Ron,
Thanks for your comments - Right on, as usual.
The list of planes is obviously somewhat diverse, and the original question somewhat vague, mostly on purpose. I'm mostly interested in whether there are any planes I'm missing that would make good club planes in general, or whether any of the planes on my list have attributes that would make them unsuitable for a club.
Now, the reason for the vague nature of the question is that there are two missions: Short term, we'll be replacing an Archer. Longer term, we may replace one of the other two planes. Things like the Cherokee Six would be a replacement for the 182 while the Tiger would be a replacement for an Archer.
I'm working on a survey to help better define the mission requirements of the members of the club. For instance, personally I think a 6-seater would be nice to get at some point. I'd definitely like to have a complex plane in the club since I'll be starting on my commercial fairly soon and I'd rather not rent the ~$120/hobbs hr. Arrow from the local FBO. (Especially 'cuz it's a T-tail and with my current CFI we have to throw 125 lbs in the baggage compartment to get it within CG limits.) However, as you point out, it's not too smart to buy those types if they won't be used to their full potential.
Ron Levy said:
Maybe you just need another Archer or another 182? How much are each of your current planes being used? For what additional capability or availability is the membership asking? Maybe you really need a cheap "fun" plane (e.g., maybe a 152 or something like that)?
Another Archer, maybe - It is on the list. Another 182, probably not. For the most part, the Archers are used for local-area (within 200nm or so) flying and the 182 is the long-distance traveling machine, partly because it's faster (and carries more gear) and partly because it's better-equipped. However, these don't hold true 100%; if I'm going to do pattern work I use the 182 'cuz it's a lot harder to land than an Archer. I also know that one of the Archers went to Texas this year and they are used by quite a few members for mid-range trips such as to St. Paul and Duluth (200 and ~260 nm, respectively) and I've personally used one of them for a 400nm trip.
The Archers average around 25 hours per month, each. The 182 varies between about 20 and 40 hours per month depending on how many long trips people use it for. I don't think we really have room for more than one expensive, thirsty load-hauling machine.
As for capability, we're not looking for something substantially different from the Archer for the first purchase. Our main goal is to modernize a bit and the first plane we'll be replacing does not have a GPS or a modern audio panel. If we replace it with another Archer, we'd be looking for something 1980 or newer with a Garmin 430 and a coupled autopilot.
I don't think there would be much support in the club for a 152. Most of our members would only be able to fly it solo; Most of our members also don't fly solo in the local area very often.
The ideal solution is a plane that's quick enough to make longer trips bearable, cheap enough (in terms of hourly operating costs) to put it in the same ballpark as the Archer so it would still be used for local flights, plus has a certain fun factor for joyrides. I think the Tiger and the Diamond Star are the planes that give us the best of all of the above. There are several members who are very interested in the Diamond, I think I'm the only one who's even mentioned the Tiger.
Speaking of Tigers, where's the factory? Where are the distributors? Does anyone know if they'll send out a factory demonstrator for us to fly? Diamond is bringing a Star for us all to test drive in a couple of weeks.
Also, fleet similarity has substantial value for safety, insurance, and training reasons, which is why I'd rather have two Archers and a 235 Cherokee or two 180HP 172's and a 182 than the mix you currently have.
Good point. I must admit that although I generally like Piper a lot better than Cessna, I like the 182 more than the Dakota or 235 simply because it has the bigger, wider, more comfortable cabin. I can't stand to sit in a PA28 for more than about 2.5 hours without getting out to unwind. On the Gaston's/Houston trip this summer, however, I had legs of 4.4, 4.3, 4.8, and 3.5 in the 182 without any discomfort at all.
Our insurance is an interesting animal. We have no currency requirements other than the FAA's (though the first $40 of flying each month is free to encourage at least a little regular proficiency flying). In fact, we looked at changing carriers last year only to find we'd have to pay more money for a policy which added currency requirements and other restrictions. They (current ins co) also don't have differing rates based on requirements. IE if we required 250TT and 25 in type to fly the 182, we wouldn't get a discount. So, our minimum requirements are simply what the insurance company's minimum requirements are to be insurable: CFI checkout on the Archers, and either 10 in type or 100TT and 5 in type plus a checkout for the 182. They've already indicated that the DA40 would be a checkout-only requirement, provided it doesn't have a glass cockpit.
Hmmm... It's already been ruled out, but what do you think about glass for a club? The reason we ruled it out is that the glass version will require "Factory FITS training," which is currently only available in Quebec at the Diamond factory or in St. Louis.
But if you want a 6-seater, you should think about a 206 rather than a Cherokee 6, as most folks with hauling needs will be moving to that from the 182, but for complex, most folks will be moving from the Archer, and an Arrow would be a better match than a 172RG.
Interesting... I hadn't thought of it that way. I was thinking of the Cherokee Six mostly because it would bring us back to all low-wing Pipers. Everyone in the club flies the Archers, some also fly the 182. I don't think there's anyone who flies the 182 exclusively. Would that change your opinion?
Thanks,
It's a beaut, too - G430 and fresh paint job. If you'd been at Gaston's you could have seen it! 
(I'm NOT a fan of the Entegra.)
