosen airplane.