1st plane

[poadeleted20]

On a per hour or per mile basis? Per hour, sure. Per mile? I'd doubt the savings is as much as people who have insufficient levers would like to believe.

I estimate that a retractable vs fixed gear of the same plane (e.g., 177 vs 177RG) is a difference of about 15 knots and $15/hour more for insurance and maintenance for someone flying 100 hours a year. Further, if you choose well, you can get a fixed gear Tiger that goes as fast as the Arrow the OP mentioned on the same gas without paying extra for maintenance or insurance. Of course, the Mooney is 15 knots faster than the Tiger, and 25 knots faster than the 177, but is 15 knots extra six times a year worth paying $15/hour on more all those 150nm flights where the speed difference is insignificant? I looked at the issues and decided to get a Tiger rather than a Mooney when I sold the Cougar, but the OP has to decide that for himself.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've never flown a Grumman and I'm sure that it flies just fine, much like most other aircraft. But it ain't a Mooney F/J or a Comanche 250, which I still think is the OP's best bet.

First, it doesn't cost like a Mooney F/J or a Comanche 250, either. Second, remember this is a Student Pilot still working on his PP -- think about the training and insurance implications of a HP/complex airplane like the Comanche 250 or a Bonanza (as some have suggested) for such a person.

 

[poadeleted20]

Grumman owners don't even notice the time they spend in the air. They don't notice much else either, since their brains have long since been fried by sitting in those bubbles.

Thanks to the canopy which can be opened a bit in flight, the cockpit in my Tiger is cooler in the pattern (where things usually heat up most) than the cockpits of the other planes mentioned (unless he gets an Arrow with A/C). And it's warmer in winter, too, even if he does get A/C.

 

[Tom-D]

177RG... The 177 is a sleak aircraft, no sense in leaving the legs down and dirty.

Show me a RG this well equipped at this money.

 

[Tom-D]

I have lost count, but you must have posted this plane the 3rd or 4th time in this thread. Why, unless you have an interest in getting it sold, would you do that ?

To make the point that it the best aircraft for the job in this case.

 

[Tom-D]

Most of the negatives you hear about them are OWT and pretty much caused by pure JEALOUSY.

The negative thing I know about the Grumman types,

try getting into one in the rain with getting the interior wet.

airframe parts are twice the cost of any other make.

The airframe is stout, and protects the pax, but always goes to the salvage yard after the accident, or hail storm.

they do not lend themselves to off airport work, or hauling heavy loads.

 

[Ted]

First, it doesn't cost like a Mooney F/J or a Comanche 250, either. Second, remember this is a Student Pilot still working on his PP -- think about the training and insurance implications of a HP/complex airplane like the Comanche 250 or a Bonanza (as some have suggested) for such a person.

Yes, and he shouldn't buy it to finish his training. Finish training in a 172, then get a Mooney or Comanche to fly.

The owner of the M20F I used to fly sold it to a student pilot who was intending on flying it post-private. For $25k, that student got a /G IFR-capable aircraft with a reasonable interior. The only negative the plane had on it was that it wasn't the prettiest model available, and the engine was about 100 over TBO. However it had been torn down about 1000 hours prior when the plane had a gear-up landing, and had great compressions, great oil pressure, and no indications of upcoming problems.

Ed's Comanche 250 was a lot of plane for not a lot of money, either (although more than $25k).

Hence... I stand by the Mooney/Comanche 250.

 

[zaitcev]

I estimate that a retractable vs fixed gear of the same plane (e.g., 177 vs 177RG) is a difference of about 15 knots and $15/hour more for insurance and maintenance for someone flying 100 hours a year.

Fianally someone is talking numbers and not just buy this airplane, buy that airplane.
-- P

 

[poadeleted20]

airframe parts are twice the cost of any other make.

Examples, please?

The airframe is stout, and protects the pax, but always goes to the salvage yard after the accident, or hail storm.

Not true -- not even close.

they do not lend themselves to off airport work, or hauling heavy loads.

They'll haul just about the same load as any other plane in their class. Compare the useful load of the average Tiger (950 lb) to that of the average Cardinal or Archer. Ditto the Cheetah (800 lb) to a stock 150-160HP 172 or Warrior. As for "off-airport work," that's hardly relevant unless you're a bush pilot, and then you need something else entirely.

 

[EdFred]

Fianally someone is talking numbers and not just buy this airplane, buy that airplane.
-- P

Except that with the faster plane you wouldn't be flying 100hrs/yr because you would get there......uh....faster.

So let's do a quick and dirty...
115kt airplane is really a 100kt GS airplane because you always get a headwind, and you never get back in the decent what you used up in the climb.

100hrs a year at 100kts, is 10000nm
That 135kt airplane is going to be a 120kts over the ground.
10000/120 is 83 1/3 hours.
10gph @ 5.00/gal * 16 2/3, you save about $833 in fuel based on the same trips.

Will spend $833 more in insurance and maintenance/year?...maybe, maybe not.

Using it with the Mooney vs Tiger
155vs 135 you get:

(135-15) * 100hr = 12000miles
12000/140 = 85 3/4 hrs

10*5*14.25= $712.50 saved in fuel or $1430 saved over the 115kt plane.

 

[poadeleted20]

Except that with the faster plane you wouldn't be flying 100hrs/yr because you would get there......uh....faster.

So let's do a quick and dirty...
115kt airplane is really a 100kt GS airplane because you always get a headwind, and you never get back in the decent what you used up in the climb.

100hrs a year at 100kts, is 10000nm
That 135kt airplane is going to be a 120kts over the ground.
10000/120 is 83 1/3 hours.
10gph @ 5.00/gal * 16 2/3, you save about $833 in fuel based on the same trips.

Will spend $833 more in insurance and maintenance/year?...maybe, maybe not.

Insurance alone will eat that. Compare rates for a low-time, non-IR pilot in an Arrow vs an Archer, or a 177RG vs a 177. Typically $700-1000 difference, and that's not even a Student Pilot like the OP. It also ignores the fact that on a 150nm flight (the bulk of the OP's flying), you spend 5-10% of the flight in the traffic pattern, where additional speed is meaningless.

 

[EdFred]

Insurance alone will eat that. Compare rates for a low-time, non-IR pilot in an Arrow vs an Archer, or a 177RG vs a 177. Typically $700-1000 difference, and that's not even a Student Pilot like the OP. It also ignores the fact that on a 150nm flight (the bulk of the OP's flying), you spend 5-10% of the flight in the traffic pattern, where additional speed is meaningless.

It may, it may not. I don't spend 10% of a 150nm flight in the pattern. He can call around and get insurance quotes.

 

[weilke]

It also ignores the fact that on a 150nm flight (the bulk of the OP's flying), you spend 5-10% of the flight in the traffic pattern, where additional speed is meaningless.

Not if you do a straight-in approach and barge into the pattern at 150kts :wink2: .

 

[EdFred]

Not if you do a straight-in approach and barge into the pattern at 150kts :wink2: .

Which is what me returning to my home drome usually is. I am the straight in king. We also aren't that busy.

 

[Everskyward]

Insurance alone will eat that.

Plus I don't see where Ed accounted for the acquisition cost either, just the fuel cost.

 

[EdFred]

Plus I don't see where Ed accounted for the acquisition cost either, just the fuel cost.

I think the OP had $80k to spend....If you want to buy an $80k Cherokee, go right ahead. But for $80k, I'd step up a couple notches. I got my Comanche for $45k. That's $35k that I could still put towards maintenance and insurance. I mean if we want to talk purely acquisition costs....get a 152.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the OP had $80k to spend....If you want to buy an $80k Cherokee, go right ahead. But for $80k, I'd step up a couple notches. I got my Comanche for $45k. That's $35k that I could still put towards maintenance and insurance. I mean if we want to talk purely acquisition costs....get a 152.

It's a balancing act. Keep in mind that many people with $80K budgets for acquisition may want to keep the cost lower if they can do so while still meeting their requirements. The extra capital may then be invested elsewhere, and the return used to pay for some of the operating costs. Or to buy the spouse something s/he wants and thus avoid AIDS (Aviation-Induced Divorce Syndrome). That's one reason Fran can't argue about the cost of my airplane -- she spends as much or more on her horses. And vice versa.:wink2:

 

[Everskyward]

Or to buy the spouse something s/he wants and thus avoid AIDS (Aviation-Induced Divorce Syndrome). That's one reason Fran can't argue about the cost of my airplane -- she spends as much or more on her horses. And vice versa.:wink2:

That's one thing Ed doesn't need to worry about.

 

[Ted]

Insurance alone will eat that. Compare rates for a low-time, non-IR pilot in an Arrow vs an Archer, or a 177RG vs a 177. Typically $700-1000 difference, and that's not even a Student Pilot like the OP.

Insurance will not eat that.

The Mooney's insurance (with was based on having a sub-100 hour, non-instrument rated kid on the policy) was about $1200/year.

You won't be getting insurance in your Archer for $500 with the same hours at the same hull value.

 

[Anthony]

That 135kt airplane is going to be a 120kts over the ground.

And why is that oh wise one? A perpetual 15 knot headwind? Sometimes I see 120 knots, sometimes I see 150+ knots. I think it evens out.

Didn't you recently have some great heartburn, dispatch issue, downtime with a C/S prop? Tiger doesn't have one so I would have been able to make that trip. Average in the days you lost and calculate that into your KTAS.

 

[EdFred]

And why is that oh wise one? A perpetual 15 knot headwind? Sometimes I see 120 knots, sometimes I see 150+ knots. I think it evens out.

Didn't you recently have some great heartburn, dispatch issue, downtime with a C/S prop? Tiger doesn't have one so I would have been able to make that trip. Average in the days you lost and calculate that into your KTAS.

Grummans don't have an oil cooler?


Actually, the C/S prop saved me an entirely new engine. Because all gauges and checks were normal until I did the prop cycle. Had I not done a prop cycle - which I wouldn't on a Tiger - I would not have found the problem until it was too late. So my CS probably saved me 30 grand. Figure THAT into your maintenance.


Oh, and the speed never evens out. Ask anyone who has a 430 or 530 what their avg GS is. It is never at or above cruise speed. My Cherokee was about 105kts when I sold it, and I cruised at 122-124kts.

 

[Anthony]

Grummans don't have an oil cooler?

I thought it was related to an oil connection to the C/S prop. If not, then, my mistake. But you have to admit, having more complex systems like retract gear and C/S prop can affect dispatch rate and downtime, which may stick you for days, not just minutes.

 

[EdFred]

I thought it was related to an oil connection to the C/S prop. If not, then, my mistake. But you have to admit, having more complex systems like retract gear and C/S prop can affect dispatch rate and downtime, which may stick you for days, not just minutes.

Blown oil cooler. Actually the problem was with the remote oil filter being plumbed backwards, and the problem manifested itself via the oil cooler. I only caught the problem when I did the prop cycle.

 

[Ted]

And why is that oh wise one? A perpetual 15 knot headwind? Sometimes I see 120 knots, sometimes I see 150+ knots. I think it evens out.

It doesn't, and it never will, not unless you always fly the direction the winds go.

Example: Let's say you have a 30 kt headwind out, and a 30 kt headwind home, on a 600 nm trip in a 150 kt plane.

No winds: 600 nm / 150 kt = 4 hours. Round trip, 8 hours.

Trip out: 600 nm / 180 kt (whee!!!) = 3.33 hours
Trip home: 600 nm / 120 kt (son of a...) = 5 hours

Even if the winds are actually always the same, you've still lost 20 minutes. So your 150 kt plane is a 144 kt plane.

But in my experience, Murphy exists and he hates us. Those winds are not direct headwinds or tailwinds. Sometimes they're crosswinds, which eat up at your speed both directions, or hurt you more one way and don't help you any the other way.

When I plan my flight time for a long trip, I take the TAS I know the plane will do and subtract 15 kts to figure out how many hours I will probably end up flying. That estimate on average is on to within 5%.

 

[Anthony]

Blown oil cooler. Actually the problem was with the remote oil filter being plumbed backwards, and the problem manifested itself via the oil cooler. I only caught the problem when I did the prop cycle.

Got it. That's why I thought it was related to the prop. Glad you caught it on the ground. In this regards, maybe the C/S prop saved your *ss. I may not have caught that as I have no C/S prop to cycle. Hmmm, need to get a C/S prop on the Tiger, although the only one approved is electric.

 

[Ted]

Got it. That's why I thought it was related to the prop. Glad you caught it on the ground. In this regards, maybe the C/S prop saved your *ss. I may not have caught that as I have no C/S prop to cycle. Hmmm, need to get a C/S prop on the Tiger, although the only one approved is electric.

If you do decide to get one, I'd be very interested to hear what you think of it. The electric CS prop appeals to me for a lot of reasons, but I have heard no first-hand experience with them.

 

[Anthony]

If you do decide to get one, I'd be very interested to hear what you think of it. The electric CS prop appeals to me for a lot of reasons, but I have heard no first-hand experience with them.

The MT prop used to have a 2,500 RPM limitation due to noise and the European regs, I think. It wasn't worth to get due to that as it really didn't gie you any benefit. I believe its been lifted in the U.S. allowing us to use the fully available 2,700 RPM's. Ron will know. Still, its pretty costly, $12K I think, but does help in climb and higher DA situations. If I were to move back out to Denver and were to plan on keeping the Tiger, I'd consider it, although the Tiger performed well out there with my fixed Sensenich prop which is an upgrade in performance to the stock McCauley.

 

[poadeleted20]

Grummans don't have an oil cooler?

Most of them do, and it's available for all the rest. But unless you have a dodo mechanic and choose the remote mount instead of the direct mount (only choice from the factory and available for retrofit if you didn't have one from the factory, and can't be hooked up backwards), what happened to you can't happen in a Grumman.

 

[poadeleted20]

Blown oil cooler. Actually the problem was with the remote oil filter being plumbed backwards, and the problem manifested itself via the oil cooler. I only caught the problem when I did the prop cycle.

I hardly think that having improperly done maintenance on one's airplane is reason to get a more complex airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

The MT prop used to have a 2,500 RPM limitation due to noise and the European regs, I think.

Correct.

It wasn't worth to get due to that as it really didn't gie you any benefit.

Also correct, based on a side-by-side flight test with a 62-pitch Sensenich prop on a Finnish Tiger and the original 2500 RPM MT prop on a German Tiger conducted in Denmark in 2004. I was flying the Finnish Tiger (with the Finnish owner in the right seat to be legal PIC).

I believe its been lifted in the U.S. allowing us to use the fully available 2,700 RPM's. Ron will know.

It's a different design. They changed the blades to scimitar style and upped the RPM limit to 2700 RPM.

Still, its pretty costly, $12K I think,

I heard $14K installed.

but does help in climb and higher DA situations.

Maybe, maybe not. As far as I can tell after reviewing the before/after data and several side-by-side tests, the primary advantages of the MT prop are lower noise levels and being able to hold higher speeds in descents without exceeding redline RPM.

I did a flight test with an MT-equipped Tiger last year. I had the original 63-pitch McCauley, and the other Tiger had the new new super-duper MT. We started wingtip to wingtip on the runway (with formation-qualified pilots flying each airplane) at the same weight and released brakes together. The MT plane pulled ahead during the takeoff roll, got airborne maybe 100 feet sooner, and at the end of the 5000-foot runway was 100 ahead and 50 above. I dropped into trail position, and stayed right there all the way to 5000 feet. We then set up side-by-side for a full throttle speed test, and I was pulling away from him in level flight, although when I looked down, I saw I was over redline. When I throttled back to the same 2700 RPM he was turning, we were dead even. A few months later, I bought the 63-pitch Sensenich prop he'd taken off his plane and put it on mine, and my plane matched his pre-MT climb and speed numbers almost exactly with the same prop, so neither engine nor airframe were factors.

If I were to move back out to Denver and were to plan on keeping the Tiger, I'd consider it, although the Tiger performed well out there with my fixed Sensenich prop which is an upgrade in performance to the stock McCauley.

Considering that a 63-pitch Sensenich matched the 2700RPM MT prop in climb at 5000 feet, and a 62-pitch Sensenich will outclimb a 63-pitch Sensenich, I'd recommend sticking with your Sensenich, and repitching it to 62 (the most popular pitch) if it's currently 63. Here at sea level, I'm happy to trade a tad of takeoff/climb performance for a bit of extra speed at altitude (6000-9000 feet) where the finer pitch hits redline before passing 70% power.

 

[Henning]

Insurance alone will eat that. Compare rates for a low-time, non-IR pilot in an Arrow vs an Archer, or a 177RG vs a 177. Typically $700-1000 difference, and that's not even a Student Pilot like the OP. It also ignores the fact that on a 150nm flight (the bulk of the OP's flying), you spend 5-10% of the flight in the traffic pattern, where additional speed is meaningless.

Only the first year. Once you have 100 hours there is only the difference in hulll value.

 

[Tom-D]

Examples, please?Seeing as the Grummans only have used parts, and used parts are subject to condition, the only example to compare would be new parts from the manufacturer. So, show me a new aileron, or an aileron bought used and repaired to new condition, with labor and materials included, and include the time for the 337 to comply with 43,A, 1 (xiii) Changes to the wing or to fixed or movable control surfaces which affect flutter and vibration characteristics.

Not true -- not even close.

AS per my Insurance company they will total any Grumman AA series when the repair bill exceeds 1/2 the purchase price, because the engine and instrument panel makes up the other half. So if you have a 3oK Grumman, 15k ain't even a start on major repairs in these days. bye bye 90% of the Grumman accident victims.


They'll haul just about the same load as any other plane in their class. Compare the useful load of the average Tiger (950 lb) to that of the average Cardinal or Archer. Ditto the Cheetah (800 lb) to a stock 150-160HP 172 or Warrior. As for "off-airport work," that's hardly relevant unless you're a bush pilot, and then you need something else entirely.

75 177B (Cardinal) = Average useful load, 1040, (no brainer over the Grumman)
top designed speed 160
Optimum speed 150, range 735, endurance 4.9
Economy speed 126, range 820, endurance 6.5

and the biggy approach speed clean 80, flaps 70,

there are no difference between learning in a Cardinal than the 172. Plus support for the new pilot getting his PPL with a well established dealer network, with new parts.

A 177 makes perfect sense for this student with his budget for making the 177 his cross country aircraft or burger chaser.

 

[Anthony]

I have the 73 pitch Sensinich and even at altitude have to watch to not go over red line in cruise. It also performed pretty well in high DA situations in Colorado which surprised me a bit, although I kept it to a two place plane in the summer months. So the 73 seems to work fine.

 

[fszczerba]

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.

Very good advice. My wife is the opposite: she likes the low wing because she likes to look out and see something between her and the ground.

 

[wabower]

So for a trip time of ~one hour a pilot should plan to spend between 3 and six minutes in the pattern? How can any airplane owner other than the super-rich possibly afford to waste that much time?

Insurance alone will eat that. Compare rates for a low-time, non-IR pilot in an Arrow vs an Archer, or a 177RG vs a 177. Typically $700-1000 difference, and that's not even a Student Pilot like the OP. It also ignores the fact that on a 150nm flight (the bulk of the OP's flying), you spend 5-10% of the flight in the traffic pattern, where additional speed is meaningless.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am a beginner pilot- no private license yet.

I want a plane for monthly trips of 150 miles and will take longer trips ie 400 miles every other month.

Any thoughts re Cessna 172 versus Cessna 182 versus Piper Archer? Several people have said the 182 is too much plane for a beginner, therfore dangerous. Other friends said "you will hate a 172 with a 40mph headwind" therefore buy a 182 or equivalent.

my budget is about 80k

I will not be hauling much - me and wife with 2 suitcases at most

I don't see me ever needing to fly in inclement weather, but would like to be able to fly in clouds.

We've diverged rather greatly from this original question, but I'd like to return to it and add a few thoughts.

First of all, there's obviously a lot more choices than you've suggested above. So, let's knock this down to a few things to help you decide:

1) It sounds like you're going to be using the plane as a traveling machine. So, like Ted mentions, you should probably be more concerned with the cost per mile than the cost per hour. I've found that, while the cost per hour of an airplane in the 135-knot range is higher than those in the 100-knot range, the cost per mile is generally identical or even slightly less. The 160-knot range, you'll get there faster but it'll probably cost you more, even per mile. Average speed does NOT average out to cruise speed - You never make up for the climb in the descent, and even a direct (to the course) crosswind turns into a headwind when you crab into it to maintain course, so you'll have a headwind a higher percentage of the time than you have a tailwind. Plan on your average speed being about 15 knots slower than the cruise speed (and I back this up with the 119 knots that our 182 has averaged according to the 430W, while it usually trues 133). Since it's not at all uncommon to have a 30-knot headwind, we'll look at that too... And cruise speed isn't the only part of the equation.

2) Spousal approval is important - And remember that she's not likely to enjoy flying like you do, so getting the trip done more quickly can only help. Bonus points for something that looks nice inside and out, and for something that's relatively easy to get in and out of. Also, an airplane that does well in turbulence is a plus here.

3) As a low-time pilot, the more complex the machine, the more you'll pay in insurance initially and the slower you'll get your certificate (which will cost you money for the extra airplane and CFI time). So, big bonus points if we can get (1) and (2) in a fixed-gear airplane, small bonus for fixed-pitch prop. Note that while I'm calling a constant speed prop a "con" that is really only because you're still training - In the long run, I'd call it a "pro" so if you're going to buy one airplane and keep it long-term, I'd call the CS prop a "Pro" instead.

Before moving on to the individual airplanes, let's take a look at another time factor: Range and endurance. As I mentioned, a 30-knot headwind is not at all uncommon. An airplane in the 160hp (C172/Warrior) class is going to do about 105KTAS, so that's 75 knots groundspeed, which makes that 400-nm trip into a 5 hour, 20 minute affair plus the time to climb - Longer than the endurance of those airplanes. So, add a fuel stop in, making it take an extra hour. 6:20+ to go 400nm is going to make the car start looking a little too good.

Looking at the Archer-class airplanes (172/180hp, etc.), they'll be about 10 knots faster. 85kt GS means 4:42 in flight, still requiring a fuel stop. Moving up to the ~135-knot class (182 etc.), you'll still do 105 GS with that headwind, it'll be less than 4 hours and you probably won't need the fuel stop. 160 KTAS->130 cruise with headwind, 3 hours even on the bad days, but it'll probably cost you a bit more. Faster than 160 knots is where it starts getting really prohibitively expensive even on a per-mile basis.

So - Looking at all of the above, let's look at some airplanes.

C182:
Pro: Reasonable speed (130-135 KTAS), Reasonable cost per mile, will do damn near anything you ask it to, fixed gear, great range and endurance, excellent comfort, easy to get in and out of (watch the steps though, they don't like shins!), still being built and many have been built so very easy to maintain, heavier airplane cuts through turbulence well.
Con: Not overly efficient (10 nmpg or so)

Archer:
Pro: Cheap to buy, older ones have a pretty respectable useful load, fixed gear & prop, easy to maintain.
Con: Slow enough to require a fuel stop with any headwind on the long trips, not as comfortable, harder to enter & exit

C172:
Pro: (see Archer) + easier entry & exit and more-comfortable upright seating position
Con: Without 180hp, even slower than the Archer.

Tiger:
Pro: Fixed gear & prop, easier to get in & out of than Archer, maybe somewhat faster (and I know I'm gonna hear about that from Ron and Anthony)
Con: No manufacturer support - Yes, there are other places to get things, but...

Comanche 180/250:
Pro: Fast (135 KTAS for the 180, 150+ KTAS for the 250), good range, low purchase price, roomy cabin, 180 is known as one of the most economical-to-operate airplanes
Con: Retract gear & C/S prop, entry/exit is similar to Archer but lacking the step to get on the wing, haven't been built since 1972

Mooney F/J:
Pro: Insanely efficient, fast (145-160 KTAS), lots of legroom if you're long-legged, "sporty" handling
Con: Entry/exit similar to Archer, retract/CS prop, somewhat more difficult to fly & land for a beginner (speed control is very important)

Cessna 177 Cardinal:
Pro: More efficient, faster, and better-looking than the Archer/C172, maybe the best ease of entry/exit of any of the airplanes mentioned, fixed gear/prop
Con: Still probably a bit too slow to make the trip non-stop on those 30-knot-headwind days, some have CS props.

Now, I'm going to add one to the mix, because your post made me think that finding a partner and getting a Diamond DA40 should be considered:
Pro: Also insanely efficient (>14nmpg), pretty fast (140 KTAS), very easy to fly, One of the easier (along with the Tiger) low-wings in terms of entry & exit, insanely good visibility, newness will get some confidence from the spouse, excellent safety record may have the same effect
Con: CS prop, long wing makes it a little more susceptible to turbulence.

I'll happily follow up on the DA40 option if you're interested - We just bought one in October - A 2006 model with glass panel, XM WX, etc. - for $160K. That's do-able if you can find a compatible partner (and doing so will also knock some of your costs in half - Hangar rent, etc.) and it'll give you an airplane that gives you an excellent mix of the factors you're looking for.

Overall - Obviously, there are a lot of options. Consider the pros and cons listed here, but go find some of these and look at them. IMO the Tiger, 182, Cardinal, and DA40 are the best options for you, but there are trade-offs in any airplane, so your own personal preferences will be a fairly large factor here.

Hope this helps!

 

[Everskyward]

Kent, I know you are in love with the DA-40 almost as much as the iPad but can you get one for $80,000? Or even close?

Also, do people really find it that difficult to get into a low-wing airplane? My only experiences have been as a passenger myself or as the pilot. I have not flown very many non-pilots in them that I can remember.

 

[weilke]

Now, I'm going to add one to the mix, because your post made me think that finding a partner and getting a Diamond DA40 should be considered:
Pro: Also insanely efficient (>14nmpg), pretty fast (140 KTAS), very easy to fly, One of the easier (along with the Tiger) low-wings in terms of entry & exit, insanely good visibility, newness will get some confidence from the spouse, excellent safety record may have the same effect

Good points.

Even without a partner, it may well be worth putting down a bit more money up front and go with a plane that is innovative and still being made. Fuel prices are only going to go up, the DA40 with a fuel efficiency similar to the Mooney is less exposed to that risk than any of the 470-540ci 6-cylinder options.

 

[Henning]

You forgot the Bonanza. If you slow the Bo to Arrow or Tiger speeds you'll enen do better in the gallons per hour column. There is a plus in doing your training in the high performance/complex plane as you'll be flying the 25+ hours you'll have to do when you upgrade anyway, and you can even save money on the insurance listing the CFI as primary pilot. Believe it or not, insurance companies like seeing you get your initial training and especially check ride in your plan. When I bought my Travelair with 60 hrs total time and no multi and got insured for $1100, one of the stipulations was I had to do my multi training and check ride in my airplane. Besides, every hour you fly in a different plane is one less hour in type to count towards the insurance, and one less hour of experience for you and your passengers safety.

With an $80k budget, he can buy a pretty decent 35 Bo. He can go with a big engine later model, or if he plans on 160 or less and wants fuel efficiency he can go with an older 470 powered one and save a bunch on maintenance and have enough money left over to do a glass panel if he wants.

 

[Henning]

Kent, I know you are in love with the DA-40 almost as much as the iPad but can you get one for $80,000? Or even close?

Also, do people really find it that difficult to get into a low-wing airplane? My only experiences have been as a passenger myself or as the pilot. I have not flown very many non-pilots in them that I can remember.

I took a 60+ year old woman who was a good 2 "FAA Standard with me for the shuttle launch the other day, once I showed her where the handle was she was just fine. I helped modify a couple of A 36s with hand controls for parapalegics, and they said it was easier for them to get in the low wing.