Buying first plane or the 2nd plane?

Best first and kinda 2nd forever plane

  • Total voters
    71
Ben Anderson said:
Do you think you could pull the power back far enough to get down to 10 GPH from 14 GPH? I wouldn't mind slowing it down for my time building when i needed to go slow.
Click to expand...

Sure! Go up to about 13,500. The Comanche has a great wing and is really happy up where it is cool and smooth and above the granite.

I found a picture of the Comanche wing spar structure.Comanche Spar.jpg
 
ktup-flyer said:
You can always pull the power back to Comanche 180 speeds and fuel burn if you are just up playing around
Click to expand...

Actually, you can get close, but not quite get the same efficiency as the 250 is heavier and the 260 heavier yet. However, the difference is not too great. The big difference is cost of acquisition and cost of engine overhaul.
 
Kristin said:
Actually, you can get close, but not quite get the same efficiency as the 250 is heavier and the 260 heavier yet. However, the difference is not too great. The big difference is cost of acquisition and cost of engine overhaul.
Click to expand...
How much would it add at overhaul? The IO 360 is like around $25k? so these maybe $5k more?
 
Kristin said:
Actually, you can get close, but not quite get the same efficiency as the 250 is heavier and the 260 heavier yet. However, the difference is not too great. The big difference is cost of acquisition and cost of engine overhaul.
Click to expand...
Close enough to make the extra capabilities of the 250/260 worth it. I much prefer a 6 cyl over a 4 cyl
 
Whatever you do, get something that has some romance to it (whatever that may be - for some that means a 150). I used to live in a marina next to a dentist who lived on an exquisitely appointed sailing yacht...but he never took it sailing - he preferred ripping along in a cheap little hobie catamaran. And don’t be afraid of a challenge with a Moon, Bo, Gru, or whatever...building time and ifr is wickedly easy in a high wing, but that won’t prep you much for higher performance aircraft.
 
Ben Anderson said:
I think $50/60k is kinda on the low end for some of these...but I think it can be done. A Garmin 430 WAAS will be enough for the time being. Plus Garmin has that new cheaper option like 330? Basically a waas GPS with no comms thru it. I think could be installed for around $8k. So spend #50k on plane and 8 for the GPS and I'm still okay. I am trying to do this with full cash payment instead of a loan so if I really need to I can borrow $20k or something to make the right plane work.
I definitely found some vintage Mooney M20s in the price range that appear mostly ready to fly and in good condition. The 182 would be harder for sure. The beech sundowners are in the 40s mostly. Grumman Tigers are tougher at that price too. Travelers and Cheetahs you can find though.
Click to expand...
Prices have started to come down. I kicked around the idea of picking this one up.

http://www.lvaircraft.com/cgi-bin/w...419600111&U=|~|&C=0000000000JT&L=00000000E6VX
 
Ben Anderson said:
Nice panel on that one with the 530 (non waas), and nice leather seats. Do they tell you the pricing on the website? I didn't see it.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

I've always bought planes at a 10% or more discount on sale price, so most times if you offer a seller that in cash you'll be walking out with keys.
 
Kristin said:
There is no question that the Comanche series is structurally stronger than the Cherokees.
Click to expand...

There's probably no better demonstration of this than Max Conrad's 1959 flight from Casablanca to Los Angeles, a distance of 7,668 nm. He took off in his Comanche 250, with its 2800-pound "maximum" gross weight, at an actual gross weight of 5,000 pounds (179% of "max"), with 520 gallons of fuel on board, nearly nine times the stock Comanche's fuel capacity of 60 gallons. (ref: Flying magazine, Oct. 1959.)

Ben Anderson said:
Do you think you could pull the power back far enough to get down to 10 GPH from 14 GPH? I wouldn't mind slowing it down for my time building when i needed to go slow.
Click to expand...

Sure.

For example, since there's not really anywhere to go when flying these days, I decided to keep things more interesting by doing some tests with my Mooney M20R yesterday. Normal cruise for me is 170 knots at 12.2 gph, at 65% power, lean of peak on my fuel-injected, 280hp Continental IO-550. Fuel injection is an important ingredient to running lean of peak, and lean of peak is important to getting fuel flow that low, which is why it's developing more power at lower fuel flow than the Lycosaur O-540 from the Comanche.

I verified my speed with a four-course box and then I stabilized it at a couple of lower power settings:

At 12.1 gph, I got 170 KTAS.
At 9.5 gph, I got 150 KTAS.
At 7.9 gph, I got 137 KTAS.

I got the flow down to 7.1 gph at 14" MP and 2300 RPM, but while it seemed to initially stabilize at around 110 KIAS, over the course of 5-10 minutes it continued to pitch up (autopilot was in altitude hold mode in smooth air to keep things as stable as possible for the test), and at around 100 KIAS the prop hit the flat stop and the RPM started to drop slightly, which resulted in the power decreasing further and the pitch-up accelerating, so I was ever so slightly behind the power curve at that point. Fuel flow dropped to 6.9 gph by the time I increased power to try for a speed that would remain stable.

But, that shows you that it's easily possible to knock 1/3 of the fuel consumption out, so you should be able to get 10 gph on the Comanche 250. You'll get better mpg as well - For me to get another 10 knots of speed above my normal power setting, it costs me another 5 gph. That top end speed/power setting is very costly, and you can get some pretty significant reductions in fuel flow for relatively minor loss of speed.
 
Last edited:
Couple points: Take a random sample of expenses of ownership and I believe you’ll find fuel is WAY down the list, much less significant than hangar, insurance, and in some cases maintenance. Grumman Tigers, Cheetahs are simple, efficient and fun to fly, and the Tiger will probably give the 180hp Comanche a run for the money. I love 250/260 Comanches, though. They burn some gas, but you can load it to the gunnels and fly it to Utah at 180mph. Poster above says 170kts, but thats with an engine that never came in a Comanche. Same engine in a Bonanza (well north of your budget) will give 182kts. You could buy a very old Bonanza, something from the 1950s, and there are some nice ones out there, but you’d have to be very proactive with maintenance-ditto for all these old machines. Opinions vary but I think the Beech products are nicer flying airplanes, silky controls, speedy for hp, and easy to land, though I prefer the PA-24 in turbulence. Mooneys are well constructed and efficient, but after the Bonanza they feel like a truck. You haven’t mentioned the Bellanca Viking, if you like the Tiger, the Viking feels like a Ferrari. Cessna 182s are durable, roomy, ubiquitous, well known by mechanics, but to me, as desirable as a minivan. Once you’ve narrowed it down to a couple models look into owner support and type clubs,...oh and good luck!
 
I have a 172N with 180 hp. I love the load capacity (1100+ lbs), and it has decent speed (115-120 knots). I think the range will a little short for what you're looking for.
 
@pnancoz what STC gave you a useful load increase and which country? Throw in a sportsman and/or RSTOL and you'd have the perfect solo Sunday flyer.
 
wheaties said:
@pnancoz what STC gave you a useful load increase and which country? Throw in a sportsman and/or RSTOL and you'd have the perfect solo Sunday flyer.
Click to expand...

asicer said:
I'm guessing that it's the STC that limits a 172 to 30 degrees of flaps and USA.
Click to expand...

Correct. Air Plains STC. Increased max gross to 2,550 lbs. Empty weight is 1,445, I only have 40 gallons of fuel leaving me with 865 lbs. full fuel load. Not bad for a Skyhawk.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Couple points: Take a random sample of expenses of ownership and I believe you’ll find fuel is WAY down the list, much less significant than hangar, insurance, and in some cases maintenance.
Click to expand...

If your fuel costs less than your hangar, you're not flying enough. ;) My hangar only costs about 4 1/2 hours worth of fuel per month. My insurance costs a little less than the hangar. Maintenance costs a little more than insurance and hangar combined.

Fuel is certainly a minority of the total expenses unless you fly a LOT, but it is the largest single expense unless you don't fly enough to really justify ownership.
 
Yeah, well, in my neck of the woods a standard Tee is $412mo. I own 3 airplanes and, until recently flew professionally. Now that I’m retired I’m under what feels like house arrest, so you’re probably right, not flying enough. That said, just finished the annual on the Bonanza (‘68 V35A). Installed 4 new back windows, had the flap motor overhauled, replaced a couple of burned exhaust pieces, and the stall warning switch. About $8500. Roughly equal to fuel for 140hrs.@12gph.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If your fuel costs less than your hangar, you're not flying enough.
Click to expand...
T hangars by me cost $800/m at my airport and there's a "3 year" wait list. I can assure you that's true cause I've been on it for 2 years and I still have 3 years to go...

That's atypical costs for most hanagrs in the USA but doesn't invalidate the claim of not flying enough! It's only 13hr/m to equal it or ~150hr/yr.
 
wheaties said:
T hangars by me cost $800/m at my airport and there's a "3 year" wait list. I can assure you that's true cause I've been on it for 2 years and I still have 3 years to go...

That's atypical costs for most hanagrs in the USA but doesn't invalidate the claim of not flying enough! It's only 13hr/m to equal it or ~150hr/yr.
Click to expand...

I knew there would be exceptions, but $800/mo?!? :hairraise:

Jeez, at one local airport here (KMWC, towered, LPV, 3200 & 4100 foot runways) you can get a hangar big enough for a TBM or MU-2 for $290/mo plus tax.
 
Ben Anderson said:
What sort of range can you get off the AA1B? Like for 2 do you have to fill less fuel? How much range with 2 adults in that situation?
Click to expand...

Ben,

I owned an AA1-B with the )-235 and it was my first plane. I owned it for about 5 months and while it was alot of fun it was almost immediately that I regretted buying it. There was nothing particularly wrong with the plane except it was lethargic in the climb....like severely lethargic...especially in the summer. I live in Southern California and there are quite a few mountains to fly over and around and this plane simply did not have the legs to do so. Climb rates were maybe 600 fpm at sea level and got less and less for there.

There were quite a few times that I would be transitioning an airspace and the ATC would tell me to be at or above a certain altitude and I would have to respond with unable because the O-235 just did not like to climb. I did fly her up to 9,500 ft one time and it took me about 45 minutes. When I got above about 8k she was climbing at about 50 fpm and and slight back pressure would cause the stall warning to sound.

She cruised at about 100 to 105 possibly 100 kts

Flying with the cockpit half open was great, she also handled amazing ans sipped gas like no other but I have since moved up to a Comanche 180 and have never looked back.
 
jd21476 said:
Ben,

I owned an AA1-B with the )-235 and it was my first plane. I owned it for about 5 months and while it was alot of fun it was almost immediately that I regretted buying it. There was nothing particularly wrong with the plane except it was lethargic in the climb....like severely lethargic...especially in the summer. I live in Southern California and there are quite a few mountains to fly over and around and this plane simply did not have the legs to do so. Climb rates were maybe 600 fpm at sea level and got less and less for there.

There were quite a few times that I would be transitioning an airspace and the ATC would tell me to be at or above a certain altitude and I would have to respond with unable because the O-235 just did not like to climb. I did fly her up to 9,500 ft one time and it took me about 45 minutes. When I got above about 8k she was climbing at about 50 fpm and and slight back pressure would cause the stall warning to sound.

She cruised at about 100 to 105 possibly 100 kts

Flying with the cockpit half open was great, she also handled amazing ans sipped gas like no other but I have since moved up to a Comanche 180 and have never looked back.
Click to expand...

Ouch-should get one with the engine STC.

Bet this one climbs like a rocket ship. 180hp

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1532875-Unique-180-HP-Grumman-AA1-B.html

Or steal this one with a low time 135hp

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1482440-Grumman-AA1-A.html
 
Last edited:
I agree that the STC is probably the way to go with the AA1 but I have never flown one with bigger motor although I bet they are fun.
 
I’ve owned a lot of the planes talked about here. Of them all the Aa1-c with 150hp stc was the only one I really didn’t care for. It did have some good traits though. Commanche was a good plane overall. Pretty fast and flew nice. Not super expensive to insure or maintain. Beech Sierra was really roomy and comfortable. Used quite a bit of fuel for speed. Had a few bird strikes from behind. LoL. For me the Cessna products were the best. The high wing keeps things cool. Room to park under wing in hanger. Good view to ground when flying. Roomy inside and people are usually comfortable. I fly a 210 now with a ram engine stc. Plenty of power and speed. Loved my malibu but the 43 ft wings made hangers expensive. Most expensive plane I owned as far as maintenance was a columbia. I recommend the 182 Cessna for you.
 
Theboys said:
I’ve owned a lot of the planes talked about here. Of them all the Aa1-c with 150hp stc was the only one I really didn’t care for. It did have some good traits though. Commanche was a good plane overall. Pretty fast and flew nice. Not super expensive to insure or maintain. Beech Sierra was really roomy and comfortable. Used quite a bit of fuel for speed. Had a few bird strikes from behind. LoL. For me the Cessna products were the best. The high wing keeps things cool. Room to park under wing in hanger. Good view to ground when flying. Roomy inside and people are usually comfortable. I fly a 210 now with a ram engine stc. Plenty of power and speed. Loved my malibu but the 43 ft wings made hangers expensive. Most expensive plane I owned as far as maintenance was a columbia. I recommend the 182 Cessna for you.
Click to expand...

Really interested in picking up a D, E, or F 210 next year. We have property in the high country and need a hauler that can handle LXV and AEJ, so the high ceiling of NA 210s is appealing. I’m not convinced a Lance could cut it, and the higher fuel burn would add up really fast. Think a loaded NA 210 could handle the DA there?
 
GrummanBear said:
Really interested in picking up a D, E, or F 210 next year. We have property in the high country and need a hauler that can handle LXV and AEJ, so the high ceiling of NA 210s is appealing. I’m not convinced a Lance could cut it, and the higher fuel burn would add up really fast. Think a loaded NA 210 could handle the DA there?
Click to expand...

I've taken off from KLXV with a DA of 12,200 feet in a NA 182. Ground roll was 2000 feet going downhill with a slight tailwind (4-5 knots or so), but there's plenty of runway up there.
 
wheaties said:
T hangars by me cost $800/m at my airport and there's a "3 year" wait list. I can assure you that's true cause I've been on it for 2 years and I still have 3 years to go...

That's atypical costs for most hanagrs in the USA but doesn't invalidate the claim of not flying enough! It's only 13hr/m to equal it or ~150hr/yr.
Click to expand...

Flying out of KCDW by any chance?
 
Just to give a different POV:
IF... you're primary purpose is to build hours
and, you're mostly going to be flying solo.

Consider an LSA,
-Yes, you're only flying 120 kts, but at less than 4 gph. Mogas. Slower means more hours, right.
-Up front cost may be higher, but if you get the right plane it can hold it's value. I flew mine 1,500 hrs and sold it 5 years later for $20,000 more than I bought it for.
-If you're comfortable wrenching, as you say, you can get an LSRM-A (equivalent of A&P, IA for Light Sport) in two weeks. Pay nothing for annuals or maintenance.
-Don't know if you want a parachute, but I liked having it, plus most LSA's have modern glass, (mine was Garmin G3X, GTN)
-You can get all your ratings in it, I sold mine to a Pilot Academy which is using it now to make ATPs.
-Cheap insurance.
-Way more shoulder room than a 172, Tiger, or Mooney.

You'll have to rent a larger plane to take all three of you, but you'd save so much on fuel in the LSA, you'd likely be way ahead.

I wish I'd kept my LSA a little longer, Commercial Rating was more difficult in the Lancair.

Only downside is you'll have to be secure enough in your masculinity to say "Light Sport" on the radio when landing Teterboro.
 
Ben Anderson said:
The AA1A or B is super tempting for time building but I flew one once and the stall characteristics were a little interesting and then I saw some info about how they tend to try to spin? Plus I think the useful load is kinda light for wife and I and baby. But for time building I like the spend $30k to 1500 hrs lol would save some time from having to instruct for a long time.
Click to expand...

I learned in AA1s. They handle well and climb slowly. They are not family planes, I'm not sure you would want one for a cross country mount if you were carrying two, and there's no room for baby. The original design, the Yankee, is reputed to have a sharp stall break, I've never flown one. None of them are approved for spins, but I don't recall them being spin prone either. The AA5s are my favorite to fly. If it's just going to be the three of you, a 150 hp one (Traveler, Cheetah) would be fine. If you're ever going to fill that last seat, I'd want 180 hp, whether in a Grumman, Piper, Cessna, or anything else.

Looking at your budget, I think you're going to have a hard time finding much with 180 hp. You can find a Mooney from the 60's, or a PA-28-180 from that same era, and possibly a Comanche. You may find a 180 hp Cardinal as well. There are also a handful of Cessna 175s still flying, some of which have had their geared engines removed and replaced with an 0-360, and they'd be in your price range as well.
 
Cogito said:
-Way more shoulder room than a 172, Tiger, or Mooney.
Click to expand...
Maybe more shoulder room in an LSA, but the headroom is absent. Not only I'm going to crack my skull upon the spar in the crash, but I'm completely blind to the sides. It's like flying under the hood. Look where my eyes are and where the side window ends.

gx.jpg
 
zaitcev said:
Maybe more shoulder room in an LSA, but the headroom is absent. Not only I'm going to crack my skull upon the spar in the crash, but I'm completely blind to the sides. It's like flying under the hood. Look where my eyes are and where the side window ends.

View attachment 85089
Click to expand...
I agree, that looks dangerous, what kind of LSA is that? Obviously, I wasn't talking about any cranium crushing type of LSA.
 
GrummanBear said:
Really interested in picking up a D, E, or F 210 next year. We have property in the high country and need a hauler that can handle LXV and AEJ, so the high ceiling of NA 210s is appealing. I’m not convinced a Lance could cut it, and the higher fuel burn would add up really fast. Think a loaded NA 210 could handle the DA there?
Click to expand...

I bought a 210f and really like it. Don’t need much runway to takeoff or land and with ram engine stc climbs about 2000ft p min
 
zaitcev said:
Maybe more shoulder room in an LSA, but the headroom is absent. Not only I'm going to crack my skull upon the spar in the crash, but I'm completely blind to the sides. It's like flying under the hood. Look where my eyes are and where the side window ends.

View attachment 85089
Click to expand...

Maybe just cut a notch in the spar to make room for your head!
 
Cogito said:
Just to give a different POV:
IF... you're primary purpose is to build hours
and, you're mostly going to be flying solo.

Consider an LSA,
-Yes, you're only flying 120 kts, but at less than 4 gph. Mogas. Slower means more hours, right.
-Up front cost may be higher, but if you get the right plane it can hold it's value. I flew mine 1,500 hrs and sold it 5 years later for $20,000 more than I bought it for.
-If you're comfortable wrenching, as you say, you can get an LSRM-A (equivalent of A&P, IA for Light Sport) in two weeks. Pay nothing for annuals or maintenance.
-Don't know if you want a parachute, but I liked having it, plus most LSA's have modern glass, (mine was Garmin G3X, GTN)
-You can get all your ratings in it, I sold mine to a Pilot Academy which is using it now to make ATPs.
-Cheap insurance.
-Way more shoulder room than a 172, Tiger, or Mooney.

You'll have to rent a larger plane to take all three of you, but you'd save so much on fuel in the LSA, you'd likely be way ahead.

I wish I'd kept my LSA a little longer, Commercial Rating was more difficult in the Lancair.

Only downside is you'll have to be secure enough in your masculinity to say "Light Sport" on the radio when landing Teterboro.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of getting my own LSA mechanic licensing and doing all the work myself. However, how do people complete training in these? Are there some that can fit an instructor and myself? I looked at the useful load on the Cessna Skycatchers and I can't carry an instructor in it with me! I think the C150s at the flight school have a greater useful load. Are there any LSA's that would be better of dual time?
 
Ben Anderson said:
I like the idea of getting my own LSA mechanic licensing and doing all the work myself. However, how do people complete training in these? Are there some that can fit an instructor and myself? I looked at the useful load on the Cessna Skycatchers and I can't carry an instructor in it with me! I think the C150s at the flight school have a greater useful load. Are there any LSA's that would be better of dual time?
Click to expand...
If you're a large guy, Ben, an LSA might not be for you. I flew a Sling 2, LSA, with 530 lbs useful load, which with two standard weight pilots still left more than seven hours of fuel. When I took my IFR checkride, the DPE wasn't slim, so I had to make sure I didn't have more than 20 gals (5 hours) fuel on board.
 
Ben Anderson said:
I looked at the useful load on the Cessna Skycatchers and I can't carry an instructor in it with me! I think the C150s at the flight school have a greater useful load. Are there any LSA's that would be better of dual time?
Click to expand...

Anything besides the Skycatcher... It has the worst useful load of any LSA. The last year that they were still selling them at Oshkosh, they were saying that they were going to recertify it in the Primary category and bump the gross weight... And then they just killed it.
 
zaitcev said:
Maybe more shoulder room in an LSA, but the headroom is absent. Not only I'm going to crack my skull upon the spar in the crash, but I'm completely blind to the sides. It's like flying under the hood. Look where my eyes are and where the side window ends.

View attachment 85089
Click to expand...
Sit in any C172 with the seat adjusted so you can see over the panel and look sideways. Unless you're hunched forward the view is the same as your picture.
That spar though, wow.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Anything besides the Skycatcher... It has the worst useful load of any LSA. The last year that they were still selling them at Oshkosh, they were saying that they were going to recertify it in the Primary category and bump the gross weight... And then they just killed it.
Click to expand...
Yeah the useful is so bad...but the panel.... beautiful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top