Best Plane for the Money

Theboys

Theboys

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
835
Location
Lincoln Nebraska- Plant city florida
Display Name
Display name:
Theboys
I know you guys have hashed over this many times but I would like to get a few opinion's anyway.

I am thinking of getting a plane but not sure what I should be looking for. I am looking for something in the 70,s or 80,s that will fly around 150kts plus. I would like to keep under 100,000.00. 6 seats would be nice but not a deal breaker. I would like useful load to be at least 1500 lbs. I also would like decent avionics.

A few of the ones I have been looking at are Mid 70,s Lance's and Saratogas. Possibly a beech A-36. I allways liked the two doors on the commander 114 and its not to bad. I've looked at twinkies but don't have a MEL and not sure what the insurance would be.

Anyway I thought I might get some additional input on this. I have a Commanche right now that I was thinking of moving up from but seems like its pretty hard to find any better plane for the buck.
 
Under $100k.
4 seats: IO-520/550 upgraded Bonanza, or turbo Comanche.
Since you mentioned a Commander, I am assuming the 1500# useful is for six seat planes. The TurboCommander 115 is very comfortable.
But watch out, they just came out with a tail AD that is almost impossible to fix if you fail the inspection. Some people are trying to dump them before the word gets around.

6 seats: Lance, or Turbo Lance.
If you can go up in price a bit: A-36.
Or, for 5 seats, a Cessna 195 :idea::D

Someone will be along shortly to tell you a Turbo Centurion will meet any and all mission requirements above primary training. (Louuuuu....)
 
That Tail AD would probably take the commander out of the picture. I expect parts will get hard to come by in time. I know on the commanche the tail AD on that is over 6000 to do so don't need more of those. It just seems there isn't alot in the category I am trying to work with.
 
For a 6 seater, a Lance is probably the best plane for the money and meets your mission requirements. I haven't shopped A-36s, so not sure if you can get a good one for under 100K. You will definitely get more speed, but the Lance has greater utility.

You can probably also find some older 210s out there under 100K. Again, like the Bo, you will go faster, but it is hard to beat the cabin size and club seating of the Lance.
 
I have kinda narrowed it down to the lance myself. I made offer on one today so we will see what happens with that. Guess if that doesn't work out I will keep those three open. I would be happy with any one.
 
Theboys said:
I have kinda narrowed it down to the lance myself. I made offer on one today so we will see what happens with that. Guess if that doesn't work out I will keep those three open. I would be happy with any one.
Click to expand...

Did you check the W&B to see if it has the useful load you wanted? The PA-32s get fatter and fatter the newer they are. Our '66 PA-32-260 has a 1625lb useful load. Piper started adding retractable gear, air conditioning, fancy interiors to the point that I've seen Saratogas with only 1200lb useful.
 
COFlyBoy said:
Did you check the W&B to see if it has the useful load you wanted? The PA-32s get fatter and fatter the newer they are. Our '66 PA-32-260 has a 1625lb useful load. Piper started adding retractable gear, air conditioning, fancy interiors to the point that I've seen Saratogas with only 1200lb useful.
Click to expand...
Good point, but I think he said he was looking at the 70s-80s models. CoG might be a factor, but useful load is still plenty good.
 
I'm looking at a 1978 turbo lance. All good points made on them. I would like the speed but the Cherokee six would still be a good option also if a person could find one for the right price
 
Theboys said:
I'm looking at a 1978 turbo lance. All good points made on them. I would like the speed but the Cherokee six would still be a good option also if a person could find one for the right price
Click to expand...

Know that the Turbo Lance has the most expensive mainstream engine to overhaul in the GA world (except for like the IO-720, or a turbocharged radial).
There is a VERY large speed difference between a Lance and a 6. You wanted 150kt, and that ain't happening with a 6.

If the speed isn't important, a 6 will be cheaper to own and insure. If speed does matter, then the Lance is it.
 
Theboys said:
I'm looking at a 1978 turbo lance. All good points made on them. I would like the speed but the Cherokee six would still be a good option also if a person could find one for the right price
Click to expand...

The Turbo Lance is a good airplane. On the downside, op costs will be quite a bit higher (the thing guzzles gas). Hopefully, it has a decent time engine. That's the other downside - the overhaul cost on the Turbo Lance will make you want to cry.

If you don't need the turbo, you may want to look at some non-turbo Lances. Op cost will be alot better.

C6s are good, but like you mentioned, you will lose alot of speed. 130-135 KTAS is pretty standard in the PA32-300. The one thing I don't like about some of the early models is the fuel system - 4 separate tanks with odd capacities can make it easy to run a tank dry if you are not paying attention.
 
Theboys said:
I know you guys have hashed over this many times but I would like to get a few opinion's anyway.

I am thinking of getting a plane but not sure what I should be looking for. I am looking for something in the 70,s or 80,s that will fly around 150kts plus. I would like to keep under 100,000.00. 6 seats would be nice but not a deal breaker. I would like useful load to be at least 1500 lbs. I also would like decent avionics.

A few of the ones I have been looking at are Mid 70,s Lance's and Saratogas. Possibly a beech A-36. I allways liked the two doors on the commander 114 and its not to bad. I've looked at twinkies but don't have a MEL and not sure what the insurance would be.

Anyway I thought I might get some additional input on this. I have a Commanche right now that I was thinking of moving up from but seems like its pretty hard to find any better plane for the buck.
Click to expand...

Takes a bit of umph to have speed and 1500lbs useful load... I do happen to have one for sale though with nice avionics...;)
 
Fearless Tower said:
C6s are good, but like you mentioned, you will lose alot of speed. 130-135 KTAS is pretty standard in the PA32-300. The one thing I don't like about some of the early models is the fuel system - 4 separate tanks with odd capacities can make it easy to run a tank dry if you are not paying attention.
Click to expand...

I flight plan for 130kts in the 260, and I get a little better than that. Its about the right speed for me. Fast enough that I can look smugly down at the poor schlubs on the highway and not so fast that the flight is over too soon. The whole point is to fly right? If you do it faster, you do it less. My buddy's Mooney is 25kts faster, but you can't tell when you're in it.

The plain jane PA-32s are pretty much just heavy PA-28s and the annuals are pretty cheap. Once you add a turbo and disappearing wheels, the mx costs go up, pretty significantly as noted above.
 
Beech makes some fine products that I'm always a fan of. The Turbo Lance is pretty capable, but also likes it's avgas.
 
jesse said:
The Turbo Lance is pretty capable, but also likes it's avgas.
Click to expand...

That is an understatement. It LOVES its avgas! That's why I often recommend the non-turbo if you don't need it. A PA32RT will burn more fuel per hour than a Twinkie and the Twinkie will go faster.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is an understatement. It LOVES its avgas! That's why I often recommend the non-turbo if you don't need it. A PA32RT will burn more fuel per hour than a Twinkie and the Twinkie will go faster.
Click to expand...

And there's a good chance you can overhaul BOTH engines on a Twinkie for the cost of overhauling a TIO-540.
 
PilotAlan said:
And there's a good chance you can overhaul BOTH engines on a Twinkie for the cost of overhauling a TIO-540.
Click to expand...
Exactly. At least it is pretty close. One reason I'm thinking that when my dad does pass the PA32RT on to me, I may sell it and get a twinkie.

Only trouble is....it is hard to beat that cabin on the Lance for family haulin'.
 
Henning I know you have a nice airplane for sale. Maybe someday. Although I do think it isn't a bad deal at all for someone. Okay with all the costs issue on the Lance I am now depressed. And what happens when they outlaw l00LL? Maybe I will just hang on to the commanche for a while until I can find a good match. I do like the size of the lance cabin and layout but did see your looking at 20 plus gallons per hour. Not even sure how it can eat that much.
 
- I dont think there is a Twinky with 1500lbs useful, more 1300ish.
- I consider the 3rd row seats a decorative feature only.
- The problem with buying a Twinky and getting your ME rating in it are two-fold: A. Many of the mainstream insurers dont write a PA30 for instruction so you are stuck with the specialty companies. B. There are not many DPEs out there who can do a PA30 checkride.

And yes, 'for the buck' there are going to be few planes that can beat your current ride.
 
Theboys said:
Okay with all the costs issue on the Lance I am now depressed. And what happens when they outlaw l00LL? Maybe I will just hang on to the commanche for a while until I can find a good match. I do like the size of the lance cabin and layout but did see your looking at 20 plus gallons per hour. Not even sure how it can eat that much.
Click to expand...

Don't get too depressed. The Lance is a good airplane, but the real question to ask is...how much do you really need the turbo? Are you going to be making alot of trips across the rockies? If not, the turbo is really not worth the extra cost IMHO. As you noted, cruise in the PA32RT will burn about 20 gph. A fixed gear PA32 will burn around 13-14 gph, but go about 20 kts slower. Both have exactly the same cabin and baggage layout. That is why I often suggest the non-turbo Lance. I haven't flown one myself, but I would imagine that the fuel burn and engine maintenance would be alot closer to the Cherokee 6.

Also, what kind of distances are you looking to cover? If you aren't going on alot of long hauls, the added speed of the retract may not be worth the extra expense.
 
weilke said:
- The problem with buying a Twinky and getting your ME rating in it are two-fold: A. Many of the mainstream insurers dont write a PA30 for instruction so you are stuck with the specialty companies. B. There are not many DPEs out there who can do a PA30 checkride.
Click to expand...
Agree on the insurance - it can be a ***** to get insurance in a PA30 with less than 250 hrs TT and a Multi rating.

I haven't seen a problem though with finding DPEs who can do checkrides in them. They are out there if you look. There are still flight schools that use PA30s for training.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Agree on the insurance - it can be a ***** to get insurance in a PA30 with less than 250 hrs TT and a Multi rating.
Click to expand...

The problem is not so much to get insurance for the plane, the problem is to get insurance that allows you to do primary ME instruction in the plane (IPCs etc. are not a problem). So rather than limiting oneself to those insurance companies that do, it may be worthwhile to get the ME rating at one of the ME mills before going insurance shopping.

I haven't seen a problem though with finding DPEs who can do checkrides in them. They are out there if you look. There are still flight schools that use PA30s for training.
Click to expand...
I shopped around for a while until I found a FSDO that would issue the DPE a letter of authorization without requiring an inspector ride. The problem was that the FAA region didn't have an inspector who could give the ride to the DPE or me for that matter. There is some expiration on the authorizations if you dont do X number of checkrides in Y number of years.
 
I am was figuring on about 1050 mile trip each way around 10 to 15 times per year so thought the speed would be nice on a lance. I would probably double that figure easily actually. I have seen the figures on a non turbo lance and agree that might be a better way to go.

Without looking it up I was thinking the non turbo is about 30 kts slower and the 6 is about 20 kts slower than that. I'm kinda suprised that there aren't more airplanes in this category to fit the ticket. I have been interested in the Twinkie but as was said they really are a 4 place airplane. They sound like a lot of fun though!
 
Theboys said:
Henning I know you have a nice airplane for sale. Maybe someday. Although I do think it isn't a bad deal at all for someone. Okay with all the costs issue on the Lance I am now depressed. And what happens when they outlaw l00LL? Maybe I will just hang on to the commanche for a while until I can find a good match. I do like the size of the lance cabin and layout but did see your looking at 20 plus gallons per hour. Not even sure how it can eat that much.
Click to expand...

Fly a Lance LOP at 155 and you'll burn 14.5gph.
 
Theboys said:
I am was figuring on about 1050 mile trip each way around 10 to 15 times per year so thought the speed would be nice on a lance. I would probably double that figure easily actually. I have seen the figures on a non turbo lance and agree that might be a better way to go.

Without looking it up I was thinking the non turbo is about 30 kts slower and the 6 is about 20 kts slower than that. I'm kinda suprised that there aren't more airplanes in this category to fit the ticket. I have been interested in the Twinkie but as was said they really are a 4 place airplane. They sound like a lot of fun though!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you will definitely want the speed.

Not sure about your speed estimates though. A PA32RT isn't a super fast cruiser - you'll be in the 150-160 KTAS range. A PA32 will run 130-135 KTAS. I haven't flown a 32R, but I would imagine it will cruise alot closer to the 32RT than the straight 32.
 
Theboys said:
Okay with all the costs issue on the Lance I am now depressed.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't the Lance, it's the TURBO Lance you said you were looking at.
The Turbo and standard Lance are worlds apart in terms of costs.
 
I'm amazed no one has chimed in on the 210/T210.
My knowledge of them is limited, but they're big, fast, and long-legged birds.
 
PilotAlan said:
I'm amazed no one has chimed in on the 210/T210.
My knowledge of them is limited, but they're big, fast, and long-legged birds.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did mention the 210 in my original reply. They are good airplanes. Faster than the Lance, but the Lance has alot more room/baggage capacity.

Also, to get a good one, the acquisition cost is going to be more than the PA32s.
 
Theboys said:
I know you guys have hashed over this many times but I would like to get a few opinion's anyway.

I am thinking of getting a plane but not sure what I should be looking for. I am looking for something in the 70,s or 80,s that will fly around 150kts plus. I would like to keep under 100,000.00.

<snip>

Anyway I thought I might get some additional input on this. I have a Comanche right now that I was thinking of moving up from but seems like its pretty hard to find any better plane for the buck.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a reason for that. When I first read the subject line, my first thought was "Comanche." You're already in one of the best bang-for-the-buck birds there is, and unless there's a really serious limitation on your mission requirements with the Comanche, I doubt there's another bird that will do things so much better than the Comanche for a price in the same ballpark that it'd be worth switching.

The grass really isn't necessarily greener on the other side... Well, it's not grass on the other side, it's piles of money. :rofl:
 
Okay you got me laughing on that one! I was thinking lance as I would like a little newer plane and the extra room and capacity. The 210 I think would be comparable to the comanche, but, as I have never been around one maybe not. I think the non turbo would probably be the way to go and I'm not in terrible hurry so guess I can look around until I find one. One reason I was thinking of moving is the cost of avionics. I think it might be cheaper to find lance with 430 or 530 and all the goodies, set up cheaper than to put them in comanche and still have older plane worth about the same.

You know as far as money, I have found that about everything I seem to do takes stacks of it. I bought a shortsale house last year and found that when you do that you just turn your wallet upside down and shake.
 
Theboys said:
Okay you got me laughing on that one! I was thinking lance as I would like a little newer plane and the extra room and capacity. The 210 I think would be comparable to the comanche, but, as I have never been around one maybe not. I think the non turbo would probably be the way to go and I'm not in terrible hurry so guess I can look around until I find one. One reason I was thinking of moving is the cost of avionics. I think it might be cheaper to find lance with 430 or 530 and all the goodies, set up cheaper than to put them in comanche and still have older plane worth about the same.

You know as far as money, I have found that about everything I seem to do takes stacks of it. I bought a shortsale house last year and found that when you do that you just turn your wallet upside down and shake.
Click to expand...

Or buy a different Comanche. 430w/530w + tip tanks + a nice autopilot and it would be a hell of a traveling machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top