looking at Buying a plane, need advice

[txflyer]

Get something with a mogas STC and buy it for the farm. That's the cheapest flying you're going to get.

 

[Henning]

Potentially.... Dad and I have been discussing that. It would take some work to fix up part of a field for a landing strip, plus if we wanted to build a hangar... It's something that we've toyed around with.

I think I know what you mean, but could you explain a "Buyer Broker" just incase? And where one might look to find one?

If that's seriously on the agenda, you want to consider how long of a strip you can make before deciding on a plane. If you can make 2300' with good clear way, you can get most anything. Shorter than 1500' and you want to be looking towards STOL capability, maybe an old 182 with a cuff.

If that's a distant issue and you buy the Archer for the right money, you can always do something with it.

 

[sourdough44]

I see the usual price creep going on, affordability factors in. The PA-28 series us a great economical choice. Run the numbers through AOPA's "V-Ref" to get a ball park on price/ value.

Find a local pilot,owner, mechanic to give you eyes on advice about condition of the plane. If the overhaul was only 5 yrs back and the cylinder/ engine condition is good, shouldn't have to worry about an overhaul anytime soon. Go on a flight with somebody.

There is middle ground to evaluate a plane short of a buyers broker. I'd at least make a deal contingent upon passing an annual. During waning years of ownership a number of items are usually glossed over, hoses,fuel tanks, AD's, and various inspections. I'd expect that.

I don't recommend doing what I did, but I bought two planes without any pre-buy inspection or annual. I never got burnt, but as expected I paid for some improvements/upgrades. Evaluate the plane, logbooks and the integrity of the seller.

Yes I could find great reasons to own a 6 seat airplane, but I am budgeted for a modest 4(really 3) seater.

 

[somorris]

In a situation like this it's much more helpful to give advice about methods and general issues to explore instead of pages of posts that say 'Buy this!' 'No, buy this!'...

I agree, and that was not my intention. Just trying to offer friendly advice but you are right. Especially around here, the recommendations sometimes come fast and furious. The Archer is a great airplane, but it has its drawbacks just like all the others. Too bad we all can't buy two or three .

 

[timwinters]

Not sure about the extra costs at annual time, but a 182 burns somewhere north of 12 gph while a 172 is around 9 or so. 3 gph X $6/gallon = $18 more for every hour you fly. I have a friend that had a 182 and he told me no matter what he did, it burned 14 gph. If I were buying right now though, I would opt for the 182. It is a lot of airplane for the money, in my opinion.

Just some data points:

If you want to burn 9 GPH in a 182 then you can slow down to 172 speeds and it will indeed burn 9 GPH just like a 172 does. I did just that last Wednesday flying to my mechanic. It was only a 20 minute flight and it was bumpy down low so I slowed down. I was doing 109 ktas and burning 8.8 GPH.

A 172 and 182 get about the same miles/gallon so the operating cost of flying is about the same if you're going somewhere. If you're just playing around in the patten then, yes, the 182 cost more to fly "per hour".

I normally fly at 22/2300 and true out at about 128 to 132 knots depending on altitude and burn 10.8 to 11.2 GPH again depending on altitude.

I burn 2/1 to 3/1 MoGas/100LL. Cost right now for that blend is about $4/gal with 93 oct ethanol free MoGas at $3.50 and 100LL at $5.25.

 

[Henning]

Just some data points:

If you want to burn 9 GPH in a 182 then you can slow down to 172 speeds and it will indeed burn 9 GPH just like a 172 does. I did just that last Wednesday flying to my mechanic. It was only a 20 minute flight and it was bumpy down low so I slowed down. I was doing 109 ktas and burning 8.8 GPH.

A 172 and 182 get about the same miles/gallon so the operating cost of flying is about the same if you're going somewhere. If you're just playing around in the patten then, yes, the 182 cost more to fly "per hour".

I normally fly at 22/2300 and true out at about 128 to 132 knots depending on altitude and burn 10.8 to 11.2 GPH again depending on altitude.

I burn 2/1 to 3/1 MoGas/100LL. Cost right now for that blend is about $4/gal with 93 oct ethanol free MoGas at $3.50 and 100LL at $5.25.

Why on Earth are you poisoning your poor valves with 100LL? Lead does nothing good for your engine.

 

[craigvince]

As you can see, there is a LOT of good info to be had from this forum. You have obviously done some homework because you asked all the right questions.

The best advice given so far is to hire a professional buyer's agent (broker) to help you. Whether this is your first plane or your 10th, this is good advice. In many cases, the small fee you'll pay will be offset by the agent's ability to get you a better deal on the plane than you could yourself. Better yet, the agent can save you a ton of money if he/she finds surprises that you wouldn't have otherwise known about.

If you do decide to do it on your own, check out our "How To Buy an Airplane" page on our website. The information is free but worth thousands.

 

[farmerbrake]

Thanks everyone for the advice. Lots to think about for sure. Just got back from getting checked out in the archer at the flight school. It's a nice bird to fly. Still feels weird in a low wing though. Got to talk to my instructor about buying planes, that was helpful.
Realistically, how much space is there in a 172 behind the rear seat? I'm fairly certain it's smaller than the archer right? I forgot to look at the plane while I was at the airport.

 

[farmerbrake]

Yes I could find great reasons to own a 6 seat airplane, but I am budgeted for a modest 4(really 3) seater.

A 6 place plane would be amazing. I could haul the whole family on vacation. Alas I know it is WAYYYy out of the question and I truly wouldn't use all 6 seats enough to justify it. That's the 3% part where you rent right?

 

[Henning]

A 6 place plane would be amazing. I could haul the whole family on vacation. Alas I know it is WAYYYy out of the question and I truly wouldn't use all 6 seats enough to justify it. That's the 3% part where you rent right?

Thing is it's not always possible to rent the higher capacity plane. There are few true 6 seat planes if everybody is big. A lightweight family will travel in a Cherokee 6 or Cessna 206 quite well, and will experience only a modest increase in overall operating costs over a plane with less seats and load capacity.

An Archer is 180hp, that gets 600 some pounds in the cockpit with full fuel and still have an acceptable rate of climb in most conditions. If you need more than that, you need more horsepower. For a family/utility plane it is hard to go wrong with a Cherokee 6 or Cessna 206. The 206 would probably be better for farm strip use, but they are money makers as utility planes so they sell for a premium to the Cherokee 6 in the used market. BTW, both are also available new I believe. The Cessna for sure, I don't know Piper's status on the Saratoga FG or whatever they call it now.

If you don't need the load though, you don't need the extra plane. The Beech Musketeer series is another to look at in the low wing 180hp. A bit roomier than the Piper and a bit slower for the same HP, most f them have 2 doors which is very nice, many people consider it worth a couple of knots when selecting.

Lots of planes to chose from, have fun picking and enjoy what you get.

 

[farmerbrake]

I would have access to a beechcraft 6 seater if I ever needed one. I think I'm leaning towards more of a high wing now that I get to talking more with dad and my instructor. Probably look into a Cessna 172 or 177. Any other input?

 

[coloradobluesky]

They cost to own about what they cost to rent, if you fly 100 hours or more a year. If you fly less, then they cost more. If you fly more, they cost less. So look at the local rental rates, there is your cost per hour. Rentals usually dont pay hangar fees (they are tied down) but they have more expensive insurance. It evens out. You dont know how many hours you will be flying it, do you? But to cut the yearly cost you can fly less. Have the money, fly more!

 

[Henning]

I would have access to a beechcraft 6 seater if I ever needed one. I think I'm leaning towards more of a high wing now that I get to talking more with dad and my instructor. Probably look into a Cessna 172 or 177. Any other input?

What will typical load be? You can buy an older 182A for not a lot more than a 172 and get a lot more performance for not much more cost of operations, especially if you put in a strip on the farm. Most of the dairy farmers I know are some big ol boys, and if you're one, you'll be way happier with a 182.

 

[petrolero]

I'm sure some others will chime in, and those are all good questions and a good plane type, but I'll cut to the chase (your question #7) and suggest you engage a buyer's broker. It's how I bought my first plane and a good one can be well worth it.

I will second this idea. I didn't use a broker on my first one but I did on my second one. It cost me $5k and saved me $20k or more. The prebuy inspection found a spalling cam and, after the broker negotiated for me, they agreed to have the engine torn down and repaired. It wasn't a Major Overhaul, per se, but it was a major overhaul in that they tore it down and changed all parts that were out of spec but they did not do every step that would be done in a Major.

He also steered me away from things I'd come to regret (corrosion, damage history, incomplete logs) and toward things that were better for my usage and budget criteria. He helped with valuations and price negotiations. I'm glad I used a broker.

 

[Henning]

I will second this idea. I didn't use a broker on my first one but I did on my second one. It cost me $5k and saved me $20k or more. The prebuy inspection found a spalling cam and, after the broker negotiated for me, they agreed to have the engine torn down and repaired. It wasn't a Major Overhaul, per se, but it was a major overhaul in that they tore it down and changed all parts that were out of spec but they did not do every step that would be done in a Major.

He also steered me away from things I'd come to regret (corrosion, damage history, incomplete logs) and toward things that were better for my usage and budget criteria. He helped with valuations and price negotiations. I'm glad I used a broker.

That's typically known as an "IRAN", Inspect, Repair As Necessary. You can run an engine forever like that.

 

[Jeff K]

I see the usual price creep going on,

Yeap. These threads are all pretty predictable and we have one or two a week.

The best way for a new prospective owner to ask these kind of questions is not to ask them. Use the search engine. Granted, someone needs to ask them first, and it's no crime to do so, but I've found the best way to make an objective decision is to leave the emotions at home... and posting here you, and more to the point, the respondents become vested.

I must have read every twin engine/fiki/LOP/safety/economy operation before I narrowed it down to a couple candidates. Then all over again with my top 2-3 candidates as the search seed. It took a long time before I wore out the search engine and posted a few questions of my own.

I already stated my suggestion for the OP. But absolutely nothing wrong with this thread or the OP's question... they are all well thought out. Just don't discount the power of a search engine.

 

[TUPilot]

I would have access to a beechcraft 6 seater if I ever needed one. I think I'm leaning towards more of a high wing now that I get to talking more with dad and my instructor. Probably look into a Cessna 172 or 177. Any other input?

172 and 177 are both solid airplanes. The 177 is definitely king when it comes to ease of access and comfort, but they tend to carry a modest price premium for this. In addition, the 177 has a few quirks that can result in an extra couple hours per inspection, but nothing that dramatically sets it apart.

It does sound like a 182 might be an option as well. The primary reason you don't see them as trainers is a higher fuel burn at typical cruise settings (as mentioned, you can get close to 172 fuel burn at 172 speeds, but renters never do that). In addition a 182's O-470 engine is a bit more sensitive than the O-320/O-360s you find on 172/177s--shouldn't be a problem if you learn how to treat it right. Naturally the bigger engine will cost a bit more, but probably not enough to break the bank.

As for the Archer, they are great airplanes. I own a Cherokee 180 (predecessor to the Archer) and I've loaded 4 people and 150 pounds of bags into it before and had enough fuel to fly 300 miles with legal reserves. However, payload/range varies a lot from plane to plane so just because mine is a "true 4 seater" doesn't mean they all are.

Comfort wise the 182 and 177 will win, the Archer and 172 will come down to personal preference. The Archer will hold a bit more baggage in the tail than the 172.

Operating costs will be in the same ballpark for the Archer and a 172. The 177 will be the same or slightly higher. 182 will be slightly to significantly higher depending on how fast you want to go!

 

[txflyer]

We need a bigger budget 'what plane should I get?' thread starter dude or dudette around here ...

And I don't agree that you shouldn't put your emotions into it and come on here and ask everyone.

Give us a budget and we'll tell you what you should buy. Then we'll condemn the hell out of you if you bend it.

 

[timwinters]

Why on Earth are you poisoning your poor valves with 100LL? Lead does nothing good for your engine.

Well, let's see...

1) My O-470L was designed to burn 80 octane aviation fuel. My 25% to 33% blend of 100LL in MoGas closely replicates the amount of lead that was in 80 octane.

2) In the winter, when I'm not flying as much, and when I might take me two months to burn the "full capacity" of 65 gallons, I worry far less about fuel going bad.

3) Back when I was still working and flying a lot of XC trips. In the summer, when I got up high to find smooth/cool air (oxygen levels), I worried far less about vapor pressure issues.

4) Over 1200 hours of testing and experimenting with fuels & ratios in my plane has confirmed that my engine likes the blend better than running 100% of either. Data over about 5 years and 800 hours of flying was logged from both the full engine monitor and fuel flow. The engine runs smoother, the EGTs are far closer, the cylinders peak closer together and thus I can lean far more aggressively before the engine starts to stumble which results in reducing the fuel flow by an average of 0.75 GPH from what I would otherwise burn without a corresponding loss of airspeed.

We all know how horrid the design of the normally aspirated O-470's induction system is. Keeping the induction system nice and tight helps immensely. I played quite a bit with different blends when I was regularly flying back and forth across the Midwest and South and I found my blend to be the best for my engine. How many O-470's out there can regularly do this? (note that it's not on the "normalized" screen)

5) Over 1200 hours of flying the engine has been relatively trouble free. I've had to work on two cylinders. One was a broken oils scraper ring that I'm confident happened at overhaul because the engine always burned 1 qt per 6 hours. I blamed it on the chrome cylinders but I was wrong because, once this cylinder was pulled and overhauled again, the oil consumption dropped to 1 qt in 12 hours. The other cylinder had a loose exhaust valve guide that was easily remedied. Not bad for 1200 hours over ten years on a Continental.

Besides, I discussed this with the General at Scott AFB as we played golf one day and I was seeing if there was a way I could get a normally aspirated O-470L to run lean of peak. He claimed that running a 2/1 blend of MoGas/100LL made some difference and came really close to eliminating the induction system deficiency problem.



All the above is pertinent to my engine and my engine only. Well, except for the general and golf story. That one is a fact for all engines on the planet (in an alternate universe).

 

[Henning]

I can see the storage benefit, but it would be interesting to see what straight 93 UL would get you on the EGT spread.

 

[timwinters]

I can see the storage benefit, but it would be interesting to see what straight 93 UL would get you on the EGT spread.

Not as close as the blend. Closer to 50 depending on season and altitude.

My average with the blend was closer to 20...25. It would regularly get into the mid-teens and I occasionally saw single digit spreads but that was rare.

The biggest advantage, though, wasn't the spread itself but rather more balanced peaks and the resulting ability to more aggressively lean and reduce fuel flows without a corresponding loss in airspeed.

EDIT: I just realized you said "93 UL" i.e. aviation fuel. I was still on the MoGas mindset because the ethanol free MoGas available here is 93 octane (different scale, I realize). So, disregard the above. It was in reference to 93 octane MoGas and not 93 UL aviation fuel which I obviously haven't tested yet.

Enough of the thread hijack though...now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

 

[farmerbrake]

So it was said before 'give us a budget and we'll tell you your options and then condone.... blah blah blah'
So how's this. Initial purchase price around 40 to 45,000. Something that's good to go and ifr certified (I want to use the plane to progress through training, and my dad might want to get his private license if we buy one). Preferably something that isn't super expensive to maintain or get parts for.

 

[farmerbrake]

What will typical load be? You can buy an older 182A for not a lot more than a 172 and get a lot more performance for not much more cost of operations, especially if you put in a strip on the farm. Most of the dairy farmers I know are some big ol boys, and if you're one, you'll be way happier with a 182.

I'm not a 'big ol boy', I just have an excellent power to weight ratio
Typical load would probably be around 300 to 400 in people (two or three in the plane total) plus maybe 60 or so pounds in luggage?
Most likely won't be that all the time though. How hard would it be to train in a 182 to get your private license? My dad might be interested in getting his license if we do buy a plane

 

[timwinters]

Training in a 182 shouldn't pose much of an issue except extra fuel burn. Training is one case where "hours = hours regardless of how far you fly" so the 182's speed offers no advantage except on the few required cross country trips.

The only difference is the CS prop and cowl flaps and one might argue that it's better to learn a prop & cowl flaps from day one rather than transition to them later.

 

[Henning]

I'm not a 'big ol boy', I just have an excellent power to weight ratio
Typical load would probably be around 300 to 400 in people (two or three in the plane total) plus maybe 60 or so pounds in luggage?
Most likely won't be that all the time though. How hard would it be to train in a 182 to get your private license? My dad might be interested in getting his license if we do buy a plane

An old 182 is perfect for you, a nice A model is in your budget. Sheri Marlin bought hers before she had lesson one and learned in it, and she's a girl. Seriously, no big deal to learn how to use the prop and rudder trim.

 

[timwinters]

Seriously, no big deal to learn how to use the prop and rudder trim.

Yeah, an A model like mine doesn't even have cowl flaps to learn like the later models do.

 

[Henning]

Training in a 182 shouldn't pose much of an issue except extra fuel burn. Training is one case where "hours = hours regardless of how far you fly" so the 182's speed offers no advantage except on the few required cross country trips.

The only difference is the CS prop and cowl flaps and one might argue that it's better to learn a prop & cowl flaps from day one rather than transition to them later.

Yep, and you can just ignore the prop at full and cowl flaps open at the beginning with no damage. You can also keep the fuel burn down by reducing throttle. You can get the same time/fuel efficiency out of a 182 as a 172 by just pulling back the power.

 

[farmerbrake]

How much more is an engine and prop overhaul gonna be on a 182 because of the extra 2 cylinders and cs prop?

And what is take off and landing performance?

 

[Henning]

How much more is an engine and prop overhaul gonna be on a 182 because of the extra 2 cylinders and cs prop?

And what is take off and landing performance?

Kind of depends on the prop and if it has ADs on it. At worst a prop will cost $10hr if you have to spend $5000 every 500hrs, but that isn't a reality, even the prop with ADs is going to typically be $2-$3hr worth on a collection kitty, most of the time it costs nothing. The engine overhaul, well, you can wind up a couple/few thousand higher, you can also end up lower than a O-320, it all depends on condition and what parts need replacing. The O-470 is the best engine Continental made IMO, and as it is in the 182, it is very conservatively operated at less than .5hp/C.I.. It is one of the best examples of engines to run 'on condition' as it is easy to manage beyond TBO operations.

 

[Jeff K]

I can see the storage benefit

In his case very little benefit as he is only cutting it with 25% 100LL Best thing to do is keep the tank full and sealed... and keep moving the gas through it. I do agree with you, with his octane requirement he is wasting his money on 100LL... the lead provides no benefit and there was a reason the EPA wants to ban it don't forget.

If he is storing the plane fill it to the top with 100LL or 93UL. I just replaced an original 1964 manf date fuel bladder that developed a small pinhole leak. Still relatively pliable. Reason it lasted so long is it came from a plane on part 135 that averaged 200hrs a year... tanks always full.

but it would be interesting to see what straight 93 UL would get you on the EGT spread.

Unless it prevents detonation, should have no impact.

 

[somorris]

An old 182 is perfect for you, a nice A model is in your budget.

I agree with Henning. I don't think you will regret buying a 182. If you go with a 172 (or Archer), I think at some point you will wish you had gone ahead and bought a 182.

 

[somorris]

Besides, it seems to me that the 182's you see for sale generally have pretty good avionics, which would be nice for working on your IFR.

 

[James331]

Besides, it seems to me that the 182's you see for sale generally have pretty good avionics, which would be nice for working on your IFR.

182 vs a 177, is this even a debate? 182 all the way.

If I wanted a lil retract plane I'd be going glass air or lanceair, 4 seats I'd be looking at PA24s

 

[JoseCuervo]

For that budget, you can get an IFR 182 from the original models up thru the late 1960's.


There are a ton Of them out there, all being sold by 65-75 year old guys that have lost their Medical. I called on many that were for sale, and some that had "just sold", and the OP budget will have no problem finding a bunch of 182's to look at.


Trade offs between paint vs engine time vs interior vs panel, you just prioritize what you want.

 

[txflyer]

Neat thing about a 182 is you can buy one and fly it for a long time or buy a short timer and when the motor is ready, you can Pponk it or Texas Skyways it and you have a great airplane with more power and more speed and payload.

Put some VG's on it, and some 8.50X6 tires, and you've got one heck of a STOL, pretty fast, long range heavy hauler.

The mods for 182's and the Cessna series over all are pretty good.

 

[farmerbrake]

I'm not seeing these nice 182's that you guys keep mentioning that would be within budget. where else should I look other than trade a plane, controller, and barn stormers?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I'm not seeing these nice 182's that you guys keep mentioning that would be within budget. where else should I look other than trade a plane, controller, and barn stormers?

Didn't look at them in depth, just sorted 182 with "Price - Low to High"

 

[farmerbrake]

I looked at them in depth and some/most of them will need avionics upgrades.... I'm also trying to avoid higher time engines.

 

[Henning]

I looked at them in depth and some/most of them will need avionics upgrades.... I'm also trying to avoid higher time engines.

Nothing under $40k doesn't require upgrades, the further under the more it needs if you want modern IFR avionics.

The most important thing is airframe condition, because those repairs are expensive and time consuming. You want to look for the cleanest airframe you can find with a mid time engine and whatever in the panel, or a clean airframe with a runout engine that still shows good vital signs and maybe a 430w in the panel. Do not expect an Aspen or G-500 and a good airframe and a low time engine for under $40k, you'll become a bitter husk of a man without an airplane like some other poster here...

 

[James331]

I looked at them in depth and some/most of them will need avionics upgrades.... I'm also trying to avoid higher time engines.

What do you mean by will need avionics upgrades??

Most I've seen have a full six pack and dual VORs with a glideslope, half have GPS, really that's all you need.

Airplanes will be as expensive as you want them to be