Buddy wants to buy an airplane any ideas?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
Hello,

I don't know if you folks remember but I got someone into aviation that was a little bigger, (Wide shoulders around 250) well he turned out to be a pretty good student and now he has a ppl. He wants to buy an airplane now. He just rented a hangar today....still don't know how he pulled it off there's a waiting list where ever you go around the Tampa area.

So here is the deal. He weighs 250, His wife weighs about 185 and they have two kids that are 100ish a piece. Like myself He likes to take off with full tanks every time he makes a stop. So he is looking for an airplane to take them to Norfolk Virginia to visit the grandparents 4 times a year from Tampa Florida. His budget is 200k max. He is pretty handy with a wrench.

Any ideas?
 
That's ~625nm direct. 182 sounds like the ticket, but will probably require a fuel stop. 206/210 would also do the trick.

Otherwise perhaps a cherokee 6/lance/saratoga

A36 Bonanza.

Single engine that is. There are plenty of twins that fit this. Aztec and 310 come to mind.
 
A36 Bo.

Tampa to Norfolk is a good haul to fly 4 times a year. I hope he's looking to become IFR in the near future.
 
Saratoga. Bo is narrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mtns2Skies said:
That's ~625nm direct. 182 sounds like the ticket,
Click to expand...
Kids are going to get bigger though. If he gets a 182 now, he's going to have to upgrade.

With his budget, I'd say 210/A36/PA32 would work.

Then he just needs to sit in each one and see which one he likes.
 
gsengle said:
Saratoga. Bo is narrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
A Bo is more narrow, but if his wife sits in the back, I don't think he'd find it uncomfortable.

He just needs to sit in the different types and see what he likes.
 
Another vote for the Piper PA-32.
Apparently a low time pilot so a twin or some of the hot rod singles are not advisable imo.
 
He is going to work on IFR once he purchases. He likes the A36 because of the club seating and the cargo doors but didn't rule out the others....182, Cirrus which the wife loves..etc.
 
I've never flown a Bo but I hear bo has CG issues I'm not sure if that is true or not.
 
An A36. Some of my partners are in that weight class and they fit just fine.
 
My vote would be a PA32 Lance or Saratoga. Isn't there like 7 inches difference in cabin width between the PA32 and A36?
 
Ryanb said:
Not by much. The club seating arrangement would make up for it, especially for the kids.
Click to expand...

By quite a lot I believe. Bonanza is 42" and Saratoga is 48"... makes a big difference. And the Saratoga has club seating too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
By quite a lot I believe. Bonanza is 42" and Saratoga is 48"... makes a big difference. And the Saratoga has club seating too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, that's more than I thought. The Doctor Killer and A36 has always seemed pretty roomy to me, but then again I'm only 165lb and not very broad shouldered.
 
Yeah the Saratoga feels huge to me... when my kids get older there may be one in my future...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FloridaPilot said:
I've never flown a Bo but I hear bo has CG issues I'm not sure if that is true or not.
Click to expand...

Every airplane has CG limitations. The short body Bonanzas have a narrower range than the long fuselage A36. As long as the PIC respects the W&B design limitations of whatever airplane he/she is flying there shouldn't ever be any "issues".
 
If he has less than a couple hundred hours it would be hard to beat a 182. My personal feeling is a Bonanza is too much for a low time pilot. Stay with fixed gear for awhile and until he gets his instrument. Upgrade in 3 or 4 years if his kids get above 175 pounds each, by then he will have more hours under his belt.
 
Briar Rabbit said:
If he has less than a couple hundred hours it would be hard to beat a 182. My personal feeling is a Bonanza is too much for a low time pilot. Stay with fixed gear for awhile and until he gets his instrument. Upgrade in 3 or 4 years if his kids get above 175 pounds each, by then he will have more hours under his belt.
Click to expand...
Good advice....but I'd at least suggest getting a C210 over the 182.
 
Matthew K said:
Good advice....but I'd at least suggest getting a C210 over the 182.
Click to expand...

Depends. If he plans on doing ANY owner maintenance, the 182 is just plain and simply a hell of a lot easier to work on. That and the bent leg gear lends a complexity he just doesn't need right now. In a few years, maybe. And if so, the 182 will be easier to peddle than the 210.

Jim
 
Briar Rabbit said:
If he has less than a couple hundred hours it would be hard to beat a 182. My personal feeling is a Bonanza is too much for a low time pilot.
Click to expand...

What makes it 'too much' ? Is it difficult to fly ? Too many levers and knobs ? Afraid the tail may fall off ?
 
I would also like to throw in there, (Which I didn't mention...sorry) his last 10-15 hours he has flown a Cirrus SR22 rented from the flight school I just wonder about the retractable gear airplanes because he doesn't have much experience with it, (I believe he's flown a few hours in an arrow)
 
weilke said:
What makes it 'too much' ? Is it difficult to fly ? Too many levers and knobs ? Afraid the tail may fall off ?
Click to expand...

Accelerates too quickly in a dive, spiral divergence tendency, light on the controls... it can get away from a beginner pilot faster than say a 182..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FloridaPilot said:
I've never flown a Bo but I hear bo has CG issues I'm not sure if that is true or not.
Click to expand...
You have to watch the CG on both A36s and PA32s, but as long as you monitor the W&B, you'll be fine.

On the other hand, 210s are pretty hard to load out of CG in my experience.
 
I fly a Saratoga, and the CG range is fairly forgiving, and the older ones have very good useful load. Only time CG is an issue is with two larger people in the front, and bags in the forward baggage area, it is a nose heavy plane. Lances are even better with load, but generally a few knots slower. If you do not want the retract older Cherokee 6's can have useful loads approaching #1500, but again the trade off is speed. All Toga's have club seating, some older Cherokee 6's and Lances have row seating. All the later model PA32's (post about 1993) start to suffer from weight bloat, so you may want to avoid them.

Bo's will be faster over all PA32's by 10 to 15 knots, but as has been said have less usable load and are much narrower. For the Bo's you can get one with the tip tanks which have and STC allowing about a #200 increase in useful load also. I have not flown one, but have heard there are some fueling particulars with tip tanks, so most of that may need to go to fuel weight.
 
gsengle said:
Accelerates too quickly in a dive, spiral divergence tendency, light on the controls... it can get away from a beginner pilot faster than say a 182..
Click to expand...

That must be why Lufthansa, JAL, Sabena and the USAF used them as primary trainers.

Sure, a golf cart is easier to drive than a bicycle, that doesn't mean we should all ride golf carts. A newish pilot with little complex time is going to need 10-15hrs transition training for a Bo, plenty enough to learn that you can't let the horn go and sort your chart case in IMC.

Even without tips or turbo, a plain vanilla A36 should have the useful load and range required for his mission. They are just a great 4 person aircraft. One of the kids up front as the copilot, one forward, one backward facing in the back. If nobody wants to ride facing backwards, put only one back seat and face the middle seats forward, plenty of room for pax, bags, dog and beach equipment.
 
And it's more dangerous for a newbie pilot.... it's not just a matter of training it's a matter of experience imho


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weilke said:
That must be why Lufthansa, JAL, Sabena and the USAF used them as primary trainers...
Click to expand...

You are comparing the OP, who is still working towards a PPL, with pilot trainees who fly every day and are working towards a paid professional career in which most of them will never be without the benefit of another pilot in the cockpit. Seriously? LOL

The Bo is a fine airplane for the mission the OP has defined, no argument.
It's not a fine airplane for the OP based on the experience level he defined, for all the reasons a number of people have posted here.

Edit added: btw, the Bo that broke up in-flight over Long Island last May, after losing the vacuum system, was apparently piloted by a 4000 hr ATP. I'll bet he had lots of time in even faster and more complex airplanes. ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm 6'4" and a Bonanza is a no go. Not enough head or shoulder room.
As a new pilot there's no way he'll get insurance on a 210 that is in any way affordable or makes sense. In fact any retract 6 pass will be out of reach.

Best options: older 182, Cherokee 6 or 206.
 
Update:

So we go out airplane shopping, (I love when I do this with a buddy because I learn so much for when it's time for me to buy) So far he has it down to BO A36, Cessna 182, Cessna Cardinal 177, and Piper Dakota, (My recommended favorite). Even though he is at about 100 hours I personally want him to start with a slower more inexpensive airplane to maintain and with enough cash reserves you can buy some toys in the cabin, (Engine monitor...for me is a MUST on a single engine airplane which these two airplanes didn't have). I was easily swayed by the Cessna 177 because there is a LOT of legroom on these airplanes. The seats are made for longer legged people. The legroom in the back is plenty, probably the best I have seen so far.


20170416_084631.jpg


Now the 182 we saw was in really good shape especially for the price. I like it personally as well but with around a 400 nm range he would have to make a stop before reaching Virginia. The 182 is fast for the Cessna series.

I took the serial numbers off for various reasons



20170416_084808.jpg
 
Why is the engine covered on the Cardinal? In Florida?
 
FloridaPilot said:
Update:

So we go out airplane shopping, (I love when I do this with a buddy because I learn so much for when it's time for me to buy) So far he has it down to BO A36, Cessna 182, Cessna Cardinal 177, and Piper Dakota, (My recommended favorite). Even though he is at about 100 hours I personally want him to start with a slower more inexpensive airplane to maintain and with enough cash reserves you can buy some toys in the cabin, (Engine monitor...for me is a MUST on a single engine airplane which these two airplanes didn't have). I was easily swayed by the Cessna 177 because there is a LOT of legroom on these airplanes. The seats are made for longer legged people. The legroom in the back is plenty, probably the best I have seen so far.


View attachment 52817


Now the 182 we saw was in really good shape especially for the price. I like it personally as well but with around a 400 nm range he would have to make a stop before reaching Virginia. The 182 is fast for the Cessna series.

I took the serial numbers off for various reasons



View attachment 52818
Click to expand...

I have a fair amount of time in both the Cardianal and the Skylane (182). The weight of the passengers you have described would eliminate the Cardinal, lots of cabin room but not enough horsepower and climb performance with the 4 of them on board. The 182 should have 5 hours of fuel available and still have plenty of weight carrying capacity for the family especially at the elevations he will be flying. At 140 statute mph 4 hours is 560 miles with a 1 hour reserve. At economy cruise even more range. The 182 has a bigger fleet, more parts availability and better resale. Some folks have mentioned 210's, I own one. Early 210's were adaptions of 182's with retractable gear. They evolved considerably and are a completely different airframe from the late 60's on. I love my 210 but a 182 is a much better airplane for a low time pilot!
 
Dakota is really a nice performing fixed gear. Just a pain to get in and out of.
 
FloridaPilot said:
Update:

So we go out airplane shopping, (I love when I do this with a buddy because I learn so much for when it's time for me to buy) So far he has it down to BO A36, Cessna 182, Cessna Cardinal 177, and Piper Dakota, (My recommended favorite). Even though he is at about 100 hours I personally want him to start with a slower more inexpensive airplane to maintain and with enough cash reserves you can buy some toys in the cabin, (Engine monitor...for me is a MUST on a single engine airplane which these two airplanes didn't have). I was easily swayed by the Cessna 177 because there is a LOT of legroom on these airplanes. The seats are made for longer legged people. The legroom in the back is plenty, probably the best I have seen so far.


View attachment 52817


Now the 182 we saw was in really good shape especially for the price. I like it personally as well but with around a 400 nm range he would have to make a stop before reaching Virginia. The 182 is fast for the Cessna series.
Click to expand...

In two years, after prebuy, 6% sales tax, first annual and assorted upgrades , he'll realize that the Dakota is cramped with 4 onboard and buy the A36 or Saratoga he should have bought in the first place. This is the expensive way of going about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top