What to buy, $50-60k?

[IndyTim]

I have another thread asking which $40-50k planes would be easiest to get out of, assuming a 2-year holding period while I complete PPL and IFR training, and get a little flying in.

That thread morphed quickly into a "what to buy" thread, but I had never revealed the full mission requirements. And, it again became clear that I need to increase the budget. So, here we go, and I'm humbly asking, "what to buy?"

I've done some homework, and it does look like, for my budget and purposes of resale, a Grumman Tiger, Mooney F, or C182 are the best bets. I'm wondering if there isn't anything else I should be thinking of, and whether either of these craft are clearly a bad fit to the requirements.

This is my first plane, but at 50 years old I've been in planes my whole life. Dad had a B55 Baron, a 690 Turbo Commander, and a B60 Duke. Stepdad had a C152, a C172, and a C182. I've also got almost 3 million miles flying commercially, which doesn't count much but at least I'm not afraid of the air...

Personally, I have experience with operating high performance machinery, in sports cars, race bikes (enduros), and race karts. I approach each with caution and diligence, and have avoided both injury and significant benders. I'm approaching flying the same way, and I plan to get ample type-specific dual instruction in whatever airframe I end up with. Which means also that it's got to be reasonably good performance to get me interested.

Mission - primarily it's to commute, 900 nm roundtrip, probably 40 weeks/year, conditions permitted. (I work from home if necessary.) Midwest flatlands, so terrain isn't really an issue although weather is. This requires a 430nm range plus IFR reserves. If I can't make this trip in under 4 hours it's not worth it to fly my own plane, so I'm looking at 120+ KTAS and that's a rock-bottom threshold.

2ndary Mission - fly myself and wife out west, into Sedona, Taos, etc. I'd want enough performance/range to go 600nm in 4-5 hours, leaving an hour's reserves. This is recreation, so I control time of year, and high altitude PLUS hot performance isn't necessary. But of course, it'd be nice.

Tertiary Mission - carry 4 adults w/ minimal baggage on a day or weekend trip. Assuming 750-780 lbs, pax with gear. Typically this leaves maybe 150-200lbs for fuel, which would limit the range. This is a constraint I can live with, for now.

Key objectives:
- Get a good quality plane with minimal surprises at annual time
- < 900 hours SMOH
- Be relatively easy to sell without losing my a$$ in 2-3 years, as I move to a bigger/faster plane.
- Achieve > 120KTAS cruise at 75% power
- Range of 600nm loaded w/ 550 lbs pax/gear, @ 120+ KTAS
- Range of 300nm loaded w/ 780 lbs pax/gear (slightly negotiable)
- I can live with having to make some improvements, say recover the seats and recarpet.
- I don't require newest avionics, just a clean, functional xc panel. Digital NAV/COMM with VOR/DME/ILS, HSI, AP, stormscope, engine monitor and maybe an 89B GPS would be fine. I can go get a 696 to mount on the yoke.

What do y'all think?

 

[wabower]

Mission - primarily it's to commute, 900 nm roundtrip, probably 40 weeks/year, conditions permitted. (I work from home if necessary.) Midwest flatlands, so terrain isn't really an issue although weather is. This requires a 430nm range plus IFR reserves. If I can't make this trip in under 4 hours it's not worth it to fly my own plane, so I'm looking at 120+ KTAS and that's a rock-bottom threshold.

2ndary Mission - fly myself and wife out west, into Sedona, Taos, etc. I'd want enough performance/range to go 600nm in 4-5 hours, leaving an hour's reserves. This is recreation, so I control time of year, and high altitude PLUS hot performance isn't necessary. But of course, it'd be nice.

Tertiary Mission - carry 4 adults w/ minimal baggage on a day or weekend trip. Assuming 750-780 lbs, pax with gear. Typically this leaves maybe 150-200lbs for fuel, which would limit the range. This is a constraint I can live with, for now.

Key objectives:
- Get a good quality plane with minimal surprises at annual time
- < 900 hours SMOH
- Be relatively easy to sell without losing my a$$ in 2-3 years, as I move to a bigger/faster plane.
- Achieve > 120KTAS cruise at 75% power
- Range of 600nm loaded w/ 550 lbs pax/gear, @ 120+ KTAS
- Range of 300nm loaded w/ 780 lbs pax/gear (slightly negotiable)
- I can live with having to make some improvements, say recover the seats and recarpet.
- I don't require newest avionics, just a clean, functional xc panel. Digital NAV/COMM with VOR/DME/ILS, HSI, AP, stormscope, engine monitor and maybe an 89B GPS would be fine. I can go get a 696 to mount on the yoke.

What do y'all think?

I think I accumulated ~9,000 hours over 20+ years doing almost exactly what you described. My progression was in a series of Mooneys, Comanches, Bonanzas C-210, T-210, Twinkies, Aerostars, 340, 421, Malibu, C & F 90, and a few that were bigger and some that I probably forgot.

I found that the C & F Mooneys were too slow, the Comanche 250 was better and and that the Bo's and 210's were the best fit. The twins and the Malibu didn't pay back in terms of additional performance vs cost of fuel and MX compared to increased cost.

The B-200 was perfect, but is about a million-two more than you want to pay. Fortunately, I didn't have to pay for it either.

 

[denverpilot]

The 40 weeks a year probably translates into something with FIKI capability right off the bat.

 

[Ted]

I'd agree that you probably want a 160+ kt plane in reality. The singles will offer the most bang-for-buck. You said you're looking for an interim plane until you can afford what you really want, so a Comanche 250 might be a good bet until you can afford that Bo or whatever else.

If I only needed to fly myself or me + 1, I'd go for a Lancair 360.

 

[Ted]

The 40 weeks a year probably translates into something with FIKI capability right off the bat.

He said he can work from home if he can't commute, and while his purchase price will get him a de-iced Aztec, it won't likely pay for the maintenance.

 

[LDJones]

I think I accumulated ~9,000 hours over 20+ years doing almost exactly what you described. My progression was in a series of Mooneys, Comanches, Bonanzas C-210, T-210, Twinkies, Aerostars, 340, 421, Malibu, C & F 90, and a few that were bigger and some that I probably forgot.

I found that the C & F Mooneys were too slow, the Comanche 250 was better and and that the Bo's and 210's were the best fit. The twins and the Malibu didn't pay back in terms of additional performance vs cost of fuel and MX compared to increased cost.

The B-200 was perfect, but is about a million-two more than you want to pay. Fortunately, I didn't have to pay for it either.

I commuted 596 nm on a weekly basis for a number of months in my C model. Since it was what I had, it worked just fine, but it was usually a 4.5 hr. block-to-block.....nonstop most trips, but occasionally one stop when winds weren't cooperating. A J or K model would make your trip a piece of cake as either are 15-20 kts faster than my C down low.

Moving up to a long-body (R, S) with the FIKI would up your mission completion rate while still giving pretty good mileage and reducing your commute even further....but they're not in your price range.

For your budget, I'd look at an E or F with some speed mods. They'd make your commute in less than three hours without burning a ton of fuel.

The 182 would be comfortable, but would burn a lot more fuel.

 

[LDJones]

BTW, if you want to go fast cheap and you don't need more than two seats, find a well-built RV-6, -7 or -9! One of my students just bought a nice -9 for mid-60s that does 170 kts on 7 gph....only 50 hours on a brand new engine.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's a lot of mission for $50-60K. Several planes have been mentioned which can do the job, but whether you can get a good reliable well-equipped one of those in that price range is open to question. Good luck with your shopping.

 

[alaskaflyer]

F-model Mooney,that's enough money to find a fine specimen of the species (your budget is only enough $ to find a poor-to-middlin' J model.)

That is, so long as when you said minimal baggage for your four-person trips you really meant minimal.

Maybe a IO-470-powered Debonair. Their price has really suffered in this market and it seems from looking at ads that you can get a lot of plane for your money with that model at the moment. I have a friend who has a nice one for sale and I think he has had to knock more than 20 grand off the price in the last year.

 

[N801BH]

..............
What do y'all think?

I think you need to QUIT asking questions and go BUY a plane...

 

[ronnieh]

40 - six hour round trips a year in a $60K single engine. You are kidding right? Add the other trips you mention and you are talking turbine country with a professional pilot. Even then I doubt you could get that kind of dispatchability. Good luck!

 

[alaskaflyer]

40 - six hour round trips a year in a $60K single engine. You are kidding right? Add the other trips you mention and you are talking turbine country with a professional pilot. Even then I doubt you could get that kind of dispatchability. Good luck!

On the other hand that's only flying 22% of the available days in any year. Even in the winter I could manage to fly on one out of every four or five days in the upper midwest.

 

[IndyTim]

The Tigers are looking better all the time. Downside with those are the cooling issues, so I'd want a low-time or a runout engine that I could overhaul myself.

Spent some time looking at C182s today. They fit the price/performance/load/range requirement, but they're not nearly as efficient as the Tiger (or the Mooney, obviously).

My instructor has a very nice Comanche 260. I hadn't thought seriously about them before now. They'll carry a load, and appear to have good range with the 90gal tanks, which most seem to have.

I'm guessing 14+ gph @ 10,500 and 145 ktas?

 

[ronnieh]

His trips sound like several days at a time. If you are talking 40 trips a year to be done in one day for each trip, maybe. Doesn't look pratical to me.

 

[alaskaflyer]

His trips sound like several days at a time. If you are talking 40 trips a year to be done in one day for each trip, maybe. Doesn't look pratical to me.

I was estimating one day out and one day back for a total of 80 flying days (not counting his "fun" trips.) But obviously you'd have to be very flexible unless you live in SOCAL somewhere :wink2:

OTOH when I imagine this type of commuting requirement for either work or fun, for myself (imagining future grandkids all over the country ) my mind immediately jumps to a C90 and a couple trips per year to a FlightSafety learning center. By then maybe I could afford it.

 

[wabower]

It's not the price, it's the capability. I did it for 7 years in a 210 that cost $22k and don't think I ever cancelled a trip due to MX-related issues. Missed some due to ice and convective, but that's the price for living in the midwest. And on the days I couldn't go the airlines usually weren't going either but not always for the same reasons.

I think all pilots develop their own sense of which planes "are fast enough and carry enough stuff" to be satisfactory. In my case it was finding a plane that was fast enough to make most of my trips in less than 3 hours, and for which I could plan a reasonably accurate arrival time on a consistent basis.

40 - six hour round trips a year in a $60K single engine. You are kidding right? Add the other trips you mention and you are talking turbine country with a professional pilot. Even then I doubt you could get that kind of dispatchability. Good luck!

 

[N747JB]

It's hard to beat a 182 for simplicity and decent operating costs, 130-135 knots on 12-13 GPH, it's not as efficient as the retracts, but it's a good all around airplane. I got my PPL and IR in a 182, simple enough to learn to fly in, yet fast enough to go somewhere with a decent useful load.
All airplanes are compromises, some are faster, some are roomier, some are cheaper to operate, some are more expensive. The cheapest ones to buy are usually the most expensive to operate. Heck for your purchase budget you can probably get an old Lear! Not sure about the hourly cost.

 

[Ted]

Ronnie, I was doing that with the Aztec just fine.

 

[ronnieh]

Not sure an Aztec falls into the $60K single engine catagory. It may can be done but, it woud be iffy for me. Perhaps his and other's flying skills are much better than mine. Most of my experience is in the corporate world so I may see things different. For reliable business travel I want two fans, FIKI, and on board radar. That is just me and the experience I have had in the past few decades.
Can it be done and should it be done are two different things. I just find it hard to believe a new low time instrument pilot can dispatch 40+ weeks of flying/year in the midwest in a $60K SEL aircraft. I know flexibility of scheduling does make a difference. How many weeks a year can he leave on a Monday and come back on Wednesday or anyday that week as far as that goes? The right pilot with the right experience MIGHT make that work pretty well but, I doubt it. You will spend much more time stuck due to weather than flying. Again JMO.

 

[IndyTim]

I have a place at the other end of the commute. Typical schedule is out Monday, 430nm, back on Thurs/Fri. As I mentioned, "conditions permitting". If conditions aren't right, I stay at one end or the other until they are. Or if I really need to get there, I've got a car at each end also. Can always drive if I can't fly, if I have to.

I'm getting a per-mile reimbursement, so that offsets the cost. Still want to minimize the expense, and it's going to be a while before I want to take on ME.

This is meant to be a temporary solution while I build time, emphasizing the commuting performance (speed/efficiency). I recognize that the third mission profile (4 adults) is very limiting, and I was careful to indicate that I'm willing to give up range and baggage to achieve that.

I think that these are reasonable scenarios, and I think I'm asking reasonable questions. Clearly there are tradeoffs, and I want to make sure I understand what they are., and select a plane with the fewest compromises.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Check out very old, used T-182s for more speed.

 

[ronnieh]

Tim, that scererio is a little different and is somewhat unique. With those conditions I suspect you will be able to fly part of the time. A really good way to build quality time. Good luck.

 

[Z06_Mir]

182. I'd expect 12-13 gph unless you go retract. I average under 12 on 4 hour trips in my R182.

 

[Ted]

I fully agree with Ronnie's high dispatch reliability requirements. With an Aztec that fits in the budget requirements for purchase, I did it just fine. But given that the operating costs are about 2x of a Comanche 250, probably not good for the OP. Since dispatchability has flexibility, starting off with a more economical single and moving up is a good idea to me.

 

[IndyTim]

182. I'd expect 12-13 gph unless you go retract. I average under 12 on 4 hour trips in my R182.

That's not bad. LOP?

 

[Ted]

Comanche 250 will do the same fuel burn going faster...

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I have another thread asking which $40-50k planes would be easiest to get out of, assuming a 2-year holding period while I complete PPL and IFR training, and get a little flying in.

That thread morphed quickly into a "what to buy" thread, but I had never revealed the full mission requirements. And, it again became clear that I need to increase the budget. So, here we go, and I'm humbly asking, "what to buy?"

I've done some homework, and it does look like, for my budget and purposes of resale, a Grumman Tiger, Mooney F, or C182 are the best bets. I'm wondering if there isn't anything else I should be thinking of, and whether either of these craft are clearly a bad fit to the requirements.

This is my first plane, but at 50 years old I've been in planes my whole life. Dad had a B55 Baron, a 690 Turbo Commander, and a B60 Duke. Stepdad had a C152, a C172, and a C182. I've also got almost 3 million miles flying commercially, which doesn't count much but at least I'm not afraid of the air...

Personally, I have experience with operating high performance machinery, in sports cars, race bikes (enduros), and race karts. I approach each with caution and diligence, and have avoided both injury and significant benders. I'm approaching flying the same way, and I plan to get ample type-specific dual instruction in whatever airframe I end up with. Which means also that it's got to be reasonably good performance to get me interested.

Mission - primarily it's to commute, 900 nm roundtrip, probably 40 weeks/year, conditions permitted. (I work from home if necessary.) Midwest flatlands, so terrain isn't really an issue although weather is. This requires a 430nm range plus IFR reserves. If I can't make this trip in under 4 hours it's not worth it to fly my own plane, so I'm looking at 120+ KTAS and that's a rock-bottom threshold.

2ndary Mission - fly myself and wife out west, into Sedona, Taos, etc. I'd want enough performance/range to go 600nm in 4-5 hours, leaving an hour's reserves. This is recreation, so I control time of year, and high altitude PLUS hot performance isn't necessary. But of course, it'd be nice.

Tertiary Mission - carry 4 adults w/ minimal baggage on a day or weekend trip. Assuming 750-780 lbs, pax with gear. Typically this leaves maybe 150-200lbs for fuel, which would limit the range. This is a constraint I can live with, for now.

Key objectives:
- Get a good quality plane with minimal surprises at annual time
- < 900 hours SMOH
- Be relatively easy to sell without losing my a$$ in 2-3 years, as I move to a bigger/faster plane.
- Achieve > 120KTAS cruise at 75% power
- Range of 600nm loaded w/ 550 lbs pax/gear, @ 120+ KTAS
- Range of 300nm loaded w/ 780 lbs pax/gear (slightly negotiable)
- I can live with having to make some improvements, say recover the seats and recarpet.
- I don't require newest avionics, just a clean, functional xc panel. Digital NAV/COMM with VOR/DME/ILS, HSI, AP, stormscope, engine monitor and maybe an 89B GPS would be fine. I can go get a 696 to mount on the yoke.

What do y'all think?

Since you opened this up a bit:

Option 1 buy cheap fly cheap build hours. The cheaper your upfront investment the less you will loose within reason.

Option 2 buy faster complex or Tiger build hours. Likely cost about 15-20% of what you pay for it plus the cost of ownership for the time you own it.

Option 3 buy the plane you want to have, now but get more training from the git go. Maybe not a A36 but 210/B35/Comanche.

I bought a 3500 TTAF, 1400 SMOH, 1962 250 Turbo Comanche with seller paid fresh $20k annual for $47,500. It had a new panel with KDM150 5.5" panel mount vfr GPS, newish duel King digital radios, new interior. Pretty clean plane. All amberglow lit instrument panel is particularly beautiful at night flight.

First years maintenance was about $2k. I spent $4k to add King 89B, KN 53 digital/nav come; 209 Indicator and certify it IFR. I flew it about 200 hrs and later decided to add another $6k to put new top OH/cylinders on it. All in all I spent about $18-19k maintenance in going on 5 years of ownership including the annual inspections, TOP OH and avionics upgrade. My last annual was $400 so with some measured improvements and TLC you can get one really nice.

What I got for my money:
5 hrs endurance (up to 90 gallons); 1000 lbs useful load, 14gph 155k knots without turbo; 175 knots at 10500'-11,500' altitude and about 70% power ROP using Turbo.

I suspect you can do this with any Name Plate: 210, Comanche, Bonanza.....become a type specialist so you know the ins/outs and then just track down every one on the market until you find a real good deal. I had found and passed up a few $35k-39k Similar Comanches (without turbos). So its not as if I got the only deal out there. The market was stronger 5 years ago when I did this so today you should be able to do much better than I did. If you forgo the Turbo you can do spectacularly better getting more in the Avionics package or Autopilot.

So if you are not snobby about flying a 60's vintage hi performance plane you can buy something very nearly your every wish.

In retrospect I did not need the Turbo and that added costs that I wouldn't have had with a NA Comanche 250 and cut my TCO/maintenance in about half.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

The 40 weeks a year probably translates into something with FIKI capability right off the bat.

BUDGET BUSTER!

IMO-Doesn't make sense for a new/ low time new pilot to even consider FIKI....talk about your doctor killers.

While you can take extra CFI time to get up to speed on a Hi performance plane you cannot quickly or easily develop the go/no go skills of that level of IFR FIKI.

Then their is the cost....You may have to sacrifice some other things to get the FIKI and maintenance will be higher.

 

[Z06_Mir]

That's not bad. LOP?

No. ROP. 7,000+ usually on long trips. We figured it out to be 11.4 GPH at max gross and including a refuel to *almost* gross.. maybe 100 pounds under to account for KABQ DA in September. Most of that trip was done between 8,000 and 10,000 with a jump to 12,000 to get over the terrain new KABQ. Sweep that gear up and she doesn't have a lot of drag.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

I commuted 596 nm on a weekly basis for a number of months in my C model. Since it was what I had, it worked just fine, but it was usually a 4.5 hr. block-to-block.....nonstop most trips, but occasionally one stop when winds weren't cooperating. A J or K model would make your trip a piece of cake as either are 15-20 kts faster than my C down low.

Moving up to a long-body (R, S) with the FIKI would up your mission completion rate while still giving pretty good mileage and reducing your commute even further....but they're not in your price range.

For your budget, I'd look at an E or F with some speed mods. They'd make your commute in less than three hours without burning a ton of fuel.

The 182 would be comfortable, but would burn a lot more fuel.

Mooney C 10.6 gph at $6 =$70 per hour

182 with mogas stc 12-13 gph at $3.39 =$45

182 maintenance (no landing gear) might off set some of the costs as well as if you get a mogas STC. Wider maintenance acceptability over a specialty plane like the Comanche/mooney. Now your gas is about half the cost of avgas which greatly makes this fall into decent TCO. Easy to manage by new pilots, lots of utility. It would be hard to find a mechanic that couldn't do a decent job maintaining a 182. With my Comanche I tend to be a little more careful when shopping for a mechanic.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

The Tigers are looking better all the time. Downside with those are the cooling issues, so I'd want a low-time or a runout engine that I could overhaul myself.

Spent some time looking at C182s today. They fit the price/performance/load/range requirement, but they're not nearly as efficient as the Tiger (or the Mooney, obviously).

My instructor has a very nice Comanche 260. I hadn't thought seriously about them before now. They'll carry a load, and appear to have good range with the 90gal tanks, which most seem to have.

I'm guessing 14+ gph @ 10,500 and 145 ktas?

Comanche 260 B's and C models are more like 157-161 knots. The 250's and early 260's are 155-157 knots. You can do that at 7-8k.' The long skinny wing loves altitude so you have no troubles flying 11-12k' without a turbo. At 145 knots you are burning 11-12 possibly less in a Comanche as that is the super long distance speed (9.x gph at 135-137 knots I think is best endurance).

I presume with most Comanches, as in my Comanche there is very little speed penalty from 75% ROP to 65% ROP so I seldom put the pedal to the medal. Even when I am in a hurry I run 65%.

Draw backs of a Comanche: 2 blade prop inspection AD every 500 hrs (cost me $2200); 1000 hr/10 year Landing gear inspection IRAN-AD (from $1000-2000 unless you do it yourself with A&P for savings; Tail horn inspection AD 500 hrs/5 years or 1000 hrs/10 years with new horn about 5-8 hrs labor.

I'm not saying that 60's vintage 210 or Bonanza 35 or any other plane will not also have similar ADs.

I calculate $75 per hour fuel and $50 per hour maintenance on top of hangar rent and insurance. KS doesn't have a property tax on older aircraft.

 

[wabower]

All nice and all desirable, Ronnie, but certainly not necessary, especially with some scheduling flexibility for ducking bad weather. If such equipment had been even remotely necessary, I would have learned about it early in the game. My first serious business trip was as a freshly-trained IR-PPL. Destination WX waso back-course mins in Moline, so that's what I flew. It wasn't a work of art, but the needles were within tolerances and the runway was where it was supposed to be. Over a 20+ year period, I can remember stopping one night in Memphis due to turbulence low and ice higher, but don't remember any others.

But like Tim, I had some latitude to pick and choose the exact days for travel. Draw a 600 nm ring around Kansas City, and there's a pretty good chance I was in every city of any size at least a few times each year.

Nashville was the most-frequent destination, since many of the big earners in the country music biz were tax clients.

Not sure an Aztec falls into the $60K single engine catagory. It may can be done but, it woud be iffy for me. Perhaps his and other's flying skills are much better than mine. Most of my experience is in the corporate world so I may see things different. For reliable business travel I want two fans, FIKI, and on board radar. That is just me and the experience I have had in the past few decades.
Can it be done and should it be done are two different things. I just find it hard to believe a new low time instrument pilot can dispatch 40+ weeks of flying/year in the midwest in a $60K SEL aircraft. I know flexibility of scheduling does make a difference. How many weeks a year can he leave on a Monday and come back on Wednesday or anyday that week as far as that goes? The right pilot with the right experience MIGHT make that work pretty well but, I doubt it. You will spend much more time stuck due to weather than flying. Again JMO.

 

[timwinters]

40 - six hour round trips a year in a $60K single engine. You are kidding right? Add the other trips you mention and you are talking turbine country with a professional pilot. Even then I doubt you could get that kind of dispatchability. Good luck!

Did it for many years in my C182A. She left me sitting exactly once with a mag issue. Otherwise, the plane and an instrument rating allowed for 200+ hours in four of eight years of ownership. I flew about 80% of the time...drove 20%.

 

[poadeleted21]

Just get the Bonanza (If I start getting to be "Bonanza Geico", don't tell me)

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Just get the Bonanza (If I start getting to be "Bonanza Geico", don't tell me)

Since there are about 25 models from E185's through A36, which models specifically would you recommend that fall into the $50-60k range? And what kind of recurrning AD's might they have?

 

[poadeleted21]

Since there are about 25 models from E185's through A36, which models specifically would you recommend that fall into the $50-60k range? And what kind of recurrning AD's might they have?

Well 50-60k ought to buy you an immaculate M35 (1960) or earlier model with a modern panel (WAAS GPS etc..) and almost new engine, a damn good N-P model, a decent S model or a respectable V35A model (higher time engine, old radios, groovy interior). There's the spar AD and a prop AD to worry about, but not huge deals.

Full Disclosure: I've had my N35 for 4 months, it had a brand new engine, brand new prop, new rigging, overhauled landing gear and an $11,000 annual done on it in June/July this year. I've put 60 hours on it since august, had some post maintenance hiccups, but nothing shocking so far.

 

[CaptLabrador]

I have another thread asking which $40-50k planes would be easiest to get out of, assuming a 2-year holding period while I complete PPL and IFR training, and get a little flying in.

That thread morphed quickly into a "what to buy" thread, but I had never revealed the full mission requirements. And, it again became clear that I need to increase the budget. So, here we go, and I'm humbly asking, "what to buy?"

I've done some homework, and it does look like, for my budget and purposes of resale, a Grumman Tiger, Mooney F, or C182 are the best bets. I'm wondering if there isn't anything else I should be thinking of, and whether either of these craft are clearly a bad fit to the requirements.

This is my first plane, but at 50 years old I've been in planes my whole life. Dad had a B55 Baron, a 690 Turbo Commander, and a B60 Duke. Stepdad had a C152, a C172, and a C182. I've also got almost 3 million miles flying commercially, which doesn't count much but at least I'm not afraid of the air...

Personally, I have experience with operating high performance machinery, in sports cars, race bikes (enduros), and race karts. I approach each with caution and diligence, and have avoided both injury and significant benders. I'm approaching flying the same way, and I plan to get ample type-specific dual instruction in whatever airframe I end up with. Which means also that it's got to be reasonably good performance to get me interested.

Mission - primarily it's to commute, 900 nm roundtrip, probably 40 weeks/year, conditions permitted. (I work from home if necessary.) Midwest flatlands, so terrain isn't really an issue although weather is. This requires a 430nm range plus IFR reserves. If I can't make this trip in under 4 hours it's not worth it to fly my own plane, so I'm looking at 120+ KTAS and that's a rock-bottom threshold.

2ndary Mission - fly myself and wife out west, into Sedona, Taos, etc. I'd want enough performance/range to go 600nm in 4-5 hours, leaving an hour's reserves. This is recreation, so I control time of year, and high altitude PLUS hot performance isn't necessary. But of course, it'd be nice.

Tertiary Mission - carry 4 adults w/ minimal baggage on a day or weekend trip. Assuming 750-780 lbs, pax with gear. Typically this leaves maybe 150-200lbs for fuel, which would limit the range. This is a constraint I can live with, for now.

Key objectives:
- Get a good quality plane with minimal surprises at annual time
- < 900 hours SMOH
- Be relatively easy to sell without losing my a$$ in 2-3 years, as I move to a bigger/faster plane.
- Achieve > 120KTAS cruise at 75% power
- Range of 600nm loaded w/ 550 lbs pax/gear, @ 120+ KTAS
- Range of 300nm loaded w/ 780 lbs pax/gear (slightly negotiable)
- I can live with having to make some improvements, say recover the seats and recarpet.
- I don't require newest avionics, just a clean, functional xc panel. Digital NAV/COMM with VOR/DME/ILS, HSI, AP, stormscope, engine monitor and maybe an 89B GPS would be fine. I can go get a 696 to mount on the yoke.

What do y'all think?

just joined in but I love the Beechcraft TravelAir BE95. I flew a 1959, you can find super clean ones at around $60k and they are incredibly stable and amazingly nice to fly. Im told better than pipers and the later duchess and...for a twin, somewhat economical. Dual 180 hp non counter rotating.

 

[Agflyboy]

on the Comanche. Good payload, descent speed, I run my C model lop at 2350 squared burns about 10.7. Lot of plane for the money.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

Welcome Agflyboy, where you fly out of? I am out of Wichita, KS area, although I am regularly seen in Florida, California and sometimes even NYC.

 

[skyflea]

Comanche 250 perfect plane, comanches are the best piper ever made IMO and not that much costly to own than a pathfinder.