Another 'What Airplane for Me?"

atbroome

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
273
Location
VA
Display Name

Display name:
ATB
Yes, another (in)famous “Recommend me an airplane!” thread.

Why do I think I want a plane: Availability. Renting was not an option where I lived before and the Club of many people I joined was an economic option, but I tend to be a bit fussy and want my own stuff. I’m not against a club, but there aren’t any around here. Renting here is a better option and will be fine for the rest of this year, but I think I will fly more with my own plane. Would consider bringing on a like-minded partner once I know my flying profile

Location: Northern Virginia. Likely base at KHEF (Manassas)

Budget: Below $100k would be good to start, but up to $120k for the right plane

About me: PPL in ’09 at 50 hours, no flying for a few years, joined a club and then got to 90 hours by ’12. No flying until 4 weeks ago, now back with a FR. Plan is to keep flying this time and build up my hours and hopefully start IR training this fall or next spring.

Planned flights/passengers: Family of 3: me: (5’5”, 180lbs), wife (145lbs), , son 10 years old...likely to be tall and thin.

I expect most flying to be with the family or with another couple who are both on the lighter side of FAA standard. Possibly with another local pilot for short pancake/burger runs. Solo flying will likely be for training/proficiency only. I don’t have fun flying places by myself. My wife has no interest in learning to fly, but my son is very into the concept and all things aviation.

Trips: 200-350nm range, leisure only. East coast only. Down to Carolinas, up to upstate NY. Maybe a few longer but not often: family in Michigan, New Orleans, and southern Florida. Once every year or less...those will likely remain airline trips at least until post IR. Of course this could change.

I’ve only flown from decent length paved strips, but the idea of short and or grass strips seems like it would open lots of opportunities…like camping with the plane or just being able to get closer to our destination.

I would like/plan to get a hanger, but there is at least a 6 month wait and likely over a year around these parts. As a result, the plane would likely have to sit outside for some length of time.

Equipment: Solid airframe, mid-time engine, decent paint/interior – doesn’t have to be new but not something I’d want to re-do immediately. Doesn’t need a WAAS GPS, but ideally it either has one or is already been updated for ADSB since doing both will be costly. I though an AP was a requirement, but with the new options on the horizon, getting a plane without or with an outdated AP could end of saving money. AP can wait until IR.

Airplanes considered/eliminated: Like many here, I’ve gone through phases: DA-40, Mooney F’s & J’s, Bonanzas, even Soctias. Currently my top candidates are the Grumman Tiger and Cessna 182, with the outside possibility of a Bonanza/Debonair. I’ve moved my thoughts on other planes to the end for those that want the gory details

Grumman Cheetah...then Tiger. Started looking at Cheetah’s since they were very reasonably priced and fun to fly. Flew with a friend in the summer and was not pleased with the lack of climb. Moved on to Tigers.

Pro
  • Seems like a perfect plane for my mission
  • Fast enough (~130KTAS)
  • Low(er) fuel burn for speed
  • Fun to fly
  • Stable enough for IR
  • Lower end of scale for maintenance with O-360, fixed prop, fixed gear
  • Sliding canopy (ventilation, entry/exit)
  • Fits budget
Con
  • Not best for short/soft fields
  • Poor climb in warm weather
  • Hard to find a good one

Cessna 182:I trained in a DA-20, but have been flying 172/177s since. Not a joy to fly, but good to get me places. Focused on Ps and Qs. Always the option to get a Peterson conversion one day on those…

Pro
  • Also seems like a good fit for my mission
  • Fast enough (~130KTAS)
  • Simple-ish: O-470, fixed gear
  • Excellent IR platform
  • Excellent short/soft field
  • Lots of space, good useful load, good range
  • A few are always available (although seems a bit lacking recently)
Con
  • More complex than Tiger – const speed prop
  • More expensive than Tiger – ~$30k+ more for “equivalent”
  • Thirstier than Tiger
  • Not fun to fly
  • Hard to see out of – I have a short torso and need a cushion in some 172s

Other planes:
I learned in a Diamond DA-20, so I wanted a DA-40 . Love the low wing, stick, visibility, easy entry/exit. Don’t love the bumps in turbulence. WASS G1000 models above budget. Afraid of the non-WASS G1000 ones but the 2003 and earlier steam models are hard to come by. Long wings make hangering more difficult.

Moved on to Mooney F’s and J’s. Appeals to the engineer in me. Go fast on less gas. Not many F’s, but seems to be a consistent supply of decent J’s. Retract insurance. Would have to improve my landings. Not the best option for soft/short fields.

Bonanzas and Debonairs came next of course. Buy your last airplane first! Focused on P models with IO-470/260hp and B/C Debonairs upgraded to 260hp. Concerned it’s a bit much for my current flying abilities, retract insurance, planned flying doesn’t require speed

Pipers: 180hp Cherokees or Archers could be an option, but I've never looked into them much. Dakota could be a good 182 competitor but again I don't know much about them.
 
Last edited:
If landing small grass strips with your family or your pals is your thing get the Skylane.
 
If you are looking at retracts, the M20F is about the best deal out there for speed/load/cost. The M20Js seem to be about 20k more for basically the same airplane plus a touch more cruise speed. You can probably take it into most well kept grass strips with no issues.

For fixed gear, you really can't go wrong with a 182 but Tigers are nice as well. For 100k, you can get an absolute peach of a Tiger or 182.

You need to think about your family's comfort as well. They'll be more comfortable in a 182 vs. a Tiger. The 182 really is like an SUV inside. It's wide and the backseat has a ton of legroom.

Depending on how much you fly, you'll definitely save money on the Tiger or an older Mooney in the long run I think because you'll burn 3-4 GPHs less and they both use O-360s with two less cylinders. A M20F will probably be the cheapest upfront cost with higher long term costs than the Tiger.

Me, I have a 182P, but it probably wouldn't of been my first choice if this wasn't a partnership.
 
Last edited:
grummans aren't good short field planes? I don't know anything about 'em really, but I do know a guy on our field (2800' surrounded by trees) that is on at least his 2nd grumman and he plants that thing down with ease and plenty of room to spare. this would be the first I'm hearing of those ugly lookin things not being good short fielders, but I'm no expert on 'em.
 
I would looker closer at the Archer. I fly an Archer with my family of 4 (2 small boys). Good performance at our field (4150'). Not the fastest bird, but it's comfortable and not expensive to operate. You can pick a good one up for a decent price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think he was saying Mooneys aren't good short field planes, but plenty of them land on 2500' where I fly.
 
Hard to go wrong with a 182...hence why they are so popular. Not sure why you would think "not fun to fly"...everything becomes "just easy transportation" after awhile.
 
Get your name on the list for a hangar and keep renting until one comes up. JMO
 
How much of the MX do you want to do?
And how long do you think you will hold onto the plane? (If less then ten years, I think resale potential is more of an issue).

Tim
 
If you need big doors for baggage get a 206. Straight legs. The Cessnas are all easy to fly. They all are once you have a few hours in it. If you (and wife) are comfy with the small baggage door, get a 182.
 
I think he was saying Mooneys aren't good short field planes, but plenty of them land on 2500' where I fly.

I was going based on this:

Grumman Cheetah...then Tiger. Started looking at Cheetah’s since they were very reasonably priced and fun to fly. Flew with a friend in the summer and was not pleased with the lack of climb. Moved on to Tigers.

Pro
  • Seems like a perfect plane for my mission
  • Fast enough (~130KTAS)
  • Low(er) fuel burn for speed
  • Fun to fly
  • Stable enough for IR
  • Lower end of scale for maintenance with O-360, fixed prop, fixed gear
  • Sliding canopy (ventilation, entry/exit)
  • Fits budget
Con
  • Not best for short/soft fields
  • Poor climb in warm weather
  • Hard to find a good one
 
Not great short field in comparison to the 182 or even a 172. And certainly neither Grumman or Mooney compares to a 182 for soft. But again, I've never done much short of soft field, but it seems like it would open up more destination opportunities.

grummans aren't good short field planes? I don't know anything about 'em really, but I do know a guy on our field (2800' surrounded by trees) that is on at least his 2nd grumman and he plants that thing down with ease and plenty of room to spare. this would be the first I'm hearing of those ugly lookin things not being good short fielders, but I'm no expert on 'em.
I think he was saying Mooneys aren't good short field planes, but plenty of them land on 2500' where I fly.


Don't most airports require you to have a plane to stick in the hanger when your number comes up? I'd expect it to take up to 6 months to find the right plane.

Get your name on the list for a hangar and keep renting until one comes up. JMO
 
grummans aren't good short field planes? I don't know anything about 'em really, but I do know a guy on our field (2800' surrounded by trees) that is on at least his 2nd grumman and he plants that thing down with ease and plenty of room to spare. this would be the first I'm hearing of those ugly lookin things not being good short fielders, but I'm no expert on 'em.

my local field is 1950 and I saw a dude in a tiger take off in less than half of it. I drool over tigers.
 
That is why I was thinking 182. I want to own an airplane to go places.

Hard to go wrong with a 182...hence why they are so popular. Not sure why you would think "not fun to fly"...everything becomes "just easy transportation" after awhile.

As much as I have time/ability, both of which are lacking. The master mechanics in the family would be very disappointed in my mechanical abilities :D

Plan to keep plane either forever or until I determine I want something faster to go to farther away places. But that would probably be 10 years out in a 182 or Tiger. Probably never with a Debonair.

How much of the MX do you want to do?
And how long do you think you will hold onto the plane? (If less then ten years, I think resale potential is more of an issue).

Tim
 
I suspect he was by himself and it wasn't too hot out? Tigers are (apparently) fine at low loads and reasonable temps, but bump up either and climb suffers

my local field is 1950 and I saw a dude in a tiger take off in less than half of it. I drool over tigers.
 
Forgot to add I looked at 177s too. My old club had a 177B that was fun to fly, although not that fast. I was set on 177RGs between the DA-40 and Mooney phases, but the spar corrosion, gear, and just not much savings over a 182 made me drop them from consideration
 
C177 fixed gear Cardinal might also fit the bill. 130kt cruise, will haul a decent load, less of a premium than the RGs and the insurance will be less. Easy ingress/egress and nice an wide. Wife tested, wife approved.
 
Never looked at one, but not against. What kind of cruise performance do they have? How about take off/landing distances?
About the same speeds as the 182. Retract and nice egress. Kinda of a niche plane, but dont discount a nice one.
182's are easy to buy and easy to sell. But, IMO, they are too much $$$. You can get something else either as spacious or something faster for the same price.
But 182's are so common you dont have to deal with uniformed mechanics.

Look at Cherokee Six's. Slow, thirsty, but your family will never complain about no room.
 
Grass field 1450' in a tiger. Better be on your game but doable.

Can't beat a tiger. Reason they are hard to find is owners buy them and keep them forever.
 
I think he was saying Mooneys aren't good short field planes, but plenty of them land on 2500' where I fly.

Plenty of them prop strike and overrun too. Yeah, Mooney's can do short fields, but they aren't terribly good at it. They do soft field poorly at best. Low slung beasties they are. Different airplanes are better for different things. Mooney's are good at getting from place to place in a big hurry without buying lots of fuel.

I really a friend looking at a Cardinal or a Cherokee 180. Told him to get the Skylane. First short grass strip you life out of on a hot day, you'll be glad you did.
 
Forgot to add I looked at 177s too. My old club had a 177B that was fun to fly, although not that fast. I was set on 177RGs between the DA-40 and Mooney phases, but the spar corrosion, gear, and just not much savings over a 182 made me drop them from consideration
I agree. If you find a clean 177, get it. If you find a clean 182, get that. The trick is finding a clean one.
 
Tigers and really all the Grummans are cool, but I worry about the future of the airframe. If it were me, I'd think either 182 or Dakota.
 
I suspect he was by himself and it wasn't too hot out? Tigers are (apparently) fine at low loads and reasonable temps, but bump up either and climb suffers

Correct on both counts. I see what you mean, fully loaded you want more HP.
 
So, no Tigers or Cardinals. You want a high wing bird for the possibility of short/soft fields. Carry a 3 adults and go faster than 130kts.

C182 it is. Tough to go wrong with the Skylane for almost any mission.

Lots a nice examples below $100k. P/Q models.
 
Regarding Grummans and short fields. The reason they're considered poor short field airplanes is that their POH instruct the pilot to perform takeoffs with no flaps and does not provide allowances in the POH for takeoffs with flaps partially deployed. People have modified their operating procedures to mimick that of a cherokee short field procedures, and aply 1/2 flaps, and the ground runs shorten significantly as a result. Understand you're now outside the POH, even though the aircraft performs better. How much that's worth to ya is a function of how much tolerance you have for insurance scrutinity if an accident occurs. Personally I think Grumman pooched it by not including flap deployment as part of normal takeoff procedures. The wing is legitimately less friendly to short field ops than a cherokee hershey wing or cessna 172/182 series airfoil.

All your choices will do 130kts, but not all of them will do it at 65%. That matters; flogging an airplane like that for a forever airplane is not a budget-conscious decision. If your airplane of choice only does your desired cruise speed at 75%, that means it won't do it above 6k without some serious prop noise (not pax friendly), and thus is not fast enough for your desired mission. Look at 65% as a power setting you can achieve all the way up to 10k without redlining the engine all the time; it's a more practical measure of whether the airplane is fast enough for ya. A 182 will not do 135kts while loafing, but it *can* do 130kt at 11GPH. Personally I wouldn't be running around full bore at 13gph on a conti cylinders all the time. 130kts will feel slow to ya in no time anyways, I say this as an arrow owner mind you.

Regarding the 177RG, it was brought to my attention the gear legs on the cardinal are different than the 172rg/182rg in how they carry load at the actuators. Basically they float as opposed to lever arm against the pivot, so the cracking issues are only a factor for the 172 and 182 retracts. Spendy fixes too, about 8K each leg. Ouch. I would have loved a Cardinal RG over an Arrow, especially with the 48" cabin, but they are cult priced for the same performance as an Arrow, and they go for way more. So I went with the cheaper choice. Welded leg 177 is not a "block 130kt" airplane however, unless it's going downhill. It's also a real pig in the climb.

A 182 is a decent choice. I'd go with that. I still would prefer the RG speed, but no free lunch in life.
 
If you find a local willing mechanic, you can do the oil changes, and open the plane up for annual inspections.
If you go experimental, you can do pretty much everything but the annual condition inspection.
Experimental, you get more bang for your buck, cheaper to fix/operate. Downside, harder to sell, harder to find a mechanic to help on it. Upside; upgrades are a lot cheaper. For example, excluding the Nav/Com; new avionics are 1/5 the price.

Over ten years, if you upgrade the panel at all, or do any other improvements, experimental will likely save you money.

With were you seem to be sitting, it screams C172, C182 or old Mooney to learn about airplane ownership and how you like to fly then sell it easily. I would like the SR20 Option, except for the fact you want to land on grass runways.

Tim
 

I've looked at that one too and as long as the airframe is clean its (might be?) priced right. I am a bit concerned about a broker who says of the paint "Exterior is original paint in good condition, Very minimal fading, with a couple spots where the paint has been touched up. Shows very nicely."

When there is what looks like bare aluminum showing all over the top of the left wing :rolleyes:

I've been looking at this one which is semi-close to me, but with my short torso the lack of articulating seat frame could be an issue. Plus the never overhauled prop:

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18956803/1973-cessna-182p-skylane


And I assume there is either crazy hidden damage on this one or this is a bait and switch listing:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...2P+SKYLANE&listing_id=2268990&s-type=aircraft

Since it has: Pponk, <1000 SMOH engine & prop, STEC 55x, GNS430W, GTX345, EDM 730 for $80k!



 

I bet they'd take way lower. Our 182P has a little less time on the engine and has much better paint (interior about the same) and we figure it's only worth 60k or so. We've got better avionics (radios, transponder, same 430) overall except for that aspen or whatever that plane has.

Honestly, the next plane I buy into isn't going to be in the condition of that plane at the link and I'd encourage anyone currently looking to hold out for a better example or pay another 10k or so and get a nice interior/better paint.

Another reason I wouldn't buy that plane is that the A/P is hot garbage. Find something with an STEC 55 or better. When you are anxious to buy your first plane, it may not seem like a big deal, but it will be after traveling a few times. And then it'll be about 20k to put an STEC in or at least 8-10k if these new experimental A/Ps come to market well.
 
And I assume there is either crazy hidden damage on this one or this is a bait and switch listing:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...2P+SKYLANE&listing_id=2268990&s-type=aircraft

Since it has: Pponk, <1000 SMOH engine & prop, STEC 55x, GNS430W, GTX345, EDM 730 for $80k!

You should be calling about that one right now. Interior isn't original either and has been redone.

That is exactly the kind of equipped 182 you should settle for. Anything less will leave you wanting in a few years.
 
So 182 experts: Is $60k actually a reasonable price for a mid-time engine, 430w'd, decent paint/interior and all of the listings are just super high? I know listing prices are not sales prices, but I would have guessed I was looking for a $90k-$110k 182, not a $60k-$80k 182.

Also, I think bad/no auto pilots could be a good negotiating point. I don't need one now and hopefully in the next 1-2 years the new crop will be out, reviewed, and installers will have some experience putting them in. Not that I would turn down a 55x
 
So 182 experts: Is $60k actually a reasonable price for a mid-time engine, 430w'd, decent paint/interior and all of the listings are just super high? I know listing prices are not sales prices, but I would have guessed I was looking for a $90k-$110k 182, not a $60k-$80k 182.

Also, I think bad/no auto pilots could be a good negotiating point. I don't need one now and hopefully in the next 1-2 years the new crop will be out, reviewed, and installers will have some experience putting them in. Not that I would turn down a 55x
We're in the same price range. The $115k ballpark. I'm looking for one with low time, an Aspen 1000, S-Tec/Century A/P, and dual 430w's/530w/650/750. That's doable in that price bracket. I'd really like one with a P-Ponk or Airplains conversion.
 
So 182 experts: Is $60k actually a reasonable price for a mid-time engine, 430w'd, decent paint/interior and all of the listings are just super high? I know listing prices are not sales prices, but I would have guessed I was looking for a $90k-$110k 182, not a $60k-$80k 182.

Also, I think bad/no auto pilots could be a good negotiating point. I don't need one now and hopefully in the next 1-2 years the new crop will be out, reviewed, and installers will have some experience putting them in. Not that I would turn down a 55x

It depends on the engine. A 182P like the one posted with bad paint is at best a 60k airplane with a near run out engine even with a 430 (that's not exactly new tech these days). The radios and transponder are also old in that plane.

Now, if you find one with good paint, good interior, and a low time engine with a 430 or better + a good autopilot, then yeah, you are looking at 90-100k. The engine alone is 30k of the price.
 
Lot's of your flying sounds a lot like mine. My choices would be the 182 or Arrow. I could see a 177 also. I was flying an Arrow 3, had 1005 lb useful load, and could get 8hrs of fuel in it. 9 gal/hr 130 TAS. Sometimes a little better. I would still do "short" fields or grass. If you are trying to land places under 1500' then yes the 182 is better. I landed airports with 16/1700 ft landing distance no problem. I usually wasn't at gross though. Usually 2 people, some bags, fuel. Nice traveling plane. 182 will haul a little more, maybe a little quicker (depends on how much power you set) on a bit more fuel.

The arrow isn't too bad on maintenance. 182 would be a little simpler. The thing to remember is the faster the plane is, typically the cost goes up exponentially. Not just initial but also maintenance and fuel. What are you willing to afford? (This is a general rule of thumb. I know there are some that have planes that cost them $2 and go Mach 1. Experimentals can be pretty nice.)

Personally, the only thing I have against a 182 is the higher initial cost typically, and that most of my flying to this point hasn't needed the bigger engine/higher fuel burn. But it looks like that's what I might be flying here in a little while.
 
Back
Top