PA28R-180 Upgrade Path

[gov98]

Given the new "Discussion Area," I thought now would be as good a time as any to ask the brain trust for their collective wisdom. This might be longish, but your thoughts would be much appreciated.

SO...I own a '68 PA28R-180. It has about ~650 SMOH and ~7500 TTAF w/ a ~960 Useful Load. The right wing has some (the A&P has told me) surface corrosion under the wing. His description to me was, that it's "nothing" and that applying LPS 3 or corrosion X would be worse just making it a goopy mess. (The plane is hangared in a desert southwest climate. Overall the plane runs fine and the last annual was $650 (owner assisted). The avionics are ... 1978 specials. Narcos that work, but no GPS.

A little bit about me... I am what one might call a well-paid wage slave. I don't get options, I don't have stock grants but I make a good salary ~$125K, with no legit complaints. There is not a realistic path, nor desire to upset the apple cart so as to go into a line of business that would entail stock grants etc. So...suffice it to say, I'm not going to make "my millions." But I can afford my hangar and mortgage.

In any event. Like many pilots I suffer from a ..."Need for Speed" (saw that in a movie once) and also would like to carry more useful load. BUT...the family is 4 ... 2 adults 2 kids...They're growing, but we see no likelihood of going to 5. Everyone for now fits. The boy is nearing double digits and both kids may want to get their pilot's license.

I suffer from a desire to upgrade to a Lance or a 'Toga or an older SR22. I also of course, want fancy shmancy avionics and if we keep the PA28R-180 to have ADS-B compliance and a nice panel.

Overall, I waver back and forth between upgrading the avionics and popping 30K into the plane...I figure if I keep it I might as well go GTN 650 + Aspen + ADS-B...But if I'm going to upgrade the plane...I might as well sell it as is. Lots of reading I have done, has suggested that the Arrow is kind of at an "efficiency sweet-spot" in terms of cost to operate, part replacability, and speed.

I guess my main question is from any who've experienced it...Are there many of you out there who after upgrading your plane really regretted it from a cost point of view? I.e. You could afford your flying fix before but then you went for something quite a bit faster and could afford the upkeep? Any other words of wisdom...I.e. You won't regret it?...

If it helps the "main" mission is a 320 NM trip to family that the plane does in about 2:45. Of course, I'd love to be able to fly safely over the Rockies with the family or in and OUT of Tahoe, but as it is...I don't trust the 180 horses to pull me OUT of Tahoe at MGTW...but I could be being overly cautious. I feel comfortable departing 5000 MSL and below at MGTW.

 

[AggieMike88]

Given the mission info and salary, a 182P or Q is a good fit. The Trolltune STC is out there to increase the useful load. It will do that trip a bit faster (maybe 30 minute gain?). And it be bit more comfortable than the current aircraft. Insurance cost will be inline with what you have now. Other fixed costs not that much more.

Perfectly acceptable as a trainer for when the kids desire to get their license.

 

[Clark1961]

I put a 430w, Aspen, and a 330ES in a turbo Dakota so have some relevant experience. For your location and mission I do not believe there is much benefit from the Aspen. There just isn't that much flyable hard IMC in the southwest. The newly STC'd Dynon and Garmin products provide a cheaper route with similar but not the same performance as the Aspen. On the other hand an IFR certified GPS does add value for re-sale (about half the purchase cost of the GPS).

ADS-B in and out is worthwhile in my opinion but it can be done much cheaper than I did it with the ES/Stratus combo.

As for Tahoe at mgtw, don't do it. Get some mountain flight instruction and learn/experience the density altitude effects. You are correct in being concerned with the 180's performance and should learn the limitations. Heck even in the turbo Dakota I've used half the runway when departing Leadville...

 

[gov98]

I put a 430w, Aspen, and a 330ES in a turbo Dakota so have some relevant experience. For your location and mission I do not believe there is much benefit from the Aspen. There just isn't that much flyable hard IMC in the southwest. The newly STC'd Dynon and Garmin products provide a cheaper route with similar but not the same performance as the Aspen. On the other hand an IFR certified GPS does add value for re-sale (about half the purchase cost of the GPS).

ADS-B in and out is worthwhile in my opinion but it can be done much cheaper than I did it with the ES/Stratus combo.

As for Tahoe at mgtw, don't do it. Get some mountain flight instruction and learn/experience the density altitude effects. You are correct in being concerned with the 180's performance and should learn the limitations. Heck even in the turbo Dakota I've used half the runway when departing Leadville...

Oh I don't "need" the Aspen from an IFR perspective. But I don't have a GPS capable nav-head, so at a minimum if I get a 650 or 430w, I have to also get at least a 106a or equivalent. And part of me feels like...If I'm going in 2K for a Nav Head...might as well get the HSI out of the aspen and skip the 106a, but again that's kind of my issue...Once I open up the panel for ADS-B do I want to have a really nice panel with the Arrow 180...or do I want to just get ADS-B compliance...Or do I want to just figure I can avoid any Mode C veils...Or do I want to sell the plane and go really "Big." And I really can't settle my mind on my plan...

 

[James331]

It's simple for me, are you going to keep this plane for the long haul?

If yes, go for it, might not do the whole aspen thing, but a 430W or better and a good auto pilot would be good. Even if you want a aspen, DONT do it right now, with the garmin and dynon STCs I'd wait a few years and see what happens, same deal for the ADSB. As it stands now you could get the navworx addon for your existing transponder and be full ADSB for like 2k or so, also has stealth mode, where it sends a random N number when you're squawking 1200, a hugly important aspect for me, saftey and security wise.


But yeah, if you're going to be upgrading don't bother.

 

[hindsight2020]

No I wouldn't be putting avionics money. You're going to outgrow the baby Arrow. And I say that as a -200 owner with one less kid mind you. The lateral from arrow to 182/235/dakota doesn't justify the hassle imo. And you won't be going faster in any significant way btw, nevermind the 2-3GPH jump in fuel use for airspeed parity.

Your only significant improvement will come when you commit to a Lance. That means a significant improvement in climb, space and cruise speed, at a significant jump in operating costs, (meaning fuel and the replacement cost associated with those expensive angle valve cylinders...this isn't your grandaddy's cheap parallel carbed 540 my friend, it's $$$). Most importantly, a Lance will be a huge jump in acquisition price from a baby Arrow.

Comanches are the only worthwhile performance improvement that's otherwise closer to the original Arrow acquisition line (not the 260Cs, but the 250s more likely). But there's a reason for that. That aircraft has unapologetic "antiquey" and niche mx behavior I don't find desirable to long term ownership and off-station dispatch. I can go into detail via PM, as I don't wish to get into a furball with the Comanche fans and derail the thread.

Lastly, there is the Cherokee Six. The 300 imo doesn't save you anything from the Lance, since it gets you the expensive engine without the benefit of the cruise speed (unless you run everywhere at 16gph), for damn near the same acquisition cost. An interesting option would be a discounted 6-260. On a mission like yours, you'd be running well undergross most of the time, and the family would LOVE the cabin, so the power deficit would be mitigated. For a 300NM mission it's kinda sweet. Cheap engine (carbed parallel 540), and if you put full coverage wheel pants and strut fairings as opposed to the useless soda caps they came with, you may be able to block Arrow times on 12gph. Otherwise you will go slower for more gas than a 235/dakota, which sucks, when you're not buying the six strictly for useful load.

So there are a couple options in there, but it all comes down with what thorns you're willing to put up with. Good luck.

 

[bnt83]

Some interesting video about Comanche landing gear wear on youtube.

 

[gov98]

No I wouldn't be putting avionics money. You're going to outgrow the baby Arrow. And I say that as a -200 owner with one less kid mind you. The lateral from arrow to 182/235/dakota doesn't justify the hassle imo. And you won't be going faster in any significant way btw, nevermind the 2-3GPH jump in fuel use for airspeed parity.

Your only significant improvement will come when you commit to a Lance. That means a significant improvement in climb, space and cruise speed, at a significant jump in operating costs, (meaning fuel and the replacement cost associated with those expensive angle valve cylinders...this isn't your grandaddy's cheap parallel carbed 540 my friend, it's $$$). Most importantly, a Lance will be a huge jump in acquisition price from a baby Arrow.

Comanches are the only worthwhile performance improvement that's otherwise closer to the original Arrow acquisition line (not the 260Cs, but the 250s more likely). But there's a reason for that. That aircraft has unapologetic "antiquey" and niche mx behavior I don't find desirable to long term ownership and off-station dispatch. I can go into detail via PM, as I don't wish to get into a furball with the Comanche fans and derail the thread.

Lastly, there is the Cherokee Six. The 300 imo doesn't save you anything from the Lance, since it gets you the expensive engine without the benefit of the cruise speed (unless you run everywhere at 16gph), for damn near the same acquisition cost. An interesting option would be a discounted 6-260. On a mission like yours, you'd be running well undergross most of the time, and the family would LOVE the cabin, so the power deficit would be mitigated. For a 300NM mission it's kinda sweet. Cheap engine (carbed parallel 540), and if you put full coverage wheel pants and strut fairings as opposed to the useless soda caps they came with, you may be able to block Arrow times on 12gph. Otherwise you will go slower for more gas than a 235/dakota, which sucks, when you're not buying the six strictly for useful load.

So there are a couple options in there, but it all comes down with what thorns you're willing to put up with. Good luck.

You kind of hit every one of my thoughts. I've flown a couple Comanches...love the speed. The upkeep cost to the couple I know about have seemed pretty steep compared to the PA28/PA32 line though. The situation with the Lance is exactly what you hit on...."it's $$$." I guess the real answer continues to be...pay off the mortgage...

 

[airheadpenguin]

As the owner of a Comanche 250 I can say that the operating costs are probably about 40% higher than the PA-28-151 I trained on but so is the speed. That means that cost/mile is about the same you just get fewer hours in your log book and its a bad deal for an IFR trainer if that's your need. With 1200lbs useful load, capacity to carry up to 120gal/10 hrs of fuel and an "it fits it ships" capacity its great.

I love it and have no interest in trading it for something like an SR-22 because of the reduced capacity, increased fuel consumption and reduced useful load