Looking seriously at this one
- Thread starter azure
- Start date
Doggtyred
En-Route
Most of that asking price is in the panel I'm guessing..
and.. the $55,000 cardinal RG's are high time engines..
The OP may find alternatives in the 80K range for Cardinal RG's without the dream panel.. and honestly that may be of greater value - then drop a tuned exhaust (powerflow) and get the engine breathing, and reap some extra power/performance from the stock engine..
azure
Final Approach
If you're serious, PM me. I actually don't have more than a couple of hours tomorrow evening (getting behind on work thanks to too much airplane shopping
), but I could pop over to VLL for a look at your ride. 
azure
Final Approach
Or the new engine... as in zero time.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Careful here... 0 SMOH or 0 TT? Unless it's a factory new/rebuilt engine, the total time on the engine may be higher.
If I had the choice between two identical planes, one with a new engine and one with an engine at TBO but was priced accordingly, I'd probably prefer the engine at TBO. Reason being that I know where I'd want my overhaul done, and it's probably not where the previous owner did it.
fastair5
Pre-Flight
Hey Ed...the only point of comparison is not seats vs. price unless your mission is to carry 3 normal sized people with full fuel...2 seat RVs cost anywhere from 50k to 100k and would surpass any Cessna's performance while sipping 9GPH. I fly an RV7 on long cross-countries monthly and it is sweet to be able to climb at 1400fpm gross, cruise 160ktas, burn 9gph, plenty of luggage in the back to include the beer cooler, and to have only paid 78k for a 5 year old 200 hour engine/airframe. Experimentals usually beat out production on most levels...
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Hey Ed...the only point of comparison is not seats vs. price unless your mission is to carry 3 normal sized people with full fuel...2 seat RVs cost anywhere from 50k to 100k and would surpass any Cessna's performance while sipping 9GPH. I fly an RV7 on long cross-countries monthly and it is sweet to be able to climb at 1400fpm gross, cruise 160ktas, burn 9gph, plenty of luggage in the back to include the beer cooler, and to have only paid 78k for a 5 year old 200 hour engine/airframe. Experimentals usually beat out production on most levels...
If you look at, say, an RV-10 at $200k and compare it to anything of comparable age on the certified market I'd agree (you can spend that on a pretty new 172), but when you're looking at what you can get for your dollar, I'd rather save the cash and get something older.
azure
Final Approach
He says it's a Lycoming factory reman. Personally, I'd prefer a plane with an engine with a few hundred hours on it to one that's 0 SMOH, even a factory reman. I've seen the figures that the mortality curve for engines is bimodal, with a substantial "infant mortality". But if I was going to buy one with 0 SMOH, I'd prefer it to be a factory reman, 0 TT engine.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Hey Ed...the only point of comparison is not seats vs. price unless your mission is to carry 3 normal sized people with full fuel...2 seat RVs cost anywhere from 50k to 100k and would surpass any Cessna's performance while sipping 9GPH. I fly an RV7 on long cross-countries monthly and it is sweet to be able to climb at 1400fpm gross, cruise 160ktas, burn 9gph, plenty of luggage in the back to include the beer cooler, and to have only paid 78k for a 5 year old 200 hour engine/airframe. Experimentals usually beat out production on most levels...
Lets see. I flew my Comanche to Florida last month, and I know the RV7 would not have fit what I took with me, and it was just me. Oh yeah, and I'm not taking my dog with me in a -7.
Last edited:
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
From what I've seen, there are plenty of options at a pretty good price if you don't want to buy into the "high end" of a particular class of airplanes. But if you're looking for something with a "dream panel", a recent FREM, in truly excellent condition you'll likely have to pay well over book value. Those planes tend to sell within a week of availability if they are priced reasonably or else they sit around for a long time while the owner waits for someone who's willing to pay his minimum price.
The flip side is that you'd have to pay even more to buy a run of the mill airplane and fix/equip it to the same level and IMO the main reason that those true "cream puffs" (not the pigs with recent paint/interior) simply cost more than the majority of buyers are willing to pay. Most of us have to settle for something less for financial reasons and end up buying something "adequate" vs "ultimate" and that tends to put you right smack in the "middle" of the market in terms of equipment and condition (e.g. Ed's Comanche, very capable, reasonably well equipped and in good mechanical condition, but not ready for judging at OSH or with a panel full of the latest gismos).
I like your minimum's except that I strongly recommend you go with WAAS from the get go as that's normally about a $3500 upgrade and only available if you start with a GNS430 or 530. If the GPS is any other non-WAAS you'd have to replace it completely at a cost that two to three times higher. As to the engine monitor, I feel they about the most important gadget you can get after a WAAS GPS but it's possible to pick up a good used one for about half of new and the older technology (design specific gas plasma display) can be had new for around $1500 (all prices plus installation). For installation, you could save a lot by doing much of it yourself, most of the labor involves simple things like installing probes (drill a hole in each exhaust for EGT and connect a pair of wires for all 8 or 12 probes). The rest (wiring in one CB and mounting the instrument) shouldn't involve more than 3-4 hours of labor if there's space in the panel. A HSI is more of a "nice to have" but in the class of plane's you're considering I wouldn't pay much for one. For one thing a good moving map (ala handheld or 430W) provides much of the same information in a more useful format. Also FWIW, as owners replace their mechanical HSIs with aftermarket glass, good used HSIs are starting to flood the market so you could probably add one in a year or two on the cheap. And finally, HSI's do have a significant maintenance cost, possibly as high as a few dollars per hour of operation.
On the speed issue, it's my theory that any time you "upgrade" your aeronautical transportation mount you should look for about a 10 KTAS increase over whatever you're currently flying. You will never own a plane that's as fast as you would like, but IME an extra 10KT is enough of a perceptible difference to notice without putting you five miles behind the airplane at first. As long as you get something faster than you're used to, you'll get a nice warm fuzzy feeling on every trip when you glance at the VSI and the headwinds won't make your groundspeed look as bad.BTW though I envision trips up to 400nm and (rarely) longer, 200-250nm each way is more typical for me. Headwinds could still be an issue, I agree, especially IFR. Otherwise, I'll need a pitstop long before fuel becomes an issue. We did PHN-C59-PHN without refueling (5 hours flight time), though that was always VFR.
Thanks folks, keep 'em coming! (Certificated only, though, no experimentals.)
So bottom line is, if you want the "ultimate" airplane for your budget you'll probably have to look a long time (and resist the temptation to stretch the budget), but if you're willing to pull back a little (as you've indicated) you should be able to find something "adequate" for a lot less than $100k.
Last edited:
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
The best option for 0SMOH is one from a reputable engine rebuilder that is willing to stand behind the product for a new owner. The OEMs are far more likely to blame any issues on the pilot and attempt to deny claims or at least skimp on coverage (e.g. "we'll fix the engine but you have to pay for R&R + shipping, or "we'll supply the parts at no charge, you pay to have them installed by your mechanic"). TCM is worse than Lycoming in this regard but neither comes close to what most of the well known aftermarket shops will do if there's a problem. And while you are correct that newly overhauled engines have poorer reliability than those which have made it through the first couple hundred hours without major issues, the rate of early problems is pretty low and it's really nice to know that the prior owner didn't operate the engine in a manner that's not conducive to long life (hint: something like 75-85% of pilots do not know how to operate a big bore engine properly). On the flip side a freshly overhauled engine is far more susceptible to corrosion issues than an engine with a few hundred hours when it sits idle and a lot of airplanes on the market aren't being flown regularly.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Ok good, just making sure on this. There are a number of people out there who will claim 0 time engines or 0 SMOH, but it may have been the farmer barn overhaul. Not saying such overhauls are necessarily bad, but I will be much more skeptical of one (especially if it has overhauled cylinders).
A couple hundred hours on an engine is probably not a bad thing, either, but I'd personally like to know that I broke the engine in properly and operated it properly since install.
kevin7500
Pre-takeoff checklist
If you want a ride in the Comanche just to see how it is, I can arrange that, as soon, as I can get it back from the mx shop that is. Annual just got done, but I don't have a ride over there or back. That's a hint for someone in the thread.
I was out to 35D on Tuesday and noticed 7DS backed up to the fence looking sad and abandoned! Depending on where you want to start from, I could make the run either tonight or tomorrow.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I picked it up Tuesday night! When were you out there?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I was thinking about that when I was looking at planes and it does make the initial transition easier, but in general you can run the plane slower if you so choose (and take some better economy from it). As changing planes is expensive, I'd think it makes more sense in this case to look at something that might be more than she thinks she needs, because she'll probably find out she's really glad to have it before long.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Yeah, but when you get to the point where you can fly from LA to New York in the same time that it takes the airlines, you're probably pretty much set.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
kevin7500
Pre-takeoff checklist
Just before all the cub scouts started showing up...6ish?
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
You "might" be able to run an engine several hundred hours past TBO, especially if it was/is flown regularly but you'd also be wise to have the money available to replace the engine should it croak at TBO or sooner. One thing for sure, it would be extremely difficult to find someone to come in as a partner after the engine blew up without replacing it first.
WRT the 480, it's a much better box for IFR ops than a r430 but it also doesn't have the ability to display much (TIS traffic is about the only option) besides the map. This unit was really intended to be coupled with a MFD. Also while someone posted something in this thread about the 480 not being "supported" by Garmin and that's not true, they expect to continue supporting the 480 for many years. What is true is that there will be no further software upgrades or other enhancements of the product and they won't sell you a new one. That said, the 430W is more than adequate for IFR and while the 480 is highly valued by the pilot's who know the box (used ones occasionally show up and typically sell for as much as or more than I paid for a new one), there are far more potential airplane buyers who will prefer the 430W to a 480.
Without turning this into a favorite brand and/or high/low wing thread I'd like to plug the Bonanza and address your specific concerns about the design. First the panel layout of the 60s-80s vintage truly isn't ideal, (the radio stack is offset to allow for the center yoke mechanisms behind the panel) but
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I was there around 7. I remember having to reset the local settings on the clock in the plane to 19:23 when I was getting ready to do my runup.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
You "might" be able to run an engine several hundred hours past TBO, especially if it was/is flown regularly but you'd also be wise to have the money available to replace the engine should it croak at TBO or sooner. One thing for sure, it would be extremely difficult to find someone to come in as a partner after the engine blew up without replacing it first.
WRT the 480, it's a much better box for IFR ops than a r430 but it also doesn't have the ability to display much (TIS traffic is about the only option) besides the map. This unit was really intended to be coupled with a MFD. Also while someone posted something in this thread about the 480 not being "supported" by Garmin and that's not true, they expect to continue supporting the 480 for many years. What is true is that there will be no further software upgrades or other enhancements of the product and they won't sell you a new one. That said, the 430W is more than adequate for IFR and while the 480 is highly valued by the pilot's who know the box (used ones occasionally show up and typically sell for as much as or more than I paid for a new one), there are far more potential airplane buyers who will prefer the 430W to a 480.
Without turning this into a favorite brand and/or high/low wing thread I'd like to plug the Bonanza and address your specific concerns about the design. First the panel layout of the 60s-80s vintage truly isn't ideal, (the radio stack is offset to allow for the center yoke mechanisms behind the panel) but it's not much of an issue. The earliest versions which had a "shotgun" arrangement of flight instruments and very limited space for avionics are definitely less desirable but many of those have had the entire panel or at least the portion above the piano key switches replaced with something that's laid out like the 70s design. But even the original setup can be quite usable if that's the only plane you're flying and you can get a lot of airplane for the money with them because of their perceived shortcomings. Of course that would be a significant downside if and when you decided to sell. On the door issue, all I can say is when I switched from a C177RG to a Bonanza, the extra speed and especially the control feel made me forget all about the lack of a second door the first time I flew it. If you thing about it, you will spend a lot more time flying than climbing in or out so the advantage of the Cardinal's big double doors is really limited in the real world. Plus you're a lot less likely to experience the fun of having a door blown open by the wind and bending the hinges in a Bonanza (or Comanche for that matter) than in a Cardinal. And while the 177s doors and low cabin contribute to what must be the easiest production 4 seater to get in and out of, they also are renown for leaking in the rain and they definitely contribute to the Cessna's noticeable lack of structural rigidity compared to a Bonanza.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Nope, at that point you'd be pining for something faster than Mach 1. IME speed is entirely relative to whatever you were flying before. When I "moved up" from a C-152 to Skyhawks, the blistering 120 KTAS felt wonderful. Going from there to the 177RG gave me another 15 Kt and with that I thought I'd never need more speed but that feeling lasted only a year or two. The Bonanza I had would do an honest 150 KTAS (160 if you pushed it) and in a 15-20 Kt headwind I could console myself with the fact that I was still making about the same speed as the Cardinal would do without the wind. My Baron will do 175-190 KTAS and I know that if I could manage 220 KTAS my trips to Florida would seem noticeably shorter. It never ends.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
Lance, this is all important info. Thanks for the discussion!
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I probably wouldn't be able to get over there till 7 or so. It is only a 35 minute flight, but I gotta go home, take care of the dog, 20 minutes to the airport, preflight, put fuel in, etc...
azure
Final Approach
This plane has a MFD (GMX-200). In fact the primary nav GPS and radios seem to be well integrated along the 480 buttonology philosophy -- even to the point where NAVCOM 2 is a SL-30.
That's a sticking point on this one for me, too. I've looked over the manuals for the 480 and SL-30 and don't find a lot to dislike about them, at least on paper. The "monitor" function sounds like a good thing that eliminates much of my need for a COM2. The only thing that sounds not so good about the SL-30 is that you can't even see the NAV and COM frequencies at the same time.
But even if I like it, I wonder how many prospective partners will be turned away by its not being what they're used to.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
True, that all makes sense. Having only been flying for 2.5 years, the longest I've dealt with any particular speed has been for the past 15 months (Aztec). I want faster, but actually what I'd like more is better range. I dislike having to stop when heading westbound.
My two trips out west this year so far (California and Arizona) were both exercises in patience, and were the only real times in a while when I truly felt the urge for an extra 50 kts. For the most part, I enjoy my flying time and am content with my current speed. We'll see how I change my mind next year.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes you can adapt to a much bigger speed increase with time. My main point was that a 10-15 KTAS bump can seem mighty satisfying yet is fairly easy to cope with.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
That I agree with fully (sorry if it wasn't clear). Hopping from the Archer to the Mooney to the Aztec was about that sort of speed increase. Was satisfying to fly and easy to cope with.
Although given your speed numbers in your Baron, I'm jealous and sometimes question my purchase decision, even though my cages wouldn't fit in your plane very well.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
While it won't help with the partner's preference issue, I know some pilot's have offered to pay the cost to swap someone's 480 for a 430W just to get a 480 for their new to them airplane. A 480 combined with a MX-20 or other compatible MFD (mine's connected to a EX500) is a very nice package. The main issue with the 480 is that it frustrates someone with a lot of 430 (or even Garmin handheld) time, especially if they don't care to plumb the depths of the more capable box. For them the 430W is better because the bare minimum knowledge is sufficient to extract enough function to get the job done. For those of us who want to learn how to take advantage of every feature the 480 has much more to offer.
azure
Final Approach
Ed, if you're willing and up for it, I can be there at 7. My cell number is xxx-xxx-xxxx.
Last edited:
flyersfan31
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 14,269
- Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
1) I wouldn't have ADS-B as a purchase criterion. Wait 10 yrs.
2) $100k may be the ASKING price, but the SELLING price is a 'whole nother number. If you like the plane, offer a (reasonable) price that YOU like. If he says no, well, there are a zillion other decent planes out there to buy.
2) $100k may be the ASKING price, but the SELLING price is a 'whole nother number. If you like the plane, offer a (reasonable) price that YOU like. If he says no, well, there are a zillion other decent planes out there to buy.
azure
Final Approach
10 years before it's mandatory, but maybe much less before it's useful. See http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...lance_broadcast/coverage/media/coverage01.png for a map of the projected coverage as of 2013. I don't know whether they're anywhere close to on schedule, but if that's what they're planning, an awful lot of the country will have coverage at 1800 feet (not sure if that's AGL or MSL, but probably MSL since areas that won't have it seem to be mostly where the terrain is already above 1800 MSL).
Yup.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I guess most of us seek value in our purchases. However, there is some wisdom in seeking a premium product for a premium price. I certainly did that with my last car and motorcycle purchases and have not been disappointed. The again, I keep cars and bikes a long time, so paying a lot up front isn't such a bad thing. If you plan on keep the aircraft forever, or at least until the docs say you can't fly anymore, then paying a premium price isn't such a bad thing , so long as you are sufficiently young and fit that the docs will not so rule in the near future.
All that said, I still personally think $100K is way too much for a Cardinal.
All that said, I still personally think $100K is way too much for a Cardinal.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,019
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
They can have my airplane when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
Paying a premium price for premium quality is fine so long as what you're getting is actually premium quality. In my case, I find that you can generally get good quality at a low price if you pick wisely and aren't picky on certain details. My Ford has certainly served me well, and I bought it for pennies.
Sounds pretty damned nice. The 177-RG is on my list of planes I'd buy if they met my mission, and that's a hell of a panel especially with the 480 which gives you Victor Airways. I doubt you would have a lot of problems finding partners for that plane.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
137 SMOH. Waaaaay faster. 430, a/p, HSI. Strikefinder. 60% of the asking price of the 177. (ugly paint).
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-EXEC-21/1968-MOONEY-M20F-EXEC-21/1151684.htm
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-EXEC-21/1968-MOONEY-M20F-EXEC-21/1151684.htm
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
And most others as well.