First Airplane?

[poadeleted21]

A Bonanza is not the best airplane for someone who isn't even a private pilot.

It's like telling someone to buy a Cirrus as their first airplane.

edit: I think OP needs something fixed gear. A 182 would do him something nice.

Why? There's a switch, you flip it.

 

[DavidWhite]

Wow... I didn't know a leaseback was that bad! I will definitely rethink that then... So any good planes your guys would recommend for 100K and that short of completes the mission? I was really thinking about a DA-40. Most the time I will be flying with one person or just me. I love how they also have a G1000 in them.

You won't find a G1000 DA40 for 100k. I would say 182.

 

[DavidWhite]

Why? There's a switch, you flip it.

It's too much of an airplane for a new Private Pilot.

 

[poadeleted21]

It's too much of an airplane for a new Private Pilot.

10-15 hours of dual and done. It's got more HP and that can bail you out. I don't think there's an easier plane to land out there. Doesn't float and handles crosswinds like a champ.

They are a little challenging to fly with the bag on your head though.

 

[AggieMike88]

Airplanes flew just fine for years before the G1000. Don't get so stuck on need to have that tech. That just raises the cost more.

For what your saying you want to do, the C182 is a good fit. I'm flying a 1975 P model and my missions are similar to yours. At 150 hours in my logbook, its a great experience builder and go places plane.

And don't neglect something like Ed's Comanche. Or Tony_Scarpelli's Cherokee experience.

For what you say you want to do, it's not necessary to spend $100k you will be borrowing (even if its from parents, it still is debt). You can easily do your mission in a $35k to $40k aircraft.

 

[shyampatel94]

I have one more question. How many hours should one fly each year to get the most bang out of his airplane?

 

[AggieMike88]

I have one more question. How many hours should one fly each year to get the most bang out of his airplane?

Typically 75-100 hours minimum to overcome the value of renting.

So, so you have $7000-8000 of annual money to burn on this for fixed + variable costs + fuel?


PoA gang: have we schooled this young on on clubs and coownership yet?

 

[dukeblue219]

I probably need to carry at least 4 full sized adults.

Do you really plan to carry four full-sized adults? That starts to narrow down the field to the higher powered piston singles... 182... Bonanza... etc. I think there's a lot of folks getting their private certificate who imagine themselves flying 3 friends to the beach, or the mountains, or whatever on a regular basis. In reality, the bulk of my flying, even for fun, is by myself or with 1 passenger.

I was thinking about the Cessna skylane. My budget would probably be about 100k.

This would be a fine place for you to start. There are good reasons to pick other planes, of course, but you're not going wrong with a tried-and-true workhorse like a 182. It will carry the four adults you want, will climb high above the bumpy summer air, and is great for the longer cross countries you're imagining. And you can certainly get a solid and well-equipped, though obviously not brand new, 182 for under $100k.

I may even think about doing a leaseback. If I do a leaseback I would probably buy a new one.

Be very, very careful here. Don't jump into a $500k purchase on the words of an FBO owner that you'll make the money back. Remember that if it was such a great deal the FBO would be able to get financing and buy their own planes. There ARE people who make money doing this with a good lease agreement and a very busy plane, but there seem to be many more who watch their planes sit around, get beat up, and depreciate without earning much.

The only reason I'd look at a new 182 in your situation is if you A) have unlimited funds and simply want a new plane (nothing wrong with that!), or b) have a business and need to use the plane for business purposes and have fully discussed the tax implications with your accountant (and it may be that the extra bonus depreciation has finally expired anyway?).

 

[Perezhr]

Every one has a favorite airplane. The Cessna guys love Cessna's, the Piper guys will point out their advantages, and so on. Take a close look at you mission first and let that be the driver. If mostly local stuff then you have A LOT of good choices that fit the bill. Frequent 500 mile trips? Well now you may want to consider speed/range. Typical payload...also important. Having flown just about everything (certified) with a single engine I can tell you I found something to love about most of them. C182...love it! A lot of trips and fun carrying a bunch of stuff. Warrior, Archers, 180s, great for all the local stuff and the occasional long trips as well. Cherokee 6, lots of Bahamas trips with four and all the crap they wanted to take along. Beechcraft...i would own an A36 if i could afford one (beautiful bird with excellent flying qualities). As for the Mooney, well I now own one of them too for the last 12 months and I love it (over 100 hours). Economical, fast, and I find it very comfortable. I don't have problems switching tanks, and it does not take great skill to slow to 100 before deploying flaps. The Johnson bar for gear retraction in my model is the epitome of simple design without the complexities of electrical and hydraulic systems. I fly from Florida to Maryland often enough that the Mooney fit the mission best. Again, pay close attention to your typical mission, pick candidates that meet that mission, AND GO FLY THOSE AIRPLANES. There are plenty of folks here that will give you a ride so you can make up your own mind. What is best for me or anyone in this forum is irrelevant. You are going to get a lot of biased opinions. Most of these airplanes are great and you simply have to pick what is best for YOU.

 

[Gary F]

Wow... I didn't know a leaseback was that bad! I will definitely rethink that then... So any good planes your guys would recommend for 100K and that short of completes the mission? I was really thinking about a DA-40. Most the time I will be flying with one person or just me. I love how they also have a G1000 in them.

The older DA40s (2001-2003) are steam gauge except for a few with Avidyne glass. You can always upgrade to Garmin G500 glass down the road but it's not cheap. I prefer my G500 to the G1000 anyway. The DA40 is great for a beginning pilot. Some of the less expensive used DA40s do not have an autopilot and it can't be retrofitted.

 

[moonshine]

Diamond isn't my first airplane, but it would make a perfect first airplane. Make sure to get one with an autopilot.

C182 is also a good choice. Will probably be cheaper to buy (since many more older aircraft are available), will carry more, but will burn at least 30% more to go same distance at the same speed.

Local flight in a DA40 (or 20 for that matter) makes a hell of a lot more sense than in a C182

 

[Theboys]

I feel the best airplane for the guys who are looking here would be a cessna 182. Has high wing with doors on each side for easy access and some shade from wing in summer. Easy to get parts and fairly cheap to annual. Will cover most missions stated. Can be flown for reasonable cost and many are fitted to mogas stc. Also has good resale for when the shiny newer, faster one brings a glint to your eye and guides the hand towards the checkbook.

 

[skidoo]

snip... but will burn at least 30% more to go same distance at the same speed.
...snip...

Could you provide at least one set of numbers to compare that would support that 30% statement?

For the data I see, they look fairly equal. For example, the DA-40 manual shows 137 KTAS at 8Kft at 12.3 gph. For the 182T at 8Kft, to get 137 KTAS, it would take 12.0 gph...

 

[pigpenracing]

If your flying around town get something fun. Get a Pitts... You can fly around town upside down in a very cool biplane. When you get back to the airport everyone will think you are a bad ass!
All my flying I have done biplanes are by far the most fun you can have. I had a Skybolt, Pitts and now a 540 Christen Eagle.
You will get bored real fast trying to just fly around town in a boring 172 or the other planes these guys recommend.
I have a biplane and a 172. When I want to go around town and have fun I hop in the biplane. When I am flying somewhere for the weekend with my family I get in the 172.
You gotta figure out what kind of flying you want. My first plane was a 172 because I didn't know any different and I got bored real fast and almost quit flying.. There are many cool planes that are a hoot to fly.
The people that don't know anything will tell you you need lots of experience to fly a biplane or taildragger. Heck in the old days that is all they had. You had to start out in one

 

[moonshine]

Could you provide at least one set of numbers to compare that would support that 30% statement?

For the data I see, they look fairly equal. For example, the DA-40 manual shows 137 KTAS at 8Kft at 12.3 gph. For the 182T at 8Kft, to get 137 KTAS, it would take 12.0 gph...

Uhm... Sure. I'm more familiar with my carb'd Diamond and older carbed 182P (Q, R)

135 kts in either is 75% power. In my fixed pitch, carburated engine that's 10.5 gph (135*.47/6). In 182P that's 13.5 gph (172.5*.47/6). 10.5*1.3=13.65

Sorry, looks like I'm off by 1.5%

However, regular DA40 will use 0.5 to 1 gph less to do the same 135kts - hence the 30% difference.

 

[denverpilot]

Why? There's a switch, you flip it.

Hopefully twice per flight, minimum.

 

[skidoo]

Uhm... Sure. I'm more familiar with my carb'd Diamond and older carbed 182P (Q, R)

135 kts in either is 75% power. In my fixed pitch, carburated engine that's 10.5 gph (135*.47/6). In 182P that's 13.5 gph (172.5*.47/6). 10.5*1.3=13.65

Sorry, looks like I'm off by 1.5%

However, regular DA40 will use 0.5 to 1 gph less to do the same 135kts - hence the 30% difference.

I think those numbers are off... According to the books, 13.5gph looks like sea level at 135 kts for the 182, yet you are using numbers that look to be about 8K ft for the Diamond. Of course the numbers can appear significantly different if everything else is not the same. But, that doesn't provide for a true comparison.

I see that the Diamond DA-40 manual (Doc. No. 6.01.02-E, page 5-16 & 17) shows 137 KTAS at 8Kft and 75% power. But, for the fuel flow, it also shows for 75% two numbers, 12.3 for best power, and 10.8 for best economy. How one can get either flow and still get 75% power, I don't know. But, I suspect some information missing there.

The 182 manual shows fuel flow for recommended lean witch is similar to the Diamond for that speed but at 69% power to achieve that same speed. It says for best economy, to operate at peak, but doesn't show the related fuel flow for that, which would likely be less. Based on the two manuals, I don't believe there is difference of that significance between them on fuel flow vs speed (altitude, temp, everything else remains the same).

It looks to me that you are using numbers for best economy at 8Kft for the Diamond, and best power at sea level for the 182. If so, I believe that is not a valid comparison.

 

[Henning]

What is the best first airplane to buy after getting your private license? I am not getting a plane just yet maybe in a year or two. But the mission is flying around town maybe cross country every month or so. Any plane ideas? I was thinking DA-40, Cessna 172, or Cirrus sr20... Any other great planes I am missing?

I got a Beech Travelair, made a great first plane.

 

[moonshine]

I think those numbers are off...

What do you presently fly? I fly a 40FP - here's my recent xc trip log http://www.diamondaviators.net/reports/flights/4332 - put the speed and fuel flow in the respective windows
I have also flown the 182's - 135kts on 13gph is what I planned for on a good day. Any current 182 drivers have better numbers?

 

[Theboys]

I don't fly a 182 but do fly a 205. I probably see 135 at 13 at about 6500 ft. At 10000 ft I can get down to 10,s. but even with the fuel difference in 1000 hours your only looking at 3000 more gallons at most. I'm pretty sure that still wouldn't make up difference between the initial cost of the diamond over the cessna. Either would be a great airplane. Nice to have the high wing when you first get your pp so you can see and take pictures of all the new sights. I do hear lots of great things about the diamond Though and would probably buy one myself if I could get one of the diesel ones produced in china.

 

[moonshine]

Either would be a great airplane. Nice to have the high wing when you first get your pp so you can see and take pictures of all the new sights.

Agreed, either one would be good. DA40 is more of a pilot's airplane, C182 hauls more weight.
High wing over low wing thing.. In a 40 you sit in front if the wing, not a big factor. Also over the years I came to realize that there are just two different kinds of pilots out there - those who enjoy watching the things on the ground, and those who enjoy watching the sky. Nothing wrong with being either one, and I've flown C model singles as well as Maules, but I still like sitting on top of the wing better

 

[Neal Howard]

First off... leasebacks are always like deals with the devil. You might think you're getting some kind of benefit at first, but you will always end up getting screwed badly in the end. Don't even consider it. There was once upon a time (1970's, 1980's, maybe even up to the early 1990's) was an era when you could possibly make a leaseback work if you were in the right city, but that concept totally vanished nationwide about a couple decades ago.

Secondly, if you really need a heavy hauler 4-seater as a first airplane, you might also want to consider something like the Piper Cherokee PA28-235 Pathfinder or PA28-236 Dakota. Fixed gear, thus cheaper to insure (or able to buy insurance at all) for a new pilot. These have lots of power and are roomy and comfortable inside, although they only have one door for entry/exit of the occupants. They are super easy to fly, and make child's play out of gusty crosswind landings, and are true 4-people plus baggage and full fuel haulers. There's a PoA member, Jay Honeck, who has a good Pathfinder 235 for sale right now too.

You probably need to rent for a while and see just exactly what your typical flying mission is actually going to be, and what it will really evolve into... many new pilots think that they're going to be hauling lots of friends and family around on frequent long trips everywhere, but in actual reality that never happens. Instead you'll likely find that you'll be doing most of your flying solo because while friends and family might seem to be sharing some of your enthusiasm about getting into a small airplane and flying all around with you on all these trips you've got in your head, the truth is that most non-pilot friends and family will ultimately back out and rarely go flying unless you pressure them to. That's what happened to me, and I've seen it happen many, many times over and over again with others too. A new pilot filled with enthusiasm gets these grand delusions in his head about everybody loading up into the plane and going off on these wild blue adventures on a frequent basis, but after the "new wears off" you almost have to stick a gun to their heads to get them into the plane. I bought a Cherokee as my first plane and it wasn't long before I realized that 98% or more of my flying was solo, and the only people who ever wanted to go flying were other "airplane people". Family and friends pretty much deserted my flying dreams. Now I own an RV-6 that'll go nearly 200 MPH on the same fuel burn as that Cherokee, and I've still got a seat for the occasional non-pilot passenger.... and that same seat is much easier to fill with a fellow pilot since all of my pilot friends are eager to go flying in an RV with me when they would decline to go flying in the Cherokee because it was boring.

 

[skidoo]

What do you presently fly? I fly a 40FP - here's my recent xc trip log http://www.diamondaviators.net/reports/flights/4332 - put the speed and fuel flow in the respective windows
I have also flown the 182's - 135kts on 13gph is what I planned for on a good day. Any current 182 drivers have better numbers?

I see the GPH is based on Hobbs time which makes it look better. And I see that your speed is based on tach time. So, that can distort the calculations if the tach time varies with rpms... Also, I don't see where winds are accounted for.


I did a recent 438 nm flight in the 182 in 2 hours, 45 minutes, cruising at about 12.0 gph. This was based on clock time, not tach, nor hobbs. Of course the tail wind saved me 15 minutes. And the hobbs time would be longer. If I used tach time, the speed would look faster because I used low rpms. If I had used hobbs time, it would look slower because I sit on the ground for a few... My TAS at 15Kft varied between 145 and 155 depending on up or downdrafts. It seemed to average about 147 ktas on that 12.0 GPH... This is leaned as recommended, not LOP or anything aggressive.

 

[moonshine]

I see the GPH is based on Hobbs time which makes it look better. And I see that your speed is based on tach time. So, that can distort the calculations if the tach time varies with rpms... Also, I don't see where winds are accounted for.


I did a recent 438 nm flight in the 182 in 2 hours, 45 minutes, cruising at about 12.0 gph. This was based on clock time, not tach, nor hobbs. Of course the tail wind saved me 15 minutes. And the hobbs time would be longer. If I used tach time, the speed would look faster because I used low rpms. If I had used hobbs time, it would look slower because I sit on the ground for a few... My TAS at 15Kft varied between 145 and 155 depending on up or downdrafts. It seemed to average about 147 ktas on that 12.0 GPH... This is leaned as recommended, not LOP or anything aggressive.

Disregard the line up on top. It actually shows higher fuel burn by taking your average fuel burn and multiplying it by the hobbs time. I'm not talking hobbs, tach - I'm talking real life averaged burn vs TAS.
Looking at the graphs that show momentary speeds and flow in my link - no clearer picture than that. Also the speed graph shows IAS, TAS and GS - look at the TAS vs fuel burn to take the winds out of the equation.
Numbers I mentioned were for 6-8k where most of the people fly. Heck, I won't think twice about racing you at 15k. Whoever burns less fuel pays for both at the fuel pump

Ok, attached a pic to illustrate what i'm saying.
Momentary parameters seen:

GS: 132.6kts (a bit of headwind)
IAS: 121.2 (CAS, really. Steam backup IAS tends to bee 2-3 kts higher at alt)
TAS: 136 (Speed you're moving through the air, what we're interested in here)
FFlow: 10.26 (GPH)

 

[skidoo]

snip...

Heck, I won't think twice about racing you at 15k. Whoever burns less fuel pays for both at the fuel pump

Hey, that sounds like fun! I suppose you will give me a 30% handicap, right?

 

[moonshine]

Hey, that sounds like fun! I suppose you will give me a 30% handicap, right?

No way! You burn what you burn! On the bright side, DA40's got tiny tanks
BTW I see you've got T182T - that's a whole 'nother animal altogether. Not familiar with those at all.

 

[skidoo]

No way! You burn what you burn! On the bright side, DA40's got tiny tanks
BTW I see you've got T182T - that's a whole 'nother animal altogether. Not familiar with those at all.

Actually, the T182T tends to burn about 0.1 to 0.3 gph more in cruise than the non turbo version, everything else being equal. It just give me the ability to burn more when I may need it for take off or climb.

It would be interesting to do an actual side by side comparison. Does this copy apply to your airplane?
http://www.diamond-air.at/da40-fp_afm_bas+M52087573ab0.html

If so, are you leaning more than the book best economy? It appears that your numbers are about 0.5 gph or so less than this book for best economy.

Mine tends to hold book value pretty well or better when under gross. For 6000 ft, and hot temp (+20 ofer standard), it shows 133 ktas at 11.4 gph, or 136 ktas at 12.1 gph. The non turbo book shows 132 ktas at 11.2 gph, or 136 ktas at 11.8 gph. I don't know how much less it would be if leaned for best economy. But, if 10% less is achieved like your Diamond book implies, that would put it close to yours. Yes, it would likely be a little more burn, but far from 30% more if both are leaned for best economy.

I once flew an older 182 and I asked the owner/instructor about leaning it. He said to just leave it full rich for the entire flight. Ouch, I thought! I know mine sucks a lot more fuel if I don't lean... So, I am wondering if that may be where some get the idea that it burns a lot more fuel than other efficient planes... Perhaps it doesn't really have to burn as much as many think...

 

[moonshine]

Does this copy apply to your airplane?
http://www.diamond-air.at/da40-fp_afm_bas+M52087573ab0.html

If so, are you leaning more than the book best economy? It appears that your numbers are about 0.5 gph or so less than this book for best economy.

That's my AFM. However on top of that I've got a PowerFlow exhaust and fine wire spark plugs - the first helps me meet or exceed the book numbers even with 1300+ hrs on the engine, the second was a huge help keeping the engine smooth at leaner mixture.

From experience, older 182's (O-470-R/U) don't lean all that great - considerable imbalance in mixture quality between cylinders. But still, when I gave the numbers, I was using 0.47 lb/hp/hr for specific fuel consumption for both engines. C182 is just a bigger draggier airframe (rivets, struts etc) and it takes more engine to push it through at the same airspeed.

Fuel pump test is the best test out there - taking off together, flying formation some place and refueling there rocks

 

[Gary F]

Could you provide at least one set of numbers to compare that would support that 30% statement?

For the data I see, they look fairly equal. For example, the DA-40 manual shows 137 KTAS at 8Kft at 12.3 gph. For the 182T at 8Kft, to get 137 KTAS, it would take 12.0 gph...

I can't imagine a DA40 and 182 having similar fuel consumption at a given speed. The DA40 is much more aerodynamic. I typically cruise around 135 kts at less than 10 GPH. I have a 2003 DA40 with powerflow exhaust and 3 blade MT prop. The newer DA40s have smaller wheels and fairings and go a few knots faster. Those with 2 blade Hartzell props are reportedly faster yet.

If you need the utility you can't go wrong with a Cessna. The 182 has a better load carrying capability but the DA40 is more fun to fly and is a sports car compared to the truck like Cessnas. I also enjoy the great view and center stick in a DA40. Insurance rates are relatively low for DA40s. Any mechanic can work on a Cessna but not all are familiar with Diamond aircraft although that is improving as DA40s become more plentiful. I don't think somebody would go wrong with either of these airplanes, it depends on mission and personal preference.