Selecting the RIGHT First Plane Purchase

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,037
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Hello all

First Post. Visited here many times (lots of search engine hits).


I am an adult student pilot (looking forward to check-ride day), thinking about the future purchase of my “ideal” plane and thought I should get a sanity check and a few suggestions from the community. I have plenty of time to make this decision.


My ideal plane is fast and can transport me and my family up to 500 miles non-stop and performs well in Cross-Country IFR conditions. It is a certified- production design that is reasonably inexpensive to operate and maintain. I can find safe, clean, well-maintained examples for well-under $150K before any negotiating and bang-for-the-buck makes it more attractive. High and Low wing types are equal in this regard, but I seem to be more attracted to low-wing types.


I’m thinking a normally aspirated single is preferred due to added complexity and operating, maintenance costs. I’m also concerned that there may not be as much value for me based near sea-level and without a pressurized cabin, I just don’t know if I’ll spend much time in the Flight Levels after I get my Instrument Rating. I’m also thinking that it should be something that I would like to fly 10+ years, transfer, and its new caretaker could do the same. I know very little about how composite designs fare in this area.


I’ve invested many hours into reading about the Mooney M20, and identified the M20J as my baseline for comparison except one thing that nags me. I haven’t been able to obtain reliable data on its true useful load.


I think my ideal plane should be able to carry up to 850lbs + fuel for the occasion where I need to depart from a Class-D airport with myself and 3 other high density adults and their baggage. From what I can ascertain of the M20J, (1100lb Max Gross weight???) , it falls just shy of being able to do 500 miles on even minimum fuel (160ktas cruise + reserves = 244-264lbs fuel @ 10.5-11GPH @75%). Some sources suggest it will, some say it won’t, hence the useful load data question marks.


I’m hoping for comments, suggestions and learning resources to allow me to re-evaluate some of my assumptions and get pointed in the right direction.
 
Thanks for the chart. I can't download at work for some reason. If it's helpful to understand my thinking, I have already decided to join a club for awhile then buy as I accrue some experience. I am a believer in the safety merits of:

This is my airplane. There are many like it but this one is mine...
 
4 REAL sized adults plus baggage? Yeah, that's probably not happening in any "4 seat airplane" like a Mooney, Comanche, 182, etc... You're looking at a 6 seat airplane. When I think full sized adults plus baggage - that's at least 225 each (including baggage). That's 900lbs. Leaving you about...100-150lbs for fuel.

Look at a Saratoga or a Lance.

They get you about 1400-1600 useful load.
 
Last edited:
Jaybird180 said:
Thanks for the chart. I can't download at work for some reason. If it's helpful to understand my thinking, I have already decided to join a club for awhile then buy as I accrue some experience. I am a believer in the safety merits of:

This is my airplane. There are many like it but this one is mine...
Click to expand...
They probably block files with the .xlsx extension. Try this:
http://67.192.186.226/flying/BvR.zip
 
Veritas said:
This may be helpful as you research...I'm in the same place, Jaybird, and hacked together a spreadsheet to help me see the true costs of ownership...the grey cells are the ones to change. :)

http://67.192.186.226/flying/Buy_vs_Rent.xlsx
Click to expand...
Chris,
Your spreadsheet seems to assume that the flying is business-related and therefore deductible based on the income tax rate in B6. To adjust for a personal flying situation like the OP appears to be positing, just change the rate to 0. Am I understanding it properly?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Hello all

First Post. Visited here many times (lots of search engine hits).


I am an adult student pilot (looking forward to check-ride day), thinking about the future purchase of my “ideal” plane and thought I should get a sanity check and a few suggestions from the community. I have plenty of time to make this decision.


My ideal plane is fast and can transport me and my family up to 500 miles non-stop and performs well in Cross-Country IFR conditions. It is a certified- production design that is reasonably inexpensive to operate and maintain. I can find safe, clean, well-maintained examples for well-under $150K before any negotiating and bang-for-the-buck makes it more attractive. High and Low wing types are equal in this regard, but I seem to be more attracted to low-wing types.


I’m thinking a normally aspirated single is preferred due to added complexity and operating, maintenance costs. I’m also concerned that there may not be as much value for me based near sea-level and without a pressurized cabin, I just don’t know if I’ll spend much time in the Flight Levels after I get my Instrument Rating. I’m also thinking that it should be something that I would like to fly 10+ years, transfer, and its new caretaker could do the same. I know very little about how composite designs fare in this area.


I’ve invested many hours into reading about the Mooney M20, and identified the M20J as my baseline for comparison except one thing that nags me. I haven’t been able to obtain reliable data on its true useful load.


I think my ideal plane should be able to carry up to 850lbs + fuel for the occasion where I need to depart from a Class-D airport with myself and 3 other high density adults and their baggage. From what I can ascertain of the M20J, (1100lb Max Gross weight???) , it falls just shy of being able to do 500 miles on even minimum fuel (160ktas cruise + reserves = 244-264lbs fuel @ 10.5-11GPH @75%). Some sources suggest it will, some say it won’t, hence the useful load data question marks.


I’m hoping for comments, suggestions and learning resources to allow me to re-evaluate some of my assumptions and get pointed in the right direction.
Click to expand...

There is nothing, absolutely nothing like actually buying and then operating your own airplane to educate you on how to buy and operate an airplane.

What about a pa-28-235 or pa-28-236? It's not as fast as the retracts but I believe it will haul 850 lbs plus the fuel for 500 miles. Plus the -235 can operate on mogas
 
EdFred said:
4 REAL sized adults plus baggage? Yeah, that's probably not happening in any "4 seat airplane" like a Mooney, Comanche, 182, etc... You're looking at a 6 seat airplane. When I think full sized adults plus baggage - that's at least 225 each (including baggage). That's 900lbs. Leaving you about...100-150lbs for fuel.

Look at a Saratoga or a Lance.

They get you about 1400-1600 useful load.
Click to expand...

Agree - 4 adults and bags is generally going to mean a 6 seater, especially if you want to achieve the desired range. You could haul the 850lb load in a Cardinal 177RG (and lots of good deals in the Cardinal market - plus it is a great plane), but you would only be able to carry enough gas to fly for maybe 300 miles between stops.

For the 6 seaters, best deals are going to be found in the Lance category as mentioned. C210 would also probably fit the bill - a little more expensive, but you get more speed than the Lance.
 
Bob Noel said:
There is nothing, absolutely nothing like actually buying and then operating your own airplane to educate you on how to buy and operate an airplane.

What about a pa-28-235 or pa-28-236? It's not as fast as the retracts but I believe it will haul 850 lbs plus the fuel for 500 miles. Plus the -235 can operate on mogas
Click to expand...

WAY slower. 25-35kts slower.
 
EdFred said:
WAY slower. 25-35kts slower.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure 25-35 kts is "WAY slower", but what does that really mean for a 500 mile trip? about 40 minutes, or so. Or a 3 hour trip is now not quite a 4 hours trip. Big deal. That extra 40 minutes is spent FLYING. What the heck is more fun than flying?
 
Bob Noel said:
Well, I'm not sure 25-35 kts is "WAY slower", but what does that really mean for a 500 mile trip? about 40 minutes, or so. Or a 3 hour trip is now not quite a 4 hours trip. Big deal. That extra 40 minutes is spent FLYING. What the heck is more fun than flying?
Click to expand...

Lets throw a 20kt headwind into the equation and see what happens. For passengers in back, it will make a huge difference. The back seat of a 235 aint exactly roomy for a full sized adult.
140kt GS = 3.5hrs
110kt GS = 4.5hrs

30kt headwind
3.8hrs vs 5hrs - and now ya gotta stop at least once.
 
Jaybird180 said:
My ideal plane is fast and can transport me and my family up to 500 miles non-stop and performs well in Cross-Country IFR conditions.
Click to expand...
Jay, one question to answer for us, and more importantly yourself, is how frequently you do these 500 mile non-stop trips. Every other week? Or just a few times a year?

The answer can have lots to do on what is recommended. If you're going twice a month, then the bigger (and more expensive aircraft to operate, own, maintain) will work.

But if this "maxed out" mission is very in-frequent, and 90% of your flying is just yourself and 1 or 2 buddies on a 90 minute or less burger/breakfast run, or you and your wife on a get-away weekend, then the bigger aircraft is too much.

It is always a challenge to not go "bigger faster is better" when dreaming about aircraft ownership. Sure I'd love something like a newer C182, DA40, or 80's model M20J or K. But knowing my current and immediate future flying habits, the C172, Cherokee 180 (even a 140), and the Warrior are a better fit in all the important ways.

I have been told "buy for 90% of your flying" (short hops for me) and based on my looking about and number crunching, this advise is pretty good.


Next bit of advice I have been given by plane owners I respect is once you have narrowed the list down to 3 or 4 possibles, go find one for rent or shared ride and do a 250-300nm one way trip with it. Like test driving a car you're considering purchasing, fly those aircraft to see how well they fit your physical size/shape and how they perform to meet our needs.
 
EdFred said:
3.8hrs vs 5hrs - and now ya gotta stop at least once.
Click to expand...
Especially as we age. Starting to feel that bladder volume is becoming inversely proprtional to the number of candles on the last birthday cake.
 
The Comanche has 7 hrs of endurance, but I only have about half that.
 
Most 4 place GA planes are really 3 place GA planes, some are really 2 place GA planes.

Building time occurs faster in a slower plane.

Few people have gotten rich owing a plane, but quite a few have gone broke.

Speed increases by the cube of horsepower, or by money to the 5th power.

An instrument rating makes it harder to say no.


(maybe we need a new forum dedicated to first time buyers to collect all the truisms in one place)
 
AggieMike88 said:
Jay, one question to answer for us, and more importantly yourself, is how frequently you do these 500 mile non-stop trips. Every other week? Or just a few times a year?

....

But if this "maxed out" mission is very in-frequent, and 90% of your flying is just yourself and 1 or 2 buddies on a 90 minute or less burger/breakfast run, or you and your wife on a get-away weekend, then the bigger aircraft is too much.
Click to expand...

The 500 mile trip is perhaps 2-4 times/yr. My flying is expected to be in the range of the 2nd paragraph with majority flying within 1-2 hrs.
 
Yeah, but bringing it back to the US may raise the price on that significantly.
 
If you want cheap operating costs as you prescribed, fixed gear is the way to go, reduces insurance significantly.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
If you want cheap operating costs as you prescribed, fixed gear is the way to go, reduces insurance significantly.
Click to expand...

Depends on a few things. My Comanche insurance wasn't much more than my Cherokee ($300/year maybe), and the maintenance on the gear is spread out over 500-1000 hours, with the exceptions of the bungees which costs an extra $100 or so every three years. You can make that pretty much all that up in the cost of fuel. (If they made FG Comanche it would be more comparable)
 
Jaybird180 said:
I am an adult student pilot (looking forward to check-ride day), thinking about the future purchase of my “ideal” plane and thought I should get a sanity check and a few suggestions from the community. I have plenty of time to make this decision.


My ideal plane is fast and can transport me and my family up to 500 miles non-stop and performs well in Cross-Country IFR conditions. It is a certified- production design that is reasonably inexpensive to operate and maintain. I can find safe, clean, well-maintained examples for well-under $150K before any negotiating and bang-for-the-buck makes it more attractive. High and Low wing types are equal in this regard, but I seem to be more attracted to low-wing types.


I’m thinking a normally aspirated single is preferred due to added complexity and operating, maintenance costs. I’m also concerned that there may not be as much value for me based near sea-level and without a pressurized cabin, I just don’t know if I’ll spend much time in the Flight Levels after I get my Instrument Rating. I’m also thinking that it should be something that I would like to fly 10+ years, transfer, and its new caretaker could do the same. I know very little about how composite designs fare in this area.


I’ve invested many hours into reading about the Mooney M20, and identified the M20J as my baseline for comparison except one thing that nags me. I haven’t been able to obtain reliable data on its true useful load.


I think my ideal plane should be able to carry up to 850lbs + fuel for the occasion where I need to depart from a Class-D airport with myself and 3 other high density adults and their baggage. From what I can ascertain of the M20J, (1100lb Max Gross weight???) , it falls just shy of being able to do 500 miles on even minimum fuel (160ktas cruise + reserves = 244-264lbs fuel @ 10.5-11GPH @75%). Some sources suggest it will, some say it won’t, hence the useful load data question marks.


I’m hoping for comments, suggestions and learning resources to allow me to re-evaluate some of my assumptions and get pointed in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Most folks don't run 75% power on normally aspirated airplanes, mostly because the 15% increase in fuel flow provides less than a 5% increase in cruise airspeed and cuts a measly 9-10 minutes out of a 500nm (3.5 hr) trip. You might find that the M20J could haul the load you want that far if you slowed to the more typical 150-155 KTAS on less than 10 gph. That said, anytime you're that close to the edge rangewise you're going to end up needing a fuel stop due to adverse wind most of the time.

And speaking of speed, you will likely want something that can manage at least 150KTAS if you make 500 mile trips very often. You can assume that there will be times when you're flying into a 20+ Kt headwind making for a nearly 4 hour trip, which is pretty much as long as most passengers are willing to sit in a GA airplane. More speed is nice, especially when facing that kind of wind but in light wind it takes about 30 KTAS more to make much of a difference for that length of flight.

Some Bonanzas would easily handle your mission requirements. Bonanzas aren't quite as efficient as a Mooney 201 but many have more baggage room and almost all can carry more weight further. In today's market you can get a pretty nice one for less than $100k and an adequate one for about half that. Look for one with tip tanks as they offer both increased range (later models with 80 gal fuel have pretty good range stock) as well as gross weight increases. The BE33 models are four place with a straight tail and the BE35s are about the same except for the V tail and openable rear windows (nice for a hot day on the ground). TAS at 65% power ranges from 145 Kt in the earlier Bo's to about 165 Kt in the ones with 285 HP (1964 and newer). There's also the 35 model Bonanza which is a 33 with an additional 10 inches of fuselage, a pair of large doors into the rear cabin and 6 seats. Most are flown as 4 seaters with room for lots of bags.

You're going to find it expensive to get insurance on any retractable airplane until you have at least 150-200 hrs and an IR but IMO it's not all that difficult to make the transition to a Bonanza or Mooney
 
Jaybird180 said:
The 500 mile trip is perhaps 2-4 times/yr. My flying is expected to be in the range of the 2nd paragraph with majority flying within 1-2 hrs.
Click to expand...

If you are only doing the 500 mile trip two to four times a year, you really don't need a 4 plus baggage plus fuel plane. What you need to do is to determine the type of flying you will be doing about 80% of the time and find a plane that fits THAT profile. For the two or four times you fly further, you can justify making a fuel stop. If nothing else, your passengers will appreciate it.

You really can't go too wrong with a Cessna 182.
 
Last edited:
1973 and later model PA28s actually have ok legroom (5" fuselage stretch), In fact, I don't think it is possible to fit 4 real adults in my '71 PA28-180. At least, without me running the seat fwd to an extremely uncomfortable setting.

For a reference for the OP... useful load-wise, the PA28-180 is pretty good. 1000#. Subtract out full fuel tanks (300#), and you've got 700# for people plus bags. Good for 4 FAA adults.

Anyway, PA28s are quite a bit under the stated $150k. I'd be thinking used Piper Lance, Saratoga, Bonanza, or 210.



EdFred said:
For passengers in back, it will make a huge difference. The back seat of a 235 aint exactly roomy for a full sized adult.
140kt GS = 3.5hrs
110kt GS = 4.5hrs
Click to expand...
 
Id also recommended making sure you are unequivocally SET on a plane and don't have AADD (Thanks Ed!) Like I, and many other pilots are diagnosed with, or else you will find something else and likely regret your decision.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
Id also recommended making sure you are unequivocally SET on a plane and don't have AADD (Thanks Ed!) Like I, and many other pilots are diagnosed with, or else you will find something else and likely regret your decision.
Click to expand...

It also depends on what your mindset is. When I bought the Aztec, I really wanted a 310 or a Baron more. I bought the Aztec because it was a practical choice (good price, lower MX costs, all the features I wanted, and my mechanic had known the plane for 8 years). I'm very glad I got the Aztec, it turned out to be a better choice for what I ended up doing.

To the OP's question, I agree the question becomes figuring out what you're actually going to do with it. I disagree with the people who think that you should get a smaller plane, though. The reason is that it's very hard to rent or borrow a more capable plane. It's very easy to rent or borrow a less capable plane - especially if you have a more capable one.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I disagree with the people who think that you should get a smaller plane, though. The reason is that it's very hard to rent or borrow a more capable plane. It's very easy to rent or borrow a less capable plane - especially if you have a more capable one.
Click to expand...

I guess that is what makes the world go 'round.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I disagree with the people who think that you should get a smaller plane, though. The reason is that it's very hard to rent or borrow a more capable plane. It's very easy to rent or borrow a less capable plane - especially if you have a more capable one.
Click to expand...
I think it depends what you mean by "capable". You should probably buy a big enough airplane for the number of people you want to carry and still be able to hold a reasonable amount of fuel, but not necessarily full tanks. However, if most of your legs are shorter you might not need the speed so much. If you only do a longer trip once or twice a year it's probably not a big deal to stop for fuel or take a little bit more time.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Agree - 4 adults and bags is generally going to mean a 6 seater, especially if you want to achieve the desired range. You could haul the 850lb load in a Cardinal 177RG (and lots of good deals in the Cardinal market - plus it is a great plane), but you would only be able to carry enough gas to fly for maybe 300 miles between stops.

For the 6 seaters, best deals are going to be found in the Lance category as mentioned. C210 would also probably fit the bill - a little more expensive, but you get more speed than the Lance.
Click to expand...

While the fixed gear version of the Lance can carry a big load, most of the retractable versions are a bit more limited so I wouldn't assume that any Lance/Saratoga could meet the mission requirements.

And FWIW, the Bonanza I used to own had about 1150 lbs useful. With enough fuel to fly 500 nm with an hour reserve I had about 800 left for the cabin so it was close to meeting the requirements.
 
Everskyward said:
I think it depends what you mean by "capable". You should probably buy a big enough airplane for the number of people you want to carry and still be able to hold a reasonable amount of fuel, but not necessarily full tanks. However, if most of your legs are shorter you might not need the speed so much. If you only do a longer trip once or twice a year it's probably not a big deal to stop for fuel or take a little bit more time.
Click to expand...

True, the space and weight is more important than the speed in this regard (to me). However the idea of buying something that's smaller and cheaper with the intent of renting something bigger and more capable I don't see as making sense because it rarely seems to work. If you need a Navajo ever, the best you can hope for is to charter or borrow it - but who's going to let you borrow a Navajo unless you have enough experience flying it and similar aircraft to be competent?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
True, the space and weight is more important than the speed in this regard (to me). However the idea of buying something that's smaller and cheaper with the intent of renting something bigger and more capable I don't see as making sense because it rarely seems to work. If you need a Navajo ever, the best you can hope for is to charter or borrow it - but who's going to let you borrow a Navajo unless you have enough experience flying it and similar aircraft to be competent?
Click to expand...
I see what you mean but people also need to weigh the cost of owing an operating something bigger than they need most of the time. Then sometimes you need to say you can't do it. If 5 people want to travel in a 4-place airplane someone gets kicked off the boat. Even if you have a 300 passenger airplane I'm sure that at times a 301st passenger will show up and want to go. That's just being simplistic and not even considering the question of weight.
 
gismo said:
While the fixed gear version of the Lance can carry a big load, most of the retractable versions are a bit more limited so I wouldn't assume that any Lance/Saratoga could meet the mission requirements.

And FWIW, the Bonanza I used to own had about 1150 lbs useful. With enough fuel to fly 500 nm with an hour reserve I had about 800 left for the cabin so it was close to meeting the requirements.
Click to expand...

What kind of Bonanza - 1150 useful sounds about right for a -35, but that is before fuel. Add the fuel and you lose the payload ability.

If you are talking -36, then price-wise, the Lance is generally a better deal. I've got time in both fixed and retract PA32s and what the OP is looking for shoudln't be a problem for either. The biggest challenge I have seen in the 32 is CoG and where to put the stuff to keep it within the envelope. Not super difficult, but you can't just load the plane and assume that you are within CG.
 
Everskyward said:
I see what you mean but people also need to weigh the cost of owing an operating something bigger than they need most of the time. Then sometimes you need to say you can't do it. If 5 people want to travel in a 4-place airplane someone gets kicked off the boat. Even if you have a 300 passenger airplane I'm sure that at times a 301st passenger will show up and want to go. That's just being simplistic and not even considering the question of weight.
Click to expand...

Correct, and I think the cost makes a bigger factor for many people (can you really afford a plane?). But the reality for most people is that you can come up with a pretty good idea of what you reasonably need most of the time.

In my case, the Aztec is the best fit for most of my missions. The 310 is good for some, but there are times when I have to take the Aztec due to space constraints and accept the speed penalty, as you said before. But my point is that I can easily rent or borrow a 172 if I want. If I had a 172 and wanted to rent or borrow an Aztec, it would be significantly more difficult.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
But my point is that I can easily rent or borrow a 172 if I want. If I had a 172 and wanted to rent or borrow an Aztec, it would be significantly more difficult.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but your situation is pretty much entirely different than most people. Most people have no need for an Aztec or 310, therefore for them to buy one just because they can take their friends and baggage and kitchen sink on that once quarterly 500 mile trip is pretty silly and in most cases financially irresponsible.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, but your situation is pretty much entirely different than most people. Most people have no need for an Aztec or 310, therefore for them to buy one just because they can take their friends and baggage and kitchen sink on that once quarterly 500 mile trip is pretty silly and in most cases financially irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Since when is owning an airplane for personal use ever financially responsible? :goofy:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Yeah, but your situation is pretty much entirely different than most people. Most people have no need for an Aztec or 310, therefore for them to buy one just because they can take their friends and baggage and kitchen sink on that once quarterly 500 mile trip is pretty silly and in most cases financially irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I also wasn't suggesting that the person buy an Aztec or a 310. A Comanche 250 or a Bonanza, however, would make sense to me. If I didn't have a need for the planes I do, I would buy a Lancair 360. Kinda on the opposite end of the spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top