Newby questions in purchasing my first plane

Jeffgis12b

Jeffgis12b

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
104
Location
Liberty,Mo
Display Name
Display name:
Kenny
Hello everyone

I am looking to purchase a plane and that will be the plane I learn in as well as keep around for a couple years until I have some time built up and until I feel the need to upgrade if needed. I am looking at a couple different aircrafts and was hoping some of you could shed some light on what way I should lean. My instructor has been very helpful but I would rather have a couple different opinions. These are the planes I am looking at as I am trying to stay in the $25-35k range so I know I will not be looking at Low hour aircrafts and relize I may be putting more in longterm Maintence


1989 Piper Cadet 161
Compression at time of September 13th annual ( within 10 hours) 71-70-71-69
Flown less then 10 hours a year last 3-4 years
6391 tt
1196.9 smoh
1749 prop
Dual KX - 155, 760 Channels
KI - 209 Glide Slope & KI - 208
KMA - 20 Audio Panel with Marker Beacons
KT - 76A Transponder, With Encoder
KR - 86 ADF
Garmin 296 GPS, (External Antenna)
Pitot Heat added in 2000
Standby Vacuum
Hobbs Meter
Tip & Tail Strobes
Cabin Blower Fan, Overhead Vents
Built-in 4-Place Intercom with dual Push-to-talk
Canopy Cover
Pitot Cover
David Clark H-20-10s Headsets
Shoulder seatbelts
Toe brakes
New windshield in 2010 rest of the glass perfect
IFR rated
Paint 8 out of 10 (1995)
Interior 6 out of 10 (original)


1964 Cherokee 180
Flown couple times a year
4300 total time
1100 smoh( compression unknown at this point)
40hr prop
King 155 radio
King ky96a radio
4 place intercom
Single pull brake
lap seatbelts
Glass is decent shape but windshield does have some "streaking"
NOT IFR rated but could be
Head & exhaust temp gauges
Comes with handheld Gps that is mounted
Paint is decent , maybe 5/6 out of 10
Interior is real nice 8 out 10


The cockpit of the Cadet is much nicer and doesnt have alot of the old outdated equipment still in the panel as the cherokee does . I have spoke with both planes mechanics in depth and both had great things to say about the owners , both our older gentalmans that are getting close to the end of there flying - I will be paying for instuctor as well as the local mechanic that works on my friends planes to go with me and inspect the plane and logs before purchasing but would like some direction on what one to lean toward in hopes of not paying twice , that being said I am prepared to pay as many times as I need to I order to find the right plane.

Thanks again in advance for any advice you could share
 
Last edited:
Depends on how much load you are looking at taking. The 180 you can actually put 4 people in, the 161 you might put 2 couples in if the gals are small and the guys aren't overweight. One important consideration is what part of the country you are in. Due to the low usage both planes are subject to camshaft issues. For training the 161 will likely serve you better as it will have a standard instrument layout.
 
Pretty much agree with Henning. Just remember that you only pay about half as much extra for a plane with the things you want already installed than to have them installed after purchase. So, if you don't foresee carrying four adults in the immediate future, and you're not already planning to put in an IFR GPS yourself, the much newer PA28-161 seems a better choice.
 
Why just pipers? there are a whole array of aircraft for sale in your price range.

Do you plan on getting your instrument rating? As Ron points out buy the A/C that has the equipment already installed.

Things to consider.
The more horse power the more fuel consumption.
When you need the horse power for family transport, buy it support it. If you don't, why spend the money?

Consider the airspace you will fly in, what equipment do you really need?

If you will move up later, why not buy what you need now?
 
I am in Kansas City area , as far as family it's just me and my wife - combined we weigh about 320lbs but I plan on taking a friend up once and awile and don't plan on taking 4 passengers but want a 4 seater mostly for the extra room and feel it might be easier to sell at a later date.

I guess I can't rule out passenger(s) because I never know what tomorrow brings
 
Jeffgis12b said:
I am in Kansas City area , as far as family it's just me and my wife - combined we weigh about 320lbs but I plan on taking a friend up once and awile and don't plan on taking 4 passengers but want a 4 seater mostly for the extra room and feel it might be easier to sell at a later date.

I guess I can't rule out passenger(s) because I never know what tomorrow brings
Click to expand...

You'll be hauling less passengers than you may think, most of your flying will be solo or two up.
 
I know of a well maintained sundowner here in the chicago area. I think the seller wants about 30-32k. Here is his listing:

A perfect starter plane for someone, as it was me.
(I now fly a F33A Bonanza)
Located in Chicagoland

~2700 TTAF
605 SMOH
JPI 930 (the big one...)
Fine wire spark plug
LED landing light
LED Nav
LED wingtip Strobes
KMA 24 Audio panel w/ Marker Beacon
PM 2000 4-place intercom
UPS-AT GX-60 VHF Com Transceiver & GPS
Collins Ind 350 Nav Indicator
VERY clean air frame
many new hoses, etc.

My standing order with my Beech mechanic is "Don't ever let this plane out of your shop unless you'd put your own wife and children in it..."

This is not only a good starter plane, but an aircraft you can feel very safe putting your family in.

Looking at low $30's...

Henry

--------

He uses a well know Beech shop in the Chicagoland area. The listing is on Beechtalk.

Regards

Arthur
 
Indeed, but certified seats #3 and #4 are cheap as hell per capita, so the only penalty is drag. Still beats a two seater you can't take the occasional third or fourth person in (opportunity cost to the hassle of renting another airplane to take passengers on the occasional backseat ride). To me these seats are cheap enough to be worth carrying them empty most of the time. 6 seaters are frequently considered comfortable 4 seaters, why is 4-seaters treated as comfortable 2-seaters such blasphemy?
 
hindsight2020 said:
Indeed, but certified seats #3 and #4 are cheap as hell per capita, so the only penalty is drag. Still beats a two seater you can't take the occasional third or fourth person in (opportunity cost to the hassle of renting another airplane to take passengers on the occasional backseat ride). To me these seats are cheap enough to be worth carrying them empty most of the time. 6 seaters are frequently considered comfortable 4 seaters, why is 4-seaters treated as comfortable 2-seaters such blasphemy?
Click to expand...

:confused: I don't see anyone saying to buy a 2 seater or avoid a 4 seater, or am I missing something? Everyone is referring to horsepower vs load carrying capability.
 
Tom-D said:
Why just pipers? there are a whole array of aircraft for sale in your price range.

Do you plan on getting your instrument rating? As Ron points out buy the A/C that has the equipment already installed.

Things to consider.
The more horse power the more fuel consumption.
When you need the horse power for family transport, buy it support it. If you don't, why spend the money?

Consider the airspace you will fly in, what equipment do you really need?

If you will move up later, why not buy what you need now?
Click to expand...

He's probably figured out that he will get the most bang for his buck with a piper over a cessna. You won't Find a mid timed o360 172 for the numbers he's throwing around.

I agree with you though, buying a starter plane then moving up a couple hundred hours later can be an expensive endeavor.
 
bartmc said:
He's probably figured out that he will get the most bang for his buck with a piper over a cessna. You won't Find a mid timed o360 172 for the numbers he's throwing around.

I agree with you though, buying a starter plane then moving up a couple hundred hours later can be an expensive endeavor.
Click to expand...

Why would he need a 180 horse 172?

there are 0-470- 182 for the price of an upgraded 172.
 
Tom-D said:
OBTW that's BS.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a known fact that Cessnas fetch a premium over Pipers "because they're Cessnas". If a fella wants a Lycoming powered 150-180 HP plane. The Piper's going to be priced lower.

You can buy a PA28-140/150 for about the price of a similar Cessna 150.
 
bartmc said:
It's pretty much a known fact that Cessnas fetch a premium over Pipers "because they're Cessnas". If a fella wants a Lycoming powered 150-180 HP plane. The Piper's going to be priced lower.

You can buy a PA28-140/150 for about the price of a similar Cessna 150.
Click to expand...

the average maintenance cost favor the cessna, no struts to maintain, no cross over exhaust to repair at every annual, no removing the prop to get the nose bowl off, or to change the alternator belt, plus replacing any thing in the panel takes twice as long.

And in this market the cost difference is nill.
 
First I want to thank you guys for the overwhelming amount of help/advice everyone is giving

Honestly guys as shallow as it sounds and I am sure I will get grief , I just like the look of the low wing over the high wing - my goal would be keep the plane I get for many many years unless it just ends up not fulfilling my purpose any longer or I just hit the lottery and can afford something really nice - it will be just a little pleasure plane and won't be doing much "traveling" with it -

Maybe I should be looking at other brands I was going off local recommendations from mechanic and others as far as piper , I will look at any advice I can get
 
bartmc said:
I dunno, why did/does Cessna make them?
Click to expand...

try to buy a 180 horse R or S for the price in his budget.

and remember read the type certificate, the SB on the R&S are required.
 
Last edited:
Jeffgis12b said:
First I want to thank you guys for the overwhelming amount of help/advice everyone is giving

Honestly guys as shallow as it sounds and I am sure I will get grief , I just like the look of the low wing over the high wing - my goal would be keep the plane I get for many many years unless it just ends up not fulfilling my purpose any longer or I just hit the lottery and can afford something really nice - it will be just a little pleasure plane and won't be doing much "traveling" with it -

Maybe I should be looking at other brands I was going off local recommendations from mechanic and others as far as piper , I will look at any advice I can get
Click to expand...

The Beech Sundowner is a low wing.
 
Tom-D said:
the average maintenance cost favor the cessna, no struts to maintain, no cross over exhaust to repair at every annual, no removing the prop to get the nose bowl off, or to change the alternator belt, plus replacing any thing in the panel takes twice as long.

And in this market the cost difference is nill.
Click to expand...

You're talking rounding errors and splitting frog hairs.

To have the prop, cowling and nose bowl on the shop table will take you about 15 minutes if you stop for a beer. 20 to go back on because of the safety wire on the prop. There's an STC to split the nose bowl if it bothers you that much.

Was there an AD to remove the Cessna nose strut that I missed?

The early piper exhaust was horrid. You send them off and have em' refurbed every 20 years or so.
 
bartmc said:
You're talking rounding errors and splitting frog hairs.

To have the prop, cowling and nose bowl on the shop table will take you about 15 minutes if you stop for a beer. 20 to go back on because of the safety wire on the prop. There's an STC to split the nose bowl if it bothers you that much.

Was there an AD to remove the Cessna nose strut that I missed?

The early piper exhaust was horrid. You send them off and have em' refurbed every 20 years or so.
Click to expand...

I want to see you remove a constant speed prop from a Lycoming 180 horse in less than 2 hours. it's half a flat each time you put a wrench on a nut. times 8 bolts.

When you are a student pilot, you really should fly as many aircraft as you can before you make a decision on which make/model you thinks looks good.
 
Tom-D said:
I want to see you remove a constant speed prop from a Lycoming 180 horse in less than 2 hours. it's half a flat each time you put a wrench on a nut. times 8 bolts.

When you are a student pilot, you really should fly as many aircraft as you can before you make a decision on which make/model you thinks looks good.
Click to expand...

Cherokee 180s don't have a constant speed prop. At least none that I've seen.
 
One other consideration I am looking at is for something that doesn't drink alot of fuel - I figure if at some point down the road after I get some hours in I can rent a bigger plane the few times I would ever need one (if ever)

Hope that makes since
 
Jeffgis12b said:
First I want to thank you guys for the overwhelming amount of help/advice everyone is giving

Honestly guys as shallow as it sounds and I am sure I will get grief , I just like the look of the low wing over the high wing - my goal would be keep the plane I get for many many years unless it just ends up not fulfilling my purpose any longer or I just hit the lottery and can afford something really nice - it will be just a little pleasure plane and won't be doing much "traveling" with it -

Maybe I should be looking at other brands I was going off local recommendations from mechanic and others as far as piper , I will look at any advice I can get
Click to expand...

It's as good of a reason to choose a Piper vs Cessna as any, buy what you like, an airplane is an airplane, the only real difference between them all is horsepower and retractable gear. With your predicted load, 160hp will serve you as we'll as 180hp for all intents and purposes unless you plan to operate off a very high altitude airport, then more horsepower will stand you in good stead. Other planes to look at would be in the Beech Musketeer/Sundowner line and the Grumman AA-5 line. If you live in a hot area the Grumman has an advantage in that you can open the canopy in flight. Some of the Beechs hold an advantage in having a door on both sides.
 
Last edited:
Given a choice of the two airplanes you mentioned I would go with the 180. More payload and a great time builder.
 
I learned in a P-140, so I have a soft spot for Pipers.

But climbing up on a plane and down in it turns me off, now that I'm a little older. And I like shade where I live. :redface:;)

OP I'd go with whatever suits your budget, and just fly and DO IT! as they say. If it were me, I'd look hard at 172's, because I'm partial to high wing Cessna's, and you can't go wrong with a 172 for training and x-country. They're the Chevy of the skies, you can get them fixed anywhere. And any instructor or flight school can operate one any day of the week. :)
 
Jeffgis12b said:
Hello everyone

I am looking to purchase a plane and that will be the plane I learn in as well as keep around for a couple years until I have some time built up and until I feel the need to upgrade if needed. I am looking at a couple different aircrafts and was hoping some of you could shed some light on what way I should lean. My instructor has been very helpful but I would rather have a couple different opinions. These are the planes I am looking at as I am trying to stay in the $25-35k range so I know I will not be looking at Low hour aircrafts and relize I may be putting more in longterm Maintence


1989 Piper Cadet 161
Compression at time of September 13th annual ( within 10 hours) 71-70-71-69
Flown less then 10 hours a year last 3-4 years
6391 tt
1196.9 smoh
1749 prop
Dual KX - 155, 760 Channels
KI - 209 Glide Slope & KI - 208
KMA - 20 Audio Panel with Marker Beacons
KT - 76A Transponder, With Encoder
KR - 86 ADF
Garmin 296 GPS, (External Antenna)
Pitot Heat added in 2000
Standby Vacuum
Hobbs Meter
Tip & Tail Strobes
Cabin Blower Fan, Overhead Vents
Built-in 4-Place Intercom with dual Push-to-talk
Canopy Cover
Pitot Cover
David Clark H-20-10s Headsets
Shoulder seatbelts
Toe brakes
New windshield in 2010 rest of the glass perfect
IFR rated
Paint 8 out of 10 (1995)
Interior 6 out of 10 (original)


1964 Cherokee 180
Flown couple times a year
4300 total time
1100 smoh( compression unknown at this point)
40hr prop
King 155 radio
King ky96a radio
4 place intercom
Single pull brake
lap seatbelts
Glass is decent shape but windshield does have some "streaking"
NOT IFR rated but could be
Head & exhaust temp gauges
Comes with handheld Gps that is mounted
Paint is decent , maybe 5/6 out of 10
Interior is real nice 8 out 10


The cockpit of the Cadet is much nicer and doesnt have alot of the old outdated equipment still in the panel as the cherokee does . I have spoke with both planes mechanics in depth and both had great things to say about the owners , both our older gentalmans that are getting close to the end of there flying - I will be paying for instuctor as well as the local mechanic that works on my friends planes to go with me and inspect the plane and logs before purchasing but would like some direction on what one to lean toward in hopes of not paying twice , that being said I am prepared to pay as many times as I need to I order to find the right plane.

Thanks again in advance for any advice you could share
Click to expand...
OUt of these two I'd take the 161 cadet
 
I'm mostly a low wing guy myself, but in this situation, I would buy the he** out of that blue 175. Overpowered, looks well kept, mogas, pants, and good glass. Budget for a few jugs over the next few years, and when it's time to do the engine go over to the Lyc 360 conversion.

Lotsa plane for less than 20k.
 
docmirror said:
I'm mostly a low wing guy myself, but in this situation, I would buy the he** out of that blue 175. Overpowered, looks well kept, mogas, pants, and good glass. Budget for a few jugs over the next few years, and when it's time to do the engine go over to the Lyc 360 conversion.

Lotsa plane for less than 20k.
Click to expand...

People miss the point, those are great old aircraft, they fly great, and are cheap to run. get in, crank it up go fly.
 
Tom-D said:
People miss the point, those are great old aircraft, they fly great, and are cheap to run. get in, crank it up go fly.
Click to expand...

Are you vouching for its condition? If the airframe and engine are good it's worth the money to rehab the panel to make it IFR worthy. Personally I wouldn't go into IMC on a set of AN gyros nor recommend IR training on that panel. If I was just going to fly it around VFR, fine.
 
Tom-D said:
People miss the point, those are great old aircraft, they fly great, and are cheap to run. get in, crank it up go fly.
Click to expand...

Yup. If I was gonna bore holes, that's what I was shopping for. I still might get a 175 and I'll keep this one in mind. Except for the high engine hours, it's a good looking bird. My guess is that GO-300 will go well over TBO with a few jugs tossed in. I think the TBO was calculated for safety. Of course, we don't know if the operators knew how to fly it to avoid backlash on the reduction gears, and if they went south, that's the end of that. It's a risk, but one that can be taken into account.

Which brings up an interesting question to me. In the auto world, we have two different lubes for engine and gears. The gear lube is generally an 'EP' rated lube for extreme pressures, and that is missing in the auto lube for engines. I know that a few cars used engine oil in the trans like the old Mini Cooper, but I wonder if there is an additive recommended for engines which are geared? I've never heard of one, but this sounds like a good application for the type of oil which has a friction modifier in it. What say you?
 
docmirror said:
. What say you?
Click to expand...

Of the three GO-300s I have overhauled all three gear boxes passed their back lash clearances, and got cleaned and inspected and returned to service, the engine is no more difficult to overhaul than the regular 0-300. I may lead a sheltered life. :)

All 3 were run on w-100 /w-80
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Of the three GO-300s I have overhauled all three gear boxes passed their back lash clearances, and got cleaned and inspected and returned to service, the engine is no more difficult to overhaul than the regular 0-300. I may lead a sheltered life. :)

All 3 were run on w-100 /w-80
Click to expand...

Is there any kind of adjustment for the backlash setting like a car differential? I can't believe there would be a shim process, but I guess there are other ways. Interesting that they seem to do well on just plane old av grade oil.
 
docmirror said:
Is there any kind of adjustment for the backlash setting like a car differential? I can't believe there would be a shim process, but I guess there are other ways. Interesting that they seem to do well on just plane old av grade oil.
Click to expand...

It's a bull gear set, not bevel or hypoid ring and pinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top