Any regrets moving up to better plane

It's impossible to regret selling an airplane if instead of selling that airplane you simply increase the fleet.
I'm fortunate that my partner(Dad) is a much an enabler as I am. The only airplane we've sold was a Pacer to "upgrade" to a 180. You could say there are 2 relative pains with the 180 vs the Pacer - in the wallet paying for fuel/MX/insurance, and in the back when I have to haul the thing around on the ground. If I ever feel like shedding a tear over these pains, I take the super cub out for a flight. Problem solved.
 
Most of you are talking about serious speed increases. My move up was from a ~70 mph cruise ultralight like sport plane to my ~140 mph experimental. The speed is very nice but I miss the open cockpit flying.

Most of my flying is local fly-ins, $100 burger runs, with an occasional cross country to stay the night with family/friends or just explore something new. When I go to see the in-laws on the other side of the continent I sit in the back of the commercial metal tube with the other self loading baggage ...
 
I think put in your target aircraft into foreflight as aircraft and then plan your trips and switch between different tail numbers on said trip to see the time and fuel usage compared to what you have. Kind of just as fun. Sometimes I’m like oh I would use a ton more fuel, or I can get there faster and it’s roughly the same fuel. With the Arrow, it always beats the C172 fuel and time wise, so that’s a winner for me.
 
mandm said:
I think put in your target aircraft into foreflight as aircraft and then plan your trips and switch between different tail numbers on said trip to see the time and fuel usage compared to what you have. Kind of just as fun. Sometimes I’m like oh I would use a ton more fuel, or I can get there faster and it’s roughly the same fuel. With the Arrow, it always beats the C172 fuel and time wise, so that’s a winner for me.
Click to expand...

This is really a great idea! We have family that is basically a four hour flight away. We stop for fuel as any issues would have us run dry at arrival in the 172. When I put a regular 182 in as a performance profile it saved maybe 20-30 minutes. That alone is hardly worth the hassle. My first officer (carries the purse) suggested no upgrade unless it came close to cutting the travel time in half.

I really relate to the comments about getting all the bugs out of this plane, fixing up this plane, and then the process would have to start all over again if buying used. We really will just fly a bunch more before kicking tires on anything faster. Any commitments in life are self scheduled now so being slow poses no issues.

200 mph could sure be a game changer seeing more of the world though!
 
I moved up from a 1968 Cherokee 140 to a 1964 Mooney Super21 M20E. This move was suggested to me early in my ownership of the Cherokee, which I owned for 14 years. I routinely fly 375 NM from VA to MI, and land on a 2100 ft grass airstrip purpose built for an M20E.

My move was not without its challenges but I am very happy with the move. The inside cabins of both airplanes are similar, and so are the takeoff and landing performance numbers, but that doesn't tell the whole story. I'll post a more detailed comparison later when I have more time.
 
Last edited:
mandm said:
With the Arrow, it always beats the C172 fuel and time wise, so that’s a winner for me.
Click to expand...
My Cirrus surprised me with its efficiency. The Tiger is no slouch in this regard, but the Cirrus beat it handily.

One common mission was S Fl to N GA. In the Tiger at 132 kts it was about 5 hours @ 10 gph. With 50 gals fuel it took a fuel stop unless there was a substantial tailwind. But the Cirrus at 170 kts LOP would do the same trip in about 3 1/2 hours @ 13.5 gph, using slightly less fuel than the Tiger and knocking 1 1/2 hours off the trip. Pretty impressive.
 
When comparing trip times, always assume a 20-knot headwind. When I went from a C-140 to a Bonanza, the jump from 90 knots to 165 was as expected. But what really made the biggest difference was the jump from 70 knots to 145 with a decent headwind. As you know, there’s always a headwind.

I’ve never regretted stepping up the airplane ladder, but I have regretted overdoing improvements. My Bonanza won a Bronze Lindy. I was afraid to land it in muddy grass or let people in it with dirty shoes. And no food or sticky drinks! When I was considering a 185, my son (father of 3 of my grandkids) said, “Dad, you’re about to enter a stage of life that’s full of kids and dogs, if that’s what you want.”

I replied, “There’s nothing I want more than more kids and dogs!” The 185 is perfect for such things — original P&I, coin mat flooring, etc.
 
That’s where mpg could be a good indicator when it comes to comparing different aircraft.

The Mooney Super, Bonanza and Cirrus all sound like amazing aircraft. Cirrus will cost more but you’ll get something newer, so I’m thinking same year comparison Cirrus might be cheaper compared to a Mooney or Bo. I was looking at all before and the Arrow called to me, just happens to be what I found. I think if the hangar was bigger I’d just get a second one. I don’t want to park either of them outside. Haha
 
So much of it is dictated by mission. But mission is also dictated by the plane you have access to. As you move up the food chain, speed and capability in a plane, it is common for the mission to change. Something I have heard called mission creep. Another factor in mission creep is that when you move up you are stuck in the paradigm of your current plane. Like I fly my C172 100 hours per year which is 10,000 nm. So if I move up to an SR22 I will only fly 64 hours per year. Problem is now with the increased speed and capability, you will fly to places and on days you wouldn't think to do with the C172, and now you are flying 25,000 nm a year and 160 hours!! See how the new math works? ;-)

But if you have the coin, you will never regret moving to a faster more capable plane. I have the opportunity to fly a DA40 at 140 knots, and an M600 that is just about twice as fast, occasionally on the same day. They are very different but equally fun to fly. The M600 just has such a broader mission capability, which comes at a higher cost as well.
 
Rockymountain said:
So if I move up to an SR22 I will only fly 64 hours per year. Problem is now with the increased speed and capability, you will fly to places and on days you wouldn't think to do with the C172, and now you are flying 25,000 nm a year and 160 hours!! See how the new math works? ;-)
Click to expand...

So far, this hasn't happen in my case. I flew about 120 hours per year with the Cherokee and ended up with about 100 hours in the Comanche. I pretty much took the same trips throughout the year so right around the same mileage, just faster to my destination. But, now I also moved to a place where really cool destinations are only 2-3 hours from my new home base so I can see this scenario play out going forward lol.
 
I went PA28 (180hp) to a PA32R (300hp). Four seats to six and 40 knots faster. I don't regret it, but it has been way more expensive. I want to move up again but I'm convinced I would be bankrupt in 5 years and have to leave aviation. :oops:
 
My first plane was my fastest. I'm on my 4th plane now and it is the slowest I've owned. My changes weren't driven by the need for speed, but by mission changes. I sold a Grumman Tiger because I was interested in aerobatics. I sold my Pitts because I had kids I wanted to fly to college. I sold my 182 because I wanted to land off airport and I wanted a tail dragger again. I think the Maule I currently fly will be my last plane, but sometimes a touring motor-glider whispers in my ear about new adventures and my mind wanders. It's all mission related. If the plane you're currently flying meets your mission needs, stick with it. The difference between a 120 knot plane and a 150 knot plane over a 200 NM flight is just 18 minutes - if you fly at top speed all the way. Factor in time to get the plane out of the hangar, preflight, taxi to the end of the runway and time to climb, and the overall time savings is negligible. You have to add a LOT of speed before it changes anything in a meaningful way for your average pilot.
 
Last edited:
Just did a 6.5 hour flight in the Comanche (PA24-250) from KSOP to KPTS, into 30 (+/-) knt headwind. Can't imagine that in a 172. Also can't imagine what I'd have to move up to from the Comanche that will do what it does. Well, I can imagine the additional cost. :yikes:
 
Enjoyed all the comments, I’ve owned 8 planes over 50 years, and agree with desire for speed, room for comfort, ease of maintenance, range(one of the cheapest speed mods for many). I remember one expert opinion that stated gaining 30mph doubled the cost of ownership. I was surprised how accurate that statement was when comparing apples to apples(4 seat). I’m sure some MOONEY pilots will chime in, but there is more than gas costs when it comes to flying.
 
mondtster said:
I've bought and sold a lot of aircraft, mostly for business purposes, but have owned 6 for my personal use. The first and last ones have been ~100 knot airplanes that are cheap to keep. I've found that I use the airplane a lot more when things aren't a hassle and when I don't have to think about the expenditures. Did I enjoy the bigger, faster airplanes I've owned? Absolutely, but I didn't enjoy them nearly as much as I have enjoyed my first airplane and my current one. Everybody is different however, which includes their reasons for flying. Their responses will reflect this.
Click to expand...
This. I had a 172, then 182, now an LSA CTSW. I fly now with no regard to fuel burn, overhaul costs, or keeping an antique in the air. But, your mission and mileage will vary.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
I moved up from a 1968 Cherokee 140 to a 1964 Mooney Super21 M20E. This move was suggested to me early in my ownership of the Cherokee, which I owned for 14 years. I routinely fly 375 NM from VA to MI, and land on a 2100 ft grass airstrip purpose built for an M20E.

My move was not without its challenges but I am very happy with the move. The inside cabins of both airplanes are similar, and so are the takeoff and landing performce numbers, but that doesn't tell the whole story. I'll post a more detailed comparison later when I have more time.
Click to expand...
I bought my Cherokee 140 in 2004 and completed my flight training in it. My wife and I routinely I used it to visit her parents in MI or in Hilton Head SC where they wintered. From Fredericksburg VA it was 400 NM to either destination and the airport is less than 5 miles from their home. We did other things too but that was the primary mission. After about 2 years I got the itch for a bigger airplane, but I solved it by adding the CAVERNOUS back shelf option to my bird. The shelf added about a foot of floor space behind the rear seat for luggage and turned my bird into a serious XC airplane. We could pile in a week's worth of luggage and have room of our dog too!

The 140 is an honest 100 kt cruiser and could complete 400 NM non-stop without a headwind. It is a little sluggish in warm weather but on cool days it is a little hotrod. Since I routinely fly into a 2100 ft grass strip I trained hard on slow flight and short landings. I also practiced in crosswinds until I could easily land in 20 knots steady wind perpendicular to the runway. I got so good that the Cherokee and I handle practically anything the wind could throw at us. I added a Lift Reserve indicator and learned how to use it and trained myself to get maximum performance at the bottom edges of the flight envelope. I learned how to get the shortest and steepest reliable takeoffs and one time on a 45F day I made a short roll maximum lift takeoff and hit 1000 feet altitude before the end of a 3000 ft runway! I could also routinely land and stop with a 500 ft ground roll if it wasn't too warm, and was able to climb with two people at 40 mph indicated airspeed. The LRI and my training regiment had opened up a whole new flight envelope for me to use. Yes the little Cherokee was a pretty good airplane.

Coming into 2017 we had been flying less. My wife's mom had passed a few years earlier and her dad needed help transporting himself between SC & MI twice a year. Initially we flew more as we visited more often, but eventually her dad needed help completing his long trips, so now we weren't flying very much at all. In December 2018 I sold my Cherokee. More to come...
 
Last edited:
OneCharlieTango said:
That thinking will put you in a car eventually.
Click to expand...
Along those lines…

After selling our Cirrus, a friend generously offered us the use of his when we wanted, for just the cost of gas.

We had a trip to S FL coming up, and did the math: Round trip about 8 hours, at an estimated 15 gph. At the AVGAS prices then, fuel alone would have been right around $1,000.

Or, we could take our Honda element and make the trip in about 13 hours each way for maybe $100 in gas. AND not have to worry about renting a car when we got there. Or tiedown fees. Or inclement weather delays. Karen and I road trip well together, so it was kind of a no-brainer. So, yes, that thinking can certainly put you in a car!
 
I agree with the others that have said you need to drive this decision based on your mission.
My mission is normally medium to long cross countries with my wife and our dog.

I used to rent 172s but bought a 182 last summer and it has been a game changer. On a typical long XC (~4 hrs) I will not only save 60 minutes of flying time, but avoid having to stop to refuel, which saves a ton of time. Last week we flew from Michigan to Florida - 6 hours down, 7 hours back, one fuel stop each way.

It's RELATIVELY inexpensive and easy to maintain, and my insurance, even at <500 hrs PIC, is very cheap. Make sure you check that if you start looking at retracts. Insurance companies seem to hate them.

So, definitely no regrets for me.
 
William Pete Hodges said:
I bought my Cherokee 140 in 2004 and completed my flight training in it. My wife and I routinely I used it to visit her parents in MI or in Hilton Head SC where they wintered. From Fredericksburg VA it was 400 NM to either destination and the airport is less than 5 miles from their home. We did other things too but that was the primary mission. After about 2 years I got the itch for a bigger airplane, but I solved it by adding the CAVERNOUS back shelf option to my bird. The shelf added about a foot of floor space behind the rear seat for luggage and turned my bird into a serious XC airplane. We could pile in a week's worth of luggage and have room of our dog too!

The 140 is an honest 100 kt cruiser and could complete 400 NM non-stop without a headwind. It is a little sluggish in warm weather but on cool days it is a little hotrod. Since I routinely fly into a 2100 ft grass strip I trained hard on slow flight and short landings. I also practiced in crosswinds until I could easily land in 20 knots steady wind perpendicular to the runway. I added a Lift Reserve indicator and learned how to use it and trained myself to get maximum performance at the bottom edges of the flight envelope. I learned how to get the shortest and steepest reliable takeoffs and one time on a 45F day I made a short roll maximum lift takeoff and hit 1000 feet altitude before the end of a 3000 ft runway! I could also routinely land and stop with a 500 ft ground roll if it wasn't too warm, and was able to climb with two people at 40 mph indicated airspeed. The LRI and my training regiment had opened up a whole new flight envelope for me to use. Yes the little Cherokee was a pretty good airplane.

Coming into 2017 we had been flying less. My wife's mom had passed a few years earlier and her dad needed help transporting himself between SC & MI twice a year. Initially we flew more as we visited more often, but eventually her dad needed help completing his long trips, so now we weren't flying very much at all. In December 2018 I sold my Cherokee. More to come...
Click to expand...
When I sold my Cherokee my broker told me it was the finest example of the type available on the market at that time. I bought it with 0 hrs SMOH and a new interior and recent paint. It looked good inside and out, but it had very few upgrades over the years. When it sold it had 500 Hrs SMOH and 4900 TTAF, the cavernous back shelf, knots-2-U wheel pants, an airgizmos dock with a GPS196, Lift Reserve indicator, really nice interior, and decent looking paint. It still had the original flight instruments, dual radio stack and an ADF.

After the sale I figured I might be done with flying but after about 6 months without an airplane I realized that I needed to own another bird, so I started looking. I was looking for a faster airplane with the same takeoff and landing capabilities. My wife was summering in MI with her dad at their cottage on a small lake, and I needed a faster way to get back and forth so I could run my business and still see my wife regularly.

That led me to look at 200 HP short bodied Mooneys. The first one I looked at had the automatic wing leveler and I didn't like that because it is on all the time. Eventually I got lucky and found an early 1964 Super21 with an electric Nav-o-matic 300 autopilot, all mechanical systems including landing gear, flaps, and a speed brake. Everything was in working order and I loved it. I talked with my AI and had him do a pre-buy inspection, and arranged for training and picked up my new bird in October of 2019. After 20 hours of dual instruction I was flying again.

There are a lot of similarities between the Cherokee 140 and the Super21, and there are some significant differences too. From a numbers perspective the Super21 is great! I can make the trip to MI in 3 hours or less even with a headwind, vs 4 hours or more with the Cherokee. The Mooney burns about 25 gallons LOP, while the Cherokee burned about 33 gallons. The fuel tanks are about the same size, (50 vs 52) which gives the Mooney a lot longer range. The cabin interior volume and baggage area are about the same size but the Mooney is much easier to load with its top mounted baggage door.

It has taken me some time and effort to master the Mooney and I am still trying to get some items nailed down the way I want. I spent an entire summer learning all the principles of LOP operations so I can fly as efficiently as possible without placing excessive stress on the engine and maintain expected engine life. I have upgraded to a CGR-30 combination engine monitor partly because my entire engine instrument cluster failed and I had to do something anyway. I removed the Loran and the ADF and added an AERA760 on the passenger side, and a GPS496 on the yoke, this way my wife can use the AERA760 while I navigate independently the GPS496.

I have spent a lot of time working on my short field landing techniques and I am still unable to duplicate POH numbers as corrected for 85F as published. I should be able to stop with a 700 ft landing roll or less, but so far the best I have done is just under under 1000 ft, with 1200 being a number I can hit regularly. The Mooney wing is not as forgiving at high AOA as the Cherokee so adding a lift indicator did not give me any improved performance at the bottom edges of the flight envelope at all, but it did help me identify some characteristics of the wing. The Mooney wing needs a certain amount of airspeed to get the airflow to attach to the wing, which means that airflow can also rip off of the wing suddenly if pushed too far. This characteristic is more pronounced in ground effect with 2/3 or more flaps deployed, but doesn't present itself during power off stalls in free air. This has led me to have more than a few hard bounce landings.

The Mooney wing does not have as much roll authority as a Hershey Bar Cherokee and crosswind performance is not quite as good. That scared me the first time I ran out of aileron and I am still working on getting more performance out of crosswind landings. I'm sure I'll get better but it will never match the Cherokee for hard rolls and big crosswind performance.

If I could change anything about the Mooney wing I would take a suggestion from Harry Riblett's book and put a slight leading Edge droop on the wing. One of the wings in his catalog of airfoils the same as the Mooney wing. In his work he shows how to adjust he airflow to add a slight droop in the leading Edge nose angle. This is shown to greatly improve the stall angle performance of the wing, giving both a higher stall AOA and a gentler stall across a wider range of pitch movement. This modification will also increase drag slightly with a 1% speed loss at constant power. I think this is acceptable considering how much low speed performance and safety would be gained. I admit that not too many pilots would actively seek this part of the flight envelope, but I definitely would.

The other thing I would change would be the height of the main landing gear. When sitting on the ground the Mooney sits in a nose high attitude, much like a tail dragger but not quite as severe. This means the wing is still trying to fly when all three wheels are on the ground, reducing landing gear applied weight and braking effectiveness, contributing to a longer ground roll. One thing about the Cherokee is the plane sits level or slightly nose down when on all three wheels, ensuring the wing is not flying and allowing maximum braking effectiveness and a shorter ground roll. To change this on the Mooney the rear tires could be made larger, but then they might not fit in the wheel wells and 2 inches of tire only gives 1 inch of lift. Another option would be to lower the gear attachment points, but that might create problems getting the gear to swing up fully and maintain the streamline of the wing.

Incorporating both of these changes may be possible if a new bolt-on wing was designed. This wing would be purpose built to replace the existing wing and include everything good the wing has now and the changes indicated above. It would likely weigh the same as the factory wing, have better stall and braking characteristics, improve low speed performance and margins of safety, and be about 1% slower at the same power settings. I admit that I may be the only person in the world who would take advantage of these changes, so it is likely they will never happen.

Other than those few minor annoyances, I am very pleased with my new bird. I have flown to and from MI and landed on the grass 8 times so far. It is more difficult to land there than it was with the Cherokee, but it is doable. The Mooney is 20% heavier at 2200/2575 vs 1950/2150 for the Cherokee with a 27% increase in useful load of 950 vs 750. It has longer range, burns less fuel, and cruises faster and climbs better. It has a slightly tighter interior but not by much. I'd say my Mooney is a keeper.

So, what is on my realistic list for improvement? I'd like to get my ARC autopilot working again. It was working fine in warm weather, but didn't work when cold. I had the sensor gyro rebuilt to get new grease in there, but it has not worked since that repair was attempted. I might also like to install new front seats with lumbar support. Both of these items are low priority but if something comes up I might spring for them. I might also go for a shoulder harness. One Miracle at a time!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0700.JPG
    IMG_0700.JPG
    75.1 KB · Views: 20
  • Delivery Day!.jpg
    Delivery Day!.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 20
  • Panel 031208_003.jpg
    Panel 031208_003.jpg
    313.7 KB · Views: 19
  • IMG_20220719_144723189.jpg
    IMG_20220719_144723189.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 19
Last edited:
mandm said:
I think if the hangar was bigger I’d just get a second one. I don’t want to park either of them outside. Haha
Click to expand...
There's ways to make it happen...

IMG_20230517_201445902_HDR.jpg
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Along those lines…

After selling our Cirrus, a friend generously offered us the use of his when we wanted, for just the cost of gas.

We had a trip to S FL coming up, and did the math: Round trip about 8 hours, at an estimated 15 gph. At the AVGAS prices then, fuel alone would have been right around $1,000.

Or, we could take our Honda element and make the trip in about 13 hours each way for maybe $100 in gas. AND not have to worry about renting a car when we got there. Or tiedown fees. Or inclement weather delays. Karen and I road trip well together, so it was kind of a no-brainer. So, yes, that thinking can certainly put you in a car!
Click to expand...
I use my 182 70% for business travel so that's a huge advantage via tax savings that most don't have. I have a 4 state sales agency and live in central Texas - KPWG. It takes me approximately 65% less time to fly than drive to my typical distant destinations (New Orleans, Tulsa, NW Arkansas, El Paso). Bentonville, AR is a 7.5 hour drive (15 total) so driving burns 2 full days. A flight there is 2.75 hours so much more productive. I value my time at $125 per hour and also my standard of living flying. Flying is more efficient and much less stressful for me. There are zero commercial flight options out of Waco to even consider. So it all depends on your mission and situation.
 
4RNB said:
I'm pondering what a future with a faster plane could be like, perhaps as a 2nd plane alone, with a partner, or just moving up from a 172 to a 182 or better.
...
Click to expand...
As some have suggested, ask yourself what exactly you really want. If it's speed, for most trips you need a lot more speed to make a small difference in total time. Upgrading from 172 to a 182 won't do it, you'll need to go to a Mooney or Baron to get enough speed to make a difference. But means significantly higher ownership costs and limits capabilities on non-paved or short fields. If what you really want is payload, you might only need an engine upgrade for that 172, as an O-360 with flaps limited to 30* gives the 172 about the same payload as a 182.
 
Eldorado said:
Enjoyed all the comments, I’ve owned 8 planes over 50 years, and agree with desire for speed, room for comfort, ease of maintenance, range(one of the cheapest speed mods for many). I remember one expert opinion that stated gaining 30mph doubled the cost of ownership. I was surprised how accurate that statement was when comparing apples to apples(4 seat). I’m sure some MOONEY pilots will chime in, but there is more than gas costs when it comes to flying.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with that statement. My Tiger… $1050 to insure ( $80k hull) + $1000 for fixed annual = $2050. Beech Bonanza …. $3200 to insure at $80K + $1800 fixed annual = $5000. Hmmm? Seems about double!
 
GeorgeC said:
Moved up from an inexpensive, capable club 182 that I flew infrequently to a 140 that I fly weekly that fits me like a flesh tuxedo. No ragrets.
Click to expand...
Once when I owned my Cherokee my BFR flight instructor told me good pilots wear their airplanes like a suit of clothes. Then he said that I wear my airplane well. I think that's one of the nicest compliments I ever got!
 
Last edited:
Over the past thirty years or so I have had six different airplanes and most were upgrades in some way. I used my airplane primarily to support my business, but of course I also used it for personal and family travel, as well.

I found that my mission changed with each airplane as the comfort, speed and capabilities of the airplane increased. I started using the airplane to carry more passengers and to go to increasingly longer missions.

I can honestly say that I have not regretted any of the changes that I made. I have enjoyed every single airplane that I have had the pleasure to fly and operate but moving up to learn a new aircraft is a lot of fun, too. Plus, of course I enjoy the increased performance!

Flying is flying and some of the most fun I have had flying in recent years was getting my Seaplane rating in a Piper Cub!

Abram Finkelstein
N685AS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top