These planes?

[sdpilot]

Knowing where in the country you live would be helpful as well as there might be more economical options as well as other factors that come into play.

For example if you can rent a DA40 in your area you would get about 72 hours of flight time for the year for what you would pay in taxes alone in some states.

 

[douglas393]

That's not going to buy you much flying time. In fact, that will barely pay for hangar, annual inspection, and insurance on a plane like the ones you want. I think you need to rethink just what you can afford within your budget. If you send me an email, I'll send you a paper I wrote on the costs of owning a basic 4-seat airplane like the ones in which you are interested. This may help you create a more realistic proposal to present to your father.

Barely, I am not sure it will even cover it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Barely, I am not sure it will even cover it.

Right. If his father has enough money for the OP to have a $150K purchase budget, I'm pretty sure he's going to be looking for a detailed operating budget, too, and that's where my paper may bring his thinking back to earth -- the Coors Light Cold Hard Facts™ of this situation. :wink2:

 

[shyampatel94]

For a 2004 or later version of the planes you want, that's pushing it. I'm only finding one 172 in your price range, no Arrows, and two DA40's.

That's not going to buy you much flying time. In fact, that will barely pay for hangar, annual inspection, and insurance on a plane like the ones you want. I think you need to rethink just what you can afford within your budget. If you send me an email, I'll send you a paper I wrote on the costs of owning a basic 4-seat airplane like the ones in which you are interested. This may help you create a more realistic proposal to present to your father.

Yeah! Just shoot me an email, shyam.patel94@gmail.com. Like I said before too, I still don't know what the budget is. We still are going to be talking about that!

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah! Just shoot me an email, shyam.patel94@gmail.com. Like I said before too, I still don't know what the budget is. We still are going to be talking about that!

No, you shoot me the email and I'll reply. You can do that by clicking on my name.

 

[shyampatel94]

No, you shoot me the email and I'll reply. You can do that by clicking on my name.

Alright, sent you an email.

 

[cowman]

I really like this Archer! Even though it doesn't have a glass cockpit but you can easily add a G500 right? What do you guys think? Something like this in the near future? What is the difference between this aircraft and a C172. Obviously the wings but what else? How does the Archer fly compared to the C172?

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-ARCHER-III/2003-PIPER-ARCHER-III/1293853.htm

or even this one.

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...-ARCHER-III/2001-PIPER-ARCHER-III/1284287.htm

Let me just suggest something to you here. You're looking at 2000s aircraft in the $150k range.

Now, this is my airplane..
http://www.thecowman.com/pics/N6185H.JPG

It's a 78 Archer II. It has the exact same airframe, engine, wings, etc as what you are looking at. It doesn't have as many features... just a single garmin 430w, old radios, no autopilot or anything else. But it cost well under half what those two above cost. It flies the same speed, climbs as good or probably better since it's lighter without all that equipment. My useful load is certainly better too because of that- I can carry 4 reasonably sized adults and fuel to tabs. The two you linked before almost certainly can't, all those nice gizmos, more insulation, cushier seats etc weigh more.... and the max takeoff weight is the same.

My engine has under 700 hours on it... looking at the two you posted one of them has more than that, the other less. It's the same exact engine btw. Recommended TBO(time between overhaul) is 2000hrs and you'll be paying $20-$30k to do it.. so factor that in to your calculus.

The seats in the archers you linked to are better than mine- mine are 70s green-tastic cloth covered in sheepskin covers but they're solid. The paint on those airplanes is almost certainly better, mine is less than perfect. Can you tell in the pic? Maybe a little. I have to be right up to the airplane to see it, in the air nobody will know the difference.

For under $80k you can find late 70's/early 80s Archer IIs all day long with more time and most of the gizmos you are looking at, maybe even interiors and paint just as nice. Don't worry so much about gizmos and you can find archers out there... just as safe and reliable Archer IIs with the same engine and airframe in the $40-$60k price range.

So save $100k over what you're looking at. That's a lot of hours of flying, man. That's a lot of $100 hamburgers and other fun trips that you can go do. That's a lot of money put away towards a bigger/better/faster airplane too.

I had the same budget when I started looking a year ago and I thought I wanted the same "newness" that you're looking at now. Newness doesn't really matter a lot. I ended up not financing it at all, just bought it outright and spent a lot less. I have no monthly payments- just hangar rental, fuel, and insurance/annual once a year.

 

[LoneAspen]

[ [ someone will mention purchasing a Bo or Mooney as the "first and last plane" in 3... 2... 1... ] ]

If we're supposed to buy our last plane first, then I need to be looking at something like an Eclipse 550.

Anybody care to give me about $3 million? I make a terrific adopted son!

 

[AggieMike88]

Is Kent's Uncle's Mooney still for sale?

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

All three planes are fine planes and excellent flying with G1000 or G500. However I would not consider any airplane in this class which could not get an autogas Stc.

I like the looks of the Da40 and the reported performance but I worry about the additional insurance costs. When i checked insurance was super high 2x or 3x a conventional airplane because they were not sure what it takes to fix minor body issues with plastic planes, so they were pricing insurance min $5000 per year even on Sub $200k planes. That is a no starter for me and I would go with 172 or Archer for no other reason that this.

Third, I was on that trip to Grand Cayman Islands that Henning refers to and I witnessed the DA40 left Key West at least 30 minutes ahead of me (14 planes left 10 minute apart starting with the slowest birds first and the faster airplanes following up the end and the DA40 was 3 planes ahead of my departure) but still came in so late we all were worried they went into the drink. If we had not par took of the Rum Punch reception we might have gone back to check on henning..We were talking about sending someone back to find them. Even a Fixed Gear Cardinal and a Cherokee 6 came in before the DA40. So I suspect the reported performance on those 2005/6 models are less than the book says.

I would fly all three airplanes in the 2004 or newer range and compare the actual flight characteristics and that would probably be the deciding factor the fun factor. But the DA40 already has a slight handicap IMO.

 

[wabower]

Yep, price is now down to $399,500. Firm.

Is Kent's Uncle's Mooney still for sale?

 

[sdpilot]

All three planes are fine planes and excellent flying with G1000 or G500. However I would not consider any airplane in this class which could not get an autogas Stc.

I like the looks of the Da40 and the reported performance but I worry about the additional insurance costs. When i checked insurance was super high 2x or 3x a conventional airplane because they were not sure what it takes to fix minor body issues with plastic planes, so they were pricing insurance min $5000 per year even on Sub $200k planes. That is a no starter for me and I would go with 17.

1) You may need a new insurance agent because that is far from what I've seen. When I priced insurance on the DA40 it was about 1200 a year with 2 million smooth liability and a 200K hull value. It is safer then a C172 as far as actuaries go.

2) An autogoas STC is not very relevant unless you are going to hull the mogas in yourself which is unlikely. By the way the engine on the DA40 is approved by lycoming for mogas so getting an STC for it is possible just not cost effective right now because no airports in most areas have it. How many of the STC planes actually use mogas or can find it at their airport?

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

1) You may need a new insurance agent because that is far from what I've seen. When I priced insurance on the DA40 it was about 1200 a year with 2 million smooth liability and a 200K hull value. It is safer then a C172 as far as actuaries go.

2) An autogoas STC is not very relevant unless you are going to hull the mogas in yourself which is unlikely. By the way the engine on the DA40 is approved by lycoming for mogas so getting an STC for it is possible just not cost effective right now because no airports in most areas have it. How many of the STC planes actually use mogas or can find it at their airport?

Mogas is very relevant since we might not have 100LL much longer. Cessnas only producing 182's with Diesel fuel is an example of the way things are going. You will always be able to get mogas. I would bank on ethanol being a future fuel over 100LL.

Half of all mogas STC planes burn mogas (according to AOPA or was it EAA?). So by selecting a plane which does not have an established stc for mogas probably cuts in half the total pool of future purchasers. What flys in California does not necessarily work in other places.

 

[moonshine]

I like the looks of the Da40 and the reported performance but I worry about the additional insurance costs. When i checked insurance was super high 2x or 3x a conventional airplane because they were not sure what it takes to fix minor body issues with plastic planes, so they were pricing insurance min $5000 per year even on Sub $200k planes. That is a no starter for me and I would go with 172 or Archer for no other reason that this.

Third, I was on that trip to Grand Cayman Islands that Henning refers to and I witnessed the DA40 left Key West at least 30 minutes ahead of me (14 planes left 10 minute apart starting with the slowest birds first and the faster airplanes following up the end and the DA40 was 3 planes ahead of my departure) but still came in so late we all were worried they went into the drink. If we had not par took of the Rum Punch reception we might have gone back to check on henning..We were talking about sending someone back to find them. Even a Fixed Gear Cardinal and a Cherokee 6 came in before the DA40. So I suspect the reported performance on those 2005/6 models are less than the book says.

I would fly all three airplanes in the 2004 or newer range and compare the actual flight characteristics and that would probably be the deciding factor the fun factor. But the DA40 already has a slight handicap IMO.

Don't even know where to start
Insurance is not expensive at all - 1200-1700 depending on the hull value and pilot experience
On the rest of it - have you seen the view out of the 40? Breathtaking. That's why you take the scenic routes

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Don't even know where to start
Insurance is not expensive at all - 1200-1700 depending on the hull value and pilot experience
On the rest of it - have you seen the view out of the 40? Breathtaking. That's why you take the scenic routes

Guess the Insurance industry is more competitive now and probably wised up about how to fix plastic planes. I do love the looks and the idea of DA40. The are a little short in useful load for my purpose but a great plane otherwise.

I liked the view of Key West and the Grand Cayman Islands well enough from the Comanche. I loved the view of the Grand Canyon from the 182 I ferried to Utah it was very easy to see down the cracks and canyons. But I get the best farthest view from the Turbo Comanche.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So I want to know what you guys think the best first plane to buy between these three? Cessna 172, Da40, and Piper Archer? I would be looking for a glass cockpit hopefully. What do you guys think between these three aircrafts? Pros? Cons? Which aircraft is the least boring? Any other aircrafts?

IMO, the DA40 wins hands down. It'll go much faster (~20-25 knots) for the same fuel burn, or (since you want to build time) go the same speed for a couple gallons an hour less. Great flight characteristics, great view, and great looking on top of it!

That said, I'm not sure any of the above is the plane you should have for your stated mission:

My main mission is mostly fly around the city and build time for my ratings! I want to get my commercial and get paid to fly.

What you need here is time, and especially multi time. Henning is on to something here:

You could likely buy a Bonanza and fit it with a G-600 and GNS -750 and come out at around the same price as a G-1000 DA-40 or 172 (I haven't priced either in a while so that's a guess, last I looked all the G-1000 ones were over $200k) or less and have a much better plane that you can even take your Commercial ride in.

I would suggest you buy a Piper Comanche 180. Fly the hell out of it, get your instrument rating, commercial, CFI, and CFII in it. It'll be nearly as fast and efficient as the Diamond, and it's complex which you'll need for your commercial and CFI.

Once those ratings are done, sell the Comanche 180 and get a Twin Comanche. You should get a decent rate on the insurance with all the complex and similar-type time you'll have from flying the Comanche 180, and you can get your commercial multi and MEI done in it. Fly it as much as you can while instructing at the same time. If you can get 500 hours of multi in by the time you hit 1500 hours of total time, you'll be in a MUCH better position to get the job you want at that point than if you buy a single and only have a few hours of multi time - CFI's with a couple thousand hours and not much multi time are a dime a dozen. Those with the multi time get the jobs.

If the glass panel thing is a requirement for you, get this or something else like it with new-ish engines and a crappy panel, gut the panel and install a G500 and GTN650 or GTN750.

Is Kent's Uncle's Mooney still for sale?

Yes it is - And it could probably squeak into the OP's budget. It's not glass, but has lots of things like an HSI and a flight director that are found on the glass displays and often also found in older cabin-class pistons, turboprops and jets that don't have glass that the OP may find himself in someday when getting his first flying job.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Like any airplane, takes getting used to. I think I wrote somewhere, what helped me a lot is keeping the feet off the pedals - wiggles tail much less this way.

Interesting, I have better luck pushing on both pedals simultaneously to keep the rudder centered when in turbulence.

I think he means you can't get factory glass prior to 2005

Incorrect. The G1000 DA40's started with the 2004 model year.

If you move into the 2006 year you are now looking at about a 200K plane with the GFC700 AP instead of the KAP140.

Nope - 2006's still had the KAP140. 2007 is when the GFC700 became available. So, the 2004-2006 airplanes should still fit within the OP's price range.

I like the looks of the Da40 and the reported performance but I worry about the additional insurance costs. When i checked insurance was super high 2x or 3x a conventional airplane because they were not sure what it takes to fix minor body issues with plastic planes, so they were pricing insurance min $5000 per year even on Sub $200k planes. That is a no starter for me and I would go with 172 or Archer for no other reason that this.

Not true - We pay about $5K/year but that's for a 30-member club which tends to be a good 2.5x what a normal single owner will pay.

So I suspect the reported performance on those 2005/6 models are less than the book says.

Real world performance on our 2006 DA40: I plan 140 KTAS on 9 gph. You can push it and get 145 on 10.5 gph, or you can baby it and get 135 on 7.5 gph. It's a helluva lot faster than the other planes the OP is considering!

 

[JimNtexas]

Let me just suggest something to you here. You're looking at 2000s aircraft in the $150k range.

Now, this is my airplane..
http://www.thecowman.com/pics/N6185H.JPG

It's a 78 Archer II. ...

I'm part owner of a 78 Archer and I agree with cowman 100%.

If building time is a priority then get an older Archer or 172 with mid-time or better engine and a Garmin 430W. That will give you a budget to modify it to suit your tastes and still have a lot of money left to actually fly the thing, and to have a reserve for the surprise expenses that you will have with any airplane, sooner or latter. Probably sooner.

I'm not real familiar with the DA-40, it's got kind of a narrow cockpit and here in central Texas that Canopy looks like a magnifying glass. On the plus side, I've heard its the safest light single made.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If building time is a priority then get an older Archer or 172 with mid-time or better engine and a Garmin 430W. That will give you a budget to modify it to suit your tastes and still have a lot of money left to actually fly the thing, and to have a reserve for the surprise expenses that you will have with any airplane, sooner or latter. Probably sooner.

I'm not real familiar with the DA-40, it's got kind of a narrow cockpit and here in central Texas that Canopy looks like a magnifying glass. On the plus side, I've heard its the safest light single made.

A 1970's Archer is a great cheap airplane... However, it is much narrower than the DA40. We've got both in our club, and I have a ton of hours in both. If you're going to buy an old airplane, buy an Archer. If you're going to buy a 2000's airplane, go with the DA40.