Advice of first airplane

helipilot77

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
2
Display Name

Display name:
helipilot77
Hello all,

I am looking to purchase my first airplane. It will be used to complete my instrument and commercial training as well as to take my wife and myself on trips to visit friends and family. Whatever I get I want to keep for many years (20+). I live in Las Vegas and will be flying to Northern Nevada, Oregon, Arizona and California. I need something that can handle the high DA in this area in the summer. I'd love a C182, but can't find one within my price range that already has an avionics package suitable for IFR training, let alone flying in actual instrument conditions. So what I have found that might work are a Grumman Tiger, C177 or a C172. I'd also consider the Piper Cherokee/Archer or Beech super mouse, but the thought of taxiing around in the Vegas heat in one of those is a little off putting. I am just wondering if anyone has any advice on these aircraft and how they perform in the high, hot desert.

Just for reference of my experience, most of my fixed wing time has been in a C172, with a little time in a Cherokee 180.
 
Buy the biggest engine you can afford, and look for a decent useful load (so you can fly it light and still carry something).

As an example, in your situation I would be looking for a Piper Dakota/235 instead of an Archer/180, or a 182 over a 172/177.
 
In the spirit of: Fly what I have! The Turbo Lance is lovely.

That said, Turbo-anything is handy for some of the MEAs around here.

A four-seat airplane makes a decent two-person bird. A six-seat makes an even better one!
 
There is a problem with the Tiger, I know because I bought a Tiger to finish my PPL and then my wife used it to get hers. We probably put 3-400 hrs on the Tiger before we bought our Cirrus. The biggest problem is that once you've flown a Tiger almost everything else will be a make you wish you still had the Tiger. Sure the Cirrus is fast and comfortable but for the shear fun of flying it doesn't compare. The 182 is like driving a 1986 Ford F250 compared to the Tiger which is more akin to a 1979 Porsche 911 in the sky. 14 years later, the Cirrus is gone and so is the Cessna. We are back in a Tiger and couldn't be happier. 10 GPH, reasonable annuals, strong owners association helping to keep repair costs down, 135+ knots, cat like reflexes :) Then again, I might be biased
 
Cessna 182! or a 172 with a 180 hp conversion and constant speed prop. The original 150 hp C-177 will not have good climb performance with four on board. Turbo is nice but not as economical as non-turbos when considering shortened engine life and more maintenance.

I would find the Tiger interesting but I do not have any experience with one.
 
I can’t think of better plane to taxi in the heat than a Grumman - open the canopy a bit and enjoy the cooling effect of the big fan upfront.
 
Thanks for the advice so far. I really do appreciate it. As far as a C172 or 177 goes, I'd only get one with the 180hp engine. I wouldn't waste my time on a 150hp engine out here. I have been trying to find a good compromise of performance and comfort within my price range, which is about $70K. It seems like I can easily find a cherokee/archer 180 in that range with a good avionics package, but as stated earlier, I am scared I'd come to regret buying a cherokee once I have to taxi around in the summer. It also seems anytime a C172 has 180hp engine, it is selling for the same price as a C182. I thought maybe the 177b would be a good compromise between the 172 and 182. I like the way it looks, the large doors, good visibility and seems like it would be comfortable to fly (I've never been in one). What I don't know is how it performs in a hot and high environment. If anyone has flown one out here, please fill me in on how they perform.
I really like the Tiger. Had a friend take me up in one a few weeks ago and I love how responsive the controls are. Having flown helicopters for the past 15 years, I am used to responsive control inputs and I liked that about the Tiger. I like the speed they get and fuel burn comparable to a cherokee or 172. They seem simple enough and there are places out there that specialize in Grumman so there is support for them. Not comparable support to Piper or Cessna, but what does?
Things I know for sure I do not want are:
Retractable gear, more than 4 seats or a major project plane. I need to keep insurance costs reasonable. I'm already getting jacked since I only have about 40 hours of fixed wing time. Insurance doesn't care that I have a commercial and instrument helicopter rating.
Any other advice you guys have for me, keep it coming. As most of you probably have experienced, shopping for my first plane is both frustrating and exciting.
 
I thought maybe the 177b would be a good compromise between the 172 and 182. I like the way it looks, the large doors, good visibility and seems like it would be comfortable to fly (I've never been in one). What I don't know is how it performs in a hot and high environment. If anyone has flown one out here, please fill me in on how they perform.

Paging @PaulMillner.
 
Thanks for the advice so far. I really do appreciate it. As far as a C172 or 177 goes, I'd only get one with the 180hp engine.
You know the C172 goes up to 210hp, right? ;)
 
It can be hot in the summer in the 182 but at least we're in the shade and have doors on both sides. With both doors open you get plenty of cooling from the prop. Someone above mentioned the Dakota/Pathfinder. Also very nice planes with good power and constant speed prop.

One gotcha to the 182 is that there are several years where only the pilot side window opens - hence the comment about propping both doors open.

I would think at your DA's plus you are trying to buy your 20+ year plane - focus on something with a constant speed prop and try get something over 200hp. Looking back at over 20 flightaware tracks our average ground speed in the 182 is 149mph at just under 11gph. The Dakota pilot that often joins us on breakfast runs is usually +/- 3mph. I think we are both dialed back a bit. Not sure about the Dakota/Pathfinder but the 182 holds almost 80 gallons. When you want to be 10% under MTOW in high DA, leaving off 30gal is 180lbs of the 300lbs so lots of flexibility with the fuel vs useful load. You should see about 450fpm climb in a stock, carb'd, non-turbo 182 at DA=10000.

Cardinals have great cabins/doors. Not sure how many are flown regularly at high DA's?
 
I thought maybe the 177B would be a good compromise between the 172 and 182... What I don't know is how it performs in a hot and high environment.

I have about 5,000 hours in Cardinals, including a decade and 1500 hours in my first Cardinal, a normally aspirated FG (which I later turbocharged). Given the laminar flow wing design, you want to stay on the forward side of the lift/drag curve... stay on the ground or in ground effect until accelerating to the POH climb speeds, and it performs well. Don't overload!

www.cardinalflyers.com Take a look at the model comparisons, and the prebuy info.

Paul
 
Low price, high power, and sophisticated avionics for cheap does not compute.

Oh, and I don't care what airplane it is, it's going to be hot taxiing around someplace humans weren't meant to live in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Even decent 177's are getting expensive. People realized the cost delta between 182 and 172 were converging but the prices were going up. Even Dakota's have gotten expensive. Maybe look at a Maule?
 
There is a problem with the Tiger, I know because I bought a Tiger to finish my PPL and then my wife used it to get hers. We probably put 3-400 hrs on the Tiger before we bought our Cirrus. The biggest problem is that once you've flown a Tiger almost everything else will be a make you wish you still had the Tiger. Sure the Cirrus is fast and comfortable but for the shear fun of flying it doesn't compare. The 182 is like driving a 1986 Ford F250 compared to the Tiger which is more akin to a 1979 Porsche 911 in the sky. 14 years later, the Cirrus is gone and so is the Cessna. We are back in a Tiger and couldn't be happier. 10 GPH, reasonable annuals, strong owners association helping to keep repair costs down, 135+ knots, cat like reflexes :) Then again, I might be biased

I learned on 172s, and my club has a 150, 172, 182 and a Tiger. The Tiger is my favorite though. It’s an amazing aircraft. You should fly to utah sometimes. Lots of beautiful scenery this way.
 
If your ready to go complex, which i imagine you are, i'll throw the comanche 250 or 260 in the ring. Usually find them with 12000lbs useful load and excellent climb performance. With 2 on board i always see 1500 + climb in my 260B. Can be found for 50-100k.
 
@Lowflynjack (Jack Fleetwood) makes everything he photographs look great. For the Sedona shoot he used a 182, so I'm not sure why anyone would think a 182 shouldn't be considered for aerial photography.
Because Jack’s photography is different than mine, but I do know others using them. I just know how much I miss the Cardinal any time I have to shoot with a strut. And yeah that may make me a .
 
285HP,
160+ knots
Good IFR panel

$49,900.

ca41640ab971a85a043719eed616169c.jpg


I did my IFR in my 1989 Super Viking. Great plane for IFR, and great value.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?s-type=aircraft&listing_id=2358153

Note, I’m not affiliated with this seller, and I know nothing about this specific plane. I have been, however, a very satisfied Viking owner for the past 8 years. It’s taken my wife and me on lots of great trips.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I have about 5,000 hours in Cardinals, including a decade and 1500 hours in my first Cardinal, a normally aspirated FG (which I later turbocharged). Given the laminar flow wing design, you want to stay on the forward side of the lift/drag curve... stay on the ground or in ground effect until accelerating to the POH climb speeds, and it performs well. Don't overload!

www.cardinalflyers.com Take a look at the model comparisons, and the prebuy info.

Paul
LOL - Paul - literally just clicked over from the article about you turbocharging your FG on CFO! I have to know how long the engine lasted. Did you keep it to TBO?
 
A lightly loaded 4-place will have decent performance. If not loading a Tiger to the gills, it will give you good speed, decent takeoff performance, excellent cooling on the ground with the open canopy, and low maintenance costs. Even my AA-5 with the high compression STC will perform well with 2 adults and baggage.

The trick is determining how much plane you want to/can afford to both purchase and maintain for your typical mission, and having enough resources to install or replace avionics to make it both fun and safe to fly that mission.
 
Because Jack’s photography is different than mine, but I do know others using them. I just know how much I miss the Cardinal any time I have to shoot with a strut. And yeah that may make me a .
Yeah, the strut is a minor nuisance.
 
Do you require >2 seats?
 
LOL - Paul - literally just clicked over from the article about you turbocharging your FG on CFO! I have to know how long the engine lasted. Did you keep it to TBO?

I turbo'd my FG in 1992... there was a learning curve, getting the carb set up correctly, improving cylinder cooling... one trick that's now referred to as the "Braly" mod, that the late Walter Atkinson helped me implement. I flew N67MM for six years after that, until I moved on to a turbo'd Cardinal RG. The airplane put about 1,000 hours on its engine in that time, and the engine had about 500 on it already IIRC when we did the turbo. AFAIK that engine is still operating in that airplane, two owners later.
 
Buy a 150. Less is more. Don't buy into the American hype of "bigger is better." Go lean, go light, log lots of hours plodding along at 5pgh.
The 150 is a nice plane, I fly one often. I don't think it is the best for hot & high altitude airports with a passenger.
 
If your mission is typically 2 people plus luggage, and AA-5 or AA-5A with the high compression STC is an option. That will get you 115-130 kt depending on model and prop at 8 gph. A large fraction of the AA-5 and AA-5A fleet has been upgraded in power with the high compression STC. These models, especially the AA-5, do not command the same high prices of the AA-5B. If flying in high and or hot conditions, I would not plan on flying any aircraft at MGW. Run at partial load and get a lot of extra performance.
 
for Cherokee / archer ... you can taxi around with the door slightly open.. just saying :p
 
Back
Top