1st plane

weilke said:
Oh, I forgot one more characteristic of 'which airplane threads':

- pilots and owners are like little flowers who will easily get their feelings hurt if someone looks down on their particular chosen airplane.
Click to expand...

The Aztec is the best airplane in the history of the world. EVER. :D
 
weilke said:
Oh, I forgot one more characteristic of 'which airplane threads':

- pilots and owners are like little flowers who will easily get their feelings hurt if someone looks down on their particular chosen airplane.
Click to expand...

like i said, i flew my glider from hutch to hays and back last august :D
 
tonycondon said:
like i said, i flew my glider from hutch to hays and back last august :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you didn't burn nearly as much fuel as I did! :wink2:
 
weilke said:
Oh, I forgot one more characteristic of 'which airplane threads':

- pilots and owners are like little flowers who will easily get their feelings hurt if someone looks down on their particular chosen airplane.
Click to expand...


Not really -- I know I'm at rock bottom, and revel in it!!

:thumbsup:








(Though a Pre-War is faster than a post war Chief or Champ!!)
 
Ron Levy said:
Just how much block-to-block time do you save on a 150nm trip by going 150 KTAS in cruise versus 120 KTAS in cruise? Enough to justify a few hundred dollars more on each annual and $700-1000 a year on insurance (especially for a Student Pilot)? Since the once/twice-a-year 400nm nonstop is within the range of the 180-230HP planes mentioned even with some headwind or the need for IFR/alternate reserves, retractable gear just doesn't seem worth the cost to me, but that's a question only the OP can answer for himself.
Click to expand...

Add in a 30kt headwind and you make it up real quick on the 400milers.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
A36 Bonanza with a 540.

You'll love it.

:cornut:
Click to expand...

I'm sure I would. But unless I win one, it won't be soon. :wink2:

I should be getting started on my complex endorsement in a PA-28R-180 shortly.

John
 
tonycondon said:
I guess someone forgot to tell me that a 172 well equipped isn't a capable IFR platform.

Don't get me wrong, when AOPA calls me that I won the 182 I won't say no :)
Click to expand...

Oh it certainly is, most of my instrument training so far has been in one. long cross country, not so much.

John
 
Henning said:
No it doesn't, you pull the power waaayyyyy back, mixture first and do your normal cruise speed on half the fuel.
Click to expand...

Or that, a variation on the first law of thermodynamics still applies.
 
weilke said:
Oh, I forgot one more characteristic of 'which airplane threads':

- pilots and owners are like little flowers who will easily get their feelings hurt if someone looks down on their particular chosen airplane.
Click to expand...

You can eliminate this by having a cool plane....:cornut:
 
I like Mooney's because they're fast and efficient.


One of the first things I did after I got my Private was to fly a 600nm cross country in a Cessna 152. It took about 8 hours on the Hobbes, but it was fun. I was paying for tach time so I had the throttle running about 65% and leaned aggressively for taxi and cruise. :goofy:

I would definitely want something faster if I was doing 150 or 400nm cross countries on a somewhat regular basis though.
 
Tom-D said:
This is true, but the 177 is well supported by its manufacturer, and has a great type club,
Click to expand...
That's true of the Tiger, Archer, and Sundowner, too.

Is well known thru out the industry by almost every mechanic,
Click to expand...
While the Tiger is not that well-known by "every mechanic," it's a pretty dirt-simple machine and while I realize you personally have certain issues and opinions regarding Grummans, there should be no problem for any competent A&P with the manuals open to work on any system in the airplane. And the Archer and Sundowner are familiar to darn near every mechanic out there.
and has a descent re-sale.
Click to expand...
...and a higher purchase price compared to a comparable Tiger or Sundowner (age, condition, equipment, etc), although probably not the Archer, which is probably priced about the same as a 177. The only question is how much capital you want tied up in the plane, not how much the net cost will be for purchase now and later sale.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Add in a 30kt headwind and you make it up real quick on the 400milers.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But is that time savings once/twice a year worth the extra money the other 11-1/2 months? I think not (and fly a Tiger for that reason, instead of the Cougar I used to own or a hotter retractable like a Bonanza), but the OP will have to answer that one himself for his own situation.
 
Last edited:
THE OP said every other month, not once or twice a year.
 
EdFred said:
THE OP said every other month, not once or twice a year.
Click to expand...
OK, then let's compromise on a 135-knot fixed gear plane -- it will do the occasional 400nm flights better than a 120-knot plane, but cost a lot less to own and operate than the 150-knot retractable. :wink2:

Oh, yeah -- that's what I suggested in the first place. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
OK, then let's compromise on a 135-knot fixed gear plane -- it will do the occasional 400nm flights better than a 120-knot plane, but cost a lot less to own and operate than the 150-knot retractable. :wink2:

Oh, yeah -- that's what I suggested in the first place. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, but after 2 years, he's gonna want to go 155-160. Might as well get it first. :goofy:
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but after 2 years, he's gonna want to go 155-160. Might as well get it first. :goofy:
Click to expand...

Then a Mooney M20J/201 would be a good choice.

I don't know if 20 more knots than the Tiger is worth the extra cost for a need every other month. However, all planes are wild cards, even fixed gear, fixed prop planes. So, you just never know. He could get a great 201 that's low cost to maintain, and get a dog of a Tiger that cost bing bucks to keep flying.

As Ron likes to say, choose wisely. All I know is planes like the Tiger fulfill 90% of people's flying needs.
 
Anthony said:
Then a Mooney M20J/201 would be a good choice.

I don't know if 20 more knots than the Tiger is worth the extra cost for a need every other month. However, all planes are wild cards, even fixed gear, fixed prop planes. So, you just never know. He could get a great 201 that's low cost to maintain, and get a dog of a Tiger that cost bing bucks to keep flying.

As Ron likes to say, choose wisely. All I know is planes like the Tiger fulfill 90% of people's flying needs.
Click to expand...


And with the Mooney he won't need a 12,000' runway at sea level. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
OK, then let's compromise on a 135-knot fixed gear plane -- it will do the occasional 400nm flights better than a 120-knot plane, but cost a lot less to own and operate than the 150-knot retractable. :wink2:

Oh, yeah -- that's what I suggested in the first place. :D
Click to expand...

In a day of $5+ a gallon gas, it will not save over the retractable. The higher the price of fuel gets, the more value small efficiencies hold. I can't imagine anyone who planned on using a plane for travel accepting fixed gear.
 
Henning said:
The higher the price of fuel gets, the more value small efficiencies hold. I can't imagine anyone who planned on using a plane for travel accepting fixed gear.
Click to expand...
Leaving Cirrus aside for a moment, you know that Cessna announced that they will announce a new Corvalis, right? Now I'm wondering if they are going to roll out a retractable Corvalis this Friday. Please feel free to feel very smug when they do.
-- Pete
 
Anthony said:
Then a Mooney M20J/201 would be a good choice.

I don't know if 20 more knots than the Tiger is worth the extra cost for a need every other month. However, all planes are wild cards, even fixed gear, fixed prop planes. So, you just never know. He could get a great 201 that's low cost to maintain, and get a dog of a Tiger that cost bing bucks to keep flying.

As Ron likes to say, choose wisely. All I know is planes like the Tiger fulfill 90% of people's flying needs providing they set their standards sufficiently low.
Click to expand...

FTFY:D
 
weilke said:
We get it, you REALLY want to sell that plane, sheesh.
Click to expand...

I have nothing to do with selling this aircraft, I don't even know who owns it.

but show me a better aircraft for the OP to finish his PPL and do the trips he outlined.

It's the best equipped C-177 I can find in the 3 big web pages. and it is with in his budget, and we all know the 75K is the asking price.

The OP as a student pilot, and first aircraft, I can't think of a better choice.

the 177 isn't a perfect aircraft but I can't think of a better choice than this aircraft, for this mission.
 
Tom-D said:
I have nothing to do with selling this aircraft, I don't even know who owns it.
Click to expand...

I have lost count, but you must have posted this plane the 3rd or 4th time in this thread. Why, unless you have an interest in getting it sold, would you do that ?
 
Tom-D said:
I have nothing to do with selling this aircraft, I don't even know who owns it.

but show me a better aircraft for the OP to finish his PPL and do the trips he outlined.

It's the best equipped C-177 I can find in the 3 big web pages. and it is with in his budget, and we all know the 75K is the asking price.

The OP as a student pilot, and first aircraft, I can't think of a better choice.

the 177 isn't a perfect aircraft but I can't think of a better choice than this aircraft, for this mission.
Click to expand...


177RG... The 177 is a sleak aircraft, no sense in leaving the legs down and dirty.
 
Ron Levy said:
OK, then let's compromise on a 135-knot fixed gear plane -- it will do the occasional 400nm flights better than a 120-knot plane, but cost a lot less to own and operate than the 150-knot retractable. :wink2:
Click to expand...

On a per hour or per mile basis? Per hour, sure. Per mile? I'd doubt the savings is as much as people who have insufficient levers would like to believe.
 
EdFred said:
And with the Mooney he won't need a 12,000' runway at sea level. :D
Click to expand...


Yes, but the 12,000 ft allows us to porpoise down the runway in PIO until we can bleed off sufficient airspeed to land. Because you know these Grummans are dangerous and you need to keep that airspeed on final sufficiently high in order to not immediately stall, spin and die.

:D


Yes, OP, I am kidding!
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Just think, it could be a 150kt retract that didn't look like it was a kids toy....:wink2:
Click to expand...

...unless it's a Grumman.
Click to expand...


All things being equal, I'll take the extra 15 or so knots over similarly powered Cessnas and Pipers and the 60 - 70 knots over the Beech Sundowner :D that the Tiger gives you. Plus the sliding canpoy, crisp handling, folding back seats, ramp appeal (kid's toy, huh?) I get more positive comments and inquiries about the Tiger at fly ins or gas stops than most.

Most of the negatives you hear about them are OWT and pretty much caused by pure JEALOUSY. :D

The Tiger is not a retract, but yet it keeps coming up in Mooney and other retract threads. Hmmmm.....
 
Anthony said:
The Tiger is not a retract, but yet it keeps coming up in Mooney and other retract threads. Hmmmm.....
Click to expand...

That's because you Grumman owners are trying to compensate for something. ;)

I've never flown a Grumman and I'm sure that it flies just fine, much like most other aircraft. But it ain't a Mooney F/J or a Comanche 250, which I still think is the OP's best bet.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's because you Grumman owners are trying to compensate for something. ;)
Click to expand...


You mean the need for some to have more levers to play with? If that is true, then twin drivers seem to have the most, ahem issues.....:D

I agree on the M20J, Comanche or modified M20F also if long distances are regularly flown. Droning along for hour after hour, arms folded looking at the gauges and replaying engine out procedures in your head isn't my ideas of fun. The extra speed reduces that.
 
Anthony said:
You mean the need for some to have more levers to play with? If that is true, then twin drivers seem to have the most, ahem issues.....:D
Click to expand...

We have more levers because we can handle it. You want the levers? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE LEVERS! :D

I agree on the M20J, Comanche or modified M20F also if long distances are regularly flown. Droning along for hour after hour, arms folded looking at the gauges and replaying engine out procedures in your head isn't my ideas of fun. The extra speed reduces that.
Click to expand...

This is why I differentiate between trying to get from A to B, and just wanting to spend time in the sky. Fixed gear, fixed pitch singles are great if you want to be in the sky. If you're trying to get from A to B, there's a reason retracts were invented. I realize the SR20/SR22 are somewhat exceptions because of their very aerodynamic fixed gear, but I don't think my feelings on those planes are a secret.
 
Grumman owners don't even notice the time they spend in the air. They don't notice much else either, since their brains have long since been fried by sitting in those bubbles.

Anthony said:
You mean the need for some to have more levers to play with? If that is true, then twin drivers seem to have the most, ahem issues.....:D

I agree on the M20J, Comanche or modified M20F also if long distances are regularly flown. Droning along for hour after hour, arms folded looking at the gauges and replaying engine out procedures in your head isn't my ideas of fun. The extra speed reduces that.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Grumman owners don't even notice the time they spend in the air. They don't notice much else either, since their brains have long since been fried by sitting in those bubbles.
Click to expand...
Something to watch out for on those Diamond DA-40 pilots?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top