1st plane

[flyingcheesehead]

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?

No. That's why I said "finding a partner and getting a Diamond DA40."

The slightly older ones (2001-2003) without the glass panel can be had for $120K or so, but it'll be a few more years before even the oldest DA40's are going for $80K.

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.

Not so much "difficult" as, um, "ungraceful." And while it isn't difficult, it *is* generally more difficult than the high wings.

You forgot the Bonanza.

Main problem I have with the Bo's is that the purchase prices always seem unreasonably high to me. Compared to airplanes of similar age, capabilities, and equipment, the Bo's always seem to be priced significantly higher. I like them, but I don't think they're THAT stupendous to warrant the higher prices.

 

[Trapper John]

The poor OP has been lost in the miasma of hangar flying...hope this helps

The C-182 is far superior to the 172 in every imaginable way.

No one knows why Cessna built the 172 in the first place. It's believed to have been a mixup between Engineering, Marketing and Accounting.

182s almost always make it to TBO. They almost never wear out because they have more cylinders than 172s and more cylinders are more better. 182 engine parts are cheap and plentiful. And made in Alabama.

182s are frequently used for aerial logging and extinguishing of oil well fires, so taking the whole family to Six Flags for the weekend is not a problem.

In the 1960s, 182s were based on Shemya Island and were used to track Soviet ICBM tests.

182s were an important component of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.

182s delivered as many life-saving supplies during the Berlin Airlift as DC-8s and 707s combined.

Rocking the wings while sumping the tanks is a feature, not a bug. Cruising with the carb heat knob pulled out is a feature, not a bug.

The most common occupation for 182 pilots is rocket surgeon. For 172 pilots, it's a tie between bus driver and pimp.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[EdFred]

182's have what....13 fuel sumps? lol

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

182's have what....13 fuel sumps? lol

So do the new 172's. Yet the SumpThis guy doesn't think that's enough.

 

[weilke]

182's have what....13 fuel sumps? lol

Comanche has 1 :wink2:

 

[wabower]

I can't believe all this mealy-mouth back-pedaling BS about buying the airplane your wife likes. What kind of crap is that? First of all, it's your damn airplane and that's the only vote that counts.

Secondly, anybody with a lick of sense knows that women change their minds often, don't know nuthin 'bout machinery and aren't all that bright to start with.

Right, Ed? Dave?

 

[Tom-D]

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.

Hope this helps!

I guess you didn't read

Optimum speed 150, range 735, endurance 4.9 That's 400 miles in a little over 2.5 hours.

in my post above, That's right out of the POH for the 75, 177B 180 horse fixed pitch, fixed gear.

 

[wabower]

That's not what they tell me. I fly with some of them and support the local Challenge Air organization. My impression is that they think Cardinals are far-and-away the best airplane for them. And they quickly dispel the "but you can't climb up to refuel them" as nonsense.

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.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I guess you didn't read

Optimum speed 150, range 735, endurance 4.9 That's 400 miles in a little over 2.5 hours.

in my post above, That's right out of the POH for the 75, 177B 180 horse fixed pitch, fixed gear.

150 would be mph, not knots. If you could get a fixed-gear Cardinal to go 150 KTAS, they'd have never quit making 'em because they'd be the most popular airplane on the block with efficiency like that.

So, 150 mph is 130 KTAS is 100 GS with that 30-knot headwind I was using for comparison. 4 hours to make the trip. Less than an hour reserve fuel using book numbers - A smart pilot is going to be making that fuel stop.

 

[Tom-D]

150 would be mph, not knots. If you could get a fixed-gear Cardinal to go 150 KTAS, they'd have never quit making 'em because they'd be the most popular airplane on the block with efficiency like that.

So, 150 mph is 130 KTAS is 100 GS with that 30-knot headwind I was using for comparison. 4 hours to make the trip. Less than an hour reserve fuel using book numbers - A smart pilot is going to be making that fuel stop.

If you like using Knots his 400 mile trip is now only 347K, so with you estimated GS of 100k it is only 3.4 hours. But will you see many students out in 30k winds?

 

[Anthony]

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...

Well you asked for it.

Maybe faster? My Tiger will do whatever the DA40 can do and with 960 lbs useful load, maybe more. At 75% power it will push up to 140 knots, those extra knots cost you a bit of fuel, that's why I fly at 65% and 135 KTAS.

Fletchair has all the parts you need and there are other shops out there that support Grummans. Most of the GA fleet has "no manufacturer support".

Kent, stop spreading internet rumors and OWT's.

I've heard DA40's melt if they sit out in the sun too long.

The Tiger fits this mission, especially if we are talking 150 - 160 MPH which is the Tiger's sweet spot. Plus he won't be bored as heck flying a plane that handles like a station wagon.

 

[Henning]

Main problem I have with the Bo's is that the purchase prices always seem unreasonably high to me. Compared to airplanes of similar age, capabilities, and equipment, the Bo's always seem to be priced significantly higher. I like them, but I don't think they're THAT stupendous to warrant the higher prices.

Shopped them lately? The premium isn't that high. They price right in there with Mooneys and are often even less expensive.

One thing I find with Bos is that the percentage of high quality ones is higher. Bo owners seem to love their planes and keep them in better condition and spend money on upgrades at a higher proportion than I see with other makes, and condition is what dictates to a high degree what the costs of continued operation are going to be.

 

[wabower]

Purchase price alone doesn't tell you all you need to know. You gotta analyze the full-cycle cost to know which is is more expensive. Analysts will tell you that rolling stock (transportation assets) should be compared using an after-tax NPV of total money in-total money out. Total money in includes purchase price/carry cost, and total money out includes net resale proceeds. Then you'll know, or at least know more than you did before. The real-world problem with this concept is that actual costs are somewhat unpredictable, can vary widely and are therefore difficult to determine.

A simple example is the comparison of 210's and A-36 Bo's. Same basic configuration and capability, almost identical engines and speeds. In theory, many operating and ownership costs should be almost identical (fuel cost, trip times, hangar, annual inspection flat rate, upgrades, taxes, etc. Insurance premiums might vary slightly depending on hull cost, but the big unknowns are non-scheduled MX and the squawk list generated at the annual inspection. If you can guesstimate the difference (or prepare several scenarios that you consider most-likely) you can pretty well nail the operating cost delta.

Purchase price vs. resale price differences are also somewhat difficult to predict, especially during the past 12-year period that included two major GA market plummets 2001-2002 and 2008-2009). Prior to 1999, it wasn't unusual for sales prices to exceed purchase prices. It's less-common now, and difficult to develop a reasonable scenario that would cause signficant increases in used airplane resale prices. I found that if I just used the same percentage of cost for both airplanes when calculating resale prices, the result was reasonably accurate for projection purposes.

Having owned both airplanes for a number of years, my personal experience was that the actual own/op cost differences were very slight and that the higher-priced airplanes were slightly more expensive due to the cost of capital. And since the difference in the cost of maintaining individual airplanes can be wildly difference (both ways) the predictions and projections are always a bit of a crapshoot.

Main problem I have with the Bo's is that the purchase prices always seem unreasonably high to me. Compared to airplanes of similar age, capabilities, and equipment, the Bo's always seem to be priced significantly higher. I like them, but I don't think they're THAT stupendous to warrant the higher prices.

 

[Bob Noel]

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

um, a 400 mile trip will require a fuel stop? I don't think so, unless there is one heck of a headwind.

I must be one of those wierd people - I find it easier to get in/out of my cherokee than the Cessna 172 (I learned to fly in the 172 so I know what's like).

 

[EdFred]

um, a 400 mile trip will require a fuel stop? I don't think so, unless there is one heck of a headwind.

I must be one of those wierd people - I find it easier to get in/out of my cherokee than the Cessna 172 (I learned to fly in the 172 so I know what's like).

Perhaps you missed where he said headwind. You even quoted it.

 

[Bob Noel]

Perhaps you missed where he said headwind. You even quoted it.

He said "any headwind." Even a 20knot headwind component wouldn't cause a fuel stop for an Archer.

 

[EdFred]

It did for us going to Knoxville last week.

 

[wabower]

Just goes to show that some CFI's don't have a clue. If the guy who made you climb up the wingroot, enter the right-side door and crawl across the passenger seat to get in the 172 had just shown you the door on the left side, your training would have been much easier.

I must be one of those wierd people - I find it easier to get in/out of my cherokee than the Cessna 172 (I learned to fly in the 172 so I know what's like).

 

[Bob Noel]

Just goes to show that some CFI's don't have a clue. If the guy who made you climb up the wingroot, enter the right-side door and crawl across the passenger seat to get in the 172 had just shown you the door on the left side, your training would have been much easier.

well slap me silly and call me spanky...why didn't I think of that!

(and I'd love to see you try to tell my CFI she didn't have a clue...)

 

[poadeleted20]

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

I've known quite a few folks with retractable singles, and that's not true for any of them. Typically they pay $700 more than someone with a similar valued fixed-gear plane.

 

[poadeleted20]

Seeing as the Grummans only have used parts,

Tom's wrong. Fletchair and TrueFlight are both producing new parts. And Fletchair just passed its ACESP audit, too.

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.

This information is equally incorrect. I know someone who last year had $100K repairs to his incredibly nice Tiger (insured for $115K) covered by insurance.

bye bye 90% of the Grumman accident victims.

Tom's just making up numbers here. The vast majority of Grumman accidents result in repair, not total constructive loss, and I have the data from the #1 Grumman insurance broker to back that up.

1975 177B (Cardinal) = Average useful load, 1040,

Where'd you get that number? Off a factory spec sheet?

 

[poadeleted20]

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.

I really doubt your Sensinich is 73 pitch. 73 length, yes, because that's the standard length for the Sensenich prop for a tiger, but not pitch, as that would be 8 inches above the legal limit, and the airplane would be a complete dog on takeoff/climb (unless you've also got a 250 HP engine).

 

[poadeleted20]

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)

Easily 10 knots faster any day of the week, any altitude.

Con: No manufacturer support - Yes, there are other places to get things, but...

TrueFlight is up and running with the production type certificate, and Fletchair also has authority to manufacture parts.

 

[poadeleted20]

182's have what....13 fuel sumps? lol

Other than wrecked, you won't find a 182 with 13 sumps for $80K.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you like using Knots his 400 mile trip is now only 347K, so with you estimated GS of 100k it is only 3.4 hours. But will you see many students out in 30k winds?

His "400-mile trip" is actually 411 *nautical* from his home base to KPIA.

Also, the 30 knot winds I'm talking about are winds aloft, which are generally significantly higher than winds on the ground. So yes, you'll see students out when there's 30-knot winds aloft, provided winds on the ground are reasonable.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Maybe faster? My Tiger will do whatever the DA40 can do and with 960 lbs useful load, maybe more. At 75% power it will push up to 140 knots, those extra knots cost you a bit of fuel, that's why I fly at 65% and 135 KTAS.

See, I hear you and Ron say that a lot, and talk up the Tiger in other ways as well. So, when we were looking at new planes for the club, the Tiger fit the mission (to replace an Archer).

I decided to see what all the fuss was about - The amazing speeds, the "fighter-like" handling - So I went to Hortman at PNE (the only place in the country that I know of that rents Tigers) and got checked out in a nice new Tiger.

Afterwards, I came away thinking that you and Ron had oversold it. The handling was definitely better than an Archer, and it's even a bit snappier in roll than the DA40 (probably because it has a shorter wing) but overall I'd rate it about the same as the Mooney in handling qualities (which is a compliment... But I wouldn't call it "fighter-like" unless fighters aren't as fun as they look.)

I also didn't see anywhere close to 135 knots. At 3000 feet and 2400 RPM, I saw 115 - Which is exactly what I'd expect from our 1970's Archers at 3000 feet and 2400 RPM. Then Ron said that 2400 RPM isn't nearly enough - But that's gotta be 75% that low?!?

So, while the Tiger would fit the mission wonderfully if the particular bird really does get 135 knots, I remain unconvinced. (You might have to give me a ride and change my mind. )

I've heard DA40's melt if they sit out in the sun too long.

I bet a Grumman would melt if it sat *in* the sun too.

The Tiger fits this mission, especially if we are talking 150 - 160 MPH which is the Tiger's sweet spot. Plus he won't be bored as heck flying a plane that handles like a station wagon.

When flying IFR, a plane that handles "like a station wagon" is just fine.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

um, a 400 mile trip will require a fuel stop? I don't think so, unless there is one heck of a headwind.

411 nautical miles. An Archer cruises at 115 - I've flown quite a few different ones, and they're mostly right there at 115 - Best I've ever gotten was 122 KTAS, solo on an early-80's model with the full gear fairings as opposed to just wheel pants and a fresh wax job.

Now, you don't get the highest cruise speed or the lowest fuel burn door-to-door - As I said in my post, you'll usually average 10-15 knots less, and since you'll burn more fuel in the climb, fuel-wise it's pretty safe to estimate 15 knots less. Now, you're talking an average of 10 gph and 100 KTAS for a 411nm trip. So, 4.1 hours, leaving 0.7 hours in the tanks at landing - And that's with no wind. So, unless there's no wind or a tailwind, which will happen less than half the time, there'll need to be a fuel stop there. I've taken an Archer to Gaston's twice (433nm) and it's required a fuel stop on all but one of the 4 legs.

If the OP doesn't mind the fuel stop and the associated major slowdown in door-to-door time, that's fine - But it needs to be considered, so I put it in there.

 

[Bob Noel]

411 nautical miles. An Archer cruises at 115 - I've flown quite a few different ones, and they're mostly right there at 115 - Best I've ever gotten was 122 KTAS, solo on an early-80's model with the full gear fairings as opposed to just wheel pants and a fresh wax job.

Now, you don't get the highest cruise speed or the lowest fuel burn door-to-door - As I said in my post, you'll usually average 10-15 knots less, and since you'll burn more fuel in the climb, fuel-wise it's pretty safe to estimate 15 knots less. Now, you're talking an average of 10 gph and 100 KTAS for a 411nm trip. So, 4.1 hours, leaving 0.7 hours in the tanks at landing - And that's with no wind. So, unless there's no wind or a tailwind, which will happen less than half the time, there'll need to be a fuel stop there. I've taken an Archer to Gaston's twice (433nm) and it's required a fuel stop on all but one of the 4 legs.

If the OP doesn't mind the fuel stop and the associated major slowdown in door-to-door time, that's fine - But it needs to be considered, so I put it in there.

My experience with two different 180's differs from yours. 115 KTAS is kind of on the slow side for an Archer (even considering none of that fancy pants stuff).

Averaging 100 KTs over a 411 mile trip would not be a no-wind situation. (btw - that's what I would use for my cherokee 140 before upgrading to 160hp)

Don't forget that you can keep some power in on the decent and get better than cruise speed and lower fuel burn.

Of course, the Archer is slower than most of the other aircraft you discussed, and the potential for a fuel stop should always be considered. But to claim that the Archer will always need a fuel stop for 411 miles into the wind is simply overkill.

 

[fszczerba]

If you like using Knots his 400 mile trip is now only 347K, so with you estimated GS of 100k it is only 3.4 hours. But will you see many students out in 30k winds?

30k aloft? Isn't that a calm day?

 

[Anthony]

Afterwards, I came away thinking that you and Ron had oversold it. The handling was definitely better than an Archer, and it's even a bit snappier in roll than the DA40 (probably because it has a shorter wing) but overall I'd rate it about the same as the Mooney in handling qualities (which is a compliment... But I wouldn't call it "fighter-like" unless fighters aren't as fun as they look.)

I also didn't see anywhere close to 135 knots. At 3000 feet and 2400 RPM, I saw 115 - Which is exactly what I'd expect from our 1970's Archers at 3000 feet and 2400 RPM. Then Ron said that 2400 RPM isn't nearly enough - But that's gotta be 75% that low?!?

I would not make a judgment based on one airplane, ESPECIALLY, a rental that gets used and abused, with questionable rigging. The 135 KTAS is based about higher altitude and a 65 - 70% power setting. Your welcome to fly my plane at the FlyBQ and see.

The Tiger is an honest 130 - 140 KTAS airplane depending on rigging, and airframe and engine conditions. However, I do have the Sensenich prop and later type beacon, so that may we worth a couple of knots but not much. I still have both steps, which many take off to reduce drag and gain a few more knots.

So, while the Tiger would fit the mission wonderfully if the particular bird really does get 135 knots, I remain unconvinced. (You might have to give me a ride and change my mind. )

Anytime Kent. I'll let you fly it and see.

I bet a Grumman would melt if it sat *in* the sun too.

When flying IFR, a plane that handles "like a station wagon" is just fine.

With th sliding canopies the Grummans are very comfy in the summer heat. Just slide the canpy back and no more baking. It really is nice. The Tiger is not twitchy as an IFR platform. Its stable and does very nicely. Once trimmed it will fly hands off in calm air.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My experience with two different 180's differs from yours. 115 KTAS is kind of on the slow side for an Archer (even considering none of that fancy pants stuff).

I've flown a lot more than two Archers - And I've only seen one that was noticeably faster than 115.

Averaging 100 KTs over a 411 mile trip would not be a no-wind situation. (btw - that's what I would use for my cherokee 140 before upgrading to 160hp)

I fly lots of long trips in the 182, which trues at about 133. Average groundspeed in the GPS is 119. Your average speed is a lot slower than you think.

Just for the heck of it, I threw together a spreadsheet to figure out how close my estimates were. Since there's 48 gallons of usable fuel and I like to keep a 1-hour cruise reserve, that leaves 38 gallons of flight-planning fuel. Figuring a cruise altitude of 5000 AGL and a 500-fpm climb and descent with the climb at 90 knots and the descent at 125 (the extra 10 knots is about all I pick up keeping cruise power in for a 500fpm descent) plus a total of 6 minutes of maneuvering time for turning on course after takeoff and maneuvering to land.

The above calculations mean the trip takes us 3:42, for an average speed of 111 knots but we're gonna burn 37.6 gallons of our 38 gallons of planning fuel. A mere 2-knot headwind puts us into the 1-hour reserve, a 9-knot headwind puts us into the legal IFR/night minimum 45-minute reserve, a 15-knot headwind puts us right at the Day VFR legal minimum 1/2 hour reserve, and a 25-knot headwind means we'll be landing with dry tanks, assuming we can taxi to the runway at the departure on only 0.4 gallons of fuel.

So, I stand by my assertion that any headwind means a fuel stop. You want to push it to legal minimums or farther, you go right ahead, but you're going to need a fuel stop about half the time too.

Don't forget that you can keep some power in on the decent and get better than cruise speed and lower fuel burn.

I generally keep cruise power on for the descent, only reducing it if I'm in the yellow arc and it's bumpy. I generally get about an extra 10 knots, and that's at the same fuel burn (higher, if you're coming down from up high and need to richen the mixture).

Of course, the Archer is slower than most of the other aircraft you discussed, and the potential for a fuel stop should always be considered. But to claim that the Archer will always need a fuel stop for 411 miles into the wind is simply overkill.

I don't consider planning for an hour reserve, especially on a long trip, "overkill." I fly a lot of IFR and night VFR (comes with the territory when you're using the plane for transportation, as the OP will be) where the legal minimum reserve is 45 minutes anyway, and if the weather requires an alternate I may well need over an hour's reserve just to stay legal.

Considering the OP is also talking about moving on and doing IFR flying in this bird, the necessity for a fuel stop on a gray day means even MORE time, since he'll have to shoot TWO approaches - I plan on 15 minutes per approach, by the time you get vectored around and/or fly a full procedure. So, adding in the climb/descent time for the 2nd leg, the extra approach, and the fuel stop itself means about 1:20 extra because the plane doesn't have the range.

Don't get me wrong - The Archer is a great plane and I think the OP could do pretty well with it. It's just not the ideal platform for the longer trips. (Says the guy who might be taking one to Florida in a couple of weeks.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I would not make a judgment based on one airplane, ESPECIALLY, a rental that gets used and abused, with questionable rigging.

True, but I figure that a rental that's only about 2 years old is probably comparable to an owned airplane that's 30 years old.

Your welcome to fly my plane at the FlyBQ and see.

I'd love to! Unfortunately I'm probably not gonna be at the FlyBQ this year. Are you gonna make it to Gaston's?

The Tiger is not twitchy as an IFR platform. Its stable and does very nicely. Once trimmed it will fly hands off in calm air.

That's good to hear - But sporty handling isn't as important for airplanes used primarily for travel, especially if there's an autopilot, that's all.

 

[danhagan]

Yes, but the 12,000 ft allows us to porpoise down the runway in PIO until we can bleed off sufficient airspeed to land. Because you know these Grummans are dangerous and you need to keep that airspeed on final sufficiently high in order to not immediately stall, spin and die.




Yes, OP, I am kidding!

Thanks Anthony ... laughed so hard the soda I was drinking cleared my sinuses

 

[weilke]

And then there is the 182 RG .

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And then there is the 182 RG .

Also a great airplane, but really more airplane than the OP needs. A 172RG would be more appropriate to his mission, as it would significantly reduce the percentage of times a fuel stop would be needed, it would be sufficiently fast, and it would easily carry the load he's looking at.

 

[weilke]

Also a great airplane, but really more airplane than the OP needs. A 172RG would be more appropriate to his mission, as it would significantly reduce the percentage of times a fuel stop would be needed, it would be sufficiently fast, and it would easily carry the load he's looking at.

Or even better, a 177 RG :wink2: (buying that one seems more like being inducted into a cult).

I know for a fact that the OP has one longer trip every year, so the 182RG would not be overkill.

 

[poadeleted20]

I also didn't see anywhere close to 135 knots. At 3000 feet and 2400 RPM, I saw 115 - Which is exactly what I'd expect from our 1970's Archers at 3000 feet and 2400 RPM. Then Ron said that 2400 RPM isn't nearly enough - But that's gotta be 75% that low?!?

2400 at 3000 on a standard day is 62% by the book, 115 KIAS at 3000 is 120 KTAS on a standard day, and the book says you'll get 122 KTAS at that setting -- pretty close. OTOH, at 3000 feet, the book power setting for 75% is 2575 and the book speed is 132 KTAS. For 135 KTAS on 75% power, you have to be up at 5000 or above.

As for a demo with me, you'll have to either come down here or catch me somewhere in the Midwest with my plane, and that's not on my schedule until the AYA 2012 convention at Oshkosh the week after AirVenture 2012.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Or even better, a 177 RG :wink2: (buying that one seems more like being inducted into a cult).

LOL - But yeah, a 177RG would be nice too. It just might be a better idea to wait for the private ticket prior to buying a complex airplane, IMO.

I know for a fact that the OP has one longer trip every year, so the 182RG would not be overkill.

Ah, yes... As another poster put it, "The greed for speed." I like that.

Maybe "overkill" is too strong of a word, but as someone who has been from Wisconsin to the East coast, West coast, and Gulf coast in a straight-leg 182, (and I've done the Gulf coast and back in the DA40 already too) it's not exactly necessary either. Cost per mile? Probably the same, if you fly enough. I did my Comm-ASEL in a 182RG, and it's certainly a nice airplane. Insurance costs for a new student pilot would probably be rated "" though.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

To the OP: Consider finishing your Private in rental airplanes, and doing a couple of your trips in the rental as well. Then, buy your airplane and do your instrument rating in it. You'll get plenty of time in your airplane with a CFI during your instrument training. Your insurance would probably start lower and get lower pretty quickly that way.

I would suggest you call or e-mail Avemco and ask them about rates and insurability for both scenarios (buy now vs. buy after your private) and all the airplanes I listed above (you'll need to provide hull value guessitmates). Avemco is the only direct insurer for aviation, and thus they can give you quotes right away while you're on the phone with them, and they'll also run scenarios for you ("How much will my rates be reduced with an instrument rating and 50 hours time in type?" for example) plus they will reduce your rates the very day you hit their milestones for the next lower rate so it pays to pay attention.

 

[weilke]

I would suggest you call or e-mail Avemco and ask them about rates and insurability for both scenarios (buy now vs. buy after your private) and all the airplanes I listed above (you'll need to provide hull value guessitmates). Avemco is the only direct insurer for aviation, and thus they can give you quotes right away while you're on the phone with them, and they'll also run scenarios for you ("How much will my rates be reduced with an instrument rating and 50 hours time in type?" for example) plus they will reduce your rates the very day you hit their milestones for the next lower rate so it pays to pay attention.

They can be a bit more expensive than competitively bid insurances, but at times they are more flexible for 'a big step up'. Also, you dont pay the policy in full year increments and their penalty for early termination is low, so one tactic to control 'expensive' steps (e.g. complex as a student pilot) is to go with avemco, put 100hrs on whatever plane it is and to go to a different insurer after 6 months.