Helpful Hints on Airplane Purchase

S

SCAirborne

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
22
Display Name
Display name:
SCAirborne
I just got my PPL less than two months ago... so a low time pilot. I am looking to start IFR training after the New Year and would rather buy an airplane prior to starting. I know the costs will be higher but that's not the issue.. I'm prepared for the cost.
The real question is that I've flown Cessna 172's and Piper Warrior only. I like them just fine but the speed and low useful loads are not practical for my typical mission. I am really looking at a true 4 place plane that has a bit more performance than the 172...
My total spend would be $150k or less. I think I've narrowed down the planes to either: Cessna 182 , Mooney M20, or Diamond DA40. Hell of a lot of difference in the three planes. Useful load may throw the Diamond right out of the mix but the newer avionics and safety characteristics are keeping it in the running even if I have to lose 10 gallons of fuel on the 4 place days.
I know Mooney are more complex with retracts but the speed is substantially higher than the others... but the one door bothers me. Also the safety record is the worst of the bunch (mostly pilot error but still...). The Cessna 182 is slower than any of them but can haul a lot more and is not complex just high performance (no retracts on the models I'm looking at).

An 80's Mooney and Cessna are also half the cost of Diamond's... I am really torn and wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on this. Please keep in mind my low time experience and thanks in advance!
 
My favorite out of the bunch is a Mooney (I'd want one with a 550 if possible), but what's your mission?
 
I fly a Mooney. I looked at the same three... and bought a Mooney. Couldn't be happier.
 
Have you considered an AA5B?
 
Just wondering if you have considered a Piper Dakota? I don't know the exact specs but it is 235Hp with a fixed gear. Granted it would be a single door aircraft but you should be able to pick one up within your budget.

Good luck with your decision.
 
For your budget you got lots of options.

Don't worry about complex or the speed, as long as you have a good CFII, with real world working pilot experience, you'll be just fine.


None of the planes you listed would be on my personal list, that said, out of the options given the Mooney wins hands down.


For a IFR trike I'd be looking at a big engine glass panel Glasair or Lancair RG, maybe a nanchang if you want a little more ohh ahh factor.
 
For a true 4 place single plane I would be all over a cherokee 6/300 or 6/260. Also for DA40 money you could get into a early Cirrus like an 02/03 that has had the 10yr repack done.
 
I'm partial to the Cherokee line,with your mission I would consider a Dakota,but would prefer a Cherokee 6 /300. The six would fit your mission and be a great trainer for your IFR.
 
I've got a 182P with a 530W, fuel flow, ADS-B, FlightStream, HSI and decent autopilot for about 60% of your budget. I routinely fly with 4 seats full (though not always full fuel).

The biggest downside is the speed. I flight plan for 130kts.
 
You've left out a LOT of excellent contenders in your budget and for your so-far stated mission (true 4-place). At a $150k cap, you can get pretty close to any piston single you want, depending on how equipped, etc.

My number one tip is don't underestimate how fast you want to go. A 130-140kt airplane gets REALLY slow with much headwind. Personally, I wouldn't consider anything with less than a 155-160kt cruise speed. Further, don't underestimate baggage SPACE. Useful load is great, but not so great if you can't actually use it because you run out of room.

A list of possible contenders that come to mind in that budget:

Beechcraft Debonair (C33A) or Bonanza
Piper Turbo Arrow
Cessna 182RG
Cessna 210
Mooney M20J or better
Rockwell Commander 114
Bellanca Super Viking (late model)
Cirrus SR22 (you MIGHT find one at $150k)
Socata Trinidad
Navion
Piper Saratoga
Piper Commanche
 
I'm partial to simple Cessna's, but it depends on your mission as another poster asked.

Going far and on pavement always, I'd look for speed. If you want to mix it up and fly STOL or on dirt, get the skylane.

Your handle doesn't indicate where you're from, but another consideration is shade. If you're in hot country, you and your passengers will greatly appreciate flying underneath a wing in summer. :wink2:
 
Last edited:
I like my da40. Its new, g1000, nice autopilot, low maintenance, 140 knots on 9gph, looks cool. Flying with a stick is just awesome, i really enjoy every flight we take. Insurance is cheap. The bad thing about a pre-08 cirrus is no g1000. I have an 05 and 06 da40 with a useful load of 900lbs. When i upgrade it will have to be at least a 07 mooney or 08 cirrus sr22. G1000 is just awesome. And i would want gfc700 if spent the money to upgrade. And even with faster single engine pistons,, you really have to be flying longer distances for the flight time to be a real difference.

I am going to sell one of my da40s in the next month or so. I will list it around 125k in absolutely perfect shape. It should sell quick.
 
I am shocked with how long it takes people to reccommend a Bonanza now days.

Look into the V-tails and you will be happy.

Unless of course, you want a Twin. You can get some great bargains on 310's these days.

Or, with your hours, you might look for a King Air-90.

As I say from the left seat of a C-182.....
 
You can get a Cirrus SR-20 or an older Cirrus SR-22with round instruments for that that already had the chute repacked, you can upgrade the panel to glass later. They are at the bottom of their depreciation cycle and have an airframe parachute for when thing are ugly. They are modern and efficient with good performance for their power, and use NASA's safest airfoils.
 
Henning said:
You can get a Cirrus SR-20 or an older Cirrus SR-22with round instruments for that that already had the chute repacked, you can upgrade the panel to glass later. They are at the bottom of their depreciation cycle and have an airframe parachute for when thing are ugly. They are modern and efficient with good performance for their power, and use NASA's safest airfoils.
Click to expand...

Or get a g1000 da40 for the same price. You can actually stall a da40 to the ground at 500fpm. There is no need for a cirrus parachute that descends at 1600fpm. Plus you get a 100k g1000 for free.

I almost bought a 99 sr20, sweet airplane, composite was like new, cruised at 160 knots, but the avionics just really suck. It would take 20-30k to be even be half way comparable to g1000. Plus it needed a15k repack which is always the current owners responsiblity/cost.
 
Rick Wallace said:
Or get a g1000 da40 for the same price. You can actually stall a da40 to the ground at 500fpm. There is no need for a cirrus parachute that descends at 1600fpm. Plus you get a 100k g1000 for free.

I almost bought a 99 sr20, sweet airplane, composite was like new, cruised at 160 knots, but the avionics just really suck. It would take 20-30k to be even be half way comparable to g1000. Plus it needed a15k repack which is always the current owners responsiblity/cost.
Click to expand...

That's another choice, and the DA-40 is a good plane, but has just never left me impressed. I hear about speeds I have never seen in one. To me they are slow and kill my back on a long trip, plus they are horrible instrument platforms in turbulence. My trip from Key West to Grand Cayman and back in one was part work and part torture.

In a Cirrus I would buy a steam panel and upgrade it with Garmin glass.
 
Last edited:
Those are three great options to look at. For your budget, there are tons of aircraft, so if you give us a bit more detail (how far typical flights are for you, what your payload will typically be) it would help define an aircraft. What you are looking at in terms of operating costs will factor in as well. A Cessna 182 is only marginally more expensive than a 172 to run--some other single engine options are far more pricey.

I was thinking about upgrading our Cherokee 180 to a DA40 a while back, so I got a few hours in a G1000 equipped DA40. They are nice airplanes, but I couldn't justify spending more than twice the money for 15 extra knots, a better view, and less useful load.

I also have limited glass cockpit experience, but from what I have seen I would not write off upgrading an older plane versus buying a G1000 equipped aircraft. The G500 is awesome, and I think has a great screen size--easier on the eyes than an Aspen but easier to scan than the broad expanse of the G1000. Opinions may vary, and mine might change with more G1000 time. The point is I wouldn't write off a pre-G1000 airplane completely.
 
A G-500 and a GTN-750/650 stack give a better panel IMO than the G-1000
 
Henning said:
That's another choice, and the DA-40 is a good plane, but has just never left me impressed. I hear about speeds I have never seen in one. To me they are slow and kill my back on a long trip, plus they are horrible instrument platforms in turbulence. My trip from Key West to Grand Cayman and back in one was part work and part torture.

In a Cirrus I would buy a steam panel and upgrade it with Garmin glass.
Click to expand...

I find the DA40 horribly uncomfortable, and I don't think it's fast enough to justify the costs.
 
SCAirborne said:
My total spend would be $150k or less. I think I've narrowed down the planes to either: Cessna 182 , Mooney M20, or Diamond DA40.
Click to expand...

Consider a Dakota. You can get a really nice one for your price point. Same engine as a 182, but faster and more stable given the low wing.
 
DesertNomad said:
Consider a Dakota. You can get a really nice one for your price point. Same engine as a 182, but faster and more stable given the low wing.
Click to expand...

I'm a huge fan of PA28s. I own one, instruct in several, and generally love the aircraft. However, a couple of points:

Most 182s have Continental O-470s, at least until the restart of production. New 182s switched over to Lycoming IO-540s. PA-28-235s and -236s have Lycoming O-540, similar horsepower but not the same engine. Arguably a plus for the Dakota (vs O-470 powered 182s) due to the higher TBO. People have strong preferences among these engines, but both are solid if you treat them well.

As far as speed, variations between model years, airframes, and specific speed mods mean some Dakotas are faster than some 182s, and vice versa. My experience is that, on average, the Dakota wins versus the normally aspirated fixed gear 182, but not by a material margin.

Finally, stability of a Dakota vs Skyline is subjective and I won't comment, except to say that low wing actually reduces stability versus an identical high wing--the PA28 series uses more dihedral than a 182 to enhance stability despite the low wing.

Dakotas are exceptional planes, and I prefer the feel of the PA28 series to most of the Cessna high wings, but the 182 is slightly roomier and has two doors which does count for something as well.
 
I agree about the more room on the Dakota. And you make a good point about the engine - I had meant to say they were the same HP. Maybe I got lucky with my Dakota but of the 5 or 6 182s I have flown, none are as fast as it. Of course we are not talking about a 20kt difference.

The Dakota feels more stable to be in turbulence than a 182 and it does not feel as nose heavy. You can certainly fit more volume in a 182 even if the carrying capacity is similar.
 
I vote Dakota because I'm biased towards Pipers:)

Make it a priority to find one that's got low engine hours on a factory overhaul or an overhaul from a reputable shop.
 
bradg33 said:
I find the DA40 horribly uncomfortable, and I don't think it's fast enough to justify the costs.
Click to expand...

After about two hrs you need to just stand up LOL. This is going to sound really bad but the stick makes my hand sore. There is no comfortable way to hold it I end up using my finger tips.

I'm going to regret typing that hahaha

Also them big ass wings catch every bump in the sky. However I like it and it's much nicer to travel in with the family over the 140.

The sight picture takes some getting used to as well especially on approach.
 
Last edited:
Mission - 250nm most of the time but occasional 500nm. I'm based out of Upstate South Carolina so low level mountains to the north for the 500nm occasional trips and <200nm south to the beach (son lives in Charleston - so much more frequent). 4 place for maybe 20% of the time and 2 place for the rest. Elevations in this part of the country are quite low to clear (5,000 to clear Apps on North Trip) so turbo not really necessary.
Thanks for all the advice so far and even a couple of offers for purchases lol.
I'll be hitting the books looking at a few of them I really hadn't considered before. Due to my line of work statistics really mean a lot to my overall decision, so those planes that regularly fall into bad safety records I throw out altogether. I realize Pilots cause most accidents, but if a plane consistently has a bad safety record for more than 3 years then there is something effecting the outcome consistently (just my .02)
Thanks again!
 
Good luck in your search.

One small piece of advice I would offer, if you can, is to at least get in/out of the various choices and sit in them a few minutes to see how you like it. Sometimes, when you get in one, you will realize there is no way you would want "one of those!" And, by the way, take you wife with you.
 
somorris said:
Good luck in your search.



One small piece of advice I would offer, if you can, is to at least get in/out of the various choices and sit in them a few minutes to see how you like it. Sometimes, when you get in one, you will realize there is no way you would want "one of those!" And, by the way, take you wife with you.
Click to expand...

Very good piece of advice, especially the wife part. My wife was not at all in favor of the Beech 18....until I got her inside one.
 
You might consider the Cessna TR182. Myself and TangoWhiskey on this board own these and can provide info as needed.

In a nutshell, you get a solid 4-place airplane with a turbonormalized Lyc. O-540, decent useful load (mine is 1130 lbs nicely equipped - 92 gal fuel, 88 usable), large cabin, speed, high altitude access (FL200 max) with built-in 4-pl O2 system. My typical measured TAS at 10k - 12k feet is 162 KTAS. You can get up over 170 KTAS up higher. Really good range at, the book says, 1000+ nm (or 800 nm if you're conservative and fly fast like me).

Great mountain performer if you need that and really good examples can be had for <$120k.

Something to think about.
 
asicer said:
Have you considered an AA5B?
Click to expand...

Obviously, I am biased, and would second this choice. However, it is 10 - 15 knots slower than a Mooney M20C, or E. There is something to be said for retractable gear, and constant speed prop, but yes at a marginal cost.
 
Unless you like to make repairs, get a cream puff. You pay more up front, but hopefully will have fewer hassles. Lots of hours on a real zero time or other really good rebuild (or better yet, new) engine and the avionics and accessories you want. Thats my philososoply. I like my mechanic, but I dont really want to see him all that often. Maintenance is the big unknown in plane ownership.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Unless you like to make repairs, get a cream puff. You pay more up front, but hopefully will have fewer hassles. Lots of hours on a real zero time or other really good rebuild (or better yet, new) engine and the avionics and accessories you want. Thats my philososoply. I like my mechanic, but I dont really want to see him all that often. Maintenance is the big unknown in plane ownership.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I bought my airplane and flew it 97 hours and now the engine is out. Let someone else pay for the new engine:wink2:
 
JoseCuervo said:
I am shocked with how long it takes people to reccommend a Bonanza now days.

Look into the V-tails and you will be happy.

Unless of course, you want a Twin. You can get some great bargains on 310's these days.

Or, with your hours, you might look for a King Air-90.

As I say from the left seat of a C-182.....
Click to expand...

I thought Bonanzas were all 6 seaters for the longest. Then I found out there was a 4 seat version (model 33s) and the super cool V tails with 4 seats. Didn't take long to decide after that.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Unless you like to make repairs, get a cream puff. You pay more up front, but hopefully will have fewer hassles. Lots of hours on a real zero time or other really good rebuild (or better yet, new) engine and the avionics and accessories you want. Thats my philososoply. I like my mechanic, but I dont really want to see him all that often. Maintenance is the big unknown in plane ownership.
Click to expand...

Concur. I prefer upgrades + maintenance more than repairs + upgrades + maint.
 
Yeah, and hopefully skip the upgrades. Well, you can skip them, if its a stretch to pay for them. Nothing you can do with a glass panel that you cant do with a 6 pack and a WAAS IFR/GPS.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
I vote Dakota because I'm biased towards Pipers:)

Make it a priority to find one that's got low engine hours on a factory overhaul or an overhaul from a reputable shop.
Click to expand...

Priority is airframe condition, corrosion is ungodly expensive, takes forever to fix, and often leaves planes as salvage. Any airframe money spent is money down the tubes with a chaser of resale value. Engine overhaul money on the other hand is nearly perfectly prorated down to core value at 75% TBO. The greatest value comes buying at 75% TBO with a solid running, clean oil analysis, core value engine, and then running it until the oil analysis or other indicators say you are about to lose your core value, then you overhaul it. The hours you flew the engine in between were 'free'. In a 182 or a Dakota, it would not be rare at all to see a 'free' 1000 hours, a 172, Archer, or Warrior, there are plenty of examples of 2000 free hours.

Now if you have a beyond TBO plane, and are looking at selling it in a couple of years, it may or may not end up beneficial to go ahead and overhaul 200-300 hours before sale. It doesn't much seem to affect the price as people don't want to pay for those hours, and since resale add doesn't include the install price, at least you get to fly that value out of the plane before sale. Also there is the sales factor of infant mortality, and the fear factor is higher with field overhauls than factory, so if you are going with a lower cost overhaul, people will have more confidence buying it with 200+ hours on it, and even 300 is still considered fresh on a 2000hr engine.
 
Last edited:
bradg33 said:
I find the DA40 horribly uncomfortable, and I don't think it's fast enough to justify the costs.
Click to expand...

To me Diamond's only hit is a DA-20, and if I ever got one I would immediately change the stick grip to one that gives me switches under my left thumb on the side to work the trim. Whoever thought to put it on top is an idiot, I need two hands on the stick to get it in trim when stick forces are high? That's a basic design flaw. Might as well have the trim switch on the throttle, that would be best. Hmmm, maybe a handle off a boat throttle with a trim switch....
 
SCAirborne said:
I just got my PPL less than two months ago... so a low time pilot. I am looking to start IFR training after the New Year and would rather buy an airplane prior to starting. I know the costs will be higher but that's not the issue.. I'm prepared for the cost.
The real question is that I've flown Cessna 172's and Piper Warrior only. I like them just fine but the speed and low useful loads are not practical for my typical mission. I am really looking at a true 4 place plane that has a bit more performance than the 172...
My total spend would be $150k or less. I think I've narrowed down the planes to either: Cessna 182 , Mooney M20, or Diamond DA40. Hell of a lot of difference in the three planes. Useful load may throw the Diamond right out of the mix but the newer avionics and safety characteristics are keeping it in the running even if I have to lose 10 gallons of fuel on the 4 place days.
I know Mooney are more complex with retracts but the speed is substantially higher than the others... but the one door bothers me. Also the safety record is the worst of the bunch (mostly pilot error but still...). The Cessna 182 is slower than any of them but can haul a lot more and is not complex just high performance (no retracts on the models I'm looking at).

An 80's Mooney and Cessna are also half the cost of Diamond's... I am really torn and wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on this. Please keep in mind my low time experience and thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Mostly pilot error.....but still......what exactly does that mean!? The mooney is not a hard airplane to fly if the low time pilot Checks out with a high time mooney pilot. They are docile , well behaved. This is true of most light airplanes. Your decision should be based on the mission as well as the aircraft. A mooney is to go places, mainly on asphalt, at a brisk clip with limited room, ( nice for two grown ups, passable for three.) it's a completely different animal than a 182. But no harder to fly with proper instruction. For me it would be a 180 cessna for shorter trips, grass strips, etc, and a 201 mooney for the other mission. I personally really like Mooneys, grew up flying them from a 2300 ft runway.
 
Sorry man, aircraft safety and flying in general isn't paint by numbers, reading NTSB reports will show it's the pilot who causes waaaay over 90% of the crashes.

Where folks get into trouble is when they have more money than skills, get the high end, high performance plane, but are a low performance pilot, outcome is obvious.

Get good instruction, get it from someone who has real world working pilot experience outside of the CFI world, find a freight dog, medevac pilot, king air driver, etc who CFIs on the side, get your instrument ticket in your new plane, don't worry about hitting minimum hours for your ride, get comfy, you'll be fine, be it in a docile slow 182, or a screaming IO550ed Glasair RG.
 
Tom-D said:
This is within your budget, and will do every thing you want better than any other suggested here.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/2086343.html
Click to expand...

I still don't understand the affinity for that plane.:dunno: There are a few people who can make use of its beneficial properties, while everyone is squeezed into that tiny cabin.:dunno: Unless you need to get the maximum load of in the minum distance on tundra tires, there are better choices than a 185. Not to mention if you do full power take offs you become pariah at many airports for your noise foot print.

If I want a piston Cessna on floats or a runway, I want a 206.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top