What plane would you buy in my situation?

AlphaMike said:
I love my 182. I’ve owned it for almost 5 years now and put just over 500 hours on it. I’ve flow it from Michigan to the Bahamas 3 times now. Back and forth to Florida several times. Back and forth to Nashville 3 times and just flew to New Orleans and back last month. It’s had a lot of modifications done to it (there’s so many things you can do to a 182!). I cruse at 140 -145 true burning about 13 - 14 gph at 8 - 12k. It’s not as fast as a Bo but it’s not what I would call slow either. Its full flap stall speed is under 40 knots indicated, Useful load is almost 1300 lbs with the fresh pics STC. It’s a blast flying into short fields and grass strips in remote areas and still having a solid IFR platform for true long cross country flying. It has been pretty much perfect for me and I can’t see myself ever selling it. I’ve taken 4 adult to Nashville for a weekend several times and everyone is comfortable. It’s not the best at anything but it’s pretty good at just about everything.
Click to expand...
Which one do you have ?
 
Pinecone said:
The Mooney will work with small children, but as they get bigger, they are less than ideal for 4 people.

But they are fast and efficient. I have a 252 (turbo) and did Fort Worth to north east Maryland, non-stop, 7.0 hobbs at over 17 nm per gallon.
Click to expand...
Man I have to disagree, F on up seems dandy in back to me. I’ve hauled full sized 220lb adults in my F’s backseat, with as much or more comfort than a 172 or similar. My adult boys love the reclining back seats. But that’s why we all gotta check em out on our own as we all have a different take.
 
Jim K said:
Arrows are great. Arrows abused for 12,000 hours by 19 year olds, not so much
Click to expand...

Jim K said:
If anyone reads the AD pertaining to the spar, the FAA came up with a mathematical formula to establish risk. The vast majority of Cherokees and Arrows have their FSH (factored service hrs) greatly reduced after applying the formula. Tens of thousands of PA28's, PA28R's, PA32's have been produced and still in service. Including the thousands of highly abused flight school planes. Be more afraid of getting frostbite in July than a Cherokee wing parting the fuselage
Click to expand...
 
Pinecone said:
Most trips I take are nearly as fast or faster door to door in GA versus commercial.

Yesterday I was in Fort Worth area. Coming home to MD.

Commercial -
Hotel to Airport - 30 minutes (traffic permitting)
Check in and wait - 2 hours
Flight - 2 hours 51 minutes
Get bags - 30 minutes
Get car - 20 minutes
Drive home - 45 minutes

Total - 6 hours 56 minutes. Not bad, but available non-stop. A connection would have added at least 2 hours.

GA
Hotel to airport - 6 minutes
Load plane - 10 minutes
Flight - 7 hours Hobbs
Put plane away - 10 minutes
Drive home - 7 minutes

Total - 7 hours 33 minutes

So 1/2 hour more, but left when WE felt like it, no alarm clock, no rushing.
Click to expand...
no airport security or crazy fellow passengers
 
Steamflyer said:
Mooney is gone
Click to expand...
Mooney is not gone. They're just not building new airplanes. There's still a small crew at the factory, and they do maintenance, support, and support the service network with parts. https://mooney.com/

Mooney is the trick candle of aircraft manufacturers. They've gone through something like 14 bankruptcies/ownership changes, and they keep coming back. There's a LOT of Mooneys out in the field, and they're great airplanes. I have no worries about factory support.

tspear said:
I never understood the fascination with the 182 and other high wing planes for travel to/from paved runways (back country and bush flying is completely different). You hit your head on pre-flighting most of them. A lot have pilot tubes designed to poke your eye out. The list if head injuries can continue for pages... On the flip side, for a low wing, prepare to get on the ground to sump it. You will always be aware of the additional fuel pumps, and often you have to manage switching tanks since few low wings have a both feed option.
Click to expand...
Both high and low wings have their pluses and minuses. You forgot that high wings can keep you dry if you park when it's raining... But I've never felt like one is "better" than the other at all. Frankly, I don't care where the wing(s) is/are. I've flown high, low, mid, and "both" (biplane) and I couldn't care less where the dang wing is, lemme fly it!
tspear said:
With all that said. The OP specifically mentioned cross county flying and trips around 500nm; not one requirement was around short fields, off airport or other things for which a high wing often excels. If going farther than 100 miles, I am climbing too at least 5K, and for 500 miles or longer you can bet that I am very likely between 9 and 10K altitude (unless over NYC then ATC takes you to 6-7K). There is bupkiss difference in what you can see at that altitude between a high wing and low wing of the ground, it is only a question of where you look. The high wing actually has better views out the of the side windows, but in many cases has a much smaller field of view in front. Many the low wing's do not have a wing spar effectively over the pilots head, often offer significantly greater field of, that is focused on where you are going, e.g. ahead and above. Seeing ahead and above is much more useful to watch the weather or night sky.
Click to expand...
You can see weather/whatever ahead and above just fine in a high wing. Pro tip, if the weather is 90 degrees left or right of you, you're not going to fly into it.

So again, high/low wing is just a silly debate/distinction. It really doesn't matter.

The reason the 182 is such a popular choice for first airplane is that it lets you do so many different missions reasonably well, that it helps you find what it is you like about aviation. After flying the 182 you might find that you really prefer go-places flying and decide that your next plane is going to be a Bo, Mooney, or Cirrus. You may find that you really like landing on backcountry strips and camping, in which case maybe your next plane will be a Maule, Husky, or just kicking your nosewheel aft about 25 feet and getting a C180. Or, you may find that you really just like to get up in the sky and/or go for $100 hamburgers, and maybe your next plane is a Champ, Cub, or Citabria.

But if you buy the second plane first, you may never discover what else you like in aviation. You'll never discover backcountry fun in a Cirrus, or speedy long cross-country trip flying in a Champ. So get the 182.
tspear said:
Next consider what is the total door to door travel time for a regular day trip and weekend trip. For me, a regular day trip is two hours max from home to airport to landing and at the FBO. This usually leaves about an hour of actual flying time. A weekend, I want to keep under three and half hours. That gives me 2.5 hours of flying time normally. More than that rule of thumb and I am likely to be physically and mentally pushing it between work/life. This increase the likely nature that I would be tired, and therefore increases the chance for bad ADM.
Click to expand...
Good rule, but with only 2.5 hours of flying time, you're talking 200 knots for 500nm and there aren't any 200-knot airplanes I'd recommend as a first airplane unless you have a LOT of spare money burning a hole in your pocket. You're talking about, at minimum, a high performance aircraft with turbo, and flying in the high teens/low 20s, which isn't something a lot of passengers particularly enjoy. Flying that high is boring, and sucking on nose straws sucks.

However, a normally aspirated Bo/Cirrus/Mooney can do it in 3 hours, and quite a few planes can do it in 3.5, which isn't unreasonably long.
Huckster79 said:
Do not rule out a Mooney… not saying it’s the only model for you, but it’s one to minimally consider.

Purchase price pre-j is very reasonable for what you get. I’d recommend looking into an F (or a J if it’s in price range as they do rock) the F gets you a very nice rear seat and good baggage and best useful load-most of us have 1050 or so. They sip gas- let me repeat that- they sip gas! I’m often around 20mpg if it’s calculated - that’s a heck of an efficient certificated plane. If you fly a lot that efficiency makes up for much of the insurance and annual ding you will get w a retract.

They are a PIA to get in and out of like most other low wings- once in it, it is the most comfortable GA plane I’ve ever been in. I’ve done two 5 hour legs w no fatigue due to ergonomics and landed w 25 gallons still on board!

They are not difficult to land regardless of the myths, you just have to hold an airspeed and not tack on extra knots send I can make my first turn off every time w only light brakes. And I did that from my very first time around the patch- that’s not a brag- that’s a “they really aren’t hard to handle” comment.

She demands a bit more of ya, but nothing any pilot can’t assimilate too w a nominal amount of dual.

Room and useful for 4 adults and baggage, less procurement cost than many other models. So far maintenance has been reasonable, minus needing tanks resealed but I knew going in mine likely would need it. Ya get there fast- part of her speed is not only the 140kt cruise (sure it can go a bit faster if ya wind her up-but that’s a nice balance for me of speed/efficiency) but also tankering 64 gallons of fuel, burning 8-10 an hour- you get to skip stops others have to make.

Check em out as you are exploring. Eliminate em if it calls for it- just don’t not consider them or you’re overlooking a great option.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent synopsis, though I don't know that I'd say "she demands a bit more of ya" any more so than any other high performance single. You have to be able to think ahead of a fast airplane and properly plan your descents is all, just like you would in something like an SR22.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Mooney is not gone. They're just not building new airplanes. There's still a small crew at the factory, and they do maintenance, support, and support the service network with parts. https://mooney.com/

Mooney is the trick candle of aircraft manufacturers. They've gone through something like 14 bankruptcies/ownership changes, and they keep coming back. There's a LOT of Mooneys out in the field, and they're great airplanes. I have no worries about factory support.


Both high and low wings have their pluses and minuses. You forgot that high wings can keep you dry if you park when it's raining... But I've never felt like one is "better" than the other at all. Frankly, I don't care where the wing(s) is/are. I've flown high, low, mid, and "both" (biplane) and I couldn't care less where the dang wing is, lemme fly it!

You can see weather/whatever ahead and above just fine in a high wing. Pro tip, if the weather is 90 degrees left or right of you, you're not going to fly into it.

So again, high/low wing is just a silly debate/distinction. It really doesn't matter.

The reason the 182 is such a popular choice for first airplane is that it lets you do so many different missions reasonably well, that it helps you find what it is you like about aviation. After flying the 182 you might find that you really prefer go-places flying and decide that your next plane is going to be a Bo, Mooney, or Cirrus. You may find that you really like landing on backcountry strips and camping, in which case maybe your next plane will be a Maule, Husky, or just kicking your nosewheel aft about 25 feet and getting a C180. Or, you may find that you really just like to get up in the sky and/or go for $100 hamburgers, and maybe your next plane is a Champ, Cub, or Citabria.

But if you buy the second plane first, you may never discover what else you like in aviation. You'll never discover backcountry fun in a Cirrus, or speedy long cross-country trip flying in a Champ. So get the 182.

Good rule, but with only 2.5 hours of flying time, you're talking 200 knots for 500nm and there aren't any 200-knot airplanes I'd recommend as a first airplane unless you have a LOT of spare money burning a hole in your pocket. You're talking about, at minimum, a high performance aircraft with turbo, and flying in the high teens/low 20s, which isn't something a lot of passengers particularly enjoy. Flying that high is boring, and sucking on nose straws sucks.

However, a normally aspirated Bo/Cirrus/Mooney can do it in 3 hours, and quite a few planes can do it in 3.5, which isn't unreasonably long.

This is an excellent synopsis, though I don't know that I'd say "she demands a bit more of ya" any more so than any other high performance single. You have to be able to think ahead of a fast airplane and properly plan your descents is all, just like you would in something like an SR22.
Click to expand...
Oh I meant she demands more of you than a trainer class plane- I did t articulate that clearly… but correct they aren’t crazy to adapt to.

In fact in other similiar discussions I’ve pointed out they land not much more difficult than a Skyhawk on final…
 
Huckster79 said:
Man I have to disagree, F on up seems dandy in back to me. I’ve hauled full sized 220lb adults in my F’s backseat, with as much or more comfort than a 172 or similar. My adult boys love the reclining back seats. But that’s why we all gotta check em out on our own as we all have a different take.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the data.

I have never been in the back seat of mine. :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Mooney is not gone. They're just not building new airplanes. There's still a small crew at the factory, and they do maintenance, support, and support the service network with parts. https://mooney.com/

Mooney is the trick candle of aircraft manufacturers. They've gone through something like 14 bankruptcies/ownership changes, and they keep coming back. There's a LOT of Mooneys out in the field, and they're great airplanes. I have no worries about factory support.

Both high and low wings have their pluses and minuses. You forgot that high wings can keep you dry if you park when it's raining... But I've never felt like one is "better" than the other at all.
But if you buy the second plane first, you may never discover what else you like in aviation. You'll never discover backcountry fun in a Cirrus, or speedy long cross-country trip flying in a Champ. So get the 182.
Click to expand...
Mooney factory is still making parts, the ones made in house. The issue can be getting parts that are sourced from other companies, but that is not a huge deal in most cases.

High wing - easier to sump tanks, easier to get into, can bash head
Low wing - easier to check fuel, difficult to sump

Easy answer........

TWO airplanes. :D
 
Pinecone said:
Mooney factory is still making parts, the ones made in house. The issue can be getting parts that are sourced from other companies, but that is not a huge deal in most cases.

High wing - easier to sump tanks, easier to get into, can bash head
Low wing - easier to check fuel, difficult to sump

Easy answer........

TWO airplanes. :D
Click to expand...
Why is a low wing difficult to sump?
 
Half Fast said:
On my baby Beech, I just stoop in front of the wing and reach back. Easy. No crawling required.
Click to expand...

I think the Comanche makes it extra difficult. At least mine only has one sump which is on the belly, right around midpoint of the fuselage. I have to crawl under the wing, then under the fuselage, sump, go back up on the wing, inside the cabin, switch tanks and back to crawling for the second sump. I think some Comanches have a sump on each wing, but mine ain't one of those.
 
Mooney wing is close the ground. Sump is fairly far back on the wing.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
I think the Comanche makes it extra difficult. At least mine only has one sump which is on the belly, right around midpoint of the fuselage. I have to crawl under the wing, then under the fuselage, sump, go back up on the wing, inside the cabin, switch tanks and back to crawling for the second sump. I think some Comanches have a sump on each wing, but mine ain't one of those.
Click to expand...
Supposedly Piper designed it that way because if you were buying such a high class plane as a Comanche, surely the line guy would be helping you preflight and would be the one crawling under the plane...

Also, I believe that they were originally set up with something to pull in the cabin to get the sump to drain, right? Not a normal sump where you push up on it outside.

I have heard that there's a way to hang a GATS jar under the (original) sump and do both from the cockpit and then retrieve the jar and check it, but I don't know the exact details.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Supposedly Piper designed it that way because if you were buying such a high class plane as a Comanche, surely the line guy would be helping you preflight and would be the one crawling under the plane...

Also, I believe that they were originally set up with something to pull in the cabin to get the sump to drain, right? Not a normal sump where you push up on it outside.

I have heard that there's a way to hang a GATS jar under the (original) sump and do both from the cockpit and then retrieve the jar and check it, but I don't know the exact details.
Click to expand...

Mine has a standard push up type of sump so I always get some exercise doing the pre-flight. Line guys watch me do that but never offered to help haha.
 
My Mooney has a pull to drain that is just behind the nose gear door. I have a 3D printed holder for a GATS jar that clamps to gear door right under drain.

But the wing tanks also have standard push up drains.
 
My first airplane I bought was a c-182. it was awsome!!!! it will fit your needs perfectly. i moved up to a c-210/c-T210 and then a light twin for more speed. now the kids are gone and its just my wife and I and i'm on my LAST airplane which is a Vans RV 7 which is by FAR the funnest airplane i've ever owned. Thinking back. if I would have just kept the c-182 i would have been just fine and save lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Good luck with your decision.
 
Jim Kickland said:
My first airplane I bought was a c-182. it was awsome!!!! it will fit your needs perfectly. i moved up to a c-210/c-T210 and then a light twin for more speed. now the kids are gone and its just my wife and I and i'm on my LAST airplane which is a Vans RV 7 which is by FAR the funnest airplane i've ever owned. Thinking back. if I would have just kept the c-182 i would have been just fine and save lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Good luck with your decision.
Click to expand...
Why do you like the vans?
 
in-flight-jpg.134503


Judging from the way my head fouls the roof in a Bonanza, this one's being flown by a midget ;)
 
why do I like the vans? it is Soooo quick on the controls, 175 knots on 10gph, fully coupled IFR approaches, insurance premiums are great, maintenance costs are reasonable and FUN to fly!!!!!!!!!!! for me at this point in my life it is the perfect plane. when we had family/dogs etc..... the c-210 was the perfect family hauler for our needs. now it just my wife and me.
 
AlphaMike said:
I love my 182. I’ve owned it for almost 5 years now and put just over 500 hours on it. I’ve flow it from Michigan to the Bahamas 3 times now. Back and forth to Florida several times. Back and forth to Nashville 3 times and just flew to New Orleans and back last month. It’s had a lot of modifications done to it (there’s so many things you can do to a 182!). I cruse at 140 -145 true burning about 13 - 14 gph at 8 - 12k. It’s not as fast as a Bo but it’s not what I would call slow either. Its full flap stall speed is under 40 knots indicated, Useful load is almost 1300 lbs with the fresh pics STC. It’s a blast flying into short fields and grass strips in remote areas and still having a solid IFR platform for true long cross country flying. It has been pretty much perfect for me and I can’t see myself ever selling it. I’ve taken 4 adult to Nashville for a weekend several times and everyone is comfortable. It’s not the best at anything but it’s pretty good at just about everything.
Click to expand...
I love my 182F and have the panel exactly how I want it. I just wish I could see 140-145 knots. It's 130 knots all day for me. I could probably add a few with wheel pants, but I haven't done it yet. I've thought about the FAT supercharger, but I think that has issues of it's own. I wish there was a turbo normalizer STC, but nothing like that anymore.

I'm really thinking about something else. Bo, Mooney, Comanche all fit in my budget. I'm not sure I'll end up moving to a different plane.

Lots of great suggestions in this thread.
 
Supereri said:
…I just wish I could see 140-145 knots. It's 130 knots all day for me. ….
Click to expand...

The 182 I occasionally fly leaves me feeling that way. The only interest I have in purchasing one is because my partners would like a second plane but only if it’s a 182.

They’ve had the same 172 for decades and thousands of hours and does most missions, but a second plane opens up availability we currently have occasionally challenges with.

Alternatively, I’m looking at Comanche 250/260s. Those birds fit my mission better, but I want to find partners or buy into an existing partnership.
 
Supereri said:
I love my 182F and have the panel exactly how I want it. I just wish I could see 140-145 knots. It's 130 knots all day for me. I could probably add a few with wheel pants, but I haven't done it yet. I've thought about the FAT supercharger, but I think that has issues of it's own. I wish there was a turbo normalizer STC, but nothing like that anymore.

I'm really thinking about something else. Bo, Mooney, Comanche all fit in my budget. I'm not sure I'll end up moving to a different plane.

Lots of great suggestions in this thread.
Click to expand...
When I remove the wheel pants I loose around 5 knots. The other 5 to 10 knots comes with the 280 hp engine. I have a 3 blade propeller which I’m told costs me a few knots. If I switched it to a 2 blade I could probably get a little more speed but loses some of the climb rate. Still not as fast as a Bo but I’m good with that.
 
Nikhiln25 said:
I’m in my 30s, have a career outside of aviation I enjoy and this is not a career change aspiration for me. I fly for the joy of it.

I have a family, who would be the main people flying with me. I will never need more than a 4 seater. I do go a lot of places around the country for work so flying there my self sounds like a great way to get long cross country trips in. Outside of that the plane will largely be used for occasionally weekend trips within 500nm and then just the local events etc. I don’t see my self flying more than 125-150 hours a year.

my question is- as a first time plane owner should I just go for the plane I want (leaning between a 182 p/q/r or Dakota) or get a simpler plane first like an archer or Cherokee, experience ownership in something similar and get a more capable plane later? For people insimilar situation that went one route or another - do you have any regrets and wish you did it differently?

As a pilot I have 125 hours, got my license earlier this year, and am currently enrolled in instrument training about 50% through. I will probably stop their with ratings. My daughter is young enough where I don’t NEED the full weight capabilities of a 182/dakota today, but probably will in 6-8 years.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how to answer this. I think a lot is learned as a first time plane owner, I certainly made mistakes or have regrets. But I would not change a thing.

I went the 172 route, made a lot of needless upgrades, now in an RV10.

I think a focus on a plane that fits 90% of the mission to start, don't break the bank. Live as if you will end up with a different 2nd plane that better fits the bill.

I ignored the advice of buy the plane equipped as you want and now know the wisdom of it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top