Dreaming of owning

hookeon

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
1
Display Name

Display name:
hookedon
I am low time(100hr) PPL and would like to own an airplane sometime in the next couple of years.....I do fantasize :drool: doing so sooner rather than later. I would like to get some advise on getting IFR rating - Does it makes sense to get an IFR rating by renting and then jump into ownership OR is it better to get the rating in your own airplane?
I live on west coast and want performance which can take me to higher altitude airports in Sierras without worring much about DA. Targeting ~125K, the top contenders based on all I have read are M20K252,TB21. Any comments here will be appreciated as well.
 
If you are going to buy a plane in the near future, it would most definitely be in your benefit to buy the plane and get your rating in it. Nothing like learning it in the plane you'll continue to do it in. While the instrument part doesn't really change it's all the little distractions that require flipping a switch or whatever that take time and concentration. After 40 hrs training in your airframe, you will reach for everything by muscle memory. Also it will get you towards your 100hrs in airframe for your minimized insurance rates.
 
What Henning wrote is what I was thinking when I read the OP.

I bought my plane as a private student and am now starting my instrument work in her. I have 100 hours in the plane and as Henning points out, I can put my hand on most any switch or control in the plane without looking. I also will look directly at the instrument I want to check without searching around. This goes beyond the six pack which is the same in any plane.

It might not sound like a big deal but as your workload goes up, the more stuff you have as second nature the better off you are. Several things pop into my head as examples, but Saturday morning I got in the air before Sunrise and needed to turn on my map light, I discovered that I reached up and put my hand right on the switch without moving around searching for it. Might sound silly but familiarity like this helps alot even to be safer in VFR flying.

My $0.02,
 
I would like to get some advise on getting IFR rating - Does it makes sense to get an IFR rating by renting and then jump into ownership OR is it better to get the rating in your own airplane?
Getting your own plane, getting comfortable in it, and then doing the training in your own plane is my recommendation based on my experience as an instrument instructor for Professional Instrument Courses. The more instrument time you have in the plane in which you'll be doing your instrument flying, the better. In addition, many rental sources have strict limits on weather and instructors, so having your own plane enables you to have a wider choice of instructors and the flexibility to get actual instrument flying experience.


I live on west coast and want performance which can take me to higher altitude airports in Sierras without worring much about DA. Targeting ~125K, the top contenders based on all I have read are M20K252,TB21. Any comments here will be appreciated as well.
As a 100-hour PP, if you don't have any high performance/retractable gear experience, you may have trouble getting insurance on a plane like that without an instrument rating. I'd expect a requirement for 25 hours of dual before you can go solo. It might be less, but it will be significant. However, if you combine whatever checkout the insurer requires with your IR training, you should have any number of dual hours they require completed before you take your instrument ride.
 
I understand the Mooney. The TB 21 seems like it would be comfortable but underpowered if I understand the models correctly. A Cirrus SR 20 will definitely be showing power issues up very high but the SR 22 is great into high airports even without a turbo. I have had my normally aspirated one into Leadville, Vail, Rifle and others without any issues. Unfortunately a 2002 SR 22 in good shape is more like $150K. If you stretch to that amount you do get good avionics and comfort.
 
I am low time(100hr) PPL and would like to own an airplane sometime in the next couple of years.....I do fantasize :drool: doing so sooner rather than later. I would like to get some advise on getting IFR rating - Does it makes sense to get an IFR rating by renting and then jump into ownership OR is it better to get the rating in your own airplane?
I live on west coast and want performance which can take me to higher altitude airports in Sierras without worring much about DA. Targeting ~125K, the top contenders based on all I have read are M20K252,TB21. Any comments here will be appreciated as well.

How about a Rockwell Commander 112/114? Have you looked at those?

Re the IFR question, I am finishing my IR in a club 172 rather than in my Arrow. The 172 has a 430W which makes the checkride easier (more available approaches in my area) - my Arrow has VOR/LOC/GS/DME but no GPS or ADF, the 172 is cheaper, and I see little point in switching at this late date. I can always practice in my airplane with a safety pilot after I get the rating.
 
Last edited:
Yep, I think he should look at all of those.... Then buy a Bonanza. :D
 
Yep, I think he should look at all of those.... Then buy a Bonanza. :D

Certainly another good choice. His desire to go in and out of high altitude airports with power to spare means a plane closer to 300 HP than 200 HP. I doubt he can find an A36 anywhere his price range. The BE35 will fit the bill but with a lot more CG issues.
 
Certainly another good choice. His desire to go in and out of high altitude airports with power to spare means a plane closer to 300 HP than 200 HP. I doubt he can find an A36 anywhere his price range. The BE35 will fit the bill but with a lot more CG issues.


I really want to know more information about all these Bonanza CG issues, I just don't find them in normal operations. Bonanzas NA Bonanzas operate out of Leadville with no problems as do many other NA aircraft.

If I was looking, this is one I'd be looking hard at:
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ANZA/1965-BEECHCRAFT-S35-BONANZA/1229907.htm?
 
Certainly another good choice. His desire to go in and out of high altitude airports with power to spare means a plane closer to 300 HP than 200 HP. I doubt he can find an A36 anywhere his price range. The BE35 will fit the bill but with a lot more CG issues.

Turbo Arrow is also an option if not as sexy as the others.
 
I am low time(100hr) PPL and would like to own an airplane sometime in the next couple of years.....I do fantasize :drool: doing so sooner rather than later. I would like to get some advise on getting IFR rating - Does it makes sense to get an IFR rating by renting and then jump into ownership OR is it better to get the rating in your own airplane?
I live on west coast and want performance which can take me to higher altitude airports in Sierras without worring much about DA. Targeting ~125K, the top contenders based on all I have read are M20K252,TB21. Any comments here will be appreciated as well.


Welcome to the Zoo... Please don't feed the animals..:yesnod::yesnod::rofl:
 
Turbo Arrow is also an option if not as sexy as the others.
...but with a whole lot less power and performance than the 540-550 cubic inch engine powered planes the OP initially mentioned. If the OP needs that extra power, the Turbo Arrow won't do; if the Turbo Arrow will do, then the big-block models are overkill. What was never stated was the OP's needs for range, speed, and payload, and that would tell us a lot about what might be suitable.
 
I really want to know more information about all these Bonanza CG issues, I just don't find them in normal operations. Bonanzas NA Bonanzas operate out of Leadville with no problems as do many other NA aircraft.

As far as performance the Bonanza is a great plane. The CG issue I mentioned is no big deal to a lot of people but I was surprised when a good friend and V-tail owner brought it up. He owned a C182 prior to the V-tail. He said he could load the 182 any way he wanted. With the V-tail he has to check CG vs. fuel burn and sometimes move luggage up to the back seats. He said takeoff CG is rarely an issue but low fuel CG can be. Cirrus aircraft are more like the 182 in that if you are within CG on takeoff then you will stay in CG. In fact it is hard to load most Cirrus aircraft out of CG. The exception is the G2 turbo which, especially if equipped with A/C, is nose heavy. There is an SB for an 18 lb. weight in the tail. I believe the G3 planes have this fixed. I just know early turbo owners would carry water jugs in the luggage compartment. Despite all that, once in CG then generally always in CG.
 

I agree. It looks clean, it has modern avionics and the engine is low time. My impression is that the OP wants a trip plane which will maintain good climb performance taking off from high altitude airports. This plane fits the bill. The price is right there too. This is a plane you could keep for a long time and not be wanting more.
 
...but with a whole lot less power and performance than the 540-550 cubic inch engine powered planes the OP initially mentioned. If the OP needs that extra power, the Turbo Arrow won't do; if the Turbo Arrow will do, then the big-block models are overkill. What was never stated was the OP's needs for range, speed, and payload, and that would tell us a lot about what might be suitable.

Certainly slower but isn't the Mooney a TSIO-360? The Socata has the big engine.
 
I have a little time in the Socata TB-21, enough to get my commercial and it had plenty of power. It also had the glide ratio of the Space Shuttle. A good airplane.
 
Certainly slower but isn't the Mooney a TSIO-360? The Socata has the big engine.
My mistake -- I thought the 252 was one of the big-engine models. However, it is rated at 210HP, not 200, so it is "high performance" for FAA purposes, and I'm pretty sure that will be an issue for insurance, too, with only 100 hours TT and no IR. OTOH, I believe the Turbo Arrow is only rated at 200HP, which brings it in below the limit, and thus may be easier for the OP to insure at that level of experience if it will do the job. Again, I'm not sure we ever established hookedon's speed, payload, or range requirements.
 
Last edited:
The BO CG issue is overblown IMO. I've played with the numbers a lot in WnB Pro and it's just not an issue in normal operations unless you're doing something very very odd.
 
The BO CG issue is overblown IMO. I've played with the numbers a lot in WnB Pro and it's just not an issue in normal operations unless you're doing something very very odd.

The old ones you had to switch to auxes early and burn them down because they were aft of CG and mains forward so if you were loaded aft to begin with, if you burned down the mains will full auxes you can go out the back, at least that's the way I remember it. I remember it was most a fuel management issue rather than a limitation.
 
When DocMirror was trying to sell his V-tail a couple years ago, he readily admitted that he had to load at least one suitcase in the floor of the copilot seat well in order to stay within the envelope.

I really want to know more information about all these Bonanza CG issues, I just don't find them in normal operations. Bonanzas NA Bonanzas operate out of Leadville with no problems as do many other NA aircraft.

If I was looking, this is one I'd be looking hard at:
http://www.controller.com/listingsd...ANZA/1965-BEECHCRAFT-S35-BONANZA/1229907.htm?
 
When DocMirror was trying to sell his V-tail a couple years ago, he readily admitted that he had to load at least one suitcase in the floor of the copilot seat well in order to stay within the envelope.


Yeah, he had one of the really early ones with the light engine as well. By the K model not so much of an issue.
 
The BO CG issue is overblown IMO. I've played with the numbers a lot in WnB Pro and it's just not an issue in normal operations unless you're doing something very very odd.

I'm not sure of the best way to present the data. My friend sent me his spreadsheet. In one example with two people in the front he has

Pilot 225
Copilot 150
Rear 1 0
Rear 2 68
Misc rear seat items 28
Baggage F 75
Baggage R 9
Misc baggage items 25

with this CG result:

Fwd CG limit at TO wt. 81.3
Fwd CG limit at landing wt. 78.3
Fwd CG limit zero fuel wt. 77.0
Rear CG limit at TO wt. 84.7
Rear CG limit at landing wt. 85.6
Rear CG limit zero fuel wt. 85.7
CG at TO 84.6
CG at landing 85.5
CG no fuel 86.1 Aft CG when empty

What you see is the limit CG going 84.7 85.6 85.7 as fuel burns but the real world loaded numbers are 84.6 85.5 86.1 with the last number out of CG. If you look at the loading the plane is not loaded rear heavy but moves out of CG at the zero fuel point. Maybe you can tell me what is odd about this loading. I don't see it.
 
If you want to discuss CG issues within the Beech line you have to be model specific, the A-35 envelope is not the same as the S-35 envelope (when they changed tails it changed considerably) and fuel tank configurations change things around as well.
 
Buy a Bonanza then go for a fly in an RV. You will throw rocks at your Bo. :D


If you can use a 2 seater an RV is fine, if you need a 4 seater you'll pay more for an RV if you can find a nice one for sale, or are willing to take few years to build it. Either way you can buy a a nice late model 35 for the same money.

Then, when you're all done, you still have an RV so you become pilot pariah.
 
I agree. It looks clean, it has modern avionics and the engine is low time. My impression is that the OP wants a trip plane which will maintain good climb performance taking off from high altitude airports. This plane fits the bill. The price is right there too. This is a plane you could keep for a long time and not be wanting more.

They aint showin the interior for a reason
 
If you want to discuss CG issues within the Beech line you have to be model specific, the A-35 envelope is not the same as the S-35 envelope (when they changed tails it changed considerably) and fuel tank configurations change things around as well.

I just had lunch with my friend. He says his plane is a 1979 V-tail. It does not have tip tanks. He says there is a placard inside warning that the plane can be loaded easily with a CG too far aft.

Since this started with the OP wanting advice I thought I would share my thoughts comparing the V-tail Bonanza to the SR22.

Bonanza likes:

-- Gear has high extension speed and acts like a great speed brake. Consequently speed management when getting slam dunked is easier than in a Cirrus.

-- Large tires. Better for dirt strips.

-- Shocks on landing gear. Less prone to PIO and makes you look like a better pilot than you are. By comparison Cirrus gear is springy.

-- Better for unimproved runways since the retractable gear means no tight wheel pants.

-- Better fit and finish than many planes including Cirrus.

Bonanza dislikes:

-- Tail waggle in turbulence

-- Aforementioned CG issue.

-- No chute


Cirrus likes:

-- Once properly adjusted, doors are great. Easy to use and allow stepping into the back.

-- Having two doors

-- No gear up landings or retract expense.

-- Interior room. Roomier than a BE35 Bonanza or Mooney. Especially roomy shoulders and above compared to other planes.

-- Nice avionics

-- parachute

-- View. Can see the runway even in the flair. Thin wing and wing position means you can look straight down at the ground too. Diamonds are even better but most planes are worse.

-- Ride. Very smooth in turbulence with no waggle. Neglecting waggle still a smoother ride than a Bonanza.

-- Side yoke

-- Very strong airframe

-- Free catering nose wheel means great maneuverability on the ground

-- Well balanced engine. After 2002 all SR22 engines have balanced intake and exhaust systems (2000-2002 intake only). That means great performance even when deep LOP.


Cirrus dislikes

-- A 3400 max gross plane on baby tires.

-- Springy gear, heavy plane, high speed carried over the numbers, no shocks on mains all means be careful of runway loss of control.

-- Free castering nose wheel means rudder may not hold the taxi line when there is a strong wind blowing on the tail. That means differential braking while making sure to not drag the brakes.

-- Chute 10 year maintenance expense.

-- Not good on unimproved runways.

-- Speed management is more of an art form than on other planes. No speed brakes or gear extension to help.

-- Spring tension and bungie seem to numb the controls a little.

-- Trim control is sensitive and a pain.
 
Back
Top