Buy/Sell decision?

[JOhnH]

I bought a very nice Cessna 172n last year. It is beautiful inside and out. It has a Garmin 496, a JPI700 engine monitor, Zaon Collision avoidance system, new transponder, two new nav/com units (dual VOR w glide slope). New Intercom, It has a new paint job, all new plastic windows and all new interior leather. It really is beautiful. It has a spin-on oil filter and those fancy quick release cowling bolts and lots of extra goodies. It has been meticulously maintained and it has just came out of a fresh annual. It gets about 8.5gph.

BUT, it does have 1750 hours on it PenYan 180 conversion engine, and it burns a lot of oil. (about 1 qt every 1.5 hours). The engine monitor reports #4 cylinder head temp gets high (~450) during climb-outs. An older approach GPS (I forget the type but it was a good one in it's day) can no longer be updated because the memory card can't hold all the data.

It only make about 110kts IAS at 75% power. I would like something a little faster with more range. My wife and I fly together and combined weigh in at around 400# (mostly me). Useful load is 811# w full fuel. We very rarely take passengers up but it happens. We plan a trip form Daytona Beach to Catalina Island (CA) in October. We have made trips to Atlanta Key west, Asheville NC and New Orleans so far. All but New Orleans was a one-day/one-way trip and we would like to extend our daily range.

I am considering an engine rebuild ($20 to $25k) plus about $15k in avionics (430W w new 106A direction deviation indicator and a new audio panel).

I owe about $58k on this plane and with the planned upgrades would have over $100k in it. And I would still have a 33 yr old Cessna 172.

I have been window shopping but anything that looks as good (very few) and has better specs cost so much more. I would probably have to spend around $150k to get something that would be appreciably better. And everything that I have looked at that I really like costs upward of $200k. I just don't think I could bring myself to buy an airplane that is worth more than my house.

I know that nobody can tell me what I want or can afford, but can you offer opinions on the upgrade path vs the buy/sell (or rather sell/buy) strategy? And maybe suggest better avionics upgrades.
(sorry this was so long).
Thanks
John

 

[poadeleted20]

First, don't put another dime in the plane unless you're planning to keep it -- you generally recover only 50 cents on the dollar for upgrades and improvements, and with the increasingly "gotta have it" attitude towards 430's and similar GPS's in the used market today for planes like yours, you might not even get that for the cost of upgrading to an operational IFR GPS. Second, given the amount you've got in it, you may well be "underwater" (owing more on it than it would bring if sold) on this one, so trading up could be very expensive. Frankly, I would have advised strongly against doing all the upgrades it sounds like you already did (interior, paint, windows, etc, unless they were part of the plane when you bought it) unless you were certain this plane was a keeper. And it sure sounds like this engine is giving you all the warnings of a serious and increasing need for major overhaul (a "top" at this point would be a false economy), so selling it probably means taking a bath on it as the new owner will have to drop $20K or so into it immediately, while doing a $20K overhaul before sale is unlikely to add even half that $20K to its value.

Whew. Tough situation.

All in all, I think you have to decide right now if you're willing to take a major bath on a trade-up to something faster (just what is it that costs $150-200K that interests you so much?) or live with this plane's performance for the next 5-7 years or more. And that's not a decision we can make for you, although a zero-based budgeting analysis (considering everything you have in it to be "sunk cost" and valuing only future costs versus future utility) might the way to look at it.

 

[nyoung]

Easy one. First, unless you're absolutely in love with a plane (and never plan on selling it) upgrading is typically not a good financial move.

In your post, you reference wanting more speed. All the upgrades in the world aren't going to help a 172 go much faster (and you've already got the 180hp version).

So, I say sell the 172 and buy something faster. If you're willing to give up the 10/10 P&I, there are plenty of Mooneys, Bonanzas and 210s for $100k. $150k will be a really nicely equipped/maintained one. $200k will buy something pristine.

And last, remember, that the prices on TAP, aso, and controller.com are just asking prices. It is still very much a buyers market.

I bought a very nice Cessna 172n last year. It is beautiful inside and out. It has a Garmin 496, a JPI700 engine monitor, Zaon Collision avoidance system, new transponder, two new nav/com units (dual VOR w glide slope). New Intercom, It has a new paint job, all new plastic windows and all new interior leather. It really is beautiful. It has a spin-on oil filter and those fancy quick release cowling bolts and lots of extra goodies. It has been meticulously maintained and it has just came out of a fresh annual. It gets about 8.5gph.

BUT, it does have 1750 hours on it PenYan 180 conversion engine, and it burns a lot of oil. (about 1 qt every 1.5 hours). The engine monitor reports #4 cylinder head temp gets high (~450) during climb-outs. An older approach GPS (I forget the type but it was a good one in it's day) can no longer be updated because the memory card can't hold all the data.

It only make about 110kts IAS at 75% power. I would like something a little faster with more range. My wife and I fly together and combined weigh in at around 400# (mostly me). Useful load is 811# w full fuel. We very rarely take passengers up but it happens. We plan a trip form Daytona Beach to Catalina Island (CA) in October. We have made trips to Atlanta Key west, Asheville NC and New Orleans so far. All but New Orleans was a one-day/one-way trip and we would like to extend our daily range.

I am considering an engine rebuild ($20 to $25k) plus about $15k in avionics (430W w new 106A direction deviation indicator and a new audio panel).

I owe about $58k on this plane and with the planned upgrades would have over $100k in it. And I would still have a 33 yr old Cessna 172.

I have been window shopping but anything that looks as good (very few) and has better specs cost so much more. I would probably have to spend around $150k to get something that would be appreciably better. And everything that I have looked at that I really like costs upward of $200k. I just don't think I could bring myself to buy an airplane that is worth more than my house.

I know that nobody can tell me what I want or can afford, but can you offer opinions on the upgrade path vs the buy/sell (or rather sell/buy) strategy? And maybe suggest better avionics upgrades.
(sorry this was so long).
Thanks
John

 

[JOhnH]

You both make a lot of sense.

>>>Frankly, I would have advised strongly against doing all the upgrades it sounds like you already did (interior, paint, windows, etc, unless they were part of the plane when you bought it)<<<

Everything was put in by the previous owner. He bought it cheap and really went whole hog upgrading before he decided he wanted something faster too. That is why I bought it. He had over $90k in it and sold it t me for $66k. All I have put in so far is gas and oil.

 

[SCCutler]

Post pictures and details on equipment - needed to better assess and advise.

 

[poadeleted20]

Everything was put in by the previous owner. He bought it cheap and really went whole hog upgrading before he decided he wanted something faster too. That is why I bought it. He had over $90k in it and sold it t me for $66k.

That should be the best possible example of what will happen to you if you add more and then sell it. But you still haven't said what you want.

 

[Exocetid]

It gets about 8.5gph.
about 1 qt every 1.5 hours
It only make about 110kts IAS at 75% power
I owe about $58k on this plane and with the planned upgrades would have over $100k in it. And I would still have a 33 yr old Cessna 172.

Wow, I do not want to rub salt in a wound, but...

My Mooney gets about 9 GPH and burns about 0.5 qt/hr (less than Lyc spec)

I can easily cruise at 140 KTS and generally I am up near Vne at 165 KTS.

My plane is IFR cert with precision ILS.

I paid significantly less than $58K. Yes, my plane is 44 YO, but then, Cessna years are not like Mooney years :smile:

Might want to cut your losses and move to something else. But all this is just noise--what is your mission?

 

[alaskaflyer]

I am someone who likes everything to be nice-looking and in working order. It is always tough to resist upgrading this and that, even knowing that I will move on to another plane too soon. This is a common syndrome in aircraft owners. Get everything just the way you want it, then sell it losing your ass in the process and buy something else

On the other hand, some things like inertia reel shoulder harnesses and a 406mhz ELT were no-brainers for an airplane that I am going to keep for any amount of time. That, and good engine maintenance

 

[JOhnH]

Post pictures and details on equipment - needed to better assess and advise.

I hope to get some pictures up this weekend.

'Wow, I do not want to rub salt in a wound, but...

That wound has already scarred over. This was my first airplane and it was a learning experience. We are considering a Moony but we would like something with a little more elbow room.

But you still haven't said what you want.

Might want to cut your losses and move to something else. But all this is just noise--what is your mission?

Whether I should cut my losses is the whole point of this post. I am ready and willing to do that if necessary but it is not a simple decision. Although part of my posting is to convince myself it is time for that.
I want to extend my daily range so that we can go farther and get home without taking a couple of weeks off of work.
I want a RELIABLE airplane that doesn't always need tinkering. (In a previous life I rode old motorcycles and had old boats. I am tired of being my own mechanic). I want to be sure that if I go somewhere, I will come back on schedule (weather permitting).
And I want something that LOOKS good.

Primarily, I love flying and I want a plane that I can enjoy.

 

[SkyHog]

Most irritating question ever when it comes to these types of posts:

"What is your mission?"

Not every decision must, or even should be based around a specific mission profile. For example, if my mission is thus:

1. I want to fly.
2. I want to land.

Then mission is unnecessary.

Now - if you have a mission? Sweet, find a plane that fits it!

 

[alaskaflyer]

Not every decision must, or even should be based around a specific mission profile. For example, if my mission is thus:

1. I want to fly.
2. I want to land.

Then mission is unnecessary.

If a decision is to be made about how one is going to fly and land (short of being propelled via air cannon, or leaping from Dead Horse Point), then a mission needs to analyzed and stated - however briefly - if one wants advice from one's peers about what to do regarding aircraft. Even if it is only involving how many seats will be filled while one is flying and landing.

Now, some people just want what they want, mission be darned. Just like how some day I want a Staggerwing.

 

[JOhnH]

Most irritating question ever when it comes to these types of posts:

"What is your mission?"

Not every decision must, or even should be based around a specific mission profile. For example, if my mission is thus:

1. I want to fly.
2. I want to land.

Then mission is unnecessary.

Now - if you have a mission? Sweet, find a plane that fits it!

You are very right of course. And I think you understand me and my question well,

BUT

When I was new to POA, (not that long ago) I took offense to some of the questions or opinions (or even jokes) that were offered. But after reading the posts here for about a year, I have learned that most people are really trying to help. In the vacuum of cyberspace, we have no body language or facial tics to help us understand each other, and it can be difficult to get your real meaning across, or to judge other's real meanings. It is easy to wonder why people don't understand what I am really thinking or what I really mean or what I want. Isn't it OBVIOUS? Well, No. It is not obvious.

I think all the questions have been most appropriate and I appreciate them all. Especially the one rubbing the salt into my wounded billfold. Nothing like a challenge to make one think.

That said, my mission is to allow my wife and me to enjoy flying together whenever and wherever we want without worrying about getting lost or stranded. She is 53 and I am 57. I would like to retire in about 3 or 4 years, but if I have to work an extra year or three to pay for a plane and expenses, so be it. After all, I hear that 60 is the new 59.

 

[alaskaflyer]

John, when trying to read your mind based on your posts above :smile: it seems as though your mission has exceeded this airplane, if indeed this airplane ever fit it in the first place.

One decision done. Now, wasn't that easy?

Now the only considerations are how much money do you want to throw down the gold-plated toilet bowl of aviation at this point, and what do you hope to gain at the end of this latest flushing? We are a group that suffers not from a shortage of opinions, all we need from you is a little more to hang them on.

Start us out with a possible upgrade to a middle-aged 182, and before we're finished we'll have you in a pressurized twin.

BTW it wasn't long ago that I was asking myself similar questions, facing an unplanned overhaul. I chose to bite the bullet and pour money into the existing airplane even though some day I will need/want something else. It still fit my mission at that time and I was going to be out $ no matter what.

 

[SkyHog]

You are very right of course. And I think you understand me and my question well,

BUT

When I was new to POA, (not that long ago) I took offense to some of the questions or opinions (or even jokes) that were offered. But after reading the posts here for about a year, I have learned that most people are really trying to help. In the vacuum of cyberspace, we have no body language or facial tics to help us understand each other, and it can be difficult to get your real meaning across, or to judge other's real meanings. It is easy to wonder why people don't understand what I am really thinking or what I really mean or what I want. Isn't it OBVIOUS? Well, No. It is not obvious.

I think all the questions have been most appropriate and I appreciate them all. Especially the one rubbing the salt into my wounded billfold. Nothing like a challenge to make one think.

That said, my mission is to allow my wife and me to enjoy flying together whenever and wherever we want without worrying about getting lost or stranded. She is 53 and I am 57. I would like to retire in about 3 or 4 years, but if I have to work an extra year or three to pay for a plane and expenses, so be it. After all, I hear that 60 is the new 59.

I mean no offense to those trying to help.

I honestly think that some people get hung up on "mission" too much, when it may not matter at all.

Honestly, while I'd like to go 140 knots and travel 3-4 hours at a time, I'd also take 75 knots and travel for an hour at a time if I could afford the plane.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I mean no offense to those trying to help.

I honestly think that some people get hung up on "mission" too much, when it may not matter at all.

Honestly, while I'd like to go 140 knots and travel 3-4 hours at a time, I'd also take 75 knots and travel for an hour at a time if I could afford the plane.

Why do most people (who buy a 172) buy a 172?

I know what you are saying. I also know that I would like a short-field 180-knot airplane burning 9.5gph with a high wing and sturdy landing gear for off-airport use, for less than 100k, that can be insured for less than a fortune. Four seats. IFR.

Since I can't have that I bought a 170. *Shrug*

 

[SkyHog]

Why do most people (who buy a 172) buy a 172?

Do you want my honest opinion, or do you want me to answer something along the lines of "It fits their mission?"

Because the honest, most likely answer is that people are familiar with them, and they don't like to take risks.

Or - they found one cheap, and it allows them to fly.

Or - they thought it was pretty.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Do you want my honest opinion, or do you want me to answer something along the lines of "It fits their mission?"

Because the honest, most likely answer is that people are familiar with them, and they don't like to take risks.

Or - they found one cheap, and it allows them to fly.

Or - they thought it was pretty.

Most of the time it probably doesn't fit the mission, actually, which is what I am getting at. Did it fit the OP mission when he bought his? Now look at the situation he is in

Which is why a bunch of really smart people always irritate you by asking "what is the mission."

 

[jesse]

Do you want my honest opinion, or do you want me to answer something along the lines of "It fits their mission?"

Because the honest, most likely answer is that people are familiar with them, and they don't like to take risks.

Or - they found one cheap, and it allows them to fly.

Or - they thought it was pretty.

For the money - they're really not a bad airplane. They shortfield well. They can do IFR. They can carry three normal people.

You're not going to find a lot of certified airplanes that can do what a 172 can do for less money. You might be able to pickup a Cherokee for less - but I'd rather fly the Cessna. (It should be illegal to stick an adult in the back of most Cherokees).

 

[Everskyward]

I honestly think that some people get hung up on "mission" too much, when it may not matter at all.

Maybe if the OP had thought about it more he wouldn't be in the situation that he's in now, with an airplane that is too slow for his mission. When people are going to be spending tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousand of dollars on a tool it's probably good to think about what they want it to do first.

 

[wabower]

Dude said he's just a biscuit shy of 300. Why in hell would he want a Mooney?

Wow, I do not want to rub salt in a wound, but...

My Mooney gets about 9 GPH and burns about 0.5 qt/hr (less than Lyc spec)

I can easily cruise at 140 KTS and generally I am up near Vne at 165 KTS.

My plane is IFR cert with precision ILS.

I paid significantly less than $58K. Yes, my plane is 44 YO, but then, Cessna years are not like Mooney years :smile:

Might want to cut your losses and move to something else. But all this is just noise--what is your mission?

 

[wabower]

Whatever his mission is (or isn't), he's obviously decided a 172 isn't what he wants to own to do it.

Most irritating question ever when it comes to these types of posts:

"What is your mission?"

Not every decision must, or even should be based around a specific mission profile. For example, if my mission is thus:

1. I want to fly.
2. I want to land.

Then mission is unnecessary.

Now - if you have a mission? Sweet, find a plane that fits it!

 

[alaskaflyer]

For the money - they're really not a bad airplane. They shortfield well. They can do IFR. They can carry three normal people.

You're not going to find a lot of certified airplanes that can do what a 172 can do for less money. ).

I don't disagree with this and if that is what you really need (as opposed to doing any one or two of those things with better capability) then one could do much worse. But I think some purchasers should see that some of the disadvantages of a 172 outweigh all of these other attributes, for THEM.

 

[flyersfan31]

I agree with Jesse. 172 is a capable all-around plane.

I agree with Ron - what on Earth are you looking for that $150k is the min buy-in???

A 182 would be an upgrade on capability (load, climb). A Mooney would be an upgrade on speed. A Tiger would be an upgrade on speed, without the complex rating and somewhat higher insurance. None of those upgrades would cost $150k for a prime example.

I agree with everyone else -- what are you looking for, performance-wise?

 

[SCCutler]

Buy a Bonanza, that's what you'll end up wanting anyway.

 

[Steve]

182

you're not getting any younger

and lose a few biscuits...for more flying time

 

[GMascelli]

Buy a Bonanza, that's what you'll end up wanting anyway.

Not bad, it only took 24 posts But the Bo sure would be sweet!

We bought a Beech Sundowner this past October. I wanted P&I in excellent shape, very low time engine hours and Garmin 430/530. We found it, bought it and enjoy flying it.

Do I wish it was faster, you bet! We are in the same useful load range around 810lbs which due to my “few biscuits to many" only allows us 3 adults on board with 40 gallons. It's roomy very comfortable and in great shape.

Everyone keeps getting back to mission for a reason, what fits your needs. As for upgrading, I'm more of the devil you know type then wanting a change. How much speed are you going to buy and at what cost? On our end we agreed that comfort was the major factor over speed, this is our getaway transportation which makes it fun. With our tanks full (57) and just the Bride and I with bags we can cruise along for 4 hours......hell, as I get older I’m not sure the bladder can make it that long anyway.

I'm not sure anything I added is a help, especially after re-reading this long winded post without my morning cup of caffeine. Good luck with your decision. I would be making the pro/con list for every scenario and reviewing many times.

 

[ebetancourt]

This is an interesting market. Your plane will bring less than you expect but you will buy something for less as well. From the sounds of your engine, you need to do something soon. If you wait for the engine to demand an O/H instead of just asking politely, you will be stuck because you won't get much if anything in this market for the $$$ you spend on the O/H.

I just "traded" a Mooney with a fresh engine for a Waco. Mooney selling price was painful, but the Waco was priced right.

 

[JOhnH]

ok, I have picked up three major points.
1: I probably shouldn't have bought this plane. Nothing I can do about that now.
2. I probably shouldn't sink more money into this plane.
3. I need to put more care and thought and effort into my next plane search.

Actually, I don't know if the original purchase was all that stupid or not. It really is a beautifully restored bird with a lot of upgrades. The avionics are pretty good except it does not have an IFR rated GPS.

I question whether an engine rebuild would add a few kts to the airspeed. If it would, then I would be more inclined to pour more money into it and keep it.

I suppose my original estimate of how much a trade up plane would cost me was inflated after looking at the "pristine" airplanes we saw at Sun-N-Fun.

I want more range but as someone else pointed out, that will need to come from speed because my 57 yr old bladder does not like those 4 hour trips much any more. My wife wants a Moony (did I remind you that SHE is the pilot here). She is going to start on her IFR rating soon, hence the need to consider a panel upgrade. I am not "quite" 300 biscuits, but I am pushing 250 so even if I lose a few, a Moony will still be tight, and that NO PILOTS DOOR door thing on the Moony? What's up with that?

A good 182 may fit the bill, but I would like a little more speed than that.

Overall though, you guys have been very helpful. I have absolutely no pilot friends to talk to and bounce ideas off of except my wife. In fact, my neighbors all HATE pilots because our neighborhood is near the airport and they hate the noise.

We are going to be talking to an IFR flight school soon. If my wife can get her IFR rating in this plane, we may put off the big decision, but if this plane doesn't stack up, then we will have to make a change.

 

[nyoung]

Curious - what altitude(s) do you typically use for cruise?

If you can get up to 7-8000MSL and fly wide open throttle, that 110KIAS @ ~75% means you'll be doing around 125ktas on the same fuel flow. Voila, instant speed upgrade! :smile:

Personally, on long XC's, I love taking the Cherokee to 9,500 or 10,500. Leaned aggressively, the fuel flow goes way down. And even though the engine is probably only making 60% power, with the altitude, the TAS is still reasonable. As long as it isn't a westbound trip into the prevailing winds, it is a great deal.

It only make about 110kts IAS at 75% power

 

[Greg Bockelman]

ok, I have picked up three major points.
1: I probably shouldn't have bought this plane. Nothing I can do about that now.
2. I probably shouldn't sink more money into this plane.
3. I need to put more care and thought and effort into my next plane search.

All good points.

Actually, I don't know if the original purchase was all that stupid or not. It really is a beautifully restored bird with a lot of upgrades. The avionics are pretty good except it does not have an IFR rated GPS.

Well that is a personal observation. If you can get out of it now close to what you have in it, it was an ok thing. If not, only you can decide. :smile:

I question whether an engine rebuild would add a few kts to the airspeed. If it would, then I would be more inclined to pour more money into it and keep it.

If you think an OH will add more than a few knots in cruise speed, I sincerely believe you will be disappointed. It takes a LOT of extra horsepower to notice much increase in speed at all.

I suppose my original estimate of how much a trade up plane would cost me was inflated after looking at the "pristine" airplanes we saw at Sun-N-Fun.

That will do it.

A good 182 may fit the bill, but I would like a little more speed than that.

You will always want a little more of this and a little more of that. I think a 182 is an excellent compromise in all of those things.

In fact, my neighbors all HATE pilots because our neighborhood is near the airport and they hate the noise.

Who was there first?

 

[ron22]

Who was there first?

Yea because we all know that maters.


Back on topic. John is sounds like what I have heard from other first time buyers. You found a plane you liked you bought it. Now are realizing it is not exactly what you want.
Your options now are upgrade it to what you want or buy a new plane.
You can upgrade the avionics to what you want. $$$
For the speed the is not much you can really do about this.

This from a guy that does not own a plane. I just read and talk to others about there planes. So my advise is only worth what you paid $0.00

 

[RMCN172RG]

First I still don't see the stated mission and the first post covers a lot of ground.

That being said here are some observations on plane ownership after a three feet wetting years.

What you own is always a little too slow and small. Not for your normal flying but for the I wish I could use the plane for flying.

To get reasonable price, outstanding performance, state of the art avionics in a modern airframe you are stuck with experimentals. Anything else to be reasonably priced, costs less than a very nice house, is >25 years old.

 

[JOhnH]

First I still don't see the stated mission and the first post covers a lot of ground.

I certainly don't mind answering this question again, but just exactly how specific does my "mission" have to be?

I fly for fun. My wife and I love flying, and we do a fair amount of cross-country flying. We want to be able to go farther in one day than we can now. We want a good looking, reliable, IFR rated air plane. As we get older (and larger), comfort becomes more important. A nice, three day vacation would be to fly for about 5 or 6 hours in two legs, have an enjoyable dinner with a few drinks. Spend the next day being "tourists" and spend about 5 or 6 hours hours flying home the 3rd day. It would be nice if I didn't have to add oil each stop.

We also plan a REAL cross country in October (East Coast of Florida to West Coast of California).

What else do you need to know? Do I need to quantify just how much fun I want? How do I do that. Do I have to set a required minimum speed?

I know you are trying to help, so forgive me for getting frustrated with this question. Maybe my ignorance is showing, but in truth, I don't have a "mission", above what I have stated several times.

Again, I apologize for getting frustrated with the question, I just don't know how to answer it any better. What am I missing?

 

[Dr. O]

JohnH, I am going to be a contrarian here (big surprise - not)... I have been banging around in airplanes longer than many on here have been alive, and thus my brain is ossified, and I am set in my ways - and darned cranky to boot...

The SkyHawk is the finest small GA airplane ever designed... It will haul four full size adults in comfort... It has good visibility for the pilot.. It is stable in flight... The controls are light... And it has a world class heater for cold weather operations...

It costs the least $$ per hour for hauling 4 adults because it is fixed gear, simple systems, and a zillion of them are around for used parts, etc...

The instant you move into a "more capable airplane" ( a highly debatable term) meaning faster (retractable) and more power ($$$), you double your maintenance costs and triple your operating cost per hour... Unless you can also double the cruise for those dollars to 240 knots, you are taking a beating...

And you fly for what? Enjoyment! Because if you fly to 'get there', the airlines have your airplane beat, hands down...
So, what if you could have an airplane that could take your proposed 4 hour flight and turn it into 3.2 hours... Think you would have more fun?
The fun is in the flying trip, not in averaging 40 knots more than you are now...

Now, you have a gorgeous, well equipped airframe with good electronics but a high time engine... It will cost lots of dollars to get another plane and bring it up to the same condition... My best advice to you is to talk to a good engine shop... The guys on here can make a number of recommendations - my druthers would be a fella called Don down in Florida who's business is his name, but the guys will chime in...

Say it does cost $20K to overhaul the engine and accessories - that leaves $130K - from not buying another airplane - for gas and oil until you are an old, old, man... And as far as the mission, folks from my neck of the woods fly Skyhawks from here (Michigan) to Alaska and back, down to Florida for Sun-N-Fun, out to Colorado, and a whole lot of places... You could do a lot worse than fly a Skyhawk until the kids are grown and gone...

denny-o

 

[RMCN172RG]

I certainly don't mind answering this question again, but just exactly how specific does my "mission" have to be?

I fly for fun is your mission then. 5-6 hours is your normal XC flight time which combined with a range would give us spped needed to meet the requirement.

FL-CA is a dream flying vacation and not part of the normal mission.

Your oil consumption problem will be resolved through repair, overhaul or replacement.

My mission was defined as a low cost aircraft and the primary use is to build hours towards the commercial rating, I already had my IR. Typical flights would be practice / local sight seeing, Day X/C for a meal ~2 hours in each direction. The desired long X/C capability was ~600 NM which could be done non-stop with more than legal reserves. The 600 nm time frame was 4-5 hours depending on conditions. Typical load is two people under 400 lbs total weight.

I chose the 172RG versus a straight leg for the increased speed and fuel capacity withthe same payload and fuel consumption.

I also looked at upgrading to support four people and luggage on the same X/C and decided a Lance versus a 182RG for ease of passenger entry. I know my passengers and getting them into the back seat of a Cessna isn't going to happen.

We need those kinds of mission requirements. For fun flying you can't beat the 172.

 

[Trapper John]

I certainly don't mind answering this question again, but just exactly how specific does my "mission" have to be?

I fly for fun. My wife and I love flying, and we do a fair amount of cross-country flying. We want to be able to go farther in one day than we can now. We want a good looking, reliable, IFR rated air plane. As we get older (and larger), comfort becomes more important. A nice, three day vacation would be to fly for about 5 or 6 hours in two legs, have an enjoyable dinner with a few drinks. Spend the next day being "tourists" and spend about 5 or 6 hours hours flying home the 3rd day. It would be nice if I didn't have to add oil each stop.

We also plan a REAL cross country in October (East Coast of Florida to West Coast of California).

What else do you need to know? Do I need to quantify just how much fun I want? How do I do that. Do I have to set a required minimum speed?

I know you are trying to help, so forgive me for getting frustrated with this question. Maybe my ignorance is showing, but in truth, I don't have a "mission", above what I have stated several times.

Again, I apologize for getting frustrated with the question, I just don't know how to answer it any better. What am I missing?

When you fly clear across the country, are you going to need to maintain any kind of schedule? If you do, you'll probably need weather avoidance equipment and depending on the time of year, deice equipment (plus the skills and judgment to use them effectively). These things raise the price of entry and have ongoing maintenance/repair costs.

I can see you not wanting to take a 172 from FL to CA, but I can't really think of any singles I'd want to do that in short of a TBM or Pilatus. I'd be inclined to take the airlines that far and rent something at my destination for sightseeing.

Other people have mentioned 182s and you'd get more, but not mind-blowingly more speed, plus more cabin comfort, in exchange for somewhat higher operating and maintenance cost. A 182RG would add a few more knots for more maintenance/repair cost over a standard 182. At the end of the day, it's all about what your wallet can tolerate, I guess.

 

[Everskyward]

NO PILOTS DOOR door thing on the Moony? What's up with that?

Bonanzas and Cherokees don't have doors on the pilot's side either if that is a consideration.

 

[Everskyward]

I can see you not wanting to take a 172 from FL to CA, but I can't really think of any singles I'd want to do that in short of a TBM or Pilatus.

I think it depends on what the "mission" (haha) of the trip is. If it's just to goof off and sightsee with the knowledge that it might take a while to cross the country, I think the 172 would be fine. It's not like the OP is proposing it as a regular trip. On the other hand, if the destination is the goal then he might want to consider something faster. However, in reality, you need to take a pretty big step up to get anything close to a reliable form of coast to coast transportation.

 

[Trapper John]

I think it depends on what the "mission" (haha) of the trip is. If it's just to goof off and sightsee with the knowledge that it might take a while to cross the country, I think the 172 would be fine. It's not like the OP is proposing it as a regular trip. On the other hand, if the destination is the goal then he might want to consider something faster. However, in reality, you need to take a pretty big step up to get anything close to a reliable form of coast to coast transportation.

That's a very good point. But it sounds like he wants faster, which led me to think that the destination might be more important than the journey.

 

[Exocetid]

Most irritating question ever when it comes to these types of posts:

"What is your mission?"

Not every decision must, or even should be based around a specific mission profile. For example, if my mission is thus:

1. I want to fly.
2. I want to land.

Then mission is unnecessary.

Now - if you have a mission? Sweet, find a plane that fits it!

Wow, the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever seen posted. Get a (aircraft related) mission other than being ______ (fill in blank).

There is a reason it always comes up on these sorts of posts, get with the program.