Buddy wants to buy an airplane any ideas?
- Thread starter FloridaPilot
- Start date
So you can assess the aptitude of the OPs buddy relative to that of a KAL or JAL cadet from an Internet post. Seriously? LOL
Then he should buy one.
I know a number of old geezers who bought exactly one plane in their aviation career, usually right after they got their private. You went to the dealer, picked out your color plane, paid and flew it away after the demo pilot showed you how to suck up the gear. They are all still alive, apparently they managed to dodge that evil spiral dive that the Bo immediately flips into once you divert your attention for a second.
Which mostly amount to not more than prejudice.
The risk in ownership of a capable aircraft is mostly in the lack of judgement to keep you from flying yourself into situations beyond your skill. That's what the dad in the 210 that came apart in Alabama last week apparently did and what so many have done before him. You can be a weather chicken in a A36 just the same as in a 182.
It sounds like he has about 100hrs with some high performance and some complex experience. I would suggest that whatever he buys, he spend a couple of hours on VFR transition training immediately followed by an accelerated IR course. When I got into the Bo, the options by the insurance company were for 10, 15 and 25hr transition training, each of them with a price attached. If he opts for the immediate transition to the IR, he can can go for the cheaper insurance and extract double value out of his instrument lessons. Go some places, fly into some weather with the instructor on board, learn to fly trips 'in the system' beyond just grinding approaches at the DPEs favorite airport. He'll be a better pilot for it compared with bopping around in a 'safe' Dakota for two years.
Stuffing 250lbs in the front seat of a PA28 doesn't sound like fun. I am 6'3" and 210 and it gets borderline. I know, it can carry 4 adults and a chevy smallblock, but after 5hr trip cramped into a PA28 the wife will insist on airline tickets for herself next time. My wife otoh stretches out her legs on the opposing seat and passes out before we hit cruise. She wakes up when he hit the bumps on the approach. Life is too short for cramped planes.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
And some of em are not alive. Who said PA28? I believe PA32 was the discussion both because it was bigger than the bo (much wider) and a more stable machine since the OP is low time and intending IMC flight....
He can make up his own mind and we are all free to give our reasoned opinions for *his* evaluation....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He can make up his own mind and we are all free to give our reasoned opinions for *his* evaluation....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 9,306
- Display Name
Display name:
Aztec Flyer
Silly me. How could I have possibly forgotten only a select few on this forum, including you, are capable of assessing a student pilot's aptitude (as well as experience and skill) and make unquestioningly valid recommendations.
I wish the OP's buddy every success in completing his PPL and agree with you completely...he should disregard everything else and follow what you advised in the rest of your post.
JohnAJohnson
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,323
- Location
- Orange Beach, AL
- Display Name
Display name:
JohnAJohnson
I'd take a look at the Cardinal again if your friend was impressed with the roominess. My 177B is fairly heavy and it will take 250/180 in the front, 100/100 in the back, 100 pounds in the cargo compartment and 30 gallons of gas. That's two hours at 75%, and one hour reserve. Really not adequate for the mission but doable. Instead, for $200k I'd be looking for a 177RG with a couple hundred more pounds carrying capacity, and with a turbo, its 175 knot cruise. He should be able to find a super nice 177RG for well under 100k, and I'm not sure how much a turbo model would be if he can find one, but I'm sure it would be well under his budget.
ktup-flyer
En-Route
Never flown a PA-28, but it isn't in a 172. I'm 5'11 260 and my CFI is around 5'11 230.
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Again unless I missed something no one was recommending a PA-28, lots of people were recommending various PA-32s. Very different...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ktup-flyer
En-Route
That's obvious. Anybody that can climb into a PA-32 can fit in it. I fit fine in a 182, and it's the same width as an A-36
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
With that budget I'd go Lance. Preferably turbo.
Mtns2Skies
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 5,631
- Display Name
Display name:
Mtns2Skies
Last edited:
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle
Yeah, but I wouldnt be able to get over the stupid looking cowling lol:
That's most of why they are so cheap! :-o
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rykymus
Line Up and Wait
I'm 6' and 250# and I fit in my Archer okay. (PA28) I wouldn't call it comfortable, but it works. Luckily my wife is 5'6" and 130#. She usually reclines slightly. But for a family of 4, I'd go bigger.
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,734
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
As a wannabe pilot, I've been practicing W&B today for our 182P 
For the OP, if he and his wife hop in the front, kids in back, 50lbs of stuff in the baggage area and 75gals and they are within 60lbs of MTOW. Now, if the combined weight of the kids is now 300lbs, then they are 38lbs ABOVE MTOW and outside the CG. If they fly with 68 gallons they are within 3lbs of MTOW and right on (but in) the CG envelope. I'm sure the engineers have a few more pounds of safety margin but I sure wouldn't do it. Now, giving up the 50lbs of luggage would help a lot but between tools, oil, etc and whatever they are carrying this would not be fun. So they could run at 60 gallons and have over 50lbs to spare and still in the CG (now near the top and moving closer to the right edge - getting more tail heavy).
Off the throttle a bit and leaned out you're still gonna be in the 10+ gallons per hour so leaving 1hr of fuel for safety, that would give 50 gallons for the trip and 4hrs+ flight time. Probably better to cruise faster at 12gal/hr and spend less time in the plane. A 182 is roomy but 2 adults and 2 older children will want a stop within 4hrs.
When selecting a plane for a family (of 3), we loved the roominess of the Cardinal and the large doors and even the look. But the useful load of the later 'B' models was not enough to warrant the price saved. The 182 isn't pretty, but definitely practical.
For the OP, if he and his wife hop in the front, kids in back, 50lbs of stuff in the baggage area and 75gals and they are within 60lbs of MTOW. Now, if the combined weight of the kids is now 300lbs, then they are 38lbs ABOVE MTOW and outside the CG. If they fly with 68 gallons they are within 3lbs of MTOW and right on (but in) the CG envelope. I'm sure the engineers have a few more pounds of safety margin but I sure wouldn't do it. Now, giving up the 50lbs of luggage would help a lot but between tools, oil, etc and whatever they are carrying this would not be fun. So they could run at 60 gallons and have over 50lbs to spare and still in the CG (now near the top and moving closer to the right edge - getting more tail heavy).
Off the throttle a bit and leaned out you're still gonna be in the 10+ gallons per hour so leaving 1hr of fuel for safety, that would give 50 gallons for the trip and 4hrs+ flight time. Probably better to cruise faster at 12gal/hr and spend less time in the plane. A 182 is roomy but 2 adults and 2 older children will want a stop within 4hrs.
When selecting a plane for a family (of 3), we loved the roominess of the Cardinal and the large doors and even the look. But the useful load of the later 'B' models was not enough to warrant the price saved. The 182 isn't pretty, but definitely practical.
Glen R
Pre-takeoff checklist
If I remember correctly the rear seat legroom in the Dakota is atrocious. 4 hour trip? Good luck.
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
He'll want a door on each side with a group that big. And those kids are only going to be 100 pounds until the next meal, and they are going to want to bring their golf clubs with them. He needs a big plane or needs to learn how to leave some fuel behind.
182 CG issues with two heavy in the front isn't as big of an issue as some make it out to be. Stick the max amount of your luggage in the back of the luggage compartment, don't have luggage? put a case of water bottles back there. CG instantly better.
At 625 miles, it may make sense to go with a 182RG over the 182, Its the difference between 4 hours and 4.5 hours which with 4 people makes a huge difference. Both planes have about 800 pounds full fuel payload and can make the leg nonstop at full forward speed. If he is serious about going all the way to 200k, a 210 is a good option too. But that may be something to consider at a later date when the kids are bigger.
182 with a 300HP engine is an option too.
182 CG issues with two heavy in the front isn't as big of an issue as some make it out to be. Stick the max amount of your luggage in the back of the luggage compartment, don't have luggage? put a case of water bottles back there. CG instantly better.
At 625 miles, it may make sense to go with a 182RG over the 182, Its the difference between 4 hours and 4.5 hours which with 4 people makes a huge difference. Both planes have about 800 pounds full fuel payload and can make the leg nonstop at full forward speed. If he is serious about going all the way to 200k, a 210 is a good option too. But that may be something to consider at a later date when the kids are bigger.
182 with a 300HP engine is an option too.
Last edited:
The Dakota isn"t bad. No different from an Archer. Early 235s are cramped in the back.
Dakota has been suggested. That's a pa28.
All 235s are cramped in the back. The ones with a longer fuselage are the PA28-236's. And the extra length shows up mostly in the back seat legroom. Same as the PA28-180 Cherokee and the PA28-181 Archer. -Skip
Sinistar
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2016
- Messages
- 3,734
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad
Owning a 182, strongly agree!
This seems like the ultimate 182 setup, especially if you purposely don't want retractable gear. When our engine is run out, hopefully this is still an option. IIRC, there was a great article about this conversion in the recent Cessna owner's mag, the extra power and cruise speed were impressive for a fixed gear configuration. And I never realized that he went back Continental instead of the bigger Lycoming.
Radar Contact
Pattern Altitude
Show me as another for the Saratoga. Gives him options of older or newer and retract or fixed.
I'm not sure about the take off with full tanks comment though. When people move away from training planes that typically comes to an end. Most advanced planes have large tanks to allow the pilot to play with useful load as needed.
drotto
Cleared for Takeoff
The toga holds 102 gallons useful and burns 14 to 16 GPH. So that is 6 hrs with reserves. It come with a really useful site glass on each wing that indicates the 35 gallon mark (the tanks system does not allow for tabs or dipsticks). So for most missions you carry 70 gallons, which is 4 hrs with reserves. With that much fuel, you can get about 900 lbs in the cabin for most planes.
At max gross the plane is with OK taking off, mainly because it feels and handles like a heavy plane regardless. It rotates reliably at about 70, but at max takes a bit to get there. Will climb out comfortably 95 to 100. In the non turbo versions density altitude can become an issue. I have only personally flown the low lands.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Rcmutz
Cleared for Takeoff
I am surprised everyone is saying a Bo is narrow. I am 5-11 and 210 lbs. flew with a buddy on a long cross country, albeit he is smaller than me, and I thought there was plenty of shoulder room up front. Especially with the arm rest between the front seats pulled up.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
It depends a bit on your perspective and what you have to compare it with. Yes, two adults will fit side by side in a Bo or Baron. If that is all you know, you would probably think it's fine/normal.
Now go sit in the front of a PA32 and tell me the Bo isn't noticeably narrower.
No doubt, the PA32 is wider. One of the benefits of the wide cabin is that someone who is flexible can climb from the back into the front seat and reverse or get through the gap in the middle row seats. You are paying for it with higher drag.
Another very useful feature on the PA32 is the nose baggage compartment. Depending on W&B, this can be a good place for bulky items like tents or sleeping bags. It does get a bit toasty there, so its not the place you want to use to transport fresh fish.
FloridaPilot
Pattern Altitude
I just wanted to update you guys. He purchased a Beechcraft Bonanza F33A. He is going to show it to me next Saturday, I'm going to meet up with him in Cedar Key, excited to see it!
drotto
Cleared for Takeoff
Nice. I really want to fly one of those.
danhagan
En-Route
Man! You guys pushing the fuel and endurance envelope. My fuel flow is within .3 of a gallon in accuracy, and often indicates near 6 hour endurance when in cruise, leaned and dialed back a little. I had an airline pilot trying to sell me his Tiger with an additional tank in the cargo area that cranked his up to 10 hours. Does anyone REALLY want to be on board without a bathroom for any length of time above 4 hours?
drotto
Cleared for Takeoff
I personally never plan on any leg being longer than 3 to 3 1/2 hrs. That is my bladder limit, and if I have passengers I am not peeing into a bottle.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
gsengle
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- May 9, 2016
- Messages
- 2,099
- Display Name
Display name:
Gsengle