what would make a good plane for x-country flying

midcap

midcap

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,515
Location
South Louisiana
Display Name
Display name:
midcap
I know I had a Mooney thread a while back but I think I would rather not deal with retractable gear when starting out.

So, what planes should I be looking at? Occupant weight would be around 630 pounds and 3 people at the most. Speed is nice but cost of Mx is even better.

I was looking at Cherokee 180's and Cessna 172's. One day I would like to own a Cherokee 6 or a Saratoga so I was leaning more towards a Cherokee since the 6 is a variation of the air frame. Most of the flying I would do would be over flat land, I don't plan on flying around mountains or high elevations. Mostly just flying around the Gulf Coast.
 
You have to factor in how long the trip will be and how long you want to sit in the plane. Big difference in 172 speed and Mooney speed.
 
If it were me

White Lightning (if you could find one), probably the most hard core X/C 4 place piston machine.
InFlight%20Duo.jpg



Cessna 210

2aac59d839458aa2b1117b0aebd1eb97.jpg


Piper PA24 (pick the engine size your wallet can handle 180-400hp)
Pa24-N5760P-071126-01-16.jpg


Cessna skywagon

images


MX has more to do with the owners abilities than the airplane, owner assists can be a game changer.
 
You can get lots of hauling capacity and lots of speed. You just have to be prepared to spend lots of money.
 
Last edited:
JCranford said:
You have to factor in how long the trip will be and how long you want to sit in the plane. Big difference in 172 speed and Mooney speed.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. speed is where it's at.

Longest common trip would be from L83 Thibodaux Muni to an Orlando based airport.

So somthing like L83 to 1R8 to TLH to KISM. Slowest speed would make it a 5 hour flight in the air non stop, but that's not reasonable. So I figured I would stop at those air ports, and be in the air a maximum of 2 hours per leg.

Now if it were a mooney, I would be looking at a little over 3 hours total and probably only one stop.
 
James331 said:
If it were me

White Lightning (if you could find one), probably the most hard core X/C 4 place piston machine.
InFlight%20Duo.jpg



Cessna 210

2aac59d839458aa2b1117b0aebd1eb97.jpg


Piper PA24 (pick the engine size your wallet can handle 180-400hp)
Pa24-N5760P-071126-01-16.jpg


Cessna skywagon

images


MX has more to do with the owners abilities than the airplane, owner assists can be a game changer.
Click to expand...

as far as doing Mx myself, I could be an A&P if I wanted to change careers. I have over a decade of experience with marine engines. rebuilding, repairing machine work etc.

But from what I read. it doesn't seem like I can do a lot of the work myself.
 
midcap said:
as far as doing Mx myself, I could be an A&P if I wanted to change careers. I have over a decade of experience with marine engines. rebuilding, repairing machine work etc.

But from what I read. it doesn't seem like I can do a lot of the work myself.
Click to expand...

Hogwash.

That all depends on your relationship with your APIA and how far he trusts you, and what your capabilities are.

Find a good oldschool guy, build a relationship and he'll basically let you do a annual yourself and check your work, some folks become APs via something similar to this.



Also a white lightning makes a mooney look like a 172.
 
midcap said:
that's the thing. I couldn't see spending more than 100k on a first plane.
Click to expand...

My first plane cost less than my current car. But there are those who say to buy your last plane first. Me, I'd rather train in a trainer, but to each his own.
 
If you want three people, useful load of any plane will be a critical thing to look at when you want to add people, bags, and fuel. A 172 with three people will be good for a local sight seeing trip but may be a different story if you need to add bags, on board gear, and four hours fuel.

I regularly fly 2.5-3 hour missions and love my 182. It is not the fastest, sexiest, or most fun to fly but is like cruising in a SUV in the sky. I can fit four full size adults comfortably for local flight and can fit three larger than average adults, bags for a few days, plenty of fuel with no problem, and still have climb performance on a warm day.

For me it is the perfect balance of speed, performance, range, useful load, and cabin size.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Hogwash.

That all depends on your relationship with your APIA and how far he trusts you, and what your capabilities are.

Find a good oldschool guy, build a relationship and he'll basically let you do a annual yourself and check your work, some folks become APs via something similar to this.



Also a white lightning makes a mooney look like a 172.
Click to expand...

that is interesting, I guess you have to find the right guy.
 
steingar said:
My first plane cost less than my current car. But there are those who say to buy your last plane first. Me, I'd rather train in a trainer, but to each his own.
Click to expand...

Idealy, I would want to spend about 50k, but I know that is not enough money to get a plane to accomplish what I want it to do.
 
Shawn said:
If you want three people, useful load of any plane will be a critical thing to look at when you want to add people, bags, and fuel. A 172 with three people will be good for a local sight seeing trip but may be a different story if you need to add bags, on board gear, and four hours fuel.

I regularly fly 2.5-3 hour missions and love my 182. It is not the fastest, sexiest, or most fun to fly but is like cruising in a SUV in the sky. I can fit four full size adults comfortably for local flight and can fit three larger than average adults, bags for a few days, plenty of fuel with no problem, and still have climb performance on a warm day.

For me it is the perfect balance of speed, performance, range, useful load, and cabin size.
Click to expand...
isnt cruise like 150 kts on a 182?
 
I've seen Arrow II's go for about 50. 200 HP. Retract. I think that 3 plus full fuel and baggage isn't unreasonable. Cruise about 140.
 
The Arrow is basically a retractable gear Archer... which in turn is a Cherokee 180 with an elongated fuselage.
 
midcap said:
isnt cruise like 150 kts on a 182?
Click to expand...

More like 130. Depending on model, power setting, weight and altitude, maybe 135. 150 kts would be the range of the R182 ("182RG") or the various turbo models at altitude.
 
ircphoenix said:
I've seen Arrow II's go for about 50. 200 HP. Retract. I think that 3 plus full fuel and baggage isn't unreasonable. Cruise about 140.
Click to expand...

eeeeh, I wouldn't say 140, but I only have time in 1 200hp arrow. I planned for 125 and it always got that. I'll give u 130 but I am not aware of an arrow or arrow II that does 140. turbo III's and IV's, oh yeah. real easy transition from a cherokee/warrior/archer into the arrow. I like em.
 
Sorry. The II is listed at like 140kts cruise. But I will defer to your experience rather than my reading the numbers from the book. Turns out antennas and stuff slow it down. =D
 
ircphoenix said:
891 useful load - 630 lbs for passengers = 291. Full fuel is another 300 pounds. So you can't have full fuel OR baggage if you have your ideal passenger weight.

I saw the AC and I thought to myself "SELF... that's probably a heavy plane."
Click to expand...

yeah I saw that A/c also. One more thing to add weight and break.
 
ircphoenix said:
Sorry. The II is listed at like 140kts cruise. But I will defer to your experience rather than my reading the numbers from the book. Turns out antennas and stuff slow it down. =D
Click to expand...

if you're talking about risingup.com, I have found, in my experience, the 'cruise speeds' of every plane I fly that's listed in there is about 10kts faster than real world. but like I said, I have a few hours in one, but only one.
 
and now that I think about it, I think the III's actually LOST speed over the II's.....it's the IV that kicks it up a notch.
 
midcap said:
Idealy, would want to spend about 50k, but I know that is not enough money to get a plane to accomplish what I want it to do.
Click to expand...


OK,

You're looking at PA-24 Commanchies (180,260, or 300hp) then, that's going to be the machine for you. For 50k you can get a nice example, that's going to be the best bang for 50k hands down.
 
James331 said:
OK,

You're looking at PA-24 Commanchies then, that's going to be the machine for you. For 50k you can get a nice example, that's going to be the best bang for 50k hands down.
Click to expand...

those planes seem to fit the bill, nice cruise and plenty of useful load for my misisons, but they all seem to be 60's era planes. Is that too old? That's the thing that worries me is buying an old air plane and it having major issues.
 
There's nothing wrong with a plane from the 60s. The Comanches are great planes that were very well designed from the factory. I would argue it's a better plane than the PA-28.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
There's nothing wrong with a plane from the 60s. The Comanches are great planes that were very well designed from the factory. I would argue it's a better plane than the PA-28.
Click to expand...

That's not an "argument," Ted, it's a statement of fact.
 
SCCutler said:
For trips of that length, you need a 182, up - I love Cherokees of all stripes, but that a hard day of pedaling at 122 knots.

Try this: http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1414287/1964-beechcraft-s35-bonanza

or this: http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1424161/1966-beechcraft-v35-bonanza

Or how about: http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1413553/1966-piper-comanche-260 <<-- this one's a nice one, if it's as good as it sounds!
Click to expand...

that stigma with the V tails mess with my mind though.
 
SCCutler said:
That's not an "argument," Ted, it's a statement of fact.
Click to expand...

Agreed, counselor, but in the court of PoA, facts are often taken into question. :D
 
midcap said:
those planes seem to fit the bill, nice cruise and plenty of useful load for my misisons, but they all seem to be 60's era planes. Is that too old? That's the thing that worries me is buying an old air plane and it having major issues.
Click to expand...

When it comes to aircraft, it's the maintance (or lack thereof) that matters, not the year.

Frankly many folks would say the older PA 24s are superior to the newer arrows.

Long and short, go fly a PA-24, I'd wager you'll end up owning one of you do.
 
Boeing 777 are pretty good I hear. ;)

There's a lot of great options out there for sure. Personally, I found the comfort, automation, and safety features of the Cirrus to be unmatched so that's the direction I'm going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top