Starting purchase research, trouble narrowing choices

[Jakl15]

To start off, I fully intend on this being a year or two long process in order to manage my expectations, and if the right one comes along that checks all the boxes, I can jump on it.

Mission: Family of 3 (4 by the time we purchase), I'm 6'4 230, wife is 5'5 and 130, kids are 3 and the other due in November. Expect luggage to vary wildly due to growing kids and what is needed to support (car seats, strollers, etc), but probably around 100-150lbs at any given time.

The most challenging portion is defining the distance/environment of the mission. My wife and I are both active duty, so this would be something that could end up anywhere in the country, and potentially stored for a couple years if we end up moved overseas for any reason.

Our family is all in TX and the furthest corners of the US that we would potentially be stationed are either NC or ID, making for a ~1000NM one way flight. This is on the far end of what a trip would consist of, and would obviously be something broken up into 2 days since even at 140KGS, we're looking at 7+hrs of flight time. Trips like this would also only be once or twice a year depending on what is going on with the family.

I have no mission that includes 4 adults. That is one of the 10% missions I can rent for if it is absolutely necessary. This is meant to be a family hauler.

So I guess the key to this purchase is flexibility, but still trying to avoid mission creep. I'd like to stick to a normally aspirated single, either 4 or 6 place, and ideally staying in the $75-80k range. I'd like to have this for use on long-weekend trips every other month or so, likely no further than 2-3 hours each way. Now where those flights actually go are completely dependent upon where we are stationed. More just exploring the space. Likely places we could go are south TX, FL panhandle, central ID, and eastern NC. Maybe Phoenix sometime down the road.

Things we are looking for in a plane are obviously comfort for a family of 4 and some luggage. I'd love to get use out of this until retirement (12 more years), but if it is something we have to upgrade to a larger plane half-way through due to growing kids, that could be doable. What we don't want is a project plane. I'm not trying to get a high or beyond TBO engine or sketchy maintenance logs. Mediocre interior and paint are just fine. Avionics doesn't need to be anything special either, just something comfortable for IFR flight, WAAS is awesome, as is ADS-B in. 2 axis AP is basically a must. Beyond that, everything is just gravy.

I have a fairly long list of planes I have been browsing and I feel like narrowing it down to one or two options will definitely help. So far we've considered: Beech Debonair (likely a C33/C33A), Piper 235 Pathfinder or Dakota, Cherokee Six 300, Comanche 260, Arrow II or III, Cessna 182N-Q, Cessna 206, or a Mooney M20J (post 1981). We had initially looked at V-tail Bonanzas, but with the limited availability of ruddervator skins, we're going to hold off on them.

As for my experience, I have roughly 600 hours PIC and 1500 total time. Most of my GA time is in C172, 182, A36, Archer, and DA-20/40. The vast majority of my time is from multi-engine jets in the Air Force, however.

 

[Collin Kaufman]

Do some research on the Maule, either the M5 or M7. You can get them tailwheel or tricycle. Sound like it would meet your mission and maybe if you're patient you could find one in your price range. They've got a great stall speed and cruise speed and a useful load of around 1000 pounds.

 

[Salty]

This is just my opinion, but with a family of 4 I'd be looking at a 6 seater. As much as I like the Mooney, it wouldn't be my choice in your situation.

 

[Jakl15]

Edited to add the Comanche 260

This is just my opinion, but with a family of 4 I'd be looking at a 6 seater. As much as I like the Mooney, it wouldn't be my choice in your situation.

In your opinion, does this even hold true for 2 adults and 2 kids? Granted, they grow up quick. But my expectation for the plane is to keep it around until we retire, or at least till the halfway point. At that time we can make a more informed decision as to what our mission is since we will likely be buying our forever home. So this plane will be around till the kids are 9 and 6, or at most 15 and 12.

Speed just seemed to be key on this sort of purchase since all I have to go on is my family size. I may get moved 1000 miles from family or 200 miles from family. Either way, the trade-off of a few knots for a little extra useful load makes sense, but cruising at 140-150 in an Arrow or Mooney vs 130 and almost double the fuel burn in a Cherokee 6 sounds painful. 20 knots can really make a difference over 1000nm. The Debonair seems to be consistently at the top of our price range, but it also seems like the truest 4 passenger plane, not just 4 place plane. I feel like I can get way more Arrow or Comanche for the money, but if those truly won't move a family of 4 adequately, I may have to really take a long look at the Deb.

 

[Tantalum]

The Debonair seems to be consistently at the top of our price range, but it also seems like the truest 4 passenger plane, not just 4 place plane.

I was going to say... of the planes you listed as options that's what I'd be looking at. They're fast (enough), big, pretty comfortable, all around good airplanes.

 

[gov98]

I'm partial to the Cherokee 6 300, as I currently have one. Had an arrow 180 previously which was great for the 2 adults +2 young kids flying that I did. The problem is that kids grow fast, and a 1000 NM trip is uncomfortable in any configuration if it's designed with just 4 seats. The kids will be fine in the back of an Arrow III until their probably 8-10 ish, and then even that will be tight, and don't expect to take much in the way of baggage along with you. And if your wife is like my wife, the desire for baggage is always a significant consideration. The Comanche 260 would be great I rented that one a decent amount and the speeds were solid and the spaciousness was decent when the kids were 7 and 5.

Problem is everything is a trade-off and if I've learned anything looking at planes and buying selling etc., is that there's no free lunches and the trade-offs are all there. The nice thing about the 6...take out the middle seats an everyone has more room and is way more comfortable for a 4-6 hour flight. I fly around 7500-8500 ft and regularly burn about 11-12 gph, the arrow, flew around 7500-8500 as well and burned about 8 gph. The Cherokee 6 is straight legged and the 6 is about 7 knots faster on average than the arrow 180 was, I suspect it'd be about 3 knots faster than the Arrow 200.

Love to tell you there's some easy answer out there, there isn't. Don't get me wrong 10 years from now I'd love a PA46...maybe...just maybe. The other plane, that if I knew for sure 2+2 was going to be my mission and I was looking for an all around solid plane that had good speed and reasonable cost. I'd look VERY VERY hard at a c182RG from 1979-1981. Decent space, decent door placement. I looked at one and almost bought it but it was bank owned and the bank didn't agree to my offer and it got sold off to someone else, (I think for less too, but that's the way banks run.)

 

[hindsight2020]

If you're willing to wait until next summer (recession), good deal ought to be had on Lances. Everything is overpriced by around 30K right now, so 75K doesn't get you much.... right now. For context my piddly Arrow once too went for 70K. Joke. Let's just say I paid significantly less for it the last time the economy tanked. I'd never pay that much for a barely adequately powered contraption like this thing.

As to Debonair (stock) being a 4 person airplane? Umm, no. They have as little as and sometimes less useful load than an Arrow, especially considering the extra horsepower. They're built heavy. Who cares if they can touch 150 true if you can't use the horsepower for the useful load it should have (e.g. a 182 for instance).They're also CG challenged when light. For instance, my 2+1 mission leaves the front pax seat empty, and with 60 lbs of bags in the luggage compartment, my 74' Arrow II is still 200# under gross with 5:10 of endurance (full tanks at 65%) with no CG issue. In a Deb, I straight up fall aft of the CG on the last hour of flight. Furthermore, unless you're getting a C33 or later, the bench seat arrangement has less leg room, which was a non-starter for my family centric mission. Ditto for a Comanche pre-66 versus their post-66 offerings.

If I had to do it all over again? High compression 182. The 182RG is the sweet spot, but I wouldn't personally own that gear as the fleet continues to be mothballed in support by Textron. The writing is on the wall for these things. Do a search on the topic (main gear pivots, actuator housings, inspections, parts sourcing, cracking, stick all these terms next to 182rg in google-fu and enjoy) if you want to know the details, it's been described ad nauseam. Prepare to deal with defensive cult responses. Ditto for the Comanche.

I don't feel comfortable flying my family behind a continental engine, but from an economics perspective I prefer the fixed legged 182 over the retract, especially as a forever airplane. As to block speeds, I'd give up cruise for climb performance every day and twice on Sunday, after doing the flying family thing for 7 years now. As an Arrow owner, I think your family would grow to love the two door ingress, and the cabin with the look-down view of the 182. Mind you my family is quite happy with the rear cabin of the Arrow. I've even sat back there on occasion just to see how it fits, and it's quite comfortable. But up front I don't really like the seating. It's tolerable with the right seat unoccupied, since I can stretch sideways .But with someone else next to me, it quickly becomes a pain. I rather have something like a Cherokee Six or Commander. Airplanes with at least 44 inches of elbow room or more (182, Comanche, Cirrus, commanders, cardinal, all PA-32 variants) don't have that ergonomic issue. I'd trade 5 knots of cruise and/or 3GPH for it. But I don't have a 1000NM mission so ymmv.

I'll also go on a limb and suggest the degree to which you'll actually accomplish a 1000NM with 2 kids and a wife is specious. You think you will right now, but the odds are against you on that bet. Don't let that range drive your requirements list. All airplanes become a pain for passengers much past the 3rd hour, so everything in excess of 500NM becomes a whole day, easy-does-it, multiple stop affair. Take it in stride and make a road trip out of it, instead of obsessing about what can make it a 2-hopper, for one time a year, at incredible CAPEX premiums.

So if you can wait til next summer, Lance. If you want to be impatient and just pull the trigger, find an old or avionics clapped out 182. Don't bother with anything with 4 cylinders or less than 44 inches of elbow room. I wish I had gone 250HP+ from the get go, but I didn't have the money at the time. Good luck!

 

[Salty]

Edited to add the Comanche 260



In your opinion, does this even hold true for 2 adults and 2 kids? Granted, they grow up quick. But my expectation for the plane is to keep it around until we retire, or at least till the halfway point. At that time we can make a more informed decision as to what our mission is since we will likely be buying our forever home. So this plane will be around till the kids are 9 and 6, or at most 15 and 12.

Speed just seemed to be key on this sort of purchase since all I have to go on is my family size. I may get moved 1000 miles from family or 200 miles from family. Either way, the trade-off of a few knots for a little extra useful load makes sense, but cruising at 140-150 in an Arrow or Mooney vs 130 and almost double the fuel burn in a Cherokee 6 sounds painful. 20 knots can really make a difference over 1000nm. The Debonair seems to be consistently at the top of our price range, but it also seems like the truest 4 passenger plane, not just 4 place plane. I feel like I can get way more Arrow or Comanche for the money, but if those truly won't move a family of 4 adequately, I may have to really take a long look at the Deb.

For me, it's just my wife and a little bitty dog and my mooney feels cramped on a long trip with a week of baggage. Granted, mine is a short-body mooney, but my other experience is that young kids need a lot more baggage space than a little dog. For short trips being cramped isn't as big a deal, but you're describing longer hauls where I think you'll be glad to have the space of those 2 extra seats.

Having two kids in the back and mom up front trying to take care of them isn't going to be pretty in a mooney. Having Mom in the back, you'll have to put one up front with you. In a Cherokee 6 with cabin seating they can all sit in the back, loading is infinitely easier.

But, this is coming from a person seeing it only from the other side. I do like the efficiency and speed of my Mooney. Maybe I'd hate the 6, but on every long trip I wish I had one.

 

[steingar]

This is completely unrealistic. I can't think of an airplane that is a true 6 seat aircraft that can do what the OP wants for the money he's discussing. I can think of lots that are 4 seat aircraft, but none that you can fit the seats and still get somewhere.

 

[NordicDave]

Cessna 206 is perfect for your description and a 182P or later could work.

 

[cowman]

I have owned an Archer II PA-28-181 and now after our son was born I bought a Lance PA-32R-300. The Lance is basically a six/300 with retractable gear. So I can speak with some experience about these two types...

I flew my Archer around the country with just me and my wife and our stuff- occasionally also with our two dogs and their crates. With all our stuff and the dogs that airplane was FULL. Useful load was never an issue, useful volume inside the airplane was. Then our son was born and we knew this just wasn't going to work. I'd been eyeing PA-32s and this one became available at the right time. First trip was with just us, our baby, bags, and all his various necessary stuff no dogs. As soon as I started loading it was obvious the Archer wouldn't have fit everything. Oh sure we could have gotten a more compact stroller and pack & play bed and made it work but it would have been a pain. Also our Lance has club seating which allowed wife and baby to be in the back and she has room to change and feed him back there which is nice.

Again, in an Archer II you probably have the useful load for 2 adults and 2 kids + some light baggage but the space will run out fast. Downside of course is a PA-32 is going to cost a lot more than an Archer both to buy and to operate but if you can swing it you'll be glad for the room and so will your spouse.

 

[Jakl15]

I'm partial to the Cherokee 6 300, as I currently have one. Had an arrow 180 previously which was great for the 2 adults +2 young kids flying that I did. The problem is that kids grow fast, and a 1000 NM trip is uncomfortable in any configuration if it's designed with just 4 seats. The kids will be fine in the back of an Arrow III until their probably 8-10 ish, and then even that will be tight, and don't expect to take much in the way of baggage along with you. And if your wife is like my wife, the desire for baggage is always a significant consideration. The Comanche 260 would be great I rented that one a decent amount and the speeds were solid and the spaciousness was decent when the kids were 7 and 5.

Problem is everything is a trade-off and if I've learned anything looking at planes and buying selling etc., is that there's no free lunches and the trade-offs are all there. The nice thing about the 6...take out the middle seats an everyone has more room and is way more comfortable for a 4-6 hour flight. I fly around 7500-8500 ft and regularly burn about 11-12 gph, the arrow, flew around 7500-8500 as well and burned about 8 gph. The Cherokee 6 is straight legged and the 6 is about 7 knots faster on average than the arrow 180 was, I suspect it'd be about 3 knots faster than the Arrow 200.

Love to tell you there's some easy answer out there, there isn't. Don't get me wrong 10 years from now I'd love a PA46...maybe...just maybe. The other plane, that if I knew for sure 2+2 was going to be my mission and I was looking for an all around solid plane that had good speed and reasonable cost. I'd look VERY VERY hard at a c182RG from 1979-1981. Decent space, decent door placement. I looked at one and almost bought it but it was bank owned and the bank didn't agree to my offer and it got sold off to someone else, (I think for less too, but that's the way banks run.)

PA46 is a beautiful plane. I've had the privledge of riding once in a Malibu and it was incredible. Oddly enough my biggest gripe was getting in the front seat. It is the only cabin-class plane I've flown and it was so cramped. This plane will either be my second or third from last if I have my way with it. The Cherokee 6 and Comanche keep highlighting themselves. The 182RG sounds fantastic, especially with the motor they put in it. Only concern is really the landing gear maintenance. I guess I should feel the same way about the Comanche though. I appreciate the insight!

If you're willing to wait until next summer (recession), good deal ought to be had on Lances. Everything is overpriced by around 30K right now, so 75K doesn't get you much.... right now. For context my piddly Arrow once too went for 70K. Joke. Let's just say I paid significantly less for it the last time the economy tanked. I'd never pay that much for a barely adequately powered contraption like this thing.

As to Debonair (stock) being a 4 person airplane? Umm, no. They have as little as and sometimes less useful load than an Arrow, especially considering the extra horsepower. They're built heavy. Who cares if they can touch 150 true if you can't use the horsepower for the useful load it should have (e.g. a 182 for instance).They're also CG challenged when light. For instance, my 2+1 mission leaves the front pax seat empty, and with 60 lbs of bags in the luggage compartment, my 74' Arrow II is still 200# under gross with 5:10 of endurance (full tanks at 65%) with no CG issue. In a Deb, I straight up fall aft of the CG on the last hour of flight. Furthermore, unless you're getting a C33 or later, the bench seat arrangement has less leg room, which was a non-starter for my family centric mission. Ditto for a Comanche pre-66 versus their post-66 offerings.

If I had to do it all over again? High compression 182. The 182RG is the sweet spot, but I wouldn't personally own that gear as the fleet continues to be mothballed in support by Textron. The writing is on the wall for these things. Do a search on the topic (main gear pivots, actuator housings, inspections, parts sourcing, cracking, stick all these terms next to 182rg in google-fu and enjoy) if you want to know the details, it's been described ad nauseam. Prepare to deal with defensive cult responses. Ditto for the Comanche.

I don't feel comfortable flying my family behind a continental engine, but from an economics perspective I prefer the fixed legged 182 over the retract, especially as a forever airplane. As to block speeds, I'd give up cruise for climb performance every day and twice on Sunday, after doing the flying family thing for 7 years now. As an Arrow owner, I think your family would grow to love the two door ingress, and the cabin with the look-down view of the 182. Mind you my family is quite happy with the rear cabin of the Arrow. I've even sat back there on occasion just to see how it fits, and it's quite comfortable. But up front I don't really like the seating. It's tolerable with the right seat unoccupied, since I can stretch sideways .But with someone else next to me, it quickly becomes a pain. I rather have something like a Cherokee Six or Commander. Airplanes with at least 44 inches of elbow room or more (182, Comanche, Cirrus, commanders, cardinal, all PA-32 variants) don't have that ergonomic issue. I'd trade 5 knots of cruise and/or 3GPH for it. But I don't have a 1000NM mission so ymmv.

I'll also go on a limb and suggest the degree to which you'll actually accomplish a 1000NM with 2 kids and a wife is specious. You think you will right now, but the odds are against you on that bet. Don't let that range drive your requirements list. All airplanes become a pain for passengers much past the 3rd hour, so everything in excess of 500NM becomes a whole day, easy-does-it, multiple stop affair. Take it in stride and make a road trip out of it, instead of obsessing about what can make it a 2-hopper, for one time a year, at incredible CAPEX premiums.

So if you can wait til next summer, Lance. If you want to be impatient and just pull the trigger, find an old or avionics clapped out 182. Don't bother with anything with 4 cylinders or less than 44 inches of elbow room. I wish I had gone 250HP+ from the get go, but I didn't have the money at the time. Good luck!

Whew, thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down! Like I said, I am in no hurry to buy. I have a PCS coming up in about a year, with a potential switch in airframe I'm assigned to, which in turn would come with a whole different set of locations I could be stationed. So this process will take at least a year. I'd like to have something figured out in the next two years, though.

I'm glad you mentioned the market! I thought I was going crazy looking at prices on the used listings. I don't remember mid-high time PA32/300 going for $150ish, but here we are. Same for Mooneys that aren't beat to hell easily clearing $100k.

I've never sat in or flown a Deb, only the A36. Obviously a completely different aircraft in terms of capabilities. I just assumed the Deb wasn't too far behind. And yes, I would certainly go for C33 or later.

I've also never tried a trip in anything longer than 2.5 hours. It was in a Piper Archer and it was just my wife and I. The 1000NM trips would definitely be a goal, and not a short trip at all. At least one, if not two, overnight stops, and a week or more at our destination. Thinking like Christmas/New Years break sort of time frame. Sorry if I made my initial post make it seem like I was trying to make the 1000NM trip in one day with two hops. That was probably unclear.

Lance looks very appealing! I'll have to do more research on them. Obviously the whole T-tail vs conventional debate will come up. Any advantage of that over a Cherokee 6 other than the retractable gear?

 

[Jakl15]

For me, it's just my wife and a little bitty dog and my mooney feels cramped on a long trip with a week of baggage. Granted, mine is a short-body mooney, but my other experience is that young kids need a lot more baggage space than a little dog. For short trips being cramped isn't as big a deal, but you're describing longer hauls where I think you'll be glad to have the space of those 2 extra seats.

Having two kids in the back and mom up front trying to take care of them isn't going to be pretty in a mooney. Having Mom in the back, you'll have to put one up front with you. In a Cherokee 6 with cabin seating they can all sit in the back, loading is infinitely easier.

But, this is coming from a person seeing it only from the other side. I do like the efficiency and speed of my Mooney. Maybe I'd hate the 6, but on every long trip I wish I had one.

Yeah, just one more point for the PA32. With the purpose of this being a family hauler, a Mooney is probably best saved for when we're empty nesters 20 years from now.

This is completely unrealistic. I can't think of an airplane that is a true 6 seat aircraft that can do what the OP wants for the money he's discussing. I can think of lots that are 4 seat aircraft, but none that you can fit the seats and still get somewhere.

Not looking for true 6 seats at all. Looking for true 4 seats, which may be a 4 or 6 place plane. Not sure you could even consider a PA32 a true 6 seater with baggage for all.

Cessna 206 is perfect for your description and a 182P or later could work.

206 had crossed my mind too! I may have ruled it out due to the market right now and seeing prices for decent examples well into the mid 100's. Maybe prices will come back down in the next year or two. I would love a 206.

I have owned an Archer II PA-28-181 and now after our son was born I bought a Lance PA-32R-300. The Lance is basically a six/300 with retractable gear. So I can speak with some experience about these two types...

I flew my Archer around the country with just me and my wife and our stuff- occasionally also with our two dogs and their crates. With all our stuff and the dogs that airplane was FULL. Useful load was never an issue, useful volume inside the airplane was. Then our son was born and we knew this just wasn't going to work. I'd been eyeing PA-32s and this one became available at the right time. First trip was with just us, our baby, bags, and all his various necessary stuff no dogs. As soon as I started loading it was obvious the Archer wouldn't have fit everything. Oh sure we could have gotten a more compact stroller and pack & play bed and made it work but it would have been a pain. Also our Lance has club seating which allowed wife and baby to be in the back and she has room to change and feed him back there which is nice.

Again, in an Archer II you probably have the useful load for 2 adults and 2 kids + some light baggage but the space will run out fast. Downside of course is a PA-32 is going to cost a lot more than an Archer both to buy and to operate but if you can swing it you'll be glad for the room and so will your spouse.

So the Lance is still a hershey bar wing correct? And do you have the T-Tail or conventional? The Lance hadn't crossed my mind, but I'd definitely appreciate a retractable-gear plane.

 

[hindsight2020]

Lance looks very appealing! I'll have to do more research on them. Obviously the whole T-tail vs conventional debate will come up. Any advantage of that over a Cherokee 6 other than the retractable gear?

The T-tail debate is noise. It's not an inflection point imo. I've flown both tail configurations in Pipers, it's a non-issue. The T-tail does have longer ground runs, especially when light (forward CG). But for the kind of mission these airplanes are likely to see (family destinations to paved runways) the difference in TOLD is of no consequence. Other than that, you have two selectable tanks instead of four (cheaper fuel selector as well), and increased cruise speed for the same fuel flow. The Saratogas are the semi-tapered ones, the Sixes and Lances are all Hershey bar.

 

[cowman]

So the Lance is still a hershey bar wing correct? And do you have the T-Tail or conventional? The Lance hadn't crossed my mind, but I'd definitely appreciate a retractable-gear plane.

Yup, and mine is a straight tail. Lance vs a six/300 is the Lance adds retractable gear and the fuel tank setup on the Lance is different. The sixes will have a 4-tank setup with tip tanks- 4 fuel caps and 4 fuel selector positions. The Lance has 4 tanks as well but they're arranged differently and you only have 2 filler caps and 2 fuel selector positions- the way that works is in each wing you have an inboard and outboard tank. The outboard tank sits higher and that's the one you fill, it is connected to the inboard tank and so when you fill the outboard to the top the inboard is full too. There are small fuel gauges on the wing to determine the fuel quantity in the inboard tanks. My explanation sounds convoluted but effectively it's a simpler setup since you just treat it as if you only have 2 tanks.

The only downsides of a retract are slightly higher annuals, the potential for forgetting to put the gear down and totaling the airplane, and the higher insurance because you could forget to put the gear down and total the airplane.

On typical cross country flights I'm seeing 15-16gph fuel burn. Pulling the power back with some aggressive leaning I've seen as low as 12 on the fuel flow meter but I haven't verified that with a tank fill and really if you're going somewhere most people are going to run 75% power.

 

[k9medic]

In my Cherokee 6 I have 996lbs left to haul around when I have full fuel. That's 6 hours worth of flying. Plenty of room for 4 plus baggage.

 

[Bill]

Lance if you want retract and can swing it, otherwise Cherokee 6-300 or maybe a 206. I'd for sure go for a heavy hauler 6 place bird. Those kids are going to grow and you're going to want to bring luggage.

 

[N1120A]

Debonair with the IO-520 STC would do very nice for you.

 

[ktup-flyer]

V35 Bonanza

 

[iamtheari]

You mentioned your 10% mission. What is your 90% mission?

 

[frfly172]

Cherokee six 300.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Also note that storing it for a couple of years may cost more than selling it and re-buying it.

 

[Jakl15]

Yup, and mine is a straight tail. Lance vs a six/300 is the Lance adds retractable gear and the fuel tank setup on the Lance is different. The sixes will have a 4-tank setup with tip tanks- 4 fuel caps and 4 fuel selector positions. The Lance has 4 tanks as well but they're arranged differently and you only have 2 filler caps and 2 fuel selector positions- the way that works is in each wing you have an inboard and outboard tank. The outboard tank sits higher and that's the one you fill, it is connected to the inboard tank and so when you fill the outboard to the top the inboard is full too. There are small fuel gauges on the wing to determine the fuel quantity in the inboard tanks. My explanation sounds convoluted but effectively it's a simpler setup since you just treat it as if you only have 2 tanks.

The only downsides of a retract are slightly higher annuals, the potential for forgetting to put the gear down and totaling the airplane, and the higher insurance because you could forget to put the gear down and total the airplane.

On typical cross country flights I'm seeing 15-16gph fuel burn. Pulling the power back with some aggressive leaning I've seen as low as 12 on the fuel flow meter but I haven't verified that with a tank fill and really if you're going somewhere most people are going to run 75% power.

All makes sense. Thanks for explaining it! My day job involves retractable gear so I'd say its about as likely in a Lance as in my primary aircraft.

In my Cherokee 6 I have 996lbs left to haul around when I have full fuel. That's 6 hours worth of flying. Plenty of room for 4 plus baggage.

That sounds like a really nice capability.

Lance if you want retract and can swing it, otherwise Cherokee 6-300 or maybe a 206. I'd for sure go for a heavy hauler 6 place bird. Those kids are going to grow and you're going to want to bring luggage.

Valid point. And I'm sure the wife will tire quickly of having to pack lightly.

Debonair with the IO-520 STC would do very nice for you.

Didn't know that STC was an option. I'll look into that one!

V35 Bonanza

Avoiding this due to lack of supply for the ruddervators. If that changes over the next couple years when we're definitely ready to buy, it will go to the top of my list. Those planes are gorgeous.

You mentioned your 10% mission. What is your 90% mission?

Family of 4, long weekend trips, once every other month. Hard to define range as there is no way to know where I will be living next year, but likely kept around the 200-300nm mark at most for a 4 day trip.

Cherokee six 300.

Haha another vote. Keeps looking more and more appealing.

Also note that storing it for a couple of years may cost more than selling it and re-buying it.

This is something I'm actively researching. There are lots of non-temp storage for personnel that move OCONUS, just not sure if there is an option for a personally owned aircraft.

 

[N1120A]

Again, in an Archer II you probably have the useful load for 2 adults and 2 kids + some light baggage but the space will run out fast. Downside of course is a PA-32 is going to cost a lot more than an Archer both to buy and to operate but if you can swing it you'll be glad for the room and so will your spouse.

Given the market for trainers, I'm not sure the difference in acquisition cost is much different these days. Also, if you consider the speed different, the MPG probably isn't much different.

 

[Jakl15]

Also note that storing it for a couple of years may cost more than selling it and re-buying it.

Also I forgot mention, this really piqued my curiosity now. I was under the impression airplane ownership was a more buy once cry once sort of endeavor. I'll definitely have to check the numbers on storing vs selling and the buying another. If it's just the cost of an annual and hangar plus storage insurance (if that is a thing), it might be feasible, unless there is something I'm missing. Personally I'd prefer to pay for the hangar and insurance to keep a plane I knew inside and out instead of having to roll the dice on a new purchase.

But if the cost difference really is that significant, maybe I would benefit from getting something good for 2 adults and 2 small children now with the expectation of an overseas move, then just sell that plane and get something different a couple years later. Like go for a fixed 182 now, sell before the move, and then a 206/210/PA32 on the other end of my assignment.

 

[Jakl15]

Given the market for trainers, I'm not sure the difference in acquisition cost is much different these days. Also, if you consider the speed different, the MPG probably isn't much different.

You're not wrong! It seems like any mid-time engined single with decent avionics/interior/paint is a 90k+ price tag lately. I should say anything with a 6 cylinder or retractable gear, but still that's quite the variety to have that high of a price on. Anything I find less than around 80k has maybe 100ish hours left TBO, or there is damage history, or it's barely IFR.

 

[Rgbeard]

A six-place airplane makes a very comfortable airplane for three or four people.

You have room for people and luggage.

We pack ours reasonably tight at times and it’s just my wife, two small dogs and I. No way would we have an Archer or similar and be able to do the trips we have done.

 

[Jakl15]

A six-place airplane makes a very comfortable airplane for three or four people.

You have room for people and luggage.

We pack ours reasonably tight at times and it’s just my wife, two small dogs and I. No way would we have an Archer or similar and be able to do the trips we have done.

Which do you fly? Sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread

 

[Rgbeard]

Which do you fly? Sorry if I missed it earlier in the thread

Turbo T-Lance.

 

[IK04]

There aren't very many GA airplanes that qualify as Family Trucksters, but a Cherokee six 300 or a Cessna 207 will hold more than just about anything without an airstair door...

Too bad the 207 is too rare and unavailable in the U.S.

 

[benyflyguy]

182. When fam gets bigger time for a twin. St least that’s my plan.
I have wife and two kids 8 and 10yo. Like 300nm or longer trips. 182 perfect for us now. Can really load it down and will fly. Not fast but reliable and not hard to keep in air money wise. We have good IFR platform and use.
As Family gets bigger I feel a twin would be next best move. I think market for piston twins will be better in a few years too. IMO.
But all this lance talk has me thinking. A hangar buddy keeps telling me to get checked out on his lance and take her out once in insurance. Might have to give it a ride.

 

[schmookeeg]

Based on some of your picks, it seems like speed is not paramount. The trick is weeding out the 2+2 planes (C172, etc) and finding true 4-up planes. That's going to be useful loads in the 1200# ballpark or so.

Some unusual thoughts to consider:

The Debonair G33 is a weird one, with a 260HP motor, and I've seen them in your price range. 260 is a nice sweet spot for the 33/35 series, and that motor skips the engine problems that surround the front alternator.

The Beech Super Musketeer is way out of left field, but worth a sniff. 128kts makes it the slug in your lineup by at least 10kt, but the one we used to own was a crazy heavy hauler with a 1300# useful load. Some have two doors. You can find solid ones starting around 35K and a yoked one would be unlikely to go for more than 60K. With full tanks (60gal), ours still had 940# for beef and bags. 10gph, cheap as chips to run and operate.

You found the Dakota 235 and C182 already. Those will be easy to re-sell when the time comes to move up or down.

Early 4-seat 210s seem worthy of consideration. If you can find a 205/206 for that money, it's worth approaching with caution. You might find a diamond in the rough.

All of the PA32s seem like good lifters, both FG and RG, and I love the interiors in em. Mama will like her seat, which will make selling those Annuals a little easier.

I know these threads usually devolve into "you need at least a 737 for that mission, and also consider a G550" but light twins might be an option if you can stomach the 2X maintenance an fuel bill. Other than limping around on one engine, lifting large payloads is about the only trick they're reliably good at.

Good luck on the hunt. As mentioned above, it's a good time to soak in data, watch the market, and be ready to strike when planes start showing up with desperate sellers who over-stretched. Find for-sale ads circa 2008-2010 as a target

$0.02

 

[Skip Miller]

Piper Saratoga II PA-32-301 and 301R. Club seating. Not the fastest planes in the sky, but good, comfy haulers. Well supported by Piper and Lycoming.

-Skip

 

[hindsight2020]

Piper Saratoga II PA-32-301 and 301R. Club seating. Not the fastest planes in the sky, but good, comfy haulers. Well supported by Piper and Lycoming.

-Skip

Slight correction, I think you meant 32-301 and 32R-301. Even in recession pricing, I don't think you'll find Togas for 80K. That was part of the OPs requirement.

 

[Barry]

I went 182H recently as my first purchase, have wife and two boys 8 & 15. Has 1079lb useful, plenty of room, great for us, now. Fits all of us plus 100lbs baggage and 60 gallons to stay in limits, flys 130kts. Once these boys get another 8-10 years on them, won’t be enough useful load to go anywhere far though. Yours are younger so you will have plenty of time. Hard to beat a 182, not great at anything, good at most everything

 

[cowman]

Given the market for trainers, I'm not sure the difference in acquisition cost is much different these days. Also, if you consider the speed different, the MPG probably isn't much different.

Now to be fair I've only got the sample size of having bought and sold one Archer II so I could be wrong but while I've noticed the asking prices for Archers being ridiculously high on the typical airplanes for sale sites. From what I know and from what I've gathered from talking to people and all the market research I did both buying and selling I don't think the actual sale price is quite so inflated. To me a mid-time Archer II with a decent panel GPS and steam gauges, decent but not perfect paint/interior is a $50-60k airplane. I've seen them asking upwards of 80-90 or more but again I don't think anyone is paying that, sellers are just being hopeful.

Also from my research a cheap PA-32 in decent shape will start around $100k. For something mid-time in good shape with a decent panel it's going to go up from there.

YMMV this is just what I've been able to figure out from my own research and buying/selling experience.

As far as annual cost mine basically doubled going from the Archer to the Lance and my insurance cost nearly quadrupled. In the end compared to the price to purchase one of these beasts that stuff is negligible and also I agree fuel cost isn't a huge jump but it's a little bit of one. Worth thinking of if one has to stretch to swing the nicer bird though

 

[Omalley1537]

Just food for thought...
You’re going to pay a premium for a low or mid-time engine vs a runout. This may end up as wasted funds, should the engine crap out earlier than TBO. No matter how well you borescope, etc, you could wind up making metal or having other issues earlier than expected.
Conversely, if you buy an otherwise stellar airplane with a runout engine, you have negotiating power and will come out the other side with a new engine that only you have owned and operated. Further, the runout engine may give you more use prior to an overhaul being necessary and then you’ve gotten a price break and additional use.

 

[dmcummins]

I have a Debonair. I can take four adults with no problems. I have close to 1100 lbs useful load. I do have to put the heavier passengers in the front and be careful on loading much into the baggage department. But two adults and two kids should be no problem.

 

[Salty]

I have a Debonair. I can take four adults with no problems. I have close to 1100 lbs useful load. I do have to put the heavier passengers in the front and be careful on loading much into the baggage department. But two adults and two kids should be no problem.

So how do you go on a week long trip with 4 people the OP describes without “loading much in the baggage department”?

 

[Skip Miller]

Slight correction, I think you meant 32-301 and 32R-301.

Yes, thanks. -Skip