Best all around plane?

infotango said:
For your consideration:
http://www.stolaircraft.com/1958_h391B.html
I'm not sure why it is so cheap, nor why the ad's text lists 125, when the title lists 85, any thoughts?
Apparently JAARS is slowly getting rid of its fleet of Couriers.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are THREE different prices: $135,000 (in the title bar), $125,000 (in the text), and $85,000 (in the header).

And what's with that note on the bottom: "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Photo sanitized for security reasons.[/FONT]" Pulling off the N number so you can't check damage history maybe?
 
AdamZ said:
REQUIREMENTS:

1) Single Engine Piston
2) Speed
3) Can carry a reasonable load preferably 4 avg size folks and some "light bags" with Fuel for 3hrs + reserves
4) Respectable Short field capabilites say 2300'
5) Grass strip capable
6) Decent IR platform
7) Not a total fuel hog or Mx Hog

BTW its also OK to say that such a plane does not exist.
Click to expand...

Tough nut that. Looks like you'd need about 700lbs people and luggage before considering fuel. You'd need a people hauler, 6-260/300 or 205/6? But then, what is fast? Those are 140kt airplanes.

A 182 with partial fuel load could probably just do 4 folks + 3+1 on fuel. Our club 182 could do it, but you'd be departing gross. Might not be able to get out of a 2300 grass field gross...

Brent and I went around on trying to determine needs vs. budget. 182 then T182RG then 6/300 then Tiger then Mooney 201.

BTW, Brent went thru a long cycle of looking for the perfect airplane. For a while, it was
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
And yes Anthony I LOVE the Tiger but your not getting you, Bonnie, and another adult couple in the plane with a few light bags and 3 hrs + reserves.
The speed of a Tiger is surely nice and I guess thats what one of my errors was in this post I didn't define speed. So lets say Cruise TAS at 75% BHP is oh 135kts or 140 kts or faster.
Click to expand...


You know Adam, we've actually done that in the Tiger in the east. Bonnie is only 110 lbs (she'll kill me if she reads that I posted her weight) and the other couple were not huge people, but they were adults.

Tiger Usefull Load: 950 lbs
38 gallons of fuel: 228
Me & Bonnie: 295
Rear Pax: 340

Remaining left for bags: 87lbs.

38 gallons allows 3 hours plus a 45 minute reserve.
 
terzap said:
People with Helios are not going to be inclined to sell them (although I saw a few for sale somewhere, one of them 1950-something, at really exorbitant prices). There was some doctor at GFK who had one and would regularly fly it to Bermuda or some private island somewhere.
Click to expand...

The turbine helio is pretty impressive. Clay Lacy has flown one into E45 on a few occasions. Armed with the turbine and beta prop, he made 5 touch and goes (in one pass) on a 3500' strip at an elevation of 2930'.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Tough nut that. Looks like you'd need about 700lbs people and luggage before considering fuel. You'd need a people hauler, 6-260/300 or 205/6? But then, what is fast? Those are 140kt airplanes.

A 182 with partial fuel load could probably just do 4 folks + 3+1 on fuel. Our club 182 could do it, but you'd be departing gross. Might not be able to get out of a 2300 grass field gross...
Click to expand...

I've got a 1300 lb useful load in the Bo. Just don't put all the weight in back. :)
 
As far as short field goes, Janet and I just did a bunch of short field work at Smoketown last week in the Saratoga. Even with pretty much full fuel, calm winds, it was a piece of cake into and out of there. Loaded to max gross it would have been more of a runway eater, but otherwise it was no problem. I got it off the ground in about the same amount of runway a c172 usually takes me, and landings only ate up maybe 300-500 more feet.

I like the saratoga. If you want a ride sometime, drop me a line. I gotta stay current, you know...

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
As far as short field goes, Janet and I just did a bunch of short field work at Smoketown last week in the Saratoga. Even with pretty much full fuel, calm winds, it was a piece of cake into and out of there. Loaded to max gross it would have been more of a runway eater, but otherwise it was no problem. I got it off the ground in about the same amount of runway a c172 usually takes me, and landings only ate up maybe 300-500 more feet.

I like the saratoga. If you want a ride sometime, drop me a line. I gotta stay current, you know...

Jim G
Click to expand...

I am pretty impressed with the Saratoga / Cherokee 6. I was washing the plane when one pulled up at transient. The pilot jumps out, loads up 5 other BIG guys and bags. As the last 2 get in the plane, it rests on its tail then comes back up after they close the cockpit door. It still got off the ground! Although it was at about 200' AGL on its downwind leg. :)
 
AdamZ said:
I like to travel with my wife and another couple on a weekend trip. thats tough in a 172 or an Archer.
Click to expand...

Our two Archers have useful loads of 1006 and 1004 pounds. Full fuel (4 hrs plus reserve) puts payload at about 717 pounds for both, which is enough for two 200-lb guys and two 125-lb ladies with 67 lbs left over for bags. Not too shabby.

182
Click to expand...

1213 useful on our 182. Ours will carry a ton of fuel, but if you only put in 4 hours worth (3 + a healthy reserve), you're looking at 889 payload. Unfortunately, you've got to burn off 2.5 of that 3 hours of fuel (150 lbs) before you land, so shorter trips require some extra planning (and pulling more fuel out). Full-fuel payload is 739, again you have to knock 150 off before you land, but with slightly over 6 hours worth of fuel aboard, you're probably going somewhere if you've got it full!

Frankly, I'm surprised the Diamond Star hasn't been mentioned. 660 lb payload with 4 hours of fuel, 140-145kt and a very large comfortable back seat with its own door. I'm 6'4" and it's the only 4-seater back seat I can sit in comfortably. It sips fuel, doesn't have retracts or any other mx-hog types of items (yet anyway). Given the conditions listed, I'd say this one comes closest to the perfect airplane. I love the 182, but I don't consider it particularly economical. (Nor do I consider the Bo to be all too economical either.) Best economy is either the DA40 or a Mooney.

As far as what *I* consider the perfect airplane to be, without the above restrictions: Siai Marchetti SF260. Comfortable side-by-side fast cross-country traveler that you can use to do some loops and rolls along the way. :D However, if the LoPresti Fury actually makes it to market, it should beat out the Marchetti by just a hair. Very similar design philosophies, though.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Adam: The Beech A-36 will pretty much do what you said. It's a six seater with a payload around 600 pounds with full fuel (four seats and stuff or six seats with little folks and no stuff).
Click to expand...

A C-172N with full long range tanks and the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion has a payload of a touch over 750 pounds. 600 pounds isn't too impressive. A stock C-182P with full long range tanks has a greater payload, too. And a 1969 Arrow can take just over 700 pounds of payload with full tanks. Of course, none of these are as fast or as sexy as the Bo. :D
 
does the penn yan 180 conversion work on a 172P? max gross is 100 lbs higher on the Ps than Ns due to 30 vs. 40 deg of flaps. I dont think there is an appreciable difference in empty weight. All of our 172Ps have the long range tanks.
 
How about the 182 with the Peterson STOL conversion (the 260SE)? Unbelievable short field performance, no problem with grass, better economy than stock 182. I don't know payload specs but should meet them. All that on a 20yr old or so airframe for $200+k.

http://www.260se.com/features.html
 
infotango said:
I just can't get the thought of the SF 260 out of my head.

Drool....
Click to expand...

Oh, you just had to bring the Marchetti up didn't you. I'm changing my vote. SF260. Its a Tiger on steroids. Aerobatic, fast, sexy with decent range. It ain't a four place airplane though and I think that's a requirement.
 
Ghery said:
A C-172N with full long range tanks and the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion has a payload of a touch over 750 pounds. 600 pounds isn't too impressive. A stock C-182P with full long range tanks has a greater payload, too. And a 1969 Arrow can take just over 700 pounds of payload with full tanks. Of course, none of these are as fast or as sexy as the Bo. :D
Click to expand...

I think Dave had rocks in this Bo... :) Another regular on the Beech list's TN A36 has 1185 pounds of payload with full fuel.

My buddy's newer A36TC with TKS is HEAVY. So you got to find the right year Bo too.
 
Last edited:
AirBaker said:
I think Dave had rocks in this Bo... :) Another regular on the Beech list's TN A36 has 1185 pounds PAYLOAD with full fuel.

My buddy's newer A36TC with TKS is HEAVY. So you got to find the right year Bo too.
Click to expand...

I had a useful load of over 1,075 pounds in my A-36. 2525 empty and 3,600 gross allowed. Assuming one put some fuel in it, the payload would be much less. The mains would hold 444 pounds (using 6.0 pounds per gallon.) That left a payload of 631.

My Bo was heavier than most with the thicker glass, turbo, leather seats and heavier instrumentation, but not THAT much different.

I did get a 400 pound gross weight increase for the IO-550 upgrade from GAMI which did raise the payload.

I was quoting the figures on a factory plane previously.

Best,

Dave
 
Just giving you a hard time Dave. A36's have a pretty wide range of empty weights depending on the year.
 
AirBaker said:
Just giving you a hard time Dave. A36's have a pretty wide range of empty weights depending on the year.
Click to expand...

I agree A-36s have a wide range of empty weights Chris, but don't know of any with factory equipment that have a 400 pound larger payload with full fuel. Could your friend have tip tanks with a gross weight increase or the GAMI gross weight increase?

Best,

Dave
 
AirBaker said:
That's Walter from the Beech list's plane.
Click to expand...

Yea, Walter has the GAMI 400 pound weight increase STC for upgrading to the IO550 and several other things associated with the Tornado Alley Turbo system.

Walter and I compared numbers on our planes. He's got a lighter than average one to begin with and it's faster than average. He just installed Osborne tip tanks. He's got a pretty slick machine!

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
The Apache is the best...because I own one!
ApacheBob
 
In the short-field, slow-speed approach capability there is no other available production certified aircraft that can match the Helio Courier/Super Courier. It also has the safest record when considering everything produced in the last 45 years. Not the fastest, but with 120 gallons of fuel you can count on 7.5 hours, with Rajay turbo's it'll do 140 knots all day above 12,500, go higher and you get better numbers. The Lycoming GO-480-G1D6 (295HP) is a bullet-proof motor if you do it right, and I've seen 1800 hours or better on the 3 I've owned.

http://superstol.org/
 
I think all of the above have merit but no one considered my best "compromise" all around.

The poor old 172RG.

Gross 2,650
Empty 1,700 - actually a few pounds under but easier math
Load 950
Usable fuel 62 = 372 lbs full
Cruise 130-140 burning 9-10 per hour

That's a full six hours in the air with max fuel
So you can carry two people, full fuel and some luggage for 600 nm with reserves.

For four people and luggage the two in the rear must really like each other and not be real tall.

Reduced fuel is 44 gallons or 264 lbs to the bottom of the filler tubes. That's 4.5 hours flight with 170 lbs per person (4) including luggage.

Cost 40,000 >< 80,000 depending on shape and avionics

My reasoning for staying small is of course cost.

Four people will be rare, two is normal.

182 straight leg- cost higher, fuel burn 30-50% more, speed even.
Advantage four people and luggage with reasonable fuel.
Disadvantage, higher purchase price, insurance, overhaul and operating.

182RG same as above plus additional 5-10 knots cruise speed

205/206/210, A-36, Lance, Piper 6, etc.
Some or all offer higher speed and load capability at higher costs
They also have neat options but do I need , Pressurized, FIKI, etc

Now if I could pick up a Lance for 40-50K with a mid time engine and decent shape I wouldn't be in the 172RG.

For the grass strip it's doable and the distances are not an issue but the small wheels and super tough gear mechanism will probably keep me on pavement.
 
I think the Cessna 182 comes close to meeting all of your requirements. It will haul 4 plus some bags and will fly you for three hours. I don't know about the speed part. If you push hard enough on the throttle you can get 159 M/hr. Maybe it is just because I fly one,that I love this old airplane. Bob
 

Attachments

  • 1959 182B Skylane at S49.jpg
    1959 182B Skylane at S49.jpg
    215.7 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
170kts out of the RV10 - and you don't have to push it.
Plus T/O and landing distances absolutely demolish anything else people have listed save the Comanche 400 - which burns, uh, 21 gallons an hour at 75%. Not exactly low fule burn.
 
If I didn't mind paying for the fuel the 6-300 would be nice to have.
I've flown a 6-240 into 2600' grass strips with 4 on board so there's no problem there and the fixed gear is a plus into the grass IMHO.

On the other hand we all have different missions and available cash so what you fly now is probably good enough or you would fly something else right?

Personally I have an old Beech A24R.
1050 useful load, 130-135kts 75% at altitude burning 10.5 - 11 GPH

It's not lightning fast but roomy and capable of 4 most of the time. In my next life maybe I'll rate the Pilatus but but for now I'll smile and be thankful for the Musketeer :)
 
If you can find one, the Helio Stallion "blows the doors" off anything mentioned here

188 KTS, 3500 FPM, land and take-off in 200 feet, 6.5 hours of range at 177 KTS, extremely versatile

helioassortplusavia103-1.jpg
 
Still gotta go with the 182 as best all-around for the widest variety of missions. Reasonably fast, excellent range and endurance. I've flown it halfway across the country in a day with one or two stops. It'll haul a heckuva load (FlyBQ trip last year I had four big people and bags, 900 pounds in the cabin and four hours of fuel.) It's big and comfortable (back-seaters on that trip were both over 6 feet tall), lots of elbow room and comfortable seating position. Stout gear, great on grass. Good short field performance - Huge flaps bring you in steep, and I've taken off from a <1000 foot strip by myself and 1800 foot strip near gross, both obstructed grass. Climb rates depending on loading and DA generally between 1200-1900 fpm.

It's not the best at anything but it's damn good at everything. She's taken me on many adventures and never let me down.

Plus, they're easy to buy (large numbers produced), well-known by mechanics, easy to sell and hold their value.

Operating costs are quite reasonable, 13gph fuel burn and a bulletproof engine (we're 700 hours over TBO and she runs like new with good compressions and oil analysis.) A caring individual owner should be able to keep operating costs well under $100/hr.

I don't think there's another airplane that you can say all of the above about. :no:
 
I am surprised that only one person mentioned the DA-40 (and soon to be released DA-50).

The Star is a wonderful performer, and while you need to leave a little fuel out, you can get 4 people 3 hours in it. The back seat is comfortable with it's own door. In addition you get 4 banger fuel burn and fixed gear. I have never landed one on a grass strip, but I must imagine it is possible.

HOWEVER, given the difference in price between say a 6-300 or some other Piper 6, and the Diamond, you can do an awful lot of flying with the price difference, even with the higher burn on the 6.

I do not dislike the 182, but if I were buying a "new" four place, I would seriously consider the Diamond.

~ Christopher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top