Corrosion always looks ugly but is not necessarily a major detriment.
Does this picture show corrosion/pitting in a cylinder?
- Thread starter netsurfr
- Start date
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
Well in the tail end of this long drawn out deal more drama and I've had enough so this deal is DEAD. What happened is that once it came time for the seller to have the 2 cylinders pulled to have my A&P inspect (as agreed) he changed direction and started indicating that he would not necessarily agree to fix any problems found that below and that SOME rust in the cam/etc is acceptable. That was it for me so deal is officially dead and there's no going back for me.
It should not be this darn hard to get a deal done and in the end I took some of the comments about paying $140K for a 1979 Dakota and although it had all the goodies I would want I came to the realization that if/when the time came for me to sell it down the road I would have a hard time selling it and not taking a big hit as well.
I've also come to the conclusion that my wife & I will simply be more comfortable w/ a newer airplane and buying an older one and restoring/upgrading will always be a big risk when it comes time to sell it SO back to the drawing board with all this and currently thinking through what plane will meet our mission and desires and here's what I've considered (to keep an open mind)...
Cirrus SR20 - Meets our desire for a newer plane and certainly more comfortable BUT can't carry more than 2/3 adults and climb is an issue as well as very expensive to maintain
Cirrus SR22- Same as above plus EVEN more expensive AND too advanced a plane for me
Diamond DA40 - I rent this plane and love the visibility and comfort in the front seats. It's newer and I can get good avionics w/ them. It's a very "safe" airplane BUT payload is just not there for x-country flights AND it's quite bumpy in turbulence.
Piper Dakota - Last ones made in 94 so some upgrading would have to be done & I see now how much of that money does not get captured back at time of sale.
Cherokee 6 - GREAT comfort but similar issues as Dakota in terms of finding an older one and updating it as we would want
Commander - Very tempting but still some of the issues as above and higher ownership expenses for us due to retract
Newer (2000+) Archer III - GREAT but useful load & climb will be the problem
Finally - A year 2000+ Cessna 182. It has useful load like the Dakota and can find some w/ newer avionics (not G1000 or Aspens, etc... but close) plus comfort will probably be a tad better than Pipers due to the 2 doors and ease of loading vs. going up on the wing
So that's where I'm at now.
It should not be this darn hard to get a deal done and in the end I took some of the comments about paying $140K for a 1979 Dakota and although it had all the goodies I would want I came to the realization that if/when the time came for me to sell it down the road I would have a hard time selling it and not taking a big hit as well.
I've also come to the conclusion that my wife & I will simply be more comfortable w/ a newer airplane and buying an older one and restoring/upgrading will always be a big risk when it comes time to sell it SO back to the drawing board with all this and currently thinking through what plane will meet our mission and desires and here's what I've considered (to keep an open mind)...
Cirrus SR20 - Meets our desire for a newer plane and certainly more comfortable BUT can't carry more than 2/3 adults and climb is an issue as well as very expensive to maintain
Cirrus SR22- Same as above plus EVEN more expensive AND too advanced a plane for me
Diamond DA40 - I rent this plane and love the visibility and comfort in the front seats. It's newer and I can get good avionics w/ them. It's a very "safe" airplane BUT payload is just not there for x-country flights AND it's quite bumpy in turbulence.
Piper Dakota - Last ones made in 94 so some upgrading would have to be done & I see now how much of that money does not get captured back at time of sale.
Cherokee 6 - GREAT comfort but similar issues as Dakota in terms of finding an older one and updating it as we would want
Commander - Very tempting but still some of the issues as above and higher ownership expenses for us due to retract
Newer (2000+) Archer III - GREAT but useful load & climb will be the problem
Finally - A year 2000+ Cessna 182. It has useful load like the Dakota and can find some w/ newer avionics (not G1000 or Aspens, etc... but close) plus comfort will probably be a tad better than Pipers due to the 2 doors and ease of loading vs. going up on the wing
So that's where I'm at now.
Yep, no rust on the cam is acceptable, once it happens, the life span is short. Oh well, move on. Personally I would reconsider a S-35 Bonanza, much easier to fly than a Cherokee anyway. The Cirrus is hard to beat, just understand that the learning curve to the technology is steep and you're going to have to spend a couple hundred hours studying it and probably just as many flying it before you really know it. Make sure the SR-20 meets your load requirements, personally I'd go with a 22 If I was getting one. There has been one constant friend I have had through life that has bailed me out of a lot of tight spots, and that friend is Excess Horsepower. Horsepower=Energy=Options. The 550 is no more expensive to maintain than the Cont 360 and probably will be down less as well.
If a 182 is in your sights, take a look at a Katmai conversion, I think I could pretty much survive landing it anywhere, that's how slow and short you can get it. I tried to stall it by pulling full aft in a steep turn and couldn't. The Canard solves every issue I ever had with a 182 and turns it from a nose heavy work truck to a perfectly balanced unbelievable performing aircraft. Outside of the Bull Thrush with 1430hp, it's the most impressive plane I've flown.
If a 182 is in your sights, take a look at a Katmai conversion, I think I could pretty much survive landing it anywhere, that's how slow and short you can get it. I tried to stall it by pulling full aft in a steep turn and couldn't. The Canard solves every issue I ever had with a 182 and turns it from a nose heavy work truck to a perfectly balanced unbelievable performing aircraft. Outside of the Bull Thrush with 1430hp, it's the most impressive plane I've flown.
Last edited:
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Maybe you've already mentioned it, but where are you in your flying "career" as far as hours and ratings go?
Any particular reason you're not considering a Bonanza?
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
I do like bonanaza BUT I only have 175 hours TT so a bit of a jump for me to go from flying 172s and archers to one plus insurance is quite a jump too. My thinking now is to finish my ifr and build time and experience in a good x-country platform and that will reasonably hold its value and them maybe move up to a boanazaa, sr22 or something similar.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
As someone that has taught numerous people how to fly Bonanzas and such aircraft that had similar total time I think this is a much smaller issue than you imagine. They're not nearly as hard to fly as the old guys that fly them like to convince people. It wouldn't take very long at all to get you up to speed in one.
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
We'd prefer a plane that can carry up to 4 of us w/ enough fuel so on the Cirrus line that's the SR22 and although you can find used one in my price range I hear that maintenance on them is VERY high plus insurance would be 3X of what it would be on a Dakota or 182 I can't go down that road.
Quite a few people told me I should take a good look at 182s but I haven't cause I liked the looks of the Pipers/Bonanzas but there are things I do like about the Cessna 172 I got my PPL in (2 doors, ventilation on ground, cooler in summer) but I also like being able to see the runway while on the pattern with low wings. I'll figure something out...
Quite a few people told me I should take a good look at 182s but I haven't cause I liked the looks of the Pipers/Bonanzas but there are things I do like about the Cessna 172 I got my PPL in (2 doors, ventilation on ground, cooler in summer) but I also like being able to see the runway while on the pattern with low wings. I'll figure something out...
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
I'm sure you're right but I'd still be looking at much higher insurance due to the retractable gear & high performance and 0 time in type plus the added maintenance of retractable gear planes and if I was to go Bonanza I think I'd be looking at the 33s. Like I said it's very tempting though!
poadeleted21
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,332
jesse rode with me in my "new to me Bonanza" across the country when I had similar hours as yourself.
A Bo is the easiest plane to land that I've ever logged PIC time in and they handle well in the air too.
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
What model Bonanza? Again my main concern w/ a Bonanza is the insurance & maintenance costs. The quotes I'm getting for retractable/high performance airplanes are in the $3500/yr range and my local A&P has told me that retractable airplanes are just a lot more expensive to maintain even due to the extra work involved w/ inspecting and keeping retracts up to speed. Plus I saw the fuel burn in one of the Bonanza's I peeked at and it was way up there so I figured all those things combined means it's too expensive for me.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
The Cirrus parachute repack will cost you more over the years ($12,500 every 10 yrs) than maintaining the gear on a Bonanza ever will. If you've never flown in a Bonanza before I'd suggest you go for a ride, a totally different experience than a Mooney (and I like Mooneys but they are no Bo).
A Bonanza is built like a brick **** house, as comfortable to sit in as a Chevy truck, very efficient, and has great visibility.
I have a fair amount of time in J model Mooneys and enjoy them. But if I had a Bonanza and a Mooney to fly the Mooney would never go anywhere. It does nothing better than a Bonanza IMO and isn't nearly as fun or as comfortable to fly. Yes you can, on paper, claim they are more efficient but in the real world it's not something that is significant.
I don't think the insurance will be as bad as you think, and will quickly go down once you get some time. It's a small number in the grand scheme of buying, owning, and operating an aircraft. Think long term with this, you won't regret it.
Last edited:
NoHeat
En-Route
If you want to know about insuring a Cirrus, phone NationAir. That agency does a lot of Cirri because it's the insurance partner for COPA. An agent there wrote a recent article in the COPA magazine that said only two insurance companies will even consider insuring an SR22 if the pilot does not have an instrument rating. I think that an SR20 is quite different for insurance, but talking to NationAir will give you a definitive answer quickly.
Not many owners keep an SR20 for 10 years (they typically want to trade up after a few years), so I would not be concerned about the chute repacking cost, if you buy one that was recently done.
Not many owners keep an SR20 for 10 years (they typically want to trade up after a few years), so I would not be concerned about the chute repacking cost, if you buy one that was recently done.
Well put. I own both a Bonanza and a Mooney and I really can't find anything about the Mooney that I like better than the Bonanza.
Add me to the list of people who don't think the insurance on a Bonanza will be as bad as you think it will be. My first year of insurance with no time in type, no instrument rating and around 200 hours total time was cheaper in the Bonanza than just about any other complex airplane I had any interest in.
Meh, I bought what is basically a twin engined Bonanza (a Travelair) when I had 60hrs. There is no such thing as a plane holding value anymore.
Everytime you swap planes is basically a minimum of a $10k loss by the time the deal is done. You may however find an exception to this with the Cirrus brand IF and only if you are buying new, and trading back an SR-20 for an SR-22, as I understand it from secondhand info, there are excellent trade up 'deals' to be had. But you have to be playing with over half million dollar planes to get those deals. Remember, there's significant cost factors to just buying a plane as you're experiencing. Trading up encounters all of them again, plus you lose any residual value of long term maintenance items that you did that only need doing once in a lifetime.That is one factor with newer airplanes, they are more likely to get an AD hit them that you must comply with regardless the cost.
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
What I meant about not loosing too much on our purchase is that I'm now thinking long and hard about sinking a TON of money in painting/interiors/avionics into a plane and expect I'm going to get a lot of that back SO I'm trying to find a plane that doesn't need as much upgrading. I've decided against the Cirrus. Can't afford the SR22 and the SR20's useful load doesn't meet what we are looking for. So realistically it's a 182/Dakota/Bonanza
Meh, I bought what is basically a twin engined Bonanza (a Travelair) when I had 60hrs. There is no such thing as a plane holding value anymore.
That is one factor with newer airplanes, they are more likely to get an AD hit them that you must comply with regardless the cost.
Have you checked the rear seat leg room on the Dakota? I understand your apprehension with the Bonanza with insurance, I went through the same issue.
I had 1700 hrs but no retract time and the insurance was a nice surprise at $1500.
A 6 footer can stretch his legs out in the rear seats in my V35A. I can cruise at 160 KTAS at 11.6 gph in LOP mode. If the Dakota is the same as my 1978 Archer, the rear seat leg room is limited.
If you haven't done so, take a ride in a Bo and the Dakota and compare.
I had 1700 hrs but no retract time and the insurance was a nice surprise at $1500.
A 6 footer can stretch his legs out in the rear seats in my V35A. I can cruise at 160 KTAS at 11.6 gph in LOP mode. If the Dakota is the same as my 1978 Archer, the rear seat leg room is limited.
If you haven't done so, take a ride in a Bo and the Dakota and compare.
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
I've sat in the rear of an archer, which is the same as a dakota, but never been inside a bonanza. Closest thing is I sat inside a baron e55 briefly. Perhaps I need to peek at bonanzas.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,609
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Pretty much exactly the same thing so you have an idea.
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
petrolero
Pattern Altitude
The 182 is a very easy-to-own airplane. Service available everywhere, parts everywhere, gazillions of STCs, etc. Pipers are easy to own also, but come on Cessna 182s are like roaches - they're everywhere and will be around even after a nuclear holocaust.
If a Bo, then what about the Piper Arrow or the 182RG? Both models have a turbo option that makes them fantastic performers too (albeit for more $). They both have decent load ranges. They are RGs, but so is a Bo. They are also fast with the folding gear, especially the turbos up high. Folding gear does run up the insurance somewhat but not terribly so IMHO. And what a joy to fly.
NoHeat
En-Route
Ah, the endless low vs high wing debate.
If passenger convenience were the only thing that counted, the high wing would win every time. Doors on both sides, without climbing over stuff.
If ramp appeal is the only thing, then low wing.
netsurfr
Pre-takeoff checklist
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,609
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Not really because you're always having to walk all the way around the darn things and there's no shade anywhere in sight.
Campability if one wants to use that modality greatly favors the high wing, that's for sure.