Going to buy new plane tommorow. Thoughts Please

D

dennyleeb

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
733
Display Name
Display name:
7DeltaBravo
Ovation 2
love the speed worried about usefull load, nice avionics

Late 90's 182
great usefull load, slow, nice avionics

Late 70's Lance 4000 TT low overhaul hrs
good deal, great usefull load, needs 40k avionics, old plane worries me
 
Need more information on your mission.
 
majority of travel within 150 miles
would like to do more trips would love the speed of the mooney
concerned I cant take 4 people and fuel in mooney I like my tanks at least 2/3 full

only three I am looking at
 
'majority of travel within 150 miles' and 'love the speed of the mooney' does not compute, or am I missing a brain cell or two?
 
Please no more RV talk(I would not fly in one if I won it)

I am looking for help on making decision hopefully from people who have experience with the planes I am looking at

most of travel now within 150 miles but live in KY and have home in FL would like to travel more than curently, but like to take friends to dinner now in then to close cities
 
catmandu said:
'majority of travel within 150 miles' and 'love the speed of the mooney' does not compute, or am I missing a brain cell or two?
Click to expand...

The above and the "2/3 tanks" line kinda' threw me too...

You'd be in the air what...40 minutes...?

Chris
 
OOC, why does the percentage of fuel in the tanks matter to you if the quantity on board is sufficient for the trip plus adequate reserves?

dennyleeb said:
majority of travel within 150 miles
would like to do more trips would love the speed of the mooney
concerned I cant take 4 people and fuel in mooney I like my tanks at least 2/3 full

only three I am looking at
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
OOC, why does the percentage of fuel in the tanks matter to you if the quantity on board is sufficient for the trip plus adequate reserves?
Click to expand...

Because my flight instructor died of fuel starvation from trying to cut it close!
 
182

Lots of endurance

145KTAS is plenty for your missions. One long one every now and again won't matter.

Short/soft field capability. Take it virtually anywhere -- Bigtown Class B or Littletown grass strip.

Manufacturer still in business.

Great for sightseeing - high wing makes a big difference.
 
flyersfan31 said:
182

Lots of endurance

145KTAS is plenty for your missions. One long one every now and again won't matter.

Short/soft field capability. Take it virtually anywhere -- Bigtown Class B or Littletown grass strip.

Manufacturer still in business.

Great for sightseeing - high wing makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

Should I go G1000 or not, prob 40k more but G1000 I am looking at has no active traffic which I want
 
I gotta ask...about the title: tomorrow is the day. It has to be tomorrow.
Maybe that will work fine for you but I have never heard of such a thing. There is this deadline?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I gotta ask...about the title: tomorrow is the day. It has to be tomorrow.
Maybe that will work fine for you but I have never heard of such a thing. There is this deadline?
Click to expand...

it does not HAVE to be tommorow but I have been making some offers and think a deal will prob work out tommorow

any usefull input?
 
Last edited:
So you are looking at three different airplanes. Lets see some specs, some asking prices. We can sort that out pdq.
 
Cessna 182S 1999 750hrs
430 Waas, active traffic, xm weather
165K

2003 Ovation 2 800hrs
A/C 530/430 no WAAS, has active traffic, alt preselect
230K

1977 Lance 4000 TT 400SMOH
480 WAAS, Charts, nice MFD
would want to overhaul panel w/ G500, acive traffic, SVT, 330, 340, engine montior (glassL
115K before upgrades prob 45-50k
old stuff bothers me a little
 
How long have you been looking for a plane? I have had a blast looking at barnstormers.com, TAP, and others. Talking to owners of planes on the phone and even going to see a few has been fun! You don't want to jump on the idea to fast, unless this isn't your first plane and you know what is involved. If I had to vote, I would say to go with the Cessna. It would be a good middle ground of the choices posted.
 
DC34ME said:
How long have you been looking for a plane? I have had a blast looking at barnstormers.com, TAP, and others. Talking to owners of planes on the phone and even going to see a few has been fun! You don't want to jump on the idea to fast, unless this isn't your first plane and you know what is involved. If I had to vote, I would say to go with the Cessna. It would be a good middle ground of the choices posted.
Click to expand...

Not my first plane, still fun though but ready to get back in air, sold mine 2 wks ago
 
Are you sure they all have active traffic? Are you referring to TIS through a garmin 330 transponder? That's not active traffic. It relies on uplink from ATC radar. Active traffic is a different animal (and much more expensive, which is why I'm surprised a Lance would have it).
 
flyersfan31 said:
Are you sure they all have active traffic? Are you referring to TIS through a garmin 330 transponder? That's not active traffic. It relies on uplink from ATC radar. Active traffic is a different animal (and much more expensive, which is why I'm surprised a Lance would have it).
Click to expand...

The cessna and mooney have the BF Goodrich skywatch active traffic

I would be putting it on the lance

The 330 does me no good as I am 50 miles from a city
 
What selection criteria did you use that caused those three to be the final three candidates? It seems an unlikely mix. In car terms, it's like having one Jag coupe, one Lexus 430 and one GMC Yukon. All plenty good choices, but hard to think they would be competing for the same trip/load profiles.

dennyleeb said:
Cessna 182S 1999 750hrs
430 Waas, active traffic, xm weather
165K

2003 Ovation 2 800hrs
A/C 530/430 no WAAS, has active traffic, alt preselect
230K

1977 Lance 4000 TT 400SMOH
480 WAAS, Charts, nice MFD
would want to overhaul panel w/ G500, acive traffic, SVT, 330, 340, engine montior (glassL
115K before upgrades prob 45-50k
old stuff bothers me a little
Click to expand...
 
Somewhat limited data.

If I were flying the plane, of the three, I'd choose the Mooney, but I like fast.

From your limited description of mission, the 182 sounds like a fine choice and (be real) a 182 is rarely a bad choice, is it?

But a little more info as to typical loads carried, etc, would surely help.
 
Make sure the crank-SB has been complied with on the '99 182. You would think that all have been done by now, but you never know.

And what is it that motivates you to refurbish a Lance ?
 
Acronym, Definition. YGBSM, You Gotta Be Spoofin' Me! (polite form).
 
Well, I loved my 182 and you simply cannot go wrong with a Lane......
But for your mission and your professed 'need for speed', consider a Super Viking... It is my favorite airplane of the bunch I have owned...

denny-o
 
dennyleeb said:
The cessna and mooney have the BF Goodrich skywatch active traffic

I would be putting it on the lance

The 330 does me no good as I am 50 miles from a city
Click to expand...

Hmm. Somebody spent some money on their avionics!

Your mix of possible planes is, well, odd. It's not like, say, debating an Archer v 172, or Lance v 210, or 182 v DA40v SR22, or Ovation v Bonanza.

I still like the 182, especially with what we know about your mission.
 
My mix of planes has several things behind it. I started with a very broad choice of planes in my price range. Flew several types, then started looking for good deals in this economy between the ones I liked. I tend to trade often so a good deal is a must. Several planes got cut b/c I just did not like them for example a sr22. I just dont trust it.
 
Get the 182. An Ovation or Lance will cost you a good sum more money, and not give you a significantly useful benefit if you're doing most of your flying within 150 miles. For trips of that length, you'll notice virtually no time difference between the proposed aircraft, but you will notice a significant cost difference.

It sounds to me like you have some irrational fears related to flying, combination of old aircraft and fuel. I would give some good thought to this. The airplane I fly is 41 years old and works great, and I'll bet I fly it more than you'll be flying your plane. As to fuel, well, it's pretty rare that you run out of it unless you make a pretty grave error. If you do your calculations right and know your plane, that shouldn't happen.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Get the 182. An Ovation or Lance will cost you a good sum more money, and not give you a significantly useful benefit if you're doing most of your flying within 150 miles. For trips of that length, you'll notice virtually no time difference between the proposed aircraft, but you will notice a significant cost difference.

It sounds to me like you have some irrational fears related to flying, combination of old aircraft and fuel. I would give some good thought to this. The airplane I fly is 41 years old and works great, and I'll bet I fly it more than you'll be flying your plane. As to fuel, well, it's pretty rare that you run out of it unless you make a pretty grave error. If you do your calculations right and know your plane, that shouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

The mooney is the highest, but the lance is less than the 182 or are you talking upkeep, ins?
 
Because you are doing all short trips, the speed advantage of the Mooney is practically non-existant. Get the 182.

Yep, you heard that from me. Get the high wing. :eek:
 
EdFred said:
Because you are doing all short trips, the speed advantage of the Mooney is practically non-existant. Get the 182.

Yep, you heard that from me. Get the high wing. :eek:
Click to expand...

Call the EMTs!!!!!!!!!:eek:
 
Nothing wrong with cherry-picking the market for the best deal, if you don't really care what you fly and can enjoy whatever it happens to be.

If I were buying to trade, I'd go for the airplane that has the best apparent value of purchase price to appraised value, being sure that I had a good reference number for current FMV. I wouldn't trust a book number, but would want some method (a thorough appraisal inspection would be the most predictable bet) for valuing the airplane.

Any popular airplane with glass will probably continue to hold value well in the future, as all the currently produced airplanes have it and more and more pilots are finding they like it. The Lance would be my third choice based on trip profiles and fuel/mx costs, unless you need the seats and load capability. After that, its a simply a speed vs space and comfort issue. If I were doing it, part of the decision would be based on the size of the folks who will be flying in it.

Are you a normal size American guy (5' 10" x 245) or smaller?

dennyleeb said:
My mix of planes has several things behind it. I started with a very broad choice of planes in my price range. Flew several types, then started looking for good deals in this economy between the ones I liked. I tend to trade often so a good deal is a must. Several planes got cut b/c I just did not like them for example a sr22. I just dont trust it.
Click to expand...
 
To expand on prior suggestion: the 182 is what I think of as the "universal airplane"; it is fast enough to be a solid traveling plane, it's simplicity helps to keep maintenance expense in check and dispatch reliability high, it'll carry a buttload of people, stuff and fuel, and do so well and legally, and it's an excellent instrument platform.

In addition, of course, is the simple fact that a 182 will always have a solid resale market.

---

Edit:

There were some 182s built with the nosewheel on the back, and in the process of forgetting the nosewheel, some of them are also missing the paint. Be wary of these.
 
dennyleeb said:
The mooney is the highest, but the lance is less than the 182 or are you talking upkeep, ins?
Click to expand...

I'm talking upkeep and insurance. Purchase cost is the price of entry and is at least partially refundable. Upkeep and insurance you will never get back, that's money that you spend.

A Lance has a more expensive engine to overhaul, retractable landing gear, etc. All that results in higher operating costs. Since you're not planning on flying for long distances, there's just not much of a benefit. The 182 will have much better use as a true 4-person plus luggage aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top