Looking for the perfect GA airplane.

M

Mafoo

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
1,460
Location
New Hampshire
Display Name
Display name:
Mafoo
Hello all.

So I am new here (and to GA). I am just starting out getting my PPL. I am in the process of looking for the perfect plane for my needs, and I have found a few that seem to do what I want, but being I know so little, I thought I would ask the experts :)

Here is what's on my wish list:

  • around $65,000
  • Cruise at least 175kts
  • GPH under 10 @ cruise speeds. (proportional to 175kts, so 260kts could be 15gph)
  • 2 place with room for some luggage
  • Range over 600nm.

Right now a plane that fits these needs the closest (that I have found), seems to be a Glasair I (or II if I can find one in that price range).

What else should I be looking at, that meets these requirements?

Also, if the Glasair is the answer, is there anything negative about that aircraft I should know about?

Thanks in advance! :)
 
I don't see any production certified plane fitting your needs, but I think you may find some E-AB's out there. Problem is that fuel flow versus payload/range balance. You can find a number of 2-seat E-AB's which will go that fast on 10 gph, but finding them with enough room for "some luggage" and a price under $65K will be interesting. I suspect you'll have to accept a fuel burn more like 12 gph or give up cabin volume to get what you otherwise want.

Good luck.
 
Initially reading your requirements I thought, well the only thing that will get him those numbers is a Glasair. As I see, you actually listed it as a candidate.

As a Glasair I FT owner I can tell you you'd be hard pressed to beat a Glasair I for range (750 miles), fuel burn (8 1/2 gal) speed (165 kts) and it just looks cool!

However, if I would buy again I'd get a Glasair II. You'd have a wider cabin, a little more range with the longer wing and a bit better stability with the bigger tail. For your needs of 175 kts that would have to be a II with retracts though. I don't know of any IIs that are going to get 175 kTAS with fixed gear. Not sure though if you have a fixed gear requirement. The baggage area might be a problem for you. I'd say my Glasair's is slightly bigger than a C-150. A II's would be a little bigger than a I's.

Other option would be to get a Lancair 320/360. They are generally faster than the Glasair II with retracts. Owners report pushing 200 kt speeds. However The Lancairs do have some draw backs as well. The aircraft has had a checkered past with control harmony/stability issues. The FAA has specifically addressed the issue in a memo. It would be highly encouraged to get at least 10 hrs in type before soloing. I imagine your insurance company would require this in a Lancair. Unlike Glasairs and most RVs, Lancairs aren't aerobatic. Although I imagine the airframe is quite capable of handling the Gs, Lance didn't want to deal with liability issues in approving them for aerobatics. Since you didn't list that as a requirement I take it wouldn't be important to you anyway. Also if you were to get a Lancair, most 320/360 are above your 65 grand requirement. I suppose there are some out there but they definitely won't be a show bird. Generally the Glasair IIs are a little cheaper but even then you'd be pushing it to get a nice one under 65 grand, especially if you want an IFR equiped one.

I can tell you if you've never flown a homebuilt, once you do you'll never want to go back to production. Having initially owned a Grumman AA-5 then going to a Glasair it was almost night and day. I loved that AA-5 and I miss the room, but shear fun of flight and performance the Glasair blows it away. I went from climbing out at 70 kts and 700 fpm to 110 kts and 1,700 fpm. That is a kick in the pants! I went from a cruise of 115 KTAS to 165-170 KTAS. My little Glasair even has more fuel (46 gal) than the bigger Grumman (38 Gal). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize with those numbers you've got one good cross-country platform. There's no free ride in performance though. What you gain in speed in a composite homebuilt you lose in cabin size/comfort. If you can deal with not having an open airy cockpit and instead feeling like you're wearing the aircraft, than a homebuilt might be for you. Also as stated earlier, I can't stress enough about proper training in one of these. They don't have the docile handling characteristics of their production counterparts. Too many accidents occur in homebuilts because guys just don't understand the differences in a fast, high wing loading aircraft compared to a slow, light wing loading aircraft.

Finally, I don't know if you're into the canards but there are some that might fullfill your requirements. The Long EZE is a good choice however you can get a nice Cozy III for your price and have an extra seat to boot. I have a Velocity that falls within your price range with 4 seats but doesn't quite meet your 175 kt requirement. Canards aren't for everyone though but it's something to think about. Good luck, you can't beat the market right now for buying planes.
 
> proportional to 175kts, so 260kts could be 15gph)

Your expectations seem to ignore physics:

- Drag increases as the square of the speed.
- Power (reqd) increases as the cube of the speed.

Wise to reconsider your fuel burn expectations.
 
rainsux said:
> proportional to 175kts, so 260kts could be 15gph)

Your expectations seem to ignore physics:

- Drag increases as the square of the speed.
- Power (reqd) increases as the cube of the speed.

Wise to reconsider your fuel burn expectations.
Click to expand...

My burn expectations are rooted in MPG, not physics. The Glasair III does 256knots at 12.6 GPH, so I know the requirement is not outside the bounds of reasonable expectations for an aircraft. However that aircraft is outside of my price range.

I could have have just stated a MPG requirement, with a minimum cruise speed, but it seems the community talked in GPH, so I wanted to keep that frame of mind.

My ultimate goal is to invest heavy upfront (by my standards), and keep the cost per mile down. I would rather pay higher fixed costs, and less usage costs. If I do that, it will set me up to have to come up with excuses why not to take the plane when we want to go somewhere, as opposed to the other way around.

In the end I will most likely end up spending more money per year this way, but I will think about it less while I am in the air. Just a weird personal thing of mine.

Thanks everyone for the options so far. I will look at all the aircraft mentioned. Several of them I have never heard of, so it gives me a lot to research.

This is a very exciting new world I have entered :)
 
Mafoo said:
My burn expectations are rooted in MPG, not physics. The Glasair III does 256knots at 12.6 GPH,
Click to expand...
Maybe up in the flight levels, but not below. My experience in type (20 hours or so) is more like 220 KTAS at 10,000 on 15 gph. Be careful about using data from marketing material to make practical decisions without checking all the details.

so I know the requirement is not outside the bounds of reasonable expectations for an aircraft.
Click to expand...
One reason you see numbers like that is turbocharging and the effects of reduced air density on TAS while maintaining full cruise power at very high altitudes. With nonturbocharged engines, it is very hard to keep the airframe drag low enough to go that fast with that load on the power that 10 gph can generate.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe up in the flight levels, but not below. My experience in type (20 hours or so) is more like 220 KTAS at 10,000 on 15 gph. Be careful about using data from marketing material to make practical decisions without checking all the details.
Click to expand...

Still pretty darn fast.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe up in the flight levels, but not below. My experience in type (20 hours or so) is more like 220 KTAS at 10,000 on 15 gph. Be careful about using data from marketing material to make practical decisions without checking all the details.

One reason you see numbers like that is turbocharging and the effects of reduced air density on TAS while maintaining full cruise power at very high altitudes. With nonturbocharged engines, it is very hard to keep the airframe drag low enough to go that fast with that load on the power that 10 gph can generate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the education. Lots to learn. :)
 
Finally, I don't know if you're into the canards but there are some that might fullfill your requirements. The Long EZE is a good choice however you can get a nice Cozy III for your price and have an extra seat to boot. I have a Velocity that falls within your price range with 4 seats but doesn't quite meet your 175 kt requirement. Canards aren't for everyone though but it's something to think about. Good luck, you can't beat the market right now for buying planes.
Click to expand...

The Velocity is a gorgeous aircraft. I'm in love with those and the Legacy
 
Wow, the Cozy IV looks like it meets all my requirements (and holds 4 people to boot!). From what I could find with the Lyc 0-360, is it will do 188kts @ 8,000 feet, and burn 10 gph on 75% power. Or if you go to 12,000 feet and 50% power, it will do 160kts @ 6gph.

27mpg for a 4 place is pretty amazing, especially at those speeds. There is a nice looking one for sale at the moment, for 79K, asking for offers (so I am sure they will come down). So not that far off in price.

Quick question: How odd are these to fly? Do they fly just like a traditional plane, or are there characteristics different?
 
> Thanks for the education. Lots to learn.

Please consider:

- The speeds quoted by sales/mktg materials of Experimental aircraft are
seldom achieved in real life. Lots of testerone poisoning in the community.

- Please consider your typical mission profile. ie: You cannot fill the tanks,
all the seats and the baggage compartment. You really need to-do the
W&B calcs (for both departure & arrival configs).

> Cozy Mk IV

I've got < 2 hours in a Cozy Mk IV. I didn't see anything near 188 knots
TAS at 75% power. IIRC; TAS was ~160 knots TAS.

How odd are these to fly? They are a bit different, especially landings.
Get type-specific training.

Unwise to buy an aircraft without first getting someone with type-specific
expertise going thru it with a fine-tooth comb.
 
Last edited:
Yea, I would not buy, or solo a plane without first flying it with someone who understands it well, and can give me some training.

I am not planing on buying in the next 6 months to a year. I want to complete my PPL first. I am just consumed by this new passion, and am spending a lot of time getting my ducks in a row so to speak :)

I have ForeFlight on my iPad, and I am spending a lot of time trying to figure out different costs for a specific trip. I live 1000nm away from my family and work, and if I had a plane that was economical to fly, I would head back there once or twice a month. I also want something that is not going to take me 10 hours to do it.

So just looking at what my options are, so when it does come time to purchase something, I am not starting out with no information at all.

concerned however, that published numbers by owners, are often times less then accurate. The charts I found on the Cozy where done by an owner, and not the company.

I would link it, but it seems every time I add a link to a post, it gets blocked. Not sure if that's because I need to wait some time, or is there a pay version of this site?
 
Mafoo said:
I have ForeFlight on my iPad, and I am spending a lot of time trying to figure out different costs for a specific trip. I live 1000nm away from my family and work, and if I had a plane that was economical to fly, I would head back there once or twice a month. I also want something that is not going to take me 10 hours to do it.
Click to expand...

If 90% of your flying is this mission, dial in the stats for a VaryEZ, 180k on 5 gph. it is small, flys on a Continental 0-200 (100 HP) and has nothing but the back seat to carry baggage.
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_680709_1976+Vari-Eze.html
 
Last edited:
> The charts I found on the Cozy where done by an owner, and not the company.

Some builders/owners are equally untrustworthy when it comes to performance data. <g>
 
Tom-D said:
If 90% of your flying is this mission, dial in the stats for a VaryEZ, 180k on 5 gph. it is small, flys on a Continental 0-200 (100 HP) and has nothing but the back seat to carry baggage.
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_680709_1976+Vari-Eze.html
Click to expand...

wow, that's very nice. However when I do go back, half the time my wife will be going with me, so I will need a place for baggage.

If I ever get divorced however, I know what plane to look at :)
 
Your mission and my mission are identical, although my trip length is half yours (420nm) and I do it more often (3x/mo).

I did a comparative analysis and have settled into the fact that the 2 seater sleek experimentals are the ideal airplane for my mission. I just can't afford the entry price right now.

I did a spreadsheet comparing several spam cans and experimentals versus my baseline (PA-28-161) and the Glasair blew the others away. 150KTAS on 8.5GPH is right in the sweet spot for my mission.

You mentioned spending money now to save money later. I couldn't agree more. I still needed to get to where I want to go so I had to make some luck for myself; I went and got a warrior which is all I could afford comfortably at this stage.

For your planning purposes I'll give you my rundown of operating costs for the year in the warrior, which is essentially how you'd be doing it you attempted to fly your mission in the same aircraft you would train for your PPL. In my case, for a planned 25,000nm flown per year, which is about 2.5 round trips of my flagship mission per month, I'm looking at an operating budget of $15,000 a year. Not bad for 25,000nm actually. A full 2/3rds of that is fuel. No joke. This whole "MX is double the fuel" bit has NOT been true for me. MX has been nothing on the cherokee relative to fuel, but I'm a utilitarian, meaning I'm running a post TBO engine on condition and don't go out spending big bucks everytime whatever PMA plastic trinket breaks off.

I could cut my trips in half and now it's a 10K a year budget. Flying a Glasair will probably have the same MX cost (F prop F gear O320) as the warrior, but the gas savings and time will be in the order of 465 gallons for the year. 2 grand a year. Not inconsequential, but not all that great in the big scheme of things. The real savings is time. 2 hours per trip round trip for me. That's huge when you're doing this mission on 100-110KTGS every other weekend. 3+45 in the warrior is painful after six months of doing it. Again, putting an autopilot eats up half the years budget so forget that.

I thought about going retract. False economy. The prop and gear ADs and recurring mx on these spam cans would eat my budget alive and I wouldn't even make the 150KTS the Glasair would. I can't make it to my destination if all my budget is sitting in the hangar. I would be a fool to go for the purchase price. There is a reason these complex retracts are going for a lot less than Glasairs. They're traps.

I did look at a Glasair III at the ramp one day but haven't sat on one. It looks cramped and they tell me the Glasair Is are narrower still than the II/IIIs. That has me a little concerned. I have flown an RV-9. Perfectly happy with the dimensions and seating arrangement of that particular RV. They tell me they're identical to 7s. 6s are apparently smaller in the cabin?? . But RVs are waaaaay too hyped in price for the stated performance and the panels are garbage. I don't know what it is about RV builders, but when it came to panels they just went full retard on the effort. Ugly frankenstein things. Glasairs, Lancairs, Thorps, Mustangs and the like have much better arranged (read standardized) instrument panels.

Canards strike me again as too much of a compromise. The aircraft arrangement doesn't seem practical. when I arrive at podunk airport I just tie the cherokee and walk away. That whole winglet sticking out everywhere and nose down parking seems logistically cumbersome. Those winglets wouldn't last a month in a community hangar. They're really single seaters when it comes to the logistics of ground handling. Tandem seating is a deal breaker for me.

I'd say you hit it the mark with the Glasair. I'd go sit in one though. I have no idea just how "reclined" the supposed reclined seating position is. I've flown Europas and RVs and I don't think those count as reclined seating. So I dunno. Either way, sounds like Glasair fits the bill.

Good luck!
 
Mafoo said:
My burn expectations are rooted in MPG, not physics
Click to expand...
MPG doesn't violate laws of physics.
As was correctly pointed out to you above the word 'proportional' has no place in relation between fuel burn and speed.
 
I agree with Rainsux. You're not going to see 188 KTAS on a Cozy IV. A more realistic number would be right around 170-175 KTAS. There is an excellent video on Youtube titled "Canard." It's a clip from the DVD series In Pursuit of Flight. It's about a 10 min interview with a guy and he discusses cruise speeds, handling characteristics etc. Anyway he reports his cruise speed on 200 HP as 170 KTAS.

My Velocity has retracts and a cruise prop and I get 165 KTAS on 200 HP. The Velocity is a much bigger airframe so the drag slows me up a bit. I'd rather deal with 10 kts slower than a Cozy and have a slightly wider cabin. Also I can slip past a SR-20 with a fraction of the cost of ownership You'll see some comments fron Cozy owners the aircraft is called Cozy for a reason...the cabin is "Cozy." I sat in one and I agree you'd probably be shoulder to shoulder with the person next to you. I think if your wife was small then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

You have to realize also the Cozy is a plans built aircraft and not a kit. Just me talking here but I lean more towards a kit. For instance in a kit such as my Glasair or Velocity, a critical component (wing spar) of the wing is already done at the factory. In a plans built the guy is building the thing from raw materials. This could mean wide variances in builder quality. Also the builder might have modified the design from the original intent. This could be a good thing. I met a Cozy 3 builder who built his cabin wider than the plans to have more shoulder room. Hard to do that sort of thing in a kit. Nothing against a Cozy, Long EZE, Varizeze. They were all in the running when I was searching for a canard, but I went with a well known kit instead.

Rainsux is also correct on the handling (as the guy in said Youtube video will point out). They just aren't a docile easy to fly kind of aircraft. Not impossible, they just require getting used to. Plus you'll see people report big differences in handling from one canard to the next. some people with say they're completely unstable and you always have to be flying them. I can tell you with mine, I can fly hands off and she'll track straight and level just like a C-172. That's why mine is called a 173 because it was designed by Dan Maher to compete with a C-172. Where the differences occur in handling is on landing. If you go from a C-172 to one of these I assure you that you'll get into Pilot Induced Oscillations in the flare. They are sooo touchy the least little bit of input with pitch the nose up. When I went down to the Velocity factory to buy mine they had one in the hanger that the pilot crushed the landing gear on landing because of PIO. I went back the next year and they had another one in the hanger with the same thing. Training, training, training! Your insurance will require it anyway (at least mine did). I went down to Velocity and went through the certified training program in order for my insurance to cover me. Plus it's just common sense. NO WAY I'd fly one of these without a checkout from an experienced instructor.

Not sure how long into your PPL training you are so I won't go into detail but I will mention a canard aircraft's inability to stall. The small wing (canard) up front is designed with a higher angle of incidence than the main wing. There are a couple of other factors as well but I won't go into them. Anyway, because of the higher angle of incidence up front, the canard will reach it's critical angle of attack before the main wing does thus stalling the canard and not the main wing. You can imagine that keeping the main wing from stalling would be a good thing. I can turn base, kick in full pedal and pull back on the the stick and the canard will just stall and boob up and down at around (58 kts) and be in a 500 fpm decent rate. All I have to do is relax pressure and she'll fly right out of it. Probably the greatest benefit of a canard.

Some quick pros to a canard: Engine in back so it's slightly quieter. If you have an engine fire everything will be pulled away from the aircraft and not in the cabin at your feet! Stall characteristics as stated above. No prop leaves an unobstructed view. Rudders can bank the aircraft as quickly as most yokes in a production. They look cool!

Some quick cons to a canard: They're loud. Engine exhuast/airflow goes through the prop creating a pressure disturbance. This noise is a big reason why Burt Rutan (canard designer) won't design any more canards. Also this disturbance generally (debatable) reduces the the thrust of a canard compared to a tractor type configuration. Anything that comes of the aircraft or the ground is going through that prop. I've already had damage to the prop from screws and rocks. I have a Catto prop (highly recommended) though which is essentially undestructable. Also quick note, rain will destroy the leading edges of an unprotected composite prop...never seen anything like it! As stated handling characteristics can be a bit squirly. CG has to closely be monitored compared to a tractor type configuration. Single pilot in a canard will usually require balast up front, hence the reason why most rest on their noses. The rudders can bank the aircraft as quickly as most yokes in a production type. They look strange.

That's about it man. I'm running late for work so I won't be held reasponsible for grammer/spelling issues. Quickly though, if you or anyone is ineterested in a Velocity a guy at the local airport is selling one. From what I'm told by the A&P who maintains it (N80VA): ENG 0 SMOH (IO-360), Prop 0 SPOH (MT), Basic Terra panel, "nice" condition (white with red/gold stripes), has retracts. A&P said the guy wants like 50 grand??? Unusually low in my opinion but whatever, could be the deal of the century. At any rate, good luck in your search.
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
MPG doesn't violate laws of physics.
As was correctly pointed out to you above the word 'proportional' has no place in relation between fuel burn and speed.
Click to expand...

Yea, I get that for the same airframe, load, etc, it's not liner. I was just stating that the reasons for my desire of an aircraft that follows that liner solution (fixed MPG regardless of speed), is rooted in a desired price point.

To state it better, I don't need to go faster then 175k, but if there is an aircraft that does, and cost me the same in fuel when I get there, don't remove it from the list. :)
 
thanks hindsight2020, that was a lot of very useful information :). Good to hear that I am on the right track. :)
 
FYI-- on the Vari EZE--

I was building one back in the late 70's. I lived in Lancaster, Ca and took my parts out to Mojave Airport on Saturdays to have Burt Rutan look at them. He was not famous then-and had extra time to give TLC to the builders-so he gave me a lot of learning when it comes to composites. Many of them are heavy cause people had/have tendency to use too much epoxy. So the numbers in the manual many times are off from real life when you finish it. Also, be very careful who you buy one from--doctors bury their mistakes- and some of the builders just cover up their mistakes. The LongEZE was designed cause many of the VariEze builders were installing Lycoming O-235's in theirs.
 
Thanks McFly. The more I think of it (and hear from you all), the more Glasair II seems like my aircraft... if I can find a good example in my price range. I might need to go up a little.
 
I think I am leaning now to the Van's RV 7A (Thanks Mike for pointing me towards this aircraft).

The RV 8 seems to better fit the list above, but after talking with my wife, she would much rather sit next to me. I personally think the added visibility would trump that, but no dice.

The delta in speed with 180hp between the RV-7A and Glasair II FT, is 12 mph in favor of the Glasair II. However the RV stalls at 51 mph, while the Glasair at 73-63 mph depending on configuration. This bit of information from Van's website convinced me the 12mph could be overlooked:

"A crash at 50 mph is 70% more survivable than one at 65 mph."

To me the added safety trumps the slight loss in performance.

Anyone with any experience with the RV-7/A want to chime in on the pros and cons of that aircraft?

Thanks! :)
 
> Anyone with any experience with the RV-7/A want to chime in on the pros
> and cons of that aircraft?

Delightful to fly; but they fly quite differently that the typical GA trainer. i.e. Controls
are much lighter. Stability is less neutral. Type-specific training is wise.

In general; the cockpits of the Experimental aircraft you are considering are gonna be
more cramped than the typical GA training aircraft. How much more cramped depends
upon you, your pax and your expectations.

Lots of gnashing of teeth re: canopy arrangements & safety. Tilt-up vs. slider.
 
Last edited:
Mafoo said:
I think I am leaning now to the Van's RV 7A (Thanks Mike for pointing me towards this aircraft).

The RV 8 seems to better fit the list above, but after talking with my wife, she would much rather sit next to me. I personally think the added visibility would trump that, but no dice.

The delta in speed with 180hp between the RV-7A and Glasair II FT, is 12 mph in favor of the Glasair II. However the RV stalls at 51 mph, while the Glasair at 73-63 mph depending on configuration. This bit of information from Van's website convinced me the 12mph could be overlooked:

"A crash at 50 mph is 70% more survivable than one at 65 mph."

To me the added safety trumps the slight loss in performance.


Anyone with any experience with the RV-7/A want to chime in on the pros and cons of that aircraft?

Thanks! :)
Click to expand...

Once again don't always go with manufacturers specs. Go with what owners report. I can't speak to an RV-7 stalling at 51 mph but I can tell you my Glasair I stalls at 63 mph. With a II having a longer wing I can't imagine it being anywhere above 63 mph.


When it comes to the two aircraft the biggest choice is obviously metal or composite? I prefer the smooth lines of a composite. The fact (especially aerobatics) that it has a low stress memory. It won't corrode.

The RV guys have an airframe that is the most popular homebuilt in the world. The company is thriving while Glasair just got bought out by the Chinese. Possibly a consideration. There are plenty of interior/panel packages you can buy for a 7 that are like "plug and play." Glasair doesn't have those. One last factor for a 7 is lightning. You'll hear a few people online that stay away from composite because if you're evr struck by lightning you're done. Not sure about the reality in that but I'm sure it would be extensive damage compared to minimal damage on a metal plane. You will see though on some composites, static on the radios if they didn't properly ground them..kinda hard with a composite.

I love both planes and you can't go wrong with either one. Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure you won't find a 7 anywhere near your 75 grand requirement. You could get a real nice 6 for that though?
 
Last edited:
McFly - you are aware that there are certified designs that are made of composite, right? I'm only saying that your statement didn't give composites enough berth WRT lightning.
 
Jaybird180 said:
McFly - you are aware that there are certified designs that are made of composite, right? I'm only saying that your statement didn't give composites enough berth WRT lightning.
Click to expand...

Obviously, but we aren't talking about certifcated (Cirrus, Liberty XL etc) designs, we talking homebuilt composites. They have no lightning protection just as some of the Diamond (certificated) aircraft are only VFR certified because they have no lightning protection. I'm not saying not to buy a homebuilt composite because of the possiblity of a lightning strike either. If I was then I sure wouldn't have bought both a Velocity and a Glasair.
 
Velocity173 said:
Obviously, but we aren't talking about certifcated (Cirrus, Liberty XL etc) designs, we talking homebuilt composites. They have no lightning protection just as some of the Diamond (certificated) aircraft are only VFR certified because they have no lightning protection. I'm not saying not to buy a homebuilt composite because of the possiblity of a lightning strike either. If I was then I sure wouldn't have bought both a Velocity and a Glasair.
Click to expand...

The DA-20???
 
Velocity173 said:
I love both planes and you can't go wrong with either one. Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure you won't find a 7 anywhere near your 75 grand requirement. You could get a real nice 6 for that though?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

As to what I quoted, I have seen several examples for under 75K. I found one that looked amazing for 35K, but I suspect the reason it's so cheap, is it has a Subaru conversion in it.

I would link, but my posts with links get blocked (and idea why?)

If you go to barnstormers, and search for "RV-7A Beautifully Built", you will see the plane.

I am not in the market just yet, so the ones I am interested in will be gone when I am ready to buy. However I don't see the market getting any better anytime soon, so the longer I wait, the better off I most likely am.
 
After very careful consideration, looking at most all GA airplanes on the market and what I honestly believe the best airplane for you would be, I have reached the conclusion that the best airplane for you would be a 1978 Piper Warrior, tail number N997SG.

This is of course, a completely unbiased recommendation. PM me if you need to hear more about my astounding, almost psychic ability to match up pilots with airplanes.

-John
 
I see N997SG is registered to someone with a similar name like yours John.:wink2: I rented Warriors out of National Air College at Montgomery back in the 90s. Great airplane and a great area to fly around.
 
For your wish list an RV-6 would fit the bill.

around $65,000
- many -6's will fall near or under this price
Cruise at least 175kts
- you would need to find one with a o-360 for this speed
GPH under 10 @ cruise speeds.
- this should be easy for the -6. I was cruising at 7.2GPH (8k and 155kts but I have an o-320)
2 place with room for some luggage
- lots of room for luggage. Never been an issue.
Range over 600nm.
- this can be done leaned out but for reserve you will need extended tanks. Easy to add.

There is a new RV-14 that is bigger, has more range and has lots of room. But you will have to build it as it was just announced.

I like the Cozy, but I sure would not want to land off field with this plane.

With any plane, especially experimentals, get some transition training. They are fast, which means you can get into trouble fast. But once you get ahead of the plane you should be fine.

So, you can get what you listed, but the question I have is why those? What is your mission? When I was getting my PPL, I wanted something completely different than what I would want now.
 
Last edited:
Mafoo said:
The RV 8 seems to better fit the list above, but after talking with my wife, she would much rather sit next to me. I personally think the added visibility would trump that, but no dice.
Click to expand...
Side by side seating is far more pratical than tandem for the long trips you're contemplating. Think charts, water bottles, snacks etc.
 
mike d said:
So, you can get what you listed, but the question I have is why those? What is your mission? When I was getting my PPL, I wanted something completely different than what I would want now.
Click to expand...

I guess we all learn to fly for different reasons.

For me, it's the same as when I learned to drive. While the act of driving was fun, what was really amazing for a 16 year old, is how much it expanded the world I live in. I went from being able to go to places I could ride a bike, to places I could drive... and I took full advantage of that.

I love to explore. Flying to me is mainly a way to extend my range once again. If my wife and I want to spend the day in Nova Scotia, we can just jump in the plane and go. Be there in less time then it takes us to drive to Boston (something we like to do).

I also work from home, but my home base is in Minnesota, 1000mn away. I would like to fly myself back there the 4-5 times a year I go. I have family there as well, and would most likely visit them more often.

So I look a the range of places we can go for the weekend with a car on the map, and then imagine how much bigger that circle well be when I have my PPL, and a fast efficient plane :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top