Tell me what kind of airplane I'm looking for

mjburian

mjburian

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Marty
I did all of my training in a Cessna 172, but now that I have my PPL I'm finding it a bit limiting for the flight profile I'd like to take. At least a few times now, I've had to change plans (either cancel the flight or change the passengers/destination) because the 172 won't carry the amount of weight I'm trying to put in it.

I'm looking for something that can carry 800 pounds of people plus 2.5 hours worth of fuel (1.5 hours for flight, 1 hour in reserve). Ideally, it would have similar handling characteristics to a 172, but I would willing to go up with a CFI to "get used to" any differences.

So, please tell me what I'm looking for.
 
A Cessna 182 is similar and should meet the above requirements more or less.
 
Any plane you fly in you're going to need to get a check out with a CFI before flying.

A 182 comes to mind... as Kent enjoys saying, "It's not great at anything but it's pretty good at everything!" I think it'd be able to hold your cargo and fuel. Would be a natural upgrade if you like the 172.

Personally, I don't like 172s. I'd be more interested in a Piper. You're going to be looking at needing a high performance endorsement no matter what you get, I suspect... not too many planes would have the cargo capacity you want with under 200 hp.
 
Piper Archer will get you 2.5 hr of fuel with 800# useful load and 120-130kts.

Cessna Cardinal RG will get you 3 hrs of fuel with 800# useful load and 140-145kts.

Cessna 182 will meet the requirements, but I don't have any real numbers for it.

Those are the only three a/c that I have personally flown that would meet those requirements other than a road-hog Cherokee Six - 300.

Archer would require a little to get used to simply b/c of different sight picture, trim, flap controls, etc. if all you've ever flown is a 172. Usually not more than an hour or so of t-n-g's, though.

177RG is similar to the 172, but a little 'slicker'. Would require a little training on energy management for landing, etc.

182 is just a 'grown-up' 172. :)
 
Last edited:
For 800 lb of people, you're talking at least 230 HP to get the job done right -- either a 182 or Piper 235 Cherokee/Dakota. Which one? Fly both and see which "floats your boat," then go hunting for good deals. That said, due to the demand for 182's fueled by the large number of people who learned in Cessnas and think they have to stick with the brand, you'll probably find you can get more plane (newer, better condition, more modern avionics, etc) for the same money with the PA28-235/236 than the 182.

Also, while you can sorta squeak by with a 180-200 HP plane like the Cardinal or Archer, in the long run, you won't be happy with the results carrying the loads you want to carry. I've met many folks who wish they'd gone one step larger, but few who wish they'd bought one step less airplane.
 
I should have mentioned that I would also prefer to *not* have retractable gear. I am still pretty new, and for some reason am *terrified* of a gear-up landing. If the gear is always down, that should never be a problem.

Looks like a 182 is a common suggestion... and could be a (relatively) natural transition. What about a Cardinal without the retractable gear (I know of at least one person who would "go in" on a Cardinal with me)?

Anybody have hard numbers on payload, speed, fuel burn rate, etc for the 182 and Cardinal?
 
Ron Levy said:
Also, while you can sorta squeak by with a 180-200 HP plane like the Cardinal or Archer, in the long run, you won't be happy with the results carrying the loads you want to carry. I've met many folks who wish they'd gone one step larger, but few who wish they'd bought one step less airplane.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were ideal -- I just said they would work. ;)

While the Archer can carry the NUMBERS of 800#, it would indeed be hard to squeeze that my people+stuff in comfortably.

The 177RG, OTOH, has a cavernous cabin to pile people and stuff into. The issue I usually had with it was staying within CG. Load it up, burn off a lot of fuel, and you get tail-heavy quickly. Plus, there's the whole "hope the gear comes down this time" that comes with all RG's.
 
mjburian said:
I did all of my training in a Cessna 172, but now that I have my PPL I'm finding it a bit limiting for the flight profile I'd like to take. At least a few times now, I've had to change plans (either cancel the flight or change the passengers/destination) because the 172 won't carry the amount of weight I'm trying to put in it.

I'm looking for something that can carry 800 pounds of people plus 2.5 hours worth of fuel (1.5 hours for flight, 1 hour in reserve). Ideally, it would have similar handling characteristics to a 172, but I would willing to go up with a CFI to "get used to" any differences.

So, please tell me what I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

A 180 hp 172 S or RG at gross and close to rear CG envlope can just handle that.

A 182 will handle it easy and give you a few more inches of space for the passengers.
 
mjburian said:
I should have mentioned that I would also prefer to *not* have retractable gear. I am still pretty new, and for some reason am *terrified* of a gear-up landing. If the gear is always down, that should never be a problem.

Looks like a 182 is a common suggestion... and could be a (relatively) natural transition. What about a Cardinal without the retractable gear (I know of at least one person who would "go in" on a Cardinal with me)?

Anybody have hard numbers on payload, speed, fuel burn rate, etc for the 182 and Cardinal?
Click to expand...

Problem with the straight-leg 177's is their engine configuration. The RG's have the IO-360 200hp while the non-RG's started out with deadly anemic 150hp engines. I think they are mostly upgraded to 160-180hp now, but still not quite as much snuff as the 200hp.
 
CJones said:
While the Archer can carry the NUMBERS of 800#, it would indeed be hard to squeeze that my people+stuff in comfortably.
.
Click to expand...
The archer would barely work. You'd need to watch the fuel and the baggage. Archer + 800 pound of people doesn't leave much fuel.
 
Having just come back from some practice in a 182T, I am reminded once again of what a GOOD airplane a 182 is. Strong, stable, forgiving, easy to maintain. And reasonably fast given it's other capabilities.
 
jesse said:
The archer would barely work. You'd need to watch the fuel and the baggage. Archer + 800 pound of people doesn't leave much fuel.
Click to expand...

1/2 (25 gals) tanks would be all. This is based on the numbers of the Archer I flew. It could change dramatically depending on mods made to the airframe throughout its life. Definitely not an ideal situation, but do-able if REALLY necessary.
 
The problems with a plane which requires short-loading fuel to carry the desired load are first, measuring it accurately, and second, finding yourself with too much fuel before the next full-load trip. You can do a lot with a Fuel Hawk, but if you've got 36 gallons aboard because your long trip last week cancelled, and now you have to haul the full house, you have to throw away $80 worth of fuel, not to mention the issue of how to remove it from the tanks.

Bottom line: Buy the 182/Dakota, and I guarantee you won't regret it. Buy the 172/Archer, and odds are you will.
 
Ron Levy said:
The problems with a plane which requires short-loading fuel to carry the desired load are first, measuring it accurately, and second, finding yourself with too much fuel before the next full-load trip. You can do a lot with a Fuel Hawk, but if you've got 36 gallons aboard because your long trip last week cancelled, and now you have to haul the full house, you have to throw away $80 worth of fuel, not to mention the issue of how to remove it from the tanks.

Bottom line: Buy the 182/Dakota, and I guarantee you won't regret it. Buy the 172/Archer, and odds are you will.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the situation I have found myself in. Once, we canceled the trip. Two other times, we left someone behind. Neither situation is ideal, but I can't really complain as I am getting the usage of a 172 for *cheap*.

My dad owns 1/8 of a 172, and I am allowed usage of it for an hourly fee (much less than renting). I am not responsible for any of the monthly dues, either. It seems as though all of the partners, in an effort to help out the next person flying, fill the tanks when they are done for the day. Because of my non-equity standing, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to address this with them (could you leave the tanks half-full?).

Hence, my looking to put together a partnership in a plane (that could also be hangared a bit closer to home).
 
mjburian said:
That is exactly the situation I have found myself in. Once, we canceled the trip. Two other times, we left someone behind. Neither situation is ideal, but I can't really complain as I am getting the usage of a 172 for *cheap*.

My dad owns 1/8 of a 172, and I am allowed usage of it for an hourly fee (much less than renting). I am not responsible for any of the monthly dues, either. It seems as though all of the partners, in an effort to help out the next person flying, fill the tanks when they are done for the day. Because of my non-equity standing, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to address this with them (could you leave the tanks half-full?).

Hence, my looking to put together a partnership in a plane (that could also be hangared a bit closer to home).
Click to expand...

I ran into the same issue when trying to take my mother and my girlfriend on a run for lunch, and the FBO didn't follow directions and leave the tanks half-full. It sucks to have to leave anyone behind, but do you know how awkward it is to tell your girlfriend that she can't come because it would put the airplane over it's max gross weight? Wasn't the best flying day of my life... let's just say that. :no:
 
Last edited:
Beech Musketeer Super III(A23-24) will do the job nicely. Slower than the 182, but much lower fuel burn as well. Most have Useful around 1050. Take out 800 for payload and you have 250#, or 42 gallons. This will provide more than three hours aloft with reserve. Big inside, and very stable. Prices are also very attractive.
 
docmirror said:
Beech Musketeer Super III(A23-24) will do the job nicely. Slower than the 182, but much lower fuel burn as well. Most have Useful around 1050. Take out 800 for payload and you have 250#, or 42 gallons. This will provide more than three hours aloft with reserve. Big inside, and very stable. Prices are also very attractive.
Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion. Prices are very reasonable compared to some of the others (usually). Here's an example: http://tappix.com/804520

Just remember that it's slower. There's no such thing as a free lunch or something like that. :)
 
Ron Levy said:
Also, while you can sorta squeak by with a 180-200 HP plane like the Cardinal or Archer, in the long run, you won't be happy with the results carrying the loads you want to carry. I've met many folks who wish they'd gone one step larger, but few who wish they'd bought one step less airplane.
Click to expand...
That's because most of the folks that wish they had bought one step less airplane have been priced out of flying or need to spend too much time at work to pay for the airplane to spend much time chatting at the airport.:rofl:

I agree with Ron, go with the 182.
 
t0r0nad0 said:
I ran into the same issue when trying to take my mother and my girlfriend on a run for lunch, and the FBO didn't follow directions and leave the tanks half-full. It sucks to have to leave anyone behind, but do you know how awkward it is to tell your girlfriend that she can't come because it would put the airplane over it's max gross weight? Wasn't the best flying day of my life... let's just say that. :no:
Click to expand...

Luckily, it didn't happen to me on the trip I took with my wife and my mother-in-law. It was my mother-in-law's first flight in a GA aircraft (so she was excited), but my wife was pretty intent on going as well.

It would've been a tough decision, but I'm guessing I would have left the mother-in-law behind (I only see her once in a while, not every day like I see my wife).

;-)
 
Why are you avoiding the Cherokee Six - either 260 or 300? Fixed gear, 1,000 lbs+ payload with full fuel, very roomy inside. I rented one for years before getting into the Arrow and I still consider the Six the best all round plane for my missions.
 
If your hauling a load you will be happiest with a Cherokee six 260. Throw anything you want in it full fuel and go. Because it has the front baggage W&B is very easy. One of the nicest planes I owned.

One of my stand by best bang for the buck is the Viking, you can find them for about the same price as a 172 30,000 to 50,000. On average you'll be traveling at 150 mph indicated at 10 gph fuel burn. That is a Bellanca 260. Climb out at 2000 fpm 110 mph. Only problem is room if the people are big.

Dan
 
bstratt said:
Why are you avoiding the Cherokee Six - either 260 or 300? Fixed gear, 1,000 lbs+ payload with full fuel, very roomy inside. I rented one for years before getting into the Arrow and I still consider the Six the best all round plane for my missions.
Click to expand...

The only Six-300 that I have flown wasn't as 'over the top' performance-wise as I expected. Took what seemed like forever to get up to 8-9000' and was going through fuel like the dickens. It is a great load hauler - you can really load it to the gills - but you pay for that load capability in climb performance and cruise speed. It seems like a load hauling overkill for what the OP listed as mission profile: medium load & short range.

Also, the one I flew didn't have club seating, so the people seated behind my dad and I were really cramped for space (we're both over 6'5" tall). That just seemed to leave a bitter taste in my mouth - great load capability, but no room to get people in and out of comfortably. We were actually looking at buying/partnering on a Cherokee Six before the club got the one we have flown. Turned us off to the plane. YRMV.
 
OK... I just looked at ASO and see a Cherokee Six for $70K. That's well within the $50K-$80K range I've been looking, I just didn't have any idea I might be able to get 6 seats out of it.

Even with the additional fuel burn (I'm seeing 15gph, is that accurate?), it will get me places quicker than a 172 and *more* than suffice with it's capabilities (weight, speed, range, etc).

Is 70K right for a Six? Or should I assume there's an issue with it?
 
One issue to consider with a Six (i.e. a six-seater) as opposed to a four seater is insurance. I've been told (the ubiquitous "they say" :)) that because it'll take six butts they consider the potential increased liability of the additional passengers and increase the premiums. Others, of course, have told me that this isn't the case. Check it out for yourself.

Oh, and put me down as another who considers the 182 to be a great all-around machine.
 
gprellwitz said:
One issue to consider with a Six (i.e. a six-seater) as opposed to a four seater is insurance. I've been told (the ubiquitous "they say" :)) that because it'll take six butts they consider the potential increased liability of the additional passengers and increase the premiums. Others, of course, have told me that this isn't the case. Check it out for yourself.

Oh, and put me down as another who considers the 182 to be a great all-around machine.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt the 182 is a great performer. The only thing I'm wondering is why one would pay about the same for a 4-seater as a 6-seater (that presumably has a larger useful load)?
 
The Six is overkill for the designated mission, and yes, a $70K Six is well under the range for the type and should be viewed with care.
 
Ron Levy said:
The Six is overkill for the designated mission, and yes, a $70K Six is well under the range for the type and should be viewed with care.
Click to expand...

You have to add in the comfort factor. I flew my 260 six at around 12 gph I think. I flew mostly over 8000'. If you take out the middle seats it really shines as far as what you can do. Just think of a trip with the "guys going golfing" in a 182 then think of that same trip in a six. If your traveling nothing beats comfort. Also think of some people getting in. Getting in a six in the back is easy for anyone.

70,000 is well under range, I sold mine for 120,000.00 1975 well equipped. I would never count the six out of any equation if the price is right. Yes a 4 seat car will get you there, but if a 6 seat minivan is there for the same price would you not rather take it? Fuel burn is roughly the same, you just have to manage it.

My insurance was not out of wack.

Dan
 
stingray said:
You have to add in the comfort factor. I flew my 260 six at around 12 gph I think. I flew mostly over 8000'. If you take out the middle seats it really shines as far as what you can do. Just think of a trip with the "guys going golfing" in a 182 then think of that same trip in a six. If your traveling nothing beats comfort. Also think of some people getting in. Getting in a six in the back is easy for anyone.

70,000 is well under range, I sold mine for 120,000.00 1975 well equipped. I would never count the six out of any equation if the price is right. Yes a 4 seat car will get you there, but if a 6 seat minivan is there for the same price would you not rather take it? Fuel burn is roughly the same, you just have to manage it.

My insurance was not out of wack.

Dan
Click to expand...


I'm getting more and more excited about the idea of a Six... the wife has even been asking questions like "How far will it go before we have to stop for gas?" and "Can it make it over the Rockies?"

Also, for reference, here are the listings I've found that are $70K or less in about an hour:

http://www.aso.com/aircraft/112232/

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/specs?clsfdnum=793771

http://www.aso.com/aircraft/115818/

http://www.barronthomas.com/7332260.htm

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/800798

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/801740 (a little over at $75K... and the only one disclosing previous damage)


If I can find 6 in my price range in an hour or so, doesn't it seem likely that I'd be able to find *one* good one? Or do you assume these all have issues?
 
CJones said:
Piper Archer will get you 2.5 hr of fuel with 800# useful load and 120-130kts.
Click to expand...

Downhill, freshly waxed, with a tailwind maybe. ;)

With our Archers, I plan 115 KTAS at 10gph. Payload with full fuel (4.8 hours) is 718 pounds, or with fuel to the tabs (3.6 hours) it's 790 pounds. Good points: It's easy to go with partial fuel (tabs) and they're easy to land which makes you look like a good pilot in front of your friends. ;)

Cessna 182 will meet the requirements, but I don't have any real numbers for it.
Click to expand...

In a brand-new 182T, I got 140KTAS on 12.9 gph. That's what fuel injection and sophisticated engine monitoring can do for you! In our 1971 182N, I plan on 130 KTAS at 13 gph. It'll also haul 743 pounds with full (6 hours) fuel, or 905 pounds with 4 hours of fuel.

Points in favor of the 182: VERY comfortable, will do damn near anything you ask it to, and you won't be operating at the edges of the envelope all the time.

182 is just a 'grown-up' 172. :)
Click to expand...

In some ways, but not in how it flies. In fact, doesn't fly anything like a 172, which surprised me when I first started flying 182's. Marty, we should get together sometime, I'll let you fly it a bit. It's still a good-flying airplane, but it's different.

Those are the only three a/c that I have personally flown that would meet those requirements other than a road-hog Cherokee Six - 300.
Click to expand...

And there's one point I don't like with the Six family - Maybe it was just me, and I do have limited experience with 'em, but it just seemed like it wasn't much FUN to fly. Great haul-a-load-places airplane, and it's large and comfortable, but that's what it was built for. I think if I had one, I'd have to have a different plane to just bomb around in for fun. :yes:
 
You want either a Cherokee six, or a Cessna 206. Surprised no one has mentioned the 206, but I read this guy as needing a van, not a car; 4 people plus 2 people's worth of baggage.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Downhill, freshly waxed, with a tailwind maybe. ;)

With our Archers, I plan 115 KTAS at 10gph. Payload with full fuel (4.8 hours) is 718 pounds, or with fuel to the tabs (3.6 hours) it's 790 pounds. Good points: It's easy to go with partial fuel (tabs) and they're easy to land which makes you look like a good pilot in front of your friends. ;)



In a brand-new 182T, I got 140KTAS on 12.9 gph. That's what fuel injection and sophisticated engine monitoring can do for you! In our 1971 182N, I plan on 130 KTAS at 13 gph. It'll also haul 743 pounds with full (6 hours) fuel, or 905 pounds with 4 hours of fuel.

Points in favor of the 182: VERY comfortable, will do damn near anything you ask it to, and you won't be operating at the edges of the envelope all the time.



In some ways, but not in how it flies. In fact, doesn't fly anything like a 172, which surprised me when I first started flying 182's. Marty, we should get together sometime, I'll let you fly it a bit. It's still a good-flying airplane, but it's different.



And there's one point I don't like with the Six family - Maybe it was just me, and I do have limited experience with 'em, but it just seemed like it wasn't much FUN to fly. Great haul-a-load-places airplane, and it's large and comfortable, but that's what it was built for. I think if I had one, I'd have to have a different plane to just bomb around in for fun. :yes:
Click to expand...


Maybe it's because I'm a low-time pilot, but how could a plane not be fun to fly? Do you mean it doesn't take a lot of effort to control (that would seem like a plus to me)? Please explain what you mean by "not fun".

As for the offer to fly with you in a 182, I'm game whenever you are available.
 
Given the choice, I'd go with the 206. The OP wanted 172-like handling and the 206 will be closer to the mark, but one should still get a checkout at gross in both and then decide which is more suited to their expectations.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is how often you need the extra seats. I dare say most private flying is done solo and it's a little pricey to haul around all that extra airplane. But if you truly expect to fill the seats a majority of the time a 6 place may be your best bet. They are not entry level aircraft, though. O & M costs can be an eye-opener.

nosehair said:
You want either a Cherokee six, or a Cessna 206. Surprised no one has mentioned the 206, but I read this guy as needing a van, not a car; 4 people plus 2 people's worth of baggage.
Click to expand...
 
Steve said:
One thing to keep in mind, though, is how often you need the extra seats. I dare say most private flying is done solo and it's a little pricey to haul around all that extra airplane. But if you truly expect to fill the seats a majority of the time a 6 place may be your best bet. They are not entry level aircraft, though. O & M costs can be an eye-opener.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
mjburian said:
Maybe it's because I'm a low-time pilot, but how could a plane not be fun to fly? Do you mean it doesn't take a lot of effort to control (that would seem like a plus to me)? Please explain what you mean by "not fun".
Click to expand...

Well, your experience is pretty limited to 172s in flying as I understand, but you've probably driven a bunch of different cars. Think of a 172 as a Toyota Corolla. If you like driving and the act of driving is fun to you (and you aren't familiar with anything else), it's great.

Then let's say you get into a Ferrari 360 (compare to a Lancair 360). I've never driven the Ferrari, but I have flown the Lancair (albeit right seat). Let me tell you, it is FUN. In my case, I have my '92 Jaguar XJS. That is a lot of fun to drive.

It just has to do with a feeling of the particular plane. While flying is certainly fun regardless of plane, certain planes are more fun than others. I have no experience with the Cherokee Six. The 172 is not, to me, fun to fly, it only suffices when the act of flying is what I'm looking for. I enjoyed the 182s more when I have been in them (but I've also only been in newer ones). The Lancair is the most fun I've ever flown. The Dakota I flew was actually surprisingly fun, mostly because of the power of the 6-cylinder vs. the 4s I'm used to in the Archer and the 172.

As you come to fly more different types of planes, I think this will make more sense to you, especially as you fly more unique planes. The Lancair was the most fun to fly that I have been in, by far. The Navajo is a lot of fun to fly as well (at least to me), but for completely different reasons.

Disclaimer: I'm only a 105-hour pilot who passed his checkride at 45 hours total time a bit over 3 months ago (and I just got my bill from the flying club from last month... ouch), but I've flown about 10 different types of planes that I can count ranging from 172 to Lancair to Navajo, and a bunch of in betweens. So, my opinions are only worth what they're worth. :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Downhill, freshly waxed, with a tailwind maybe. ;)

With our Archers, I plan 115 KTAS at 10gph. Payload with full fuel (4.8 hours) is 718 pounds, or with fuel to the tabs (3.6 hours) it's 790 pounds. Good points: It's easy to go with partial fuel (tabs) and they're easy to land which makes you look like a good pilot in front of your friends. ;)



In a brand-new 182T, I got 140KTAS on 12.9 gph. That's what fuel injection and sophisticated engine monitoring can do for you! In our 1971 182N, I plan on 130 KTAS at 13 gph. It'll also haul 743 pounds with full (6 hours) fuel, or 905 pounds with 4 hours of fuel.

Points in favor of the 182: VERY comfortable, will do damn near anything you ask it to, and you won't be operating at the edges of the envelope all the time.



In some ways, but not in how it flies. In fact, doesn't fly anything like a 172, which surprised me when I first started flying 182's. Marty, we should get together sometime, I'll let you fly it a bit. It's still a good-flying airplane, but it's different.



And there's one point I don't like with the Six family - Maybe it was just me, and I do have limited experience with 'em, but it just seemed like it wasn't much FUN to fly. Great haul-a-load-places airplane, and it's large and comfortable, but that's what it was built for. I think if I had one, I'd have to have a different plane to just bomb around in for fun. :yes:
Click to expand...

We are talking CC, take a 172 on a long CC in bumps then take a six back in the same bumps. Tell me which one was more fun to fly. If you want the fun factor of flying get an experimental then you really can have some fun. Problem is they are NO fun on a long CC with four adults or kids for that matter.

The 206 is a nice plane but you will be hard pressed to find one in the OP price range. It was what I was looking for when I bought the six. I am glad now I bought the six it is just more comfortable to fly with people, easy "get in get out" and has a better CG loading.

Mine has been to France so if your wondering how far it will fly tell your wife that. After 4 hours believe me you are looking for a reason to land. The person that bought mine flew it all over the Rockies.

Dan
 
mjburian said:
I'm getting more and more excited about the idea of a Six... the wife has even been asking questions like "How far will it go before we have to stop for gas?" and "Can it make it over the Rockies?"

Also, for reference, here are the listings I've found that are $70K or less in about an hour:

http://www.aso.com/aircraft/112232/

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/specs?clsfdnum=793771

http://www.aso.com/aircraft/115818/

http://www.barronthomas.com/7332260.htm

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/800798

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/801740 (a little over at $75K... and the only one disclosing previous damage)


If I can find 6 in my price range in an hour or so, doesn't it seem likely that I'd be able to find *one* good one? Or do you assume these all have issues?
Click to expand...

I saw nothing wrong with the first aso plane not a bad year. Some of the others are older and they did make some changes. I'm not flying the orange one!

What you need to look for in a six is the wings. If the pilots did not use the mains first then the wing tanks you will get cracks in the skins. Just go through and look at the wings more cracks means they were flying on the tips rather than the mains. the other thing is the fuel tanks they need to be resealed every so often. take out one of the Narco radioes and install a Garmin 250XL or a 300XL and you will have a nice traveling plane.

Dan
 
mjburian said:
Maybe it's because I'm a low-time pilot, but how could a plane not be fun to fly? Do you mean it doesn't take a lot of effort to control (that would seem like a plus to me)? Please explain what you mean by "not fun".
Click to expand...

More like the opposite - A lot of effort. Go fly a bunch of different airplanes, and some will be more fun than others.

As an example, take two very similar aircraft: A Super Cub and a 2005 or later Husky. (Heck, make it a late-model Top Cub instead of the Super Cub if you wish.) They're very similar aircraft, and both are very fun because they're taildraggers, you can fly with the windows/doors open, etc.

But, the Super Cub is just a DOG in roll. It's reasonably sensitive in pitch, but I have to move the stick until it hits my leg to get any kind of roll out of it. The Husky, on the other hand - Well, they got new ailerons in 2005 and the controls are MUCH better harmonized than the Super Cub - Meaning that the sensitivity in pitch and roll is roughly equal, and the plane responds well about all the axes. FUN!!!! :goofy:

The Six is a great cross country airplane, and it'll go exactly where you point it. For sightseeing and other local flying, however, I prefer a bit more of the fun factor. The 182 is also very stable, but it's a little easier to maneuver and IMHO, thus, is somewhat more fun.

I still want a Swift. :yes: :(

stingray said:
We are talking CC, take a 172 on a long CC in bumps then take a six back in the same bumps. Tell me which one was more fun to fly.
Click to expand...

We are talking 182 which handles the bumps a lot better than the 172.

stingray said:
take out one of the Narco radioes
Click to expand...

Take out ALL of the Narco junk - Or at least be prepared to do so the first time anything fails. I'd go NORDO before I'd try to get a Narco fixed again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top