Best bang for your buck

A

Andrew Cobb

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
20
Location
KXBP
Display Name
Display name:
AndrewCobb
It has been a long time since I’ve been in the left seat due to many reasons but I’m making a comeback. I am busting rust and going to put some time in with a buddy and his 172 but I’m looking for something of my own to buy within the next year. I am looking for something to build time towards commercial but also to be able to travel comfortably with my wife (and kids on occasion).
We would like to be able to get in and out of higher altitude airports like Sierrra Blanca Regional in Ruidoso, NM (6800’) because our son and his wife live near there and it would make it great for quick weekend visits from Fort Worth, TX.
Getting a HP and complex endorsement is also on the table, eventually. I am IFR rated and will be getting current on that as well.
What airplanes would be the best bang for your buck? I’m trying to stay around the $100k mark if I can. Low or high wing doesn’t matter and I’m trying to stay with fixed gear mainly for insurance and MX cost. Suggestions?
 
I'd look for an older decent 182 if you're set on fixed gear, though that may still push your $100k target.
 
Under 100k makes it a little tough. Maybe a Viking? Would give you a chance to build a lot of complex time if you're looking for a traveling plane and want to log some hours.
 
MIFlyer said:
Under 100k makes it a little tough. Maybe a Viking? Would give you a chance to build a lot of complex time if you're looking for a traveling plane and want to log some hours.
Click to expand...
Complex isn’t a necessity but not off the table either. I realize that it will push the cost up. I’m not saying $100k is a hard line but I’m not trying to go $150k or more either
 
I'm going with Comanche. Fast, good UL#, HP, and they don't break the bank.
They'll require a little stretch in budget in year 1 is my guess (since you always gotta budget purchase price + 20-30% of purchase price for year 1 mx).
But if I was flying that mission that'd be high on my list to check out :)
 
Any major ADs or other issues with the Comanche I need to be aware of?
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
We can ask our resident Comanche pilots.
IIRC that's @EdFred @SixPapaCharlie @Chrisgoesflying @Mxfarm
They might be able to advise on potential issues...
Click to expand...

The main ADs to be aware of are:

- Stab horn AD: Every five years or you can install the "Aussie Horn" and that AD goes away.
- Gear bungee AD: Every two years you need to replace the gear bungees. No big deal to be honest.
- Gear AD 1: That one is a PITA from what I heard. Every 1,000 hours you have to dissemble and reassemble the gear. I'm in for this one in about a year or two depending on how much I'll fly (anyone with recommendations of a shop, please let me know).
- Gear AD 2: Also every 1,000 hours, some gear part must be NDT tested. Mine just got done 100 hours ago so I'm good for 900 so didn't really look much into this AD.

Those are the major ones. A few little ones, most of which are one time items and oftentimes have been completed long ago unless it's a hangar queen.
 
I was in the middle of typing out what the Canuck above me just posted and I got the notification saying there are new replies, so I will just say, "yeah, what he said."

As an aside, the Comanche I'm currently in may be coming up for sale in the first half of 2024. Might be moving to a twin. Was going to be for sale as of two weeks ago, but going to wait for a just a bit before doing so.
 
twinkie.jpg
 
EdFred said:
I was in the middle of typing out what the Canuck above me just posted and I got the notification saying there are new replies, so I will just say, "yeah, what he said."

As an aside, the Comanche I'm currently in may be coming up for sale in the first half of 2024. Might be moving to a twin. Was going to be for sale as of two weeks ago, but going to wait for a just a bit before doing so.
Click to expand...
Feel free to let me know if you do decide to sell it. No telling when I might be ready to buy….
 
Mooney may not be fixed gear- but still a great option. I got mine this last spring. I’m sold for a traveling bird and could be a great time builder. I would recommend the F model-but they are all great! The F gives you 200hp, 64 gallons, and a good amount of room as they are lengthened 10 or 12 inches from the c/d/e models. My back seats are adult comfortable and they recline! My gear is manual- easy to operate and very few maintenance headaches with them. I have same cabin as a J (probable the most haloed model), a bit slower, but plenty fast! but a far more reasonable acquisition cost. I have 1030 useful load… 4-200lb adults, and 38 gallons of fuel would give me 400 nm range… not too shabby… heck cut it to 300nm a hop and there’s room for 4 adults and some luggage… w two adults so full tanks-your bladder won’t last that long!

They certainly can be had in your price range. They can be great time builders as they will sip gas… I can fly mine at 6gph very easily, or for just a few more gallons an hour can be hauling arse. Best of both worlds. We flew it for a bit around 4.5gph but felt a bit like slow flight. But 6 would be doable to just drill holes in the sky.

Your family will be sitting inside a steel roll cage- very nice reassurance… one of the things that really persuaded me to go Mooney.

I was new to retracts and with not a ton of time in her my insurance is $2700/yr for 90k hull. I am a vfr pilot with 500 hours or so. IR now on to do list…

Her efficiency traveling could easily cover that increased insurance expense. On a recent trip w friends in a 180hp CS prop Skyhawk, we left an hour n a half behind them, passed em headed into his second fuel stop, we stopped too but were only needing to stop to pee as we were only at half tanks… I put in 30 gallons, he put in 15 putting him at 45 gallons for the same run! 45 vs 30 is significant… the mpg efficiency there is obvious but 64 gallons burning 8-10gph adds a huge time efficiency…

I was able to buy far more plane w less hours and a recent-ish (2017) overhaul than any other brand imo for her capability. They fly like dream- crazy smooth controls w pushrods vs cables…

You definitely owe it to yourself to consider…
 
Huckster79 said:
Mooney may not be fixed gear- but still a great option. I got mine this last spring. I’m sold for a traveling bird and could be a great time builder. I would recommend the F model-but they are all great! The F gives you 200hp, 64 gallons, and a good amount of room as they are lengthened 10 or 12 inches from the c/d/e models. My back seats are adult comfortable and they recline! My gear is manual- easy to operate and very few maintenance headaches with them. I have same cabin as a J (probable the most haloed model), a bit slower, but plenty fast! but a far more reasonable acquisition cost. I have 1030 useful load… 4-200lb adults, and 38 gallons of fuel would give me 400 nm range… not too shabby… heck cut it to 300nm a hop and there’s room for 4 adults and some luggage… w two adults so full tanks-your bladder won’t last that long!

They certainly can be had in your price range. They can be great time builders as they will sip gas… I can fly mine at 6gph very easily, or for just a few more gallons an hour can be hauling arse. Best of both worlds. We flew it for a bit around 4.5gph but felt a bit like slow flight. But 6 would be doable to just drill holes in the sky.

Your family will be sitting inside a steel roll cage- very nice reassurance… one of the things that really persuaded me to go Mooney.

I was new to retracts and with not a ton of time in her my insurance is $2700/yr for 90k hull. I am a vfr pilot with 500 hours or so. IR now on to do list…

Her efficiency traveling could easily cover that increased insurance expense. On a recent trip w friends in a 180hp CS prop Skyhawk, we left an hour n a half behind them, passed em headed into his second fuel stop, we stopped too but were only needing to stop to pee as we were only at half tanks… I put in 30 gallons, he put in 15 putting him at 45 gallons for the same run! 45 vs 30 is significant… the mpg efficiency there is obvious but 64 gallons burning 8-10gph adds a huge time efficiency…

I was able to buy far more plane w less hours and a recent-ish (2017) overhaul than any other brand imo for her capability. They fly like dream- crazy smooth controls w pushrods vs cables…

You definitely owe it to yourself to consider…
Click to expand...
This is great information and definitely makes a Mooney jump up on my list of looksies…I know there is a trade off everywhere with HP and fuel efficiency and speed/time. This sounds like a GREAT compromise to all of it. Thanks!
 
@Huckster79 well crud…..found a decently equipped (avionics) F turbo at the right price…..that’s a good sign that they can be had for that….turbo would be nice too for that high altitude take-off roll…..
 
Andrew Cobb said:
This is great information and definitely makes a Mooney jump up on my list of looksies…I know there is a trade off everywhere with HP and fuel efficiency and speed/time. This sounds like a GREAT compromise to all of it. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Efficiency wise, you can't beat Mooneys. The Comanche will burn 12 gph going slow or 16 gph going fast. Slow and fast is about the same on a Mooney F and Comanche 250. The Comanche will give you more room, comfort, baggage space and nicer looks (although, that's highly subjective obviously - but c'mon, they put the tail fin on the wrong way on Mooneys?). I think price, maintenance, insurance they're also pretty comparable. Some mechanics don't like working on Mooneys because the engine compartment is so tight. My mechanic said it's no big deal though when I was looking at Mooneys and Comanches last spring and ultimately decided to go with the Comanche.
 
Andrew Cobb said:
Complex isn’t a necessity but not off the table either. I realize that it will push the cost up. I’m not saying $100k is a hard line but I’m not trying to go $150k or more either
Click to expand...
Thanks Andrew. You'd want to work with a real viking expert. I do know there are a few owners on the board, including @bradg33

I know a couple of folks who've owned them and find them to be fantastic traveling airplanes at a really good price if you know what you're looking for.
 
Another vote for the Comanche 250.

Near 1000lb useful load, plenty of horsepower but normally aspirated, 155kt+ TAS at under 15 gph. Key ADs should already be in compliance - just check on when the recurring ones are due. Bungees and gear upkeep are important as NTSB accident reports can attest. Otherwise - as long as you don't run tanks dry (another depressingly common accident factor) they're pretty well behaved airplanes.
 
My 250 empty is 1636, w/gross @ 2800. Only have main tanks, so I can only carry 56 gallon of fuel. Airplanes are like grandkids, yours always the best. I'm sure the rigging needs tweaked but I can plan for 150 kts. Almost always fly >8K' as it just doesn't take that long to get there. The bungees are replaced every annual, I think they are $20 each.... An you can't tear the hand brake out of my hand - no toe brakes either side, which I love - and Johnson bar flaps. :D
 
There’s a seemingly nice Comanche 250 listed on the board at my home airport -VPC. Owner has taken care of it and has simply aged out.
 
Mxfarm said:
My 250 empty is 1636, w/gross @ 2800. Only have main tanks, so I can only carry 56 gallon of fuel. Airplanes are like grandkids, yours always the best. I'm sure the rigging needs tweaked but I can plan for 150 kts. Almost always fly >8K' as it just doesn't take that long to get there. The bungees are replaced every annual, I think they are $20 each.... An you can't tear the hand brake out of my hand - no toe brakes either side, which I love - and Johnson bar flaps. :D
Click to expand...
Yep, mine is similar - a 1959 with 56gal useable, no toe brakes, manual flaps. It had flap and aeileron gap seals added in the distant path no idea if they add any airspeed. I'm seeing 180mph TAS at 65% book power above 5000' burning 12.5 - 13.0 gph which is pretty amazing. Recently climbed from sea level to 9,500' in about 6 minutes without really trying hard.
 
rangerz said:
Yep, mine is similar - a 1959 with 56gal useable, no toe brakes, manual flaps. It had flap and aeileron gap seals added in the distant path no idea if they add any airspeed. I'm seeing 180mph TAS at 65% book power above 5000' burning 12.5 - 13.0 gph which is pretty amazing. Recently climbed from sea level to 9,500' in about 6 minutes without really trying hard.
Click to expand...
Ugh... Reading these performance #'s... why couldn't they have put a 250hp engine in my Arrow :rolleyes:
 
RyanB said:
The 182 or Piper Dakota are the two best aircraft when considering an airplane that fits a wide variety of missions, at least in the certified realm.
Click to expand...

They are nice, but for 100k ish they seemed hard to find the last time I was browsing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MIFlyer said:
Thanks Andrew. You'd want to work with a real viking expert. I do know there are a few owners on the board, including @bradg33

I know a couple of folks who've owned them and find them to be fantastic traveling airplanes at a really good price if you know what you're looking for.
Click to expand...

A Super Viking is a great airplane. Lot of value for the money. Needs to live inside, little tough to pack 4 adults into it for any meaningful distance, and needs a mechanic that's either familiar with them or willing to learn (sometimes harder than finding someone who is familiar with them). But overall, decent parts and support availability, pretty simple systems, etc.
 
For $100K and what you want their is not much in that price range, 1960 to early 70 high time engines high time airframe poor interior, bad paint and poor radio's along with the other problems of low cost planes. You can't make a cheap plane as nice as you can buy a nice plane, engine overhaul, paint and radio upgrades let the previous owner suffer the loss, buy what you want not what you think you can fix it up too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top