What plane would you buy in my situation?

Full fuel has a 5.5 hour range

If I wouldn't stop for fuel after 3 hours, I'd be stopping for one of us on the plane having to pee after 3 hours anyways lol. Going 5 hours non-stop by yourself on the plane is no big deal, but once you have wife and/or kids and/or pets on board, anything over 3 hours at a time would be gravy.
 
Last edited:
Well, in your situation,...
I have a family,...
...I’d probably buy a fast single-seater.

Got a wife and kid in Baltimore, Jack
I went up for a flight and I never went back.
Like a wind that don’t know where it’s blowin’,
I picked the wrong VOR and I just kept goin.’

:devil:
 
Don
Well, in your situation,...

...I’d probably buy a fast single-seater.

Got a wife and kid in Baltimore, Jack
I went up for a flight and I never went back.
Like a wind that don’t know where it’s blowin’,
I picked the wrong VOR and I just kept goin.’

:devil:
i guess I never really listened close to the words to that song…….
 
Skip the 182. Get something that goes reasonably fast. For 500nm you want a plane that does a solid 150 KTAS at 10K for a block speed. That means, you will need a cruising speed of 165 KTAS ish to account for headwinds.
The short list I would consider:
1. Cardinal RG (probably carries the most of this bunch)
2. Cirrus SR22 (a true travel plane, and chute often gives spouse comfort)
3. Bonanza, make sure you get the right one, join BeechTalk to figure that out. Great plane, I just dislike climbing into it.
4. Columbia 400. Fun plane to fly, and I believe the fastest in this bunch
5. Go Experimental, RV10, Velocity....

Anything high drag, will not only slow you down, but make you burn a lot more gas. And not a single unleaded avgas solution is going to lower our flying costs. Expect fuel prices to go up a fair amount within the next five to ten years.

Lastly, get out of your head. Go rent some, and fly them! See what you like, then see what the spouse likes. And get what the spouse likes :D

Tim
 
Do you regret not just getting the 210 begin with?
No. I would have been way over my head in the 210 on several levels. First off, I didn’t know enough about aircraft to find the most ideal one for me. You definitely don’t want to buy the ‘wrong’ 210. Just flew an hour to look at a very wrong one that was ideal on paper.
 
Ok...you said 100-150 hrs per year...that's 2-4 hrs of flying a week. At about $200/hr that's going to require a $3,500/mo budget.

Doesn't really matter what you buy....A Cherokee 140 will be cheaper than the budget....a Dakota is more than the 140.

I'd recommend something non-complex, no retract, with an acceptable GPS and autopilot to get you thru your instrument rating. An instrument rating is a must if you are going anywhere overnight.
 
I had a similar mission. I bought a 182RG. Easy to load/unload, 150kts TAS, plenty of room and an excellent IFR platform. Downsides are retract landing gear so insurance will be higher and the small tires mean if you're going into a turf field, it should be nice and smooth.
 
I didn’t see a budget but I think a debonair might be good, especially if you do your ifr in it as part of your transition training.

What total weight of people and bags do you need to carry now vs 5 years from now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You're thinking right. A 182 or Dakota will be great. Pretty simple, common, and insurable.

Of course.....Comanche if you don't mind a first year insurance heart attack.
 
I didn’t see a budget but I think a debonair might be good, especially if you do your ifr in it as part of your transition training.

What total weight of people and bags do you need to carry now vs 5 years from now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right now my load is 500 max ex fuel. It will go up as my kid ages
 
I’m really surprised that it took 8 responses before the Bo came up! I figured it would be in all caps in post #2!
Peeps be slackin! I’m shocked since the Bo was mentioned they even keep this tread open. I mean the Bo is the end all be all for sure. Once you go beech you will not want anything else! Haha yeah I’m biased but I did come from a Piper…
 
Peeps be slackin! I’m shocked since the Bo was mentioned they even keep this tread open. I mean the Bo is the end all be all for sure. Once you go beech you will not want anything else! Haha yeah I’m biased but I did come from a Piper…

There is a broker on the field I used to be based out of who has had a V-Tail Bo for sale ever since I moved into the hangar so for at least a year by now. He kept trying to convince me to sell my Comanche and buy the Bo from him. Didn't work. A few weeks ago, my wife was waiting for me at the FBO as I was doing the pre-flight so he went over to her and tried to convince her to talk me into selling the Comanche and buying the Bo. She listened and listened and listened and when he finally ran out of words, she looked at him and asked "But why would we want to downgrade from what we have?" :rofl:
 
I’m really surprised that it took 8 responses before the Bo came up! I figured it would be in all caps in post #2!
Sorry, I was out cleaning my Bonanza, didn't pick up soon enough. I'll do better. :biggrin:

The Bo is not much of a good starter airplane. Not that it's high workload, but it's fast, and not so forgiving of pilot mistakes. I have owned 7 of them, and find that once the primary training is out of the way, it's a good step up. Not a great IR platform either unless it has a wing leveler, and even better coupled to a nav source. The Beech entry example is the Musketeer, A23-24 Super. It's about the same speed as the 182, and carries the similar payload. However it does it on 200HP FI engine. Very stable, and roomy inside(if any GA plane can be called 'roomy').

I know pilots who have gone from first flight in a 152 through solo, and then stepped up to a Bonanza. It can be done, but there's a lot of training involved in transition to a hot ship, with complex systems and over 200HP. However, once the Bo is in the hanger, you aren't going to go much faster with 4 up than changing to an EXP or a twin with turbos.

Comanche is a fine aircraft. Piper did a good job with it, except it's slower, heavier, and harder to land than the V tail doctor killer. Everyone tried to make the next 'Bonanza killer'. None of them ever measured up.
 
First - smart to mention both 182 and Dakota, to keep the high/low wing thing out of it.

I'll go along with everyone that is recommending to go that route, assuming you can afford it, rather than buying a 172 or Cherokee/Archer now. Two reasons. First, there's very little different between the two sets of aircraft. The reason people train on 172's instead of 182's, and Cherokees instead of Dakotas is 99% just because it's cheaper and probably more available. Second reason, if you've spend any time lurking on here you've already discovered that there's a lot of work and grief involved in buying a plane. So with time as the resource you can't get more of, skip that step.

As to the "you need faster", I'd counter, "why?" If the goal is to get from A to B cheap and easy, fly a code share flight. There's nothing that makes sense about GA A to B except that it's fun. Enjoy the fun. Now 182/Dakota? I get. You're not paying for faster, you're paying for actually being able to take 4 people and fuel.

Last part, I like PA-28's a lot. But before buying one, study up on that wing spar thing and go in informed.

Best of luck and congrats in being able to do this!
 
I’d recommend getting what you want from the get go-not much difference for the step up to warrant going through the purchase process twice. Get your IFR in the one you will fly. Would also put the 182RG in there-similar or lower purchase price, same 1200lb useful load and gain about 15-20kts tucking the gear up. Insurance will be a little more, and there’s always the concern of possible gear maintenance issues but it’s a great performer.
 
Stock answer to this question is a C182, unless something particular about your mission points elsewhere.

Why? The 182 is easy to buy, easy to maintain, easy to insure, easy to fly, carries a heavy load, lands darn near anywhere and on anything, and is easy to sell if/when your mission changes to warrant it.

That said:
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.
500nm is a one-hop flight in a 182 or anything faster, so that's good. But the "around the country" tells me you might want something slightly faster, though your relatively low experience level says maybe you should save that for the second plane.
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?
If you can afford the plane you want, with sufficient reserves available for surprises, get the plane you want. Buying a trainer isn't going to expand your reach, and it's going to drain your bank account for... What exactly? To say you own it? If the trainer isn't the plane for your mission (and it usually isn't once your training is done!) then don't buy a trainer.
500nm weekend trip id want something faster. That will get old fast. I’d look at an A36 bonanza, speed, and a true 4 place with luggage and room for extra pax if ever needed.
The difference there will be about 40-45 minutes. Bo will be about 3.1, 182 will be about 3.8. Worth considering whether that difference is worth it.
Why are Comanches so much lower priced than other planes?
Well... Let's look at what's comparable. Bonanzas, Mooneys, Cirri... All of which have remained in production to much more recent times while the Comanche hasn't been produced since 1972.

Of course, the Cirri have not been in production long enough that they're as cheap as the Comanches on the used market. The oldest Cirrus is 25 years old, the newest Comanche is 52. Newer stuff (usually) costs more.

The Comanche was always known as the "Poor Man's Bonanza", so presumably its initial purchase price was lower. Beeches are nice planes, but somehow they have a nearly cultlike following and so their prices are always inflated relative to similar types of aircraft.

If you look at 52-year-old Mooney M20Cs, you'll probably find some that are comparably priced with the PA24-180s. But you'll find lots of newer Mooneys that cost more too.

Overall, the Comanche is one of the best performance bangs for your purchase buck in aviation. It costs more to maintain an aircraft that old, but I know lots of people who are very happy with their Comanches and I've always liked them.
 
Again, the answer is the 182. You have a young family and want to go places and enjoy the aircraft. It's a great IFR platform (suitably equipped - many are, and your budget permits the airplane, a panel, and still an engine in the bank).

Cessna is still in business and still makes the 182, albeit in a form more akin to the last 182RGs (wet wing and Lycoming power). But they have parts in the warehouse. Mooney is gone, the Comanche factory was washed away in 1972 by Agnes, the Cherokee was intentionally intended to be a cheap to build alternative to their high cost lines when it was set up in FL in the 1960s, and Beech is a part of Cessna aka Textron now.

Each of the gone aircraft typically has some niche specialist that supports the airframe - what happens when they close up?

By having an easy to get parts for aircraft, that is easy to annual, you will be ahead of the curve when it comes to maintenance. I'd put 182 first, then the Bonanza (ordinary tail). The latter will bore holes in the sky faster, at the expense of not really seeing what you are flying over which never made sense to me. Not as friendly in the clag, but ok. 182 is light your cigarette and enjoy the view, VFR or IMC, stable.
 
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.

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.

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.

Tim
 
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.

Oh come on, it's only been a week since I cut my forehead on a 182 flap. You make it sound like it's every day!

Gravity fed fuel is a nice thing.

People rarely end up using their airplane, especially their first one, for the mission they thought they bought it for. The 182 can handle any mission creep. For example, for a time had a real cross-country hauler, 180 ktas, etc. Once empty nested, who cares? Get there when you get there. Mission changed. OP's will too, and 182 will handle the 500 nm initial mission as well as the friend's grass strip with trees at each end for breakfast when one of his kids takes a shine to aviation at 14 or 15 years.

Often look straight down at 5 and 10k. Forward is usually hazy, rainy, etc. YMMV.
 
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.
 
No one has mentioned two doors! 182 has two doors!!!!!

Much better than crawling over the wing or across seats

Of course someone mentions it as I’m typing this
...and not in a greenhouse for the first few thousand feet. Living in the very deep south, I've learned to appreciate the sun shading that a highwing affords.
 
As to the "you need faster", I'd counter, "why?" If the goal is to get from A to B cheap and easy, fly a code share flight. There's nothing that makes sense about GA A to B except that it's fun. Enjoy the fun. Now 182/Dakota? I get. You're not paying for faster, you're paying for actually being able to take 4 people and fuel.

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.
 
...and not in a greenhouse for the first few thousand feet. Living in the very deep south, I've learned to appreciate the sun shading that a highwing affords.
But the OP is in the North East. So, not as critical for many of us. that is a very nice feature, with Cirrus I like to leave the doors open until run up in the summer.

Tim
 
no alarm clock, no rushing.

...no bag search, no security groping, no limit on number of bags, no over-sized smelly passenger spilling flesh into my seat, no brat kicking my seat back, no boarding line, no stale cookie and Drano-flavored coffee, no guitar-smashing baggage handlers, no over-zealous security personnel assaulting physicians, no drunk or stoned pilot, no suicidal copilot,....
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Oh come on, it's only been a week since I cut my forehead on a 182 flap. You make it sound like it's every day!


And this explains why some pilots love high-wings. Brain damage.
 
Common wisdom holds to define your mission and pick a plane that matches it. For your first plane, your primary mission is to refine your understanding of your mission. For me, the right opportunity came along in the form of a Piper Arrow. My 400 hours in that plane taught me a lot about owning and using an airplane. A Cessna 182 is probably just as good for that mission as a PA-28, and is a much better choice if the easier passenger entry matters to you. The most dangerous part of flying a high-wing is the preflight inspection. The most dangerous part of flying a low-wing is getting in and out of it.
 
Last edited:
I'm almost on the same situation.

Would you guys say that the 182 our prices itself? For the same money, you can get a better Arrow or Mooney with cool Avionics.

I'm curious, why no one has mentioned Arrow.
 
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.
172, 182, Dakota, Cherokee.. all good choices for somebody with under 500hrs. I wanted complex and high performance endorsement so bought an Arrow II
 
I'm almost on the same situation.

Would you guys say that the 182 our prices itself? For the same money, you can get a better Arrow or Mooney with cool Avionics.

I'm curious, why no one has mentioned Arrow.
For me an Arrow or Mooney began the hunt for replacing my beloved 172.. wife and me are small people so Mooney was big enough. Found a nice Arrow II that probably is my last plane.
 
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.
 
Back
Top