GA Airplane question: Good All-around airplane

Gort01 said:
Looked at the specs of the various types everyone has mentioned. Commander 112 TCA was a surprise, I had not looked at those before. Certainly fit the profile and they are fairly roomy. Perhaps the TCA package would allow for a margin going through the Rockies.
Click to expand...
Paging Mr. Suffa! Please pick up the white courtesy phone!!! :D

Gort,

I guess Bill is busy. We had a thread here recently about the Commanders:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40360
 
re: Ethanol government boondoggle ever foisted on us

Oh so many more that are just as wonderful - off the top of my head ...
- low volume toilets - only uses 1.6 gallons but you have to flush 3 times
- CFC light bulbs - green and good for the environment - however, comes with a warning that they contain harmful chemicals and to dispose of properly
- Cash for clunkers ... oh don't even get me started on that one ...

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
 
Wayne, you're the second guy who has mentioned to me a high wing aircraft for Texas flying. Boy can I relate! We've been looking at C177RGs for that reason, and because it has pretty good bang for the buck. As far as airline passes, they aren't the big benefit everyone thinks they are. Space 'A' on oversold or weight restricted flights means a no go. With load factors averaging above 87%, more times than not I either don't get on or compete for the luxurious jump seat, and thats if your going to a less popular destination. Pass travel sucks and every line pilot I've ever talked to would prefer to fly themselves rather than put up with the joys of pass travel. Look forward to a cross country golf meet :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If the water ends up at the same level, the gas is ethanol free. If the water level appears to have changed, it's got ethanol. Simple and cheap - Free, if you already drank the Gatorade. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, you also don't need any of those fancy travel-johns, your 'ethanol-tester' can be repurposed in a pinch for that mission as well.
 
Gort01 said:
Wayne, you're the second guy who has mentioned to me a high wing aircraft for Texas flying. Boy can I relate! We've been looking at C177RGs for that reason, and because it has pretty good bang for the buck. As far as airline passes, they aren't the big benefit everyone thinks they are. Space 'A' on oversold or weight restricted flights means a no go. With load factors averaging above 87%, more times than not I either don't get on or compete for the luxurious jump seat, and thats if your going to a less popular destination. Pass travel sucks and every line pilot I've ever talked to would prefer to fly themselves rather than put up with the joys of pass travel. Look forward to a cross country golf meet :)
Click to expand...

177RG is definitely a high value plane, if I was going back into aerial photography it would be the platform I would buy. I know a guy with a pretty decent one for sale, if you're really interested PM me.

As for airline passes, Amen. I can't recall a US domestic commercial flight I've been on (and only a couple of the international ones) in the last two years that had an empty seat.
 
Gort01 said:
Wayne, you're the second guy who has mentioned to me a high wing aircraft for Texas flying. Boy can I relate! We've been looking at C177RGs for that reason, and because it has pretty good bang for the buck. As far as airline passes, they aren't the big benefit everyone thinks they are. Space 'A' on oversold or weight restricted flights means a no go. With load factors averaging above 87%, more times than not I either don't get on or compete for the luxurious jump seat, and thats if your going to a less popular destination. Pass travel sucks and every line pilot I've ever talked to would prefer to fly themselves rather than put up with the joys of pass travel. Look forward to a cross country golf meet :)
Click to expand...

Unless you need a 6 seater, ya can't go wrong with a 177RG IMHO. I put 40 hrs on one in the span of one month flying all over the fine state of Texas. Just a great airplane.
 
Do they make a wide-neck version of those bottles?

weilke said:
Well, you also don't need any of those fancy travel-johns, your 'ethanol-tester' can be repurposed in a pinch for that mission as well.
Click to expand...
 
Some may call me crazy, but I am not a big fan of certified airplanes, I like what the experimental market has to offer. If that's not an issue there are several RV's out there in your price range that will handle the mission very well. I also like the CompAir 6, Lancair and Velocity.
 
Dean said:
Some may call me crazy, but I am not a big fan of certified airplanes, I like what the experimental market has to offer. If that's not an issue there are several RV's out there in your price range that will handle the mission very well. I also like the CompAir 6, Lancair and Velocity.
Click to expand...
I freaking LOVE the RVs
 
Dean said:
Some may call me crazy, but I am not a big fan of certified airplanes, I like what the experimental market has to offer. If that's not an issue there are several RV's out there in your price range that will handle the mission very well. I also like the CompAir 6, Lancair and Velocity.
Click to expand...

I can't find an RV-10 finished for less than double what I paid for my Comanche.
 
Gort01 said:
Wow, great to know the nuances of the DA40. I am intrigued. Alan and I are about the same size, although my wife is tiny. My owner/partner isn't small so the Tiger worries me. What is the cabin width on the DA40? Obviously it can handle me but how about another FAA+ individual? Don't mind doing a coastal trip in two days either, so ultimately the DA40 would work fine as would the 182.
Click to expand...

Assuming there's no Congressional argument, the USAF Academy has chosen the Cirrus as the new trainer. We've been hearing rumors (only rumors) this means the current fleet of DA40s will be auctioned off as Govt surplus.
 
murphey said:
Assuming there's no Congressional argument, the USAF Academy has chosen the Cirrus as the new trainer. We've been hearing rumors (only rumors) this means the current fleet of DA40s will be auctioned off as Govt surplus.
Click to expand...

Unless something's changed recently, the initial flight screening is done by a subcontractor (Doss Aviation) who owns and operates the aircraft.
 
I dunno, $100K will buy quite a bit of Bo these days, and I've never heard bad things from those who own them. I do hear the OP about TX though, and protection from the heat. Priorities are quite a bit different in Northern climes.

Klatu barada nikto.
 
Last edited:
A friend based in FTW owns/operates a 1968 Bo A36 and absolutely loves it.

Gort, let me know if you'd want to take a look at that or a short flight and I'll send over his contact information.
 
murphey said:
Assuming there's no Congressional argument, the USAF Academy has chosen the Cirrus as the new trainer. We've been hearing rumors (only rumors) this means the current fleet of DA40s will be auctioned off as Govt surplus.
Click to expand...

I believe the current fleet is owned by a contractor. Don't know when the contract is up for re-bid.
 
weilke said:
I believe the current fleet is owned by a contractor. Don't know when the contract is up for re-bid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the gov't-owned ones were sold a few years ago - They're about the only ones in the fleet with G1000 but without autopilot, and even when the economy was good they were selling for about $120K because of that.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah, the gov't-owned ones were sold a few years ago - They're about the only ones in the fleet with G1000 but without autopilot, and even when the economy was good they were selling for about $120K because of that.
Click to expand...

So whatever happened to the Slingsby Fireballs that preceded the DA-40s? Coors widemouth cans?
 
Navions are slow for the fuel burn, but are super roomy and have good visibility. They are surprisingly great short field performers.
 
My 2 cents (from a low-time, new-to-airplane-ownership guy):

I bought a '62 Debonair (poor man's Bonanza) about a year ago. Fast enough, efficient, comfortable for two plus bags. It's basically the short-bodied Bo with a straight tail and IO-470 (225HP). I'm about 5-11, 180 lbs., not a huge guy. But, with a 30 inch inseam, that leaves me with a lot of torso to fit into the plane.

I was investigating Cardinals for over a year. I Joined CFO (Cardinal Flyers Organization) and eveything. I LOVED the specs and the looks of the Cardinals. Wide doors and a seat you could swing into like you were getting into a truck. My wife has back trouble and had difficulty getting into the C-172's that we'd been renting and those big doors looked like just the ticket. Then I sat in one... and I didn't fit; my head was in the headliner. I thought maybe it was that particular plane, so I found another one and my head went into the headliner again. Yes, the seat was all the way down. I was depressed. I had my heart set on a Cardinal.

I moved over to Beech products (sub 50K budget), starting with the Musketeers and Sundowners. Flew a few and liked them, but they were slow.

Then I sat in a Debonair... and I was sold. All the Beeches are solid, but the Debonair had more headroom and had the extra power. My wife loved the way it felt on the test flight. She said it felt more solid and ran smoother than any of the Cessnas.

I can only speak to the Beechcraft side of things, but if I was you, I'd see if I could get a ride in a "real" Bonanza with the 260 (or more) horsepower engine. I'm a member of BeechTalk, and there are plenty of guys in Texas that would love to give a prospective buyer a tour of their Bo. Joining BeechTalk is free. There is an Introduction forum where you introduce yourself and the offers usually pour in from there.

There are some very good deals on Bo's in your price range right now.

Good luck in your search.
 
DebbieDriver said:
I bought a '62 Debonair (poor man's Bonanza) about a year ago. Fast enough, efficient, comfortable for two plus bags. It's basically the short-bodied Bo with a straight tail and IO-470 (225HP). I'm about 5-11, 180 lbs., not a huge guy. But, with a 30 inch inseam, that leaves me with a lot of torso to fit into the plane.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'm 5" taller than you but with 6" more inseam, so your head should be 1" higher than mine, right? I can't imagine how you fit into a Debbie! I've never been in an actual Debonair, but I've only truly fit into one Bo/Baron without bumping my head a lot. :dunno: Do you know if your seats are lower than normal or something else that would help? Or is there something about the Debbie that gives it better headroom? How would you compare the headroom in a Cardinal to that in a 182 (hoping you've been in both in a reasonably close time frame...)

I've never flown a Cardinal either... And I would like to rectify that.
 
DebbieDriver said:
I'm about 5-11, 180 lbs., not a huge guy. But, with a 30 inch inseam, that leaves me with a lot of torso to fit into the plane.

I was investigating Cardinals for over a year. I Joined CFO (Cardinal Flyers Organization) and eveything. I LOVED the specs and the looks of the Cardinals. Wide doors and a seat you could swing into like you were getting into a truck. My wife has back trouble and had difficulty getting into the C-172's that we'd been renting and those big doors looked like just the ticket. Then I sat in one... and I didn't fit; my head was in the headliner. I thought maybe it was that particular plane, so I found another one and my head went into the headliner again. Yes, the seat was all the way down. I was depressed. I had my heart set on a Cardinal.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I'm 6'7" with a 36" inseam, and I've got a little over 50hrs of comfortable cross-country CardinalRG time. I don't remember having any fit issues. Maybe I'm so used to operating ALL vehicles with the seat leaned back that I didn't notice how much it was leaned back in the Cardinal. ha

I think a CardinalRG airframe with 230-260hp would be a sweet plane. Slick airframe that you could take up a little higher than the 200hp will let you go and cruise at 150-160+kts.
 
CJones said:
That's interesting. I'm 6'7" with a 36" inseam, and I've got a little over 50hrs of comfortable cross-country CardinalRG time. I don't remember having any fit issues. Maybe I'm so used to operating ALL vehicles with the seat leaned back that I didn't notice how much it was leaned back in the Cardinal. ha
Click to expand...
Yes, I think if anyone has height problems in a Cardinal with the seat all the way down, they must be very long in the torso. I emphasize with the seat down because I have a bit of a problem in that department (and I'm only 5'7"), but it's because I have to crank the seat all the way up AND use a thin cushion to have comfortably good visibility over the nose.

I think a CardinalRG airframe with 230-260hp would be a sweet plane. Slick airframe that you could take up a little higher than the 200hp will let you go and cruise at 150-160+kts.
Click to expand...
That would be a great airplane! But alas with fuel prices going where they're going now, I can't complain too much about the 200hp engine in mine. What I'd really like is an even slicker airframe (a la Mooney), but with the same engine and the roominess and ease of egress of a Cardinal.
 
CJones said:
I think a CardinalRG airframe with 230-260hp would be a sweet plane. Slick airframe that you could take up a little higher than the 200hp will let you go and cruise at 150-160+kts.
Click to expand...

Well, you can throw a turbo on it, supposed to give you sea level power to 20,000 feet and a 25 knot increase at altitude. Above around 4,000 feet the turbo 200hp will climb faster than a normally aspirated 230hp would, and above 7,000 feet it'll climb faster than a normally aspirated 260hp.

You're right, though... Sounds pretty sweet to me! :)
 
CJones said:
...I think a CardinalRG airframe with 230-260hp would be a sweet plane. Slick airframe that you could take up a little higher than the 200hp will let you go and cruise at 150-160+kts.
Click to expand...

Cessna tried that. They called it the 187, and it had an O-470 up front. They had to move the wing forward a few inches to accomodate the CG change from the heavier engine. They also tried putting a T-tail on it. Either way, it wasn't as pretty as a Cardinal.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • cessna_187_exp.jpg
    cessna_187_exp.jpg
    45.1 KB · Views: 125
JohnGalt said:
Lots of loaded opinions so I'll add one of my own.

...SR20 or DA40 could be OK, but the Diamonds are more amateur and have design quirks that make them decent but still kinda suck in an all-around way, especially on a long trip. (Kent's bound to go nuts over that opinion...) The SR20's probably the best all-around xcountry machine of these smaller, training birds.

I've got a good bit of time in all of the above aircraft and my opinions stem from my own experience.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that? Please explain. One of the guys in the Diamond Aviators Net had some custom long range tanks built for his DA40F (fixed prop, carburetor) and flew it from Spain to Thailand and back. Is that cross country enough for ya? Here is a link to his report on the return leg. http://www.diamondaviators.net/forum/tripreport-from-thailand-to-spain-in-a-da40-t5.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
flyingcheesehead said:
Hmmm. I'm 5" taller than you but with 6" more inseam, so your head should be 1" higher than mine, right? I can't imagine how you fit into a Debbie! I've never been in an actual Debonair, but I've only truly fit into one Bo/Baron without bumping my head a lot. :dunno: Do you know if your seats are lower than normal or something else that would help? Or is there something about the Debbie that gives it better headroom? How would you compare the headroom in a Cardinal to that in a 182 (hoping you've been in both in a reasonably close time frame...)

I've never flown a Cardinal either... And I would like to rectify that.
Click to expand...

Regarding the headroom issue - I'm 5'-11" with a 29" inseam. That translates to a really long torso (yup - I have trouble being comfortable in coveralls). I've been flying a 182B for 32 years and it fits me pretty well. No articulating seats in that plane. With headsets on there isn't much clearance between the highest point and the headliner - but there is enough, and that is all that matters. No issues with visibility over the glareshield, either. It's a good fit for me - and an all-round good airplane.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top