Another "What plane to buy" thread

S

Spacedoc

Pre-Flight
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Messages
48
Display Name
Display name:
Spacedoc
Hello, all. I'm a student pilot with 20+ hours and advancing quickly. My CFI is projecting late April/early May for my PPL checkride. This is for fun, not a planned career path. So of course I'm putting the cart before the horse and spending an inordinate amount of time on the Internet looking at possible planes to buy.

Here's my mission: 4 seats, not six. 80% of time will be me (230lb american chunkster) and wife (120 lb American hottie). The other 20% would be me and another non-FAA bud or me, my wife, and my young daughter. So 100% of the time let's call the required passenger+baggage payload 500 lbs.

3 hours is about the max I figure I'd want to fly between pit stops. Let's assume a personal minimum of 1 hour reserves, so that would make a 4 hour total endurance target. Speed isn't too important but I'd like something faster than a trainer... Say, 130kt+ cruise?

I live in southern California, so ideally I would want something comfortable in higher density altitudes so that I could fly to places like Big Bear and Mammoth without worrying about being able to take off and get home. That said, I'm perfectly fine with not flying to places like that at high altitudes in the height of summer when temps are 85F or higher.

Price target is below 100k and I'd like something with not-ancient avionics, but I realize that I'm not going to get a top-of-the-line glass panel at that price. Something like a 430w would be ideal, and ADS-B out is a requirement since my home drome is under a Bravo shelf. I'd rather buy something with that minimum set of avionics than something I'd need to upgrade.

So far my eye has been on a Tiger in the certificated world or an RV-9a in the experimental world (although I'd be limited to one passenger with an RV-9a... I'd love an RV-10, but I think that's too rich for my pocketbook).

So... what plane should I (dream about) buy(ing)???
 
I am in a club that has access to a few 182s and a 172. Those are my four place planes. I bought my RV9 right after i got my ppl and haven’t looked back. I’ve flown it over 150 hours and most of the time never need the 3rd seat. Economically this is a fantastic plane and is so much fun to fly. Go test fly one after you get your ticket. The RV grin is real!!
f2b68711ff085573944a6543696409af.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
You mission screams Skylane to me. May be hard to find one at the price you want, but the plane fits the mission. Or go low wing and look for a Dakota.
 
182 based on your description.
 
You should be able to get into a pretty decent Bonanza for $100k, which would fit your mission pretty well.

182 is a great airplane, but you're going to quickly wish it went faster. 182RG is faster, but might not be available at $100k.
 
The 182 sounds perfect for your situation. Insurance company rates are good for student pilots with 20+ hours and low time. Flies like a 172 but much more performance and room. Probably adds 10-20 hours to to your training learning to stay ahead of a higher performance aircraft and mastering the constant speed prop. I finished my ticket in a 182. It was an excellent choice.

Bonanza is a fantastic aircraft, but much more challenging for a new pilot. Also if a person is on the heavier side, high wing's are much easier to get in/out of for pilots and especially passengers. Bonanza's and Cirrus's are usually a step up plane after a 182.
 
Last edited:
Your mission and mine are identical. I've been very happy with my Tiger for the past three years.
 
Epic thumbs down on a 182. B O R I N G

Spacedoc said:
Tiger
Click to expand...
YES!! I was going to recommend that before you even posted it. Loads of fun to fly, and with the often hot days here taxiing with the canopy open, or even flying with it open :D:eek: are really fun. And they're a little different than your run of the mill every-single-person-has-this 172/182/pa28 whatever

PS, at least someone mentioned a member of the Debonaire / Bonanza family. Frankly, it sounds like you want something simple and fun. While the Deb/Bo are great flyers with nice ramp appeal, they're not really "simple" with gear, blue knob, cowl flaps, etc. Something like a Tiger is much easier to go up and joyride in..

Otherwise, RV9, like the other person mentioned. Or, what about a Sling 4.. if you can find one.
 
Another vote for a Dakota/Cherokee 235.

As you're in SoCal, heading North or East often requires what NA aircraft see as a "decent altitude". You want something that'll get to 7,500, 9,500 or 11,500 with no muss or fuss. Even when it's warm outside. The Dakota does that rather well.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a C182 or an older C172 with a 180 HP upgrade. I have a 1977 C172N with an Airplaines 180 HP conversion with standard 40 gallon tanks. I have a 3+ hour cruise with IFR reserves. With full fuel, I have a 860 lbs payload capacity.
 
To help, how about a comparison of the mentioned planes from those with experience? Likes/dislikes, pros/cons, etc.

RV-9A vs. Tiger vs. 182
 
182, Dakota. I love Tigers, but be aware that a fully loaded one might be a pig at higher DAs. Of the 3, a Tiger would be the most fun by far. With a fixed pitch prop and 4-cylinder engine, it's potentially cheaper to operate, too. A 182 would be the worst deal, as they're pretty hot at the moment.
 
Skyrys62 said:
To help, how about a comparison of the mentioned planes from those with experience? Likes/dislikes, pros/cons, etc.

RV-9A vs. Tiger vs. 182
Click to expand...

This was the comparison I did. 182- 135 knots on 14 gallons per hour. Y RV9 155 knots on 7gph. More speed with half the fuel cost. When i need the useful load I rent it. But most of my hours are in the RV. Btw I am 230 pounds with a 120 pound wife as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Peter Anderson said:
This was the comparison I did. 182- 135 knots on 14 gallons per hour. Y RV9 155 knots on 7gph. More speed with half the fuel cost. When i need the useful load I rent it. But most of my hours are in the RV. Btw I am 230 pounds with a 120 pound wife as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
A Tiger will go faster on much less fuel
 
I find the 235 to be more comfortable but prefer the views out of a 182. Both are pretty much at the bottom of the market right now. The best deal will be an early 182 as they haven't gone up in price as much as the later ones.

A lot of people will scoff at this but a 175 is a nice balance between the 172 and 182 and they are on the bottom end of the price. Flown properly the engine and gear box shouldn't be a big problem.
 
Skyrys62 said:
To help, how about a comparison of the mentioned planes from those with experience? Likes/dislikes, pros/cons, etc.

RV-9A vs. Tiger vs. 182
Click to expand...

These planes are so different they're hardly comparable.

FWIW, having owned a Tiger and a 182 in SoCal and flying a lot to Mammoth (in particular) and Big Bear (some), the Tiger is more fun but less useful. It sucks at high DA, and I never felt comfortable with more than one passenger when departing Mammoth. So if you really want to fly to Mammoth with 3 and bags, the only plane on this particular list that really works is a 182.
 
If I had your mission and budget, I'd be shopping for a Mooney (F or J) or a Bo if I was looking to stay certified. If experimental is an option, I'd be looking at the RV9. I'd also consider trading some speed for cabin space and consider a Glastar or Sportsman if I found one within the budget.
 
Bonanza or a 182. Would you rather haul more and go slower or haul slightly less and go FASTER. I mean a bonanza in 3 hours will get you a good bit farther.

The bonanza is a joy to fly so dont listen to the it's too much plane. If I can handle one anyone can. Get get good training in it and dont forget to drop the gear. My vote Bonanza.
 
Tantalum said:
Epic thumbs down on a 182. B O R I N G


YES!! I was going to recommend that before you even posted it. Loads of fun to fly, and with the often hot days here taxiing with the canopy open, or even flying with it open :D:eek: are really fun. And they're a little different than your run of the mill every-single-person-has-this 172/182/pa28 whatever

PS, at least someone mentioned a member of the Debonaire / Bonanza family. Frankly, it sounds like you want something simple and fun. While the Deb/Bo are great flyers with nice ramp appeal, they're not really "simple" with gear, blue knob, cowl flaps, etc. Something like a Tiger is much easier to go up and joyride in..

Otherwise, RV9, like the other person mentioned. Or, what about a Sling 4.. if you can find one.
Click to expand...

This was basically my thought process on my purchases. Cessnas are really, really hard to beat for general practicality...like a minivan. I wanted to have a good time, and Grumman seemed like the most fun per dollar. For unlimited dollars, I probably would have opted for an RV10. Gru’s are so dang cheap though. Bought two, for under 20k total, one with upgraded HP, and shopping for a 150hp engine to make the second a little flying Porsche 911. (Also need it to fly in and out of Leadville where we have some property)

It’s fun. Period. Start every day trying to sneak off and fly.

I have a lot of respect for Mooney and Beech, but wasn’t ready for the former and didn’t want the ongoing costs of the latter.
 
Grum.Man said:
A lot of people will scoff at this but a 175 is a nice balance between the 172 and 182 and they are on the bottom end of the price. Flown properly the engine and gear box shouldn't be a big problem.
Click to expand...

And the Hawk XP is a 175 type certificate I believe..so you can get power without geared engine there too.
I definitely prefer the XP over the 172 as far as just cruising. The 172 is a bit sportier

AA5Bman said:
These planes are so different they're hardly comparable.
Click to expand...

As far as comparisons, they are different, but each has pros/cons, likes/dislikes beyond just fuel burn, load, etc.
Such as turbulence, comfort, handling. I'm assuming the OP has almost no experience in these types.
It's damn near impossible for me to get much experience in them around here. If it weren't for the good dudes at the Fly-ins like @German guy, @OkieFlyer, @SixPapaCharlie, I would have zero time in Mooney, 182, Grumman, etc.
 
A well equipped Tiger should get you a TON of AvGas with your $100K budget.
 
Not that I want to drive up the price of Comanches, but where would a 180 or 250 fit in this comparison?
 
I'm obviously a little biased, but a Tiger sounds like an excellent plane for your mission. 130 kts all day long, 8.5-9 gal/hour, 600 lbs payload for 4.5 hours with full fuel (with reserve). Fun to fly. Relatively simple mechanically. Back seats easily fold down for awesome storage capabilities. Open the canopy on those hot summer days. 100K will get you a nice IFR Tiger. It's a great 2 person with lots o' baggage cross country plane (albeit not the fastest for that mission.)

182 would be good if you needed more carry capacity, but you'll pay for it with fuel burn and, let's be honest here, not nearly as fun to fly.

I live in SoCal also. Big Bear and Mammoth are easily doable, but it all depends on density altitude, of course. I personally wouldn't do either at max weight even if DA wasn't bad. 2 people no problemo. Powerflow would be nice to have for better climb.

I've made a bunch of Tiger videos. You can find my link below.
 
The 172XP is a 6 cylinder engine that gives you the maintenance burden of the 182 but the performance of a 172. A 180hp conversion w/ powerflow exhaust is better ...if a 172 would fit.

That said, my vote is tiger or RV.
 
Spacedoc said:
Hello, all. I'm a student pilot with 20+ hours and advancing quickly. My CFI is projecting late April/early May for my PPL checkride. This is for fun, not a planned career path. So of course I'm putting the cart before the horse and spending an inordinate amount of time on the Internet looking at possible planes to buy.

Here's my mission: 4 seats, not six. 80% of time will be me (230lb american chunkster) and wife (120 lb American hottie). The other 20% would be me and another non-FAA bud or me, my wife, and my young daughter. So 100% of the time let's call the required passenger+baggage payload 500 lbs.

3 hours is about the max I figure I'd want to fly between pit stops. Let's assume a personal minimum of 1 hour reserves, so that would make a 4 hour total endurance target. Speed isn't too important but I'd like something faster than a trainer... Say, 130kt+ cruise?

I live in southern California, so ideally I would want something comfortable in higher density altitudes so that I could fly to places like Big Bear and Mammoth without worrying about being able to take off and get home. That said, I'm perfectly fine with not flying to places like that at high altitudes in the height of summer when temps are 85F or higher.

Price target is below 100k and I'd like something with not-ancient avionics, but I realize that I'm not going to get a top-of-the-line glass panel at that price. Something like a 430w would be ideal, and ADS-B out is a requirement since my home drome is under a Bravo shelf. I'd rather buy something with that minimum set of avionics than something I'd need to upgrade.

So far my eye has been on a Tiger in the certificated world or an RV-9a in the experimental world (although I'd be limited to one passenger with an RV-9a... I'd love an RV-10, but I think that's too rich for my pocketbook).

So... what plane should I (dream about) buy(ing)???
Click to expand...

A Tiger should be fine for your mission - they usually have between 900 and 1000 pound useful. That said, an RV-10 isn't a big difference in price from what Tigers go for, and the avionics are cheaper. It will also eat a 182's lunch on speed, handling and fuel economy.

OneCharlieTango said:
182, Dakota. I love Tigers, but be aware that a fully loaded one might be a pig at higher DAs. Of the 3, a Tiger would be the most fun by far. With a fixed pitch prop and 4-cylinder engine, it's potentially cheaper to operate, too. A 182 would be the worst deal, as they're pretty hot at the moment.
Click to expand...

Bill Jennings said:
OP stated 500# before fuel, how well is the Tiger going to perform with that weight plus fuel in high DA?
Click to expand...

Very well. Prior to the new avionics that are going in, my Tiger with a vacuum panel had a 915 pound UL. That will only go up, and mine is one of the newer AG5Bs. Tigers actually hold weight pretty well - maybe not as well as an STC'd Cherokee, but well. The Cheetah and Traveller are different.

I took off from 7000' DA at Big Bear with 530 + tabs (38 gallons) in my Tiger and had no issue. That was about 200 pounds below max and it would have done fine heavier. Once we got out of the Big Bear ground effect and windshear, we were doing 700 fpm.

TheFB said:
A well equipped Tiger should get you a TON of AvGas with your $100K budget.
Click to expand...

LOL - not these days.
 
N1120A said:
That said, an RV-10 isn't a big difference in price from what Tigers go for, and the avionics are cheaper. It will also eat a 182's lunch on speed, handling and fuel economy.
Click to expand...

RV10 is gonna be at least double what a good TIger costs if you can even find one for sale. They are quite rare to come by and I'm fairly certain the OP doesn't want to spend 3 years building one. That said, they are sweeeet.

If I was gonna go down the plane building route, I'd get a Sling TSi.
 
wheaties said:
The 172XP is a 6 cylinder engine that gives you the maintenance burden of the 182 but the performance of a 172. A 180hp conversion w/ powerflow exhaust is better ...if a 172 would fit.
Click to expand...

I agree the 172 w\180 is a great choice, however the XP I fly definitely outperforms any stock 172 I've ever flown.
 
Thanks to everyone for the replies! Scanning through it looks like the majority of responses in the certificated class fall in either the Tiger or 182 camps, with a few votes for Mooneys, Bos, and Dakotas. The comments above about me looking for something simple mechanically are right on, so I'm less interested in RG platforms- I'll take the cruise hit. Minimizing time to get to my destination isn't at the top of my list of priorities. I've looked at the Dakota but I'm just not a fan of the Piper single door design so I've been looking more at Cessnas and stuff with canopies or multiple doors.

Between the Tiger and the 182, the 182 will definitely haul more but given my mission I don't think I'll often need the high load hauling capability. The wife and I travel light and we don't have hundreds of pounds of camping gear, bikes, motorized whizbangs, or what have you to haul around. This is why I've been leaning Tiger, but the extra power, climb capability, and high DA performance of the 182 compared to the Tiger still makes it compelling.

AA5Bman said:
FWIW, having owned a Tiger and a 182 in SoCal and flying a lot to Mammoth (in particular) and Big Bear (some), the Tiger is more fun but less useful. It sucks at high DA, and I never felt comfortable with more than one passenger when departing Mammoth. So if you really want to fly to Mammoth with 3 and bags, the only plane on this particular list that really works is a 182.
Click to expand...

This is a good datapoint- thanks. Are you talking all seasons at Mammoth or any time?

mr_happyland said:
I live in SoCal also. Big Bear and Mammoth are easily doable, but it all depends on density altitude, of course. I personally wouldn't do either at max weight even if DA wasn't bad. 2 people no problemo. Powerflow would be nice to have for better climb.

I've made a bunch of Tiger videos. You can find my link below.
Click to expand...

Another good datapoint and consistent with AA5Bman- high DA with single passenger sounds fine. This has been my main concern with the Tiger since there's a decent amount of opinion out there that it's not a good high DA plane, but that might just be mainly a concern when you're flying near gross? Oh, and yes I've watched your videos! I've got family in WI so your trip to Oshkosh was inspiring!

N1120A said:
I took off from 7000' DA at Big Bear with 530 + tabs (38 gallons) in my Tiger and had no issue. That was about 200 pounds below max and it would have done fine heavier. Once we got out of the Big Bear ground effect and windshear, we were doing 700 fpm.
Click to expand...

Another good datapoint- thanks.

From the three quotes above it looks like I shouldn't be too concerned about the Tiger in high DAs if I treat it as a 2 seater. So I think I need to determine whether capability to carry 3+ passengers at high DAs is enough to push me to the added expense/lower economy of something like a 182 or Dakota. In the end my goal is to fly in all of these since I know that there's going to be an element of personal preference/attachment I won't experience until I see/feel them in person.

FYI, I'm doing my training in 172s, mainly N and P models with 180hp conversions.

mr_happyland said:
RV10 is gonna be at least double what a good TIger costs if you can even find one for sale. They are quite rare to come by and I'm fairly certain the OP doesn't want to spend 3 years building one. That said, they are sweeeet.

If I was gonna go down the plane building route, I'd get a Sling TSi.
Click to expand...

While the concept of building my own plane is interesting I'm not sure whether I have the patience to do it at this point. I'd rather be spending those free hours flying. Who knows what the future will bring, but if I go experimental I'll get something flying. Which brings me to the RV-9A... I'd definitely like to see and experience one in person. Again, depending on the intangibles involved, if it ends up being compelling to me I'll have to think hard about the 2-vs-4 seat thing.

That said, the Sling TSi looks to be an amazing machine. But if I want to buy something flying that's not going to be an option for some time, I don't think.
 
mr_happyland said:
RV10 is gonna be at least double what a good TIger costs if you can even find one for sale. They are quite rare to come by and I'm fairly certain the OP doesn't want to spend 3 years building one. That said, they are sweeeet.

If I was gonna go down the plane building route, I'd get a Sling TSi.
Click to expand...

Not the prices I've seen. Did you see what that guy was trying to have Gary get for his Traveller recently?

Spacedoc said:
Another good datapoint and consistent with AA5Bman- high DA with single passenger sounds fine. This has been my main concern with the Tiger since there's a decent amount of opinion out there that it's not a good high DA plane, but that might just be mainly a concern when you're flying near gross? Oh, and yes I've watched your videos! I've got family in WI so your trip to Oshkosh was inspiring!

From the three quotes above it looks like I shouldn't be too concerned about the Tiger in high DAs if I treat it as a 2 seater. So I think I need to determine whether capability to carry 3+ passengers at high DAs is enough to push me to the added expense/lower economy of something like a 182 or Dakota. In the end my goal is to fly in all of these since I know that there's going to be an element of personal preference/attachment I won't experience until I see/feel them in person.
Click to expand...

Tigers are fine in high DAs. Travellers and Cheetahs are not as good, though I know people who will even disagree with that. Obviously, they are only 180 HP and not turbo, so they aren't going to be as good as some other planes, but I know Tiger flyers who fly in high DAs all the time. My Tiger, which does have a couple key mods, will pull 2700 RPM at 10,000. Any Tiger owner should have a Powerflow exhaust and either a SureFly or Electroair on one of the ignitions.
 
wheaties said:
The 172XP is a 6 cylinder engine that gives you the maintenance burden of the 182 but the performance of a 172. A 180hp conversion w/ powerflow exhaust is better ...if a 172 would fit.

That said, my vote is tiger or RV.
Click to expand...

Maintenance of a 182 with a continental IO-360? Try double that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP,
If your main goal is specifically to fly to Mammoth or Big Bear to visit your cabin every other weekend with passengers and bags, I would say DON'T consider a Tiger. I would be looking for more horsepower and/or a turbo. But my impression is that you are in the honeymoon phase and thinking about all the cool trips you can take when you own your own plane. Before I bought my plane, I thought I'd fold my back seats down, throw my snowboard or bike in the back, and fly up to Big Bear or Mammoth all the time. And you can. I've done a few trips like that but not nearly as many as I thought I would.

In reality, while DA is certainly a consideration for some flights, the vast majority of the time I don't need that ability. And when I have needed it, I've simply made choices such as less fuel, only one passenger, schedule departures early when it's cooler, etc.. I've taken off with 9,500 DA in my Tiger and it was fine. It's not something I'd want to do all the time b/c of the performance hit, but it certainly can be done. Although having a 235 HP airplane would be great in SoCal, for the frequency that I need that extra power vs the tradeoffs I would need to make, it doesn't make sense. YMMV.
 
Bill Jennings said:
OP stated 500# before fuel, how well is the Tiger going to perform with that weight plus fuel in high DA?
Click to expand...
With most Tigers, you'd be about 175lbs below MGTW if you fuel to the tabs, 100lbs below MGTW if you top off all the way.

One thing you gotta watch for is that the difference between sea level Vy and higher altitude Vy is only a knot or two in a 172 but it's a bigger spread in a Tiger. Lot of people ignore that, climb at the wrong Vy and then wrongly claim a Tiger is a pig up high.
 
mr_happyland said:
OP,
If your main goal is specifically to fly to Mammoth or Big Bear to visit your cabin every other weekend with passengers and bags, I would say DON'T consider a Tiger. I would be looking for more horsepower and/or a turbo. But my impression is that you are in the honeymoon phase and thinking about all the cool trips you can take when you own your own plane.
Click to expand...

The latter is correct- I'm definitely in the honeymoon phase. I realize that most of my jaunts will end up being more local (I'm in the LA basin), but my concern was excluding myself from the occasional trip further afield. Restricting passenger count and not having full tanks is an acceptable compromise for me for trips to higher altitude airports. If I do want to take 4 fatsos and the kitchen sink skiing someday I can always rent something bigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top