Looking for advice on a first plane

S

ShuRugal

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
81
Display Name
Display name:
ShuRugal
FINAL UPDATE:

I have ended up with a 1964 M20C. A bit sooner than I expected, but the aircraft fit my budget and was in excellent condition. Couple minor TLC squawks on the pre-buy, got them worked out with the seller, and closed the deal a couple weeks ago. I had it relocated to the airport my CFI operates from last week, and had my first flight in it with my CFI yesterday.

Very pleased and quite excited.

EDIT: Test-flew an M20C on Thursday. Waiting for my bank to greenlight my loan, then gonna have a pre-buy done on it.

EDIT2: My bank has failed me. Despite pulling a credit score of 765, and a credit report with zero delinquencies on three cards over the last ten years, they decided not to loan to me because I've never had a loan before... Nevermind that the loan would be secured against the plane, and is 3/4 the value of the plane, so the bank actually stands to make a profit of I default... Worthless pieces of ****. Soon as my Navy Federal account finishes opening, I'm going to close my Wells Fargo account. They just lost a lifetime customer.

Bit of background: I've just recently obtained my Sport certificate. I plan to go on to full Private Pilot and beyond, in fact I only need to wipe out a couple hours of night-training and hood-work to meet requirements for PP practical. Probably get that done in the next couple months, and look at buying something around January, after taxes come back.

I am looking ahead at the possibility of purchasing a plane for myself. For comparison, the bird I fly right now (renting) is a Tecnam P2002. I absolutely love the way it handles. My only real complaint about it is that it is slow.

Basic mission statement for the plane:

  • carry myself and at least one passenger
  • anywhere in the state of VA (KRIC or vicinity starting point) in ~90 minutes or less
  • using no more fuel than my station wagon (25 MPG on highway) would to make the same two endpoints
  • has light and responsive controls
  • good pilot visibility towards lift-vector and into turns (high wings need not apply)
  • Budget is $30-50k
Those are my critical bullets anything that doesn't meet them won't be considered. My "wish list" after those critical items:
  • faster == better. ideal goal is 150 KTAS cruise
  • ability to make IFR approaches, just in case
  • up to four pax total capacity, just in case
  • CS prop for higher efficiency
  • Retracts: see CS prop
  • solid initial climb rate so i can get out of places like BCB and CHO without worrying about mountains
  • Fuel endurance of 3-4 hours + 30 min reserve is ideal

Based on my own research, and the feedback in this thread so far, I am liking the following:
  1. Van's RV-4 w/ hartzell prop
Pros:​
  • Fast cruise (seen reports of 170-180 KTAS. 3 miles a minute? yes please)
  • Excellent climb
  • (reportedly) light and extremely responsive handling
  • fuel economy
  • Centerline seating
  • Stick
  • LH throttle/engine/prop controls
Cons:​
  • Two pax only
  • Fixed gear
  • Typically sell at or above the upper boundary of my price range
  • Taildragger - gotta find a CFI who can get me up to speed on that
2. Mooney M20 E/C
Pros:
  • Typical sale price is acceptably within my budget
  • Cruise is good
  • Fuel consumption is acceptable
  • 4 pax
  • retracts
  • CS prop
Cons:
  • Climb rate could be better
  • yoke
  • off-center seating

I will update this post with my thoughts on some of the other AC mentioned when I have a chance to research them a bit.

First impression of Grumman Tiger: Might do, might do quite nicely indeed. need to research this one more.
 
Last edited:
Just a comment on the Arrow. No way in hell it does 150 KIAS. No normally aspirated Arrow will even do 150 KTAS in level flight to the best of my knowledge.
 
Sounds like an E through N model Bonanza fits all the missions except control yoke. You can pull the power back at altitude to make it efficient. I would say Mooney but at your price you aren't going to get anything but a short one and those aren't real 4 person airplanes.
 
Not sure why fixed gear is a con for the RV. Most people would see that as a positive. Don't forget another good thing about the RVs are that you don't have to use certified parts, which can significantly decrease maintenance costs. There are also plenty of tricycle gear RVs. You may just have to look outside the -4 to find one.

I like the Arrows I've flown, but I didn't think they were very similar to a Mooney (even the C) in cruise speed. I could be wrong. It has been a while.
 
Last edited:
Mooney comes the closest, are excellent values, and very well built. Suggest you'll be on high end of your budget for decent IFR bird. Probably a C.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
skier said:
Not sure why fixed gear is a con for the RV. Most people would see that as a positive. Don't forget another good thing about the RVs are that you don't have to use certified parts, which can significantly decrease maintenance costs. There are also plenty of tricycle gear RVs. You may just have to look outside the -4 to find one.

I like the Arrows I've flown, but I didn't honk they were very similar to a Mooney (even the C) in cruise speed. I could be wrong. It has been a while.
Click to expand...

No there are tons of us that consider retract a big plus, and not just because it looks cool :)

A 180ho early Mooney easily beats a 200hp arrow in cruise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sorry, but Mooneys deliver more bang for your buck in this part of the certificated world. You could probably get a really really old Bo for the money, but the words "old Bonanza" sound like a recipe for huge maintenance costs.
 
steingar said:
Sorry, but Mooneys deliver more bang for your buck in this part of the certificated world. You could probably get a really really old Bo for the money, but the words "old Bonanza" sound like a recipe for huge maintenance costs.
Click to expand...

Age has very little to do with condition. A 5k hour Mooney will be just as worn as a 5k hour Bonanza. The only exception to this rule would be rubber components and electronics, both of which have likely been replaced at least once on a Bonanza.

The only added cost on a Bonanza would be the extra 2 cylinders and propeller if it is one that falls into the recurring AD. In this price range for the same money the Bonanza will have much more rear seat room and will be just as fast but burn a little more fuel.
 
Grum.Man said:
Age has very little to do with condition. A 5k hour Mooney will be just as worn as a 5k hour Bonanza. The only exception to this rule would be rubber components and electronics, both of which have likely been replaced at least once on a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

Cough...cough...cough...bull$hit.....cough.....cough....cough. Bo's have motors that run the gear and flaps and an extra couple cylinders to keep happy. Moreover, at the same price point the Mooney will be decades more recent.
 
steingar said:
Cough...cough...cough...bull$hit.....cough.....cough....cough. Bo's have motors that run the gear and flaps and an extra couple cylinders to keep happy. Moreover, at the same price point the Mooney will be decades more recent.
Click to expand...

So you cherry pick a mechanical gear mooney to prove a point? A lot of mooneys have electric gears and flaps as well. 2 cylinders over 1800 hours is $2.00 more per hour or less. And again, what do you think a decade matters to a regularly maintained and flown airplane?
 
Grum.Man said:
So you cherry pick a mechanical gear mooney to prove a point? A lot of mooneys have electric gears and flaps as well. 2 cylinders over 1800 hours is $2.00 more per hour or less. And again, what do you think a decade matters to a regularly maintained and flown airplane?
Click to expand...

The Mooneys that have electric gear, flaps, and two extra cylinders are not in the OPs price range. The ones with Johnson Bar gear and hydraulic flaps are. That's two fewer sets of motors to inspect, break and possibly replace. And again, two fewer cylinders to keep happy. And because of the later it will burn less gas going faster than nearly anything in that price range outside of the experimental world.

Moreover, a Bo of the vintage that the OP can afford with his stated pricing expectations will not have been worth a lot for quite a long time. There is the very real danger than the airframe has deferred maintenance or other forms of neglect. Perhaps not, but perhaps. That's where having a decades newer aircraft does pose an advantage.

You are correct in one thing. Any airframe can turn into an expensive maintenance hog. I just think that if you combine a very old airframe that had its share of problems when new (magnesium ruddervators, anyone?) and extreme complexity, and make it minimally valuable with hideously expensive parts and support, and you've got a recipe for a potential disaster.
 
FNG here, but I think it's Mooney, Bo or Comanche.

You could get a 250 Comanche with basic avionics in that range, just to add that to the discussion,

150 really puts you in a small group. if you can do 135, you could look at a lot more planes (Grumman, basic 182,etc)
 
Generally, the RV-4's should be around low 40's ... recent ones have been asking near 50k. I haven't seen any Arrows in that range lately.

I'm looking at moving to an RV soon as all of my flights are solo. The Tiger has been great these past 8 years, but want a little more speed and higher cruise altitude as all of my flights are long XC 4 hour legs (Tiger service ceiling is 13,800).
 
skier said:
Not sure why fixed gear is a con for the RV. Most people would see that as a positive. Don't forget another good thing about the RVs are that you don't have to use certified parts, which can significantly decrease maintenance costs. There are also plenty of tricycle gear RVs. You may just have to look outside the -4 to find one.

I like the Arrows I've flown, but I didn't think they were very similar to a Mooney (even the C) in cruise speed. I could be wrong. It has been a while.
Click to expand...
fixed gear on a RV is a plus. its a 170kt airplane with fixed gear, no reason to have retracts on it. I see 154 kts true all day long at 1000 ft at 70% power. at 8k it will do 170kts all day long.

other points to consider.

a RV-4 is not a real IFR capable aircraft. yes, you can put the equipment you need in, but there is no room for much redundancy. without an autopilot there is no way I would fly mine in IFR, the great handling of a RV-4 is not a plus in the soup. only the 6,7,8,9,10,12 can be had with tricycle gear, and a plane with IFR equipment, and a constant speed prop in those models will not be in your price range. that being said, there is no better plane for fun VS dollar than an RV. there is a reason why there are so many of them being built.
bob
 
steingar said:
The Mooneys that have electric gear, flaps, and two extra cylinders are not in the OPs price range. The ones with Johnson Bar gear and hydraulic flaps are. That's two fewer sets of motors to inspect, break and possibly replace. And again, two fewer cylinders to keep happy. And because of the later it will burn less gas going faster than nearly anything in that price range outside of the experimental world.

Moreover, a Bo of the vintage that the OP can afford with his stated pricing expectations will not have been worth a lot for quite a long time. There is the very real danger than the airframe has deferred maintenance or other forms of neglect. Perhaps not, but perhaps. That's where having a decades newer aircraft does pose an advantage.

You are correct in one thing. Any airframe can turn into an expensive maintenance hog. I just think that if you combine a very old airframe that had its share of problems when new (magnesium ruddervators, anyone?) and extreme complexity, and make it minimally valuable with hideously expensive parts and support, and you've got a recipe for a potential disaster.
Click to expand...

Yes you loose two motors but you gain potential hydraulic leaks. And yes you are going faster but you aren't carry 4 normal height adults very comfortably compared to the Bonanza. Depends on which aspect he values more.

You keep saying decades, we are only talking 10 years give or take between a 50k Mooney and a 50k Bonanza. And your value comment is rediculous. A 50k airplane is a 50k airplane wether it's a Bonanza or a Mooney.
 
Holy crap, I seem to have found the right place to be asking questions.

To address some of the refinements:
  • it it's gonna drink ~10+ gph, i def want 150 kias out of it. If that rules me out of the Arrow, so be it.
  • 135 kias would be acceptable in an aircraft that will cruise on 5-7 gph. The P2002 I've been flying drinks 4-5 @ 100 kias. I want a fair bit more speed than the Tecnam offers, but not at the cost of efficiency (which is another thing that attracts me to the RV-4)
  • I find RG preferable to FG simply because it tends to improve fuel economy. Anything that matches or exceeds the P2002 in fuel efficiency can have whatever gear it wants, though.
  • I expect to be flying solo or +1 far more often than I expect to fly +2 or +3, so cramped second-row seating is not a huge problem.
  • IFR is a contingency requirement: I want to be able to make instrument approaches if i find myself in a situation where i need to, but i don't plan on making many XC instrument-only flights
 
Are you buying a tool or a toy? Tools are specified based on the job to be done. Toys are specified based on what seems cool. Your list sounds more like a toy list.

For example, 150kts with small tanks may well be slower than 130kts with big tanks, making your usual trip lengths without a fuel stop. For a tool, you would specify range with a 1 hr. fuel reserve not speed. IIRC the older Arrows have only 48 gallon tanks.

Thinking tool, is climb rate really that important? Probably not unless you normally operate in the mountains.


Here is a guy who is thinking in terms of the tool he needs:
danhagan said:
... I'm looking at moving to an RV soon as all of my flights are solo. The Tiger has been great these past 8 years, but want a little more speed and higher cruise altitude as all of my flights are long XC 4 hour legs (Tiger service ceiling is 13,800).
Click to expand...
 
airdale said:
Are you buying a tool or a toy? Tools are specified based on the job to be done. Toys are specified based on what seems cool. Your list sounds more like a toy list.
Click to expand...

Bit of both, really. Part of what I intend to accomplish asking these questions is find out if my expectations are realistic, or if i need to modify my thinking.

Based on the specs of the RV-4, i feel like my performance expectations are not impossible, but may perhaps require more budget than I have at this time to accommodate. I am prepared to be flexible.
 
Clark1961 said:
Fast, efficient, cheap...pick any two

Fast, certified, cheap...pick any two also works
Click to expand...

Trite, but not very helpful in terms of educating me as to what is actually out there, and how far i need to be modifying which expectations to get in line with reality.
 
Grum.Man said:
Yes you loose two motors but you gain potential hydraulic leaks.
Click to expand...

Way easier and less expensive to fix than motors.

Grum.Man said:
And yes you are going faster but you aren't carry 4 normal height adults very comfortably compared to the Bonanza. Depends on which aspect he values more.
Click to expand...

Actually, taller folks fit better in Mooneys. That said you are correct, the Bo will carry the back seat passengers w=in far greater comfort. One of the strongest selling points of my Money as the small back seat. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've carried back seat passengers. So why pay for and schlep around a bit back seat? Moreover, the OP has said he doesn't expect to take many back seat passengers. So why have one?

Grum.Man said:
You keep saying decades, we are only talking 10 years give or take between a 50k Mooney and a 50k Bonanza. And your value comment is rediculous. A 50k airplane is a 50k airplane wether it's a Bonanza or a Mooney.
Click to expand...

A Bo from the 50's or a Mooney from the 70s from the sounds of it. I don't mean to come off as if I don't like Bo's, I love them. But they have some pronounced drawbacks compared to Mooneys. They do have one big advantage though, which is that big back seat. That and the V-tail Bonanza is one of the prettiest aircraft in the GA fleet.
 
ShuRugal said:
  • 135 kias would be acceptable in an aircraft that will cruise on 5-7 gph. The P2002 I've been flying drinks 4-5 @ 100 kias. I want a fair bit more speed than the Tecnam offers, but not at the cost
Click to expand...

First. You are asking about KIAS(indicated). Everyone else is discussing KTAS(True), at altitude. For reference, 135kias at 10000 MSL standard atmosphere is about 162ktas, 150kias--180ktas(that's modern SR-22 speed at full power, 16-18gph). Even Mooney can't touch that until relatively recently(read expensive). For conversion: http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

Second. 4-5@100 and 5-7@135? 25% more fuel for 35% more speed? That's backwards
 
genna said:
First. You are asking about KIAS(indicated). Everyone else is discussing KTAS(True), at altitude. For reference, 135kias at 10000 MSL standard atmosphere is about 162ktas, 150kias--180ktas(that's modern SR-22 speed at full power, 16-18gph). Even Mooney can't touch that until relatively recently(read expensive). For conversion: http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

Second. 4-5@100 and 5-7@135? 25% more fuel for 35% more speed?
Click to expand...
You were gentler than I was going to be...which is why I just give hints...
 
I like my mooney. But I paid way more than your budget four years ago... have prices come down that much??
 
Your expectations are too much speed, too many specific features that may or may not be mission-justified, and not enough money. If you want to spend $50,000 today to go 150 KTAS tomorrow, plan on spending another $25,000 the day after tomorrow for the engine overhaul and avionics upgrades that the seller is trying to avoid by selling you the plane. If you want to spend $50,000 to fly IFR tomorrow, look for a plane in the 130-140 KTAS range or in the 120-130 KTAS range with an approach-certified WAAS GPS. The first M20C listed on Barnstormers has a non-WAAS Garmin 430 GPS, life left in the engine, and an asking price in your range. It won't go 150, but 10 knots can be very expensive to buy and is negligible in real-world flying.

By the way, if your mission is to go 100-110 knots on 4-5 gph, VFR, with a maximum of one other person in the plane, stick to the Tecnam or similar type. Those LSA planes are incredible values if your mission will tolerate the limitations. If I raced my 180hp Arrow (which I love for my mission) against a CTSW on a 450nm flight (that is the longest flight I make more often than once in a blue moon) and we both leave at noon on a calm day, I would land at 3:28 and the CTSW would land 37 minutes later at 4:05. I would spend about $150 to put on 30 gallons of 100LL and the CT would spend about $50 to put on 20 gallons of 91-octane auto gas. There is a pretty narrow range of weather that would stop the CT from going VFR but still let me go IFR (no icing or thunderstorms). So for slightly less weather capability, on fuel alone the CT guy saves $100 and probably lands while I'm still at the fuel pumps. And if we both inadvertently flew into bad icing conditions or something, the CT will come down under a BRS parachute while the Arrow plummets to a fiery grave. Don't write off an LSA even if you're a private pilot. They are the perfect planes for certain missions.

The moral of the story (as always with airplane purchases) is to define your mission and adjust your expectations until you can accomplish the mission.
 
iamtheari said:
Your expectations are too much speed, too many specific features that may or may not be mission-justified, and not enough money. If you want to spend $50,000 today to go 150 KTAS tomorrow, plan on spending another $25,000 the day after tomorrow for the engine overhaul and avionics upgrades that the seller is trying to avoid by selling you the plane. If you want to spend $50,000 to fly IFR tomorrow, look for a plane in the 130-140 KTAS range or in the 120-130 KTAS range with an approach-certified WAAS GPS. The first M20C listed on Barnstormers has a non-WAAS Garmin 430 GPS, life left in the engine, and an asking price in your range. It won't go 150, but 10 knots can be very expensive to buy and is negligible in real-world flying.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of information I am looking for, and gives me some realistic expectations to tune my search with, thank you


iamtheari said:
By the way, if your mission is to go 100-110 knots on 4-5 gph, VFR, with a maximum of one other person in the plane, stick to the Tecnam or similar type. Those LSA planes are incredible values if your mission will tolerate the limitations. If I raced my 180hp Arrow (which I love for my mission) against a CTSW on a 450nm flight (that is the longest flight I make more often than once in a blue moon) and we both leave at noon on a calm day, I would land at 3:28 and the CTSW would land 37 minutes later at 4:05. I would spend about $150 to put on 30 gallons of 100LL and the CT would spend about $50 to put on 20 gallons of 91-octane auto gas. There is a pretty narrow range of weather that would stop the CT from going VFR but still let me go IFR (no icing or thunderstorms). So for slightly less weather capability, on fuel alone the CT guy saves $100 and probably lands while I'm still at the fuel pumps. And if we both inadvertently flew into bad icing conditions or something, the CT will come down under a BRS parachute while the Arrow plummets to a fiery grave. Don't write off an LSA even if you're a private pilot. They are the perfect planes for certain missions.
Click to expand...

I love the economy of the Tecnam, but i really do want something that is faster and has a bit more weight to absorb turbulence with (or climb/ceiling to get above it). Went CC from KBCB to KOFP in 80-90 degree (surface) weather a few weeks ago... miserable experience.

The other problem is that I do not own the Tecnam, and have to pay $110/hobbs (wet) to rent it. With the amount of flying I intend to do, the difference between the owenership costs per hour and rental cost per hour are high enough that I could better use that money to be making payments on a loan and end up with a plane that I own, instead of throwing money i'll never see again away renting. I would actually not mind to own a P2002, but the only one's i've seen for sale are ~$100k. I can't afford that, and wouldn't buy it if i could. I could get a very nicely kitted out trike RV for that money.

iamtheari said:
The moral of the story (as always with airplane purchases) is to define your mission and adjust your expectations until you can accomplish the mission.
Click to expand...

Well, if we want to go with a mission statement:

  • myself and at least one passenger
  • anywhere in the state of VA (KRIC or vicinity starting point) in 90 minutes or less
  • using no more fuel than my station wagon (25 MPG on highway) would to make the same two endpoints
  • has light and responsive controls
  • good pilot visibility IVO lift-vector (high wings need not apply)
Those are my critical bullets anything that doesn't meet them won't be considered. My "wish list" after those three critical items:
  • up to four pax total capacity, just in case
  • ability to make IFR approaches, just in case
  • CS prop for higher efficiency
  • Retracts: see CS prop
  • solid initial climb rate so i can get out of places like BCB and CHO without worrying about mountains (and because it's fun to leave the runway behind at 1200 ft/min, which the P2002 will do on a cold day with just me and half a tank out of OFP)
 
steingar said:
Way easier and less expensive to fix than motors.



Actually, taller folks fit better in Mooneys. That said you are correct, the Bo will carry the back seat passengers w=in far greater comfort. One of the strongest selling points of my Money as the small back seat. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've carried back seat passengers. So why pay for and schlep around a bit back seat? Moreover, the OP has said he doesn't expect to take many back seat passengers. So why have one?



A Bo from the 50's or a Mooney from the 70s from the sounds of it. I don't mean to come off as if I don't like Bo's, I love them. But they have some pronounced drawbacks compared to Mooneys. They do have one big advantage though, which is that big back seat. That and the V-tail Bonanza is one of the prettiest aircraft in the GA fleet.
Click to expand...

I agree on the motors vs. hydraulics but it's not like those motors are failing constantly. If carrying a 2nd passenger is of such little concern to him then I would say skip the certified airplanes all together and look for older Van's, or a Wittman W10, or a Mustang II / T18. All of those will run circles around, out climb, and be far cheaper to operate than a Bonanza or a Mooney. We will agree to disagree on the age as that is time and condition dependent and I have seen 60's Mooneys at 50k and 60's Bonanza's at 50K. I like the J model and newer Mooney's but those are way out of his price range, just never liked the older ones and I prefer a 6 cylinder engine.

And a thread like this wouldn't be complete without mentioning a Bellanca Super Viking. You can find a decent early super viking in the mid 30's but some un-noticed wing rot or weak fabric will erase all of that savings in a hurry. You really have to know what you are looking at on those and it helps to be mechanically inclined and have friends who are A&P's.
 
Most of it has been said already. OP has a unicorn list. A four seat IFR, 150ktas at 10 gph, for $50k would sell very well indeed.

I love Mooneys. I once asked a trusted A&P/IA about the Mooney being inexpensive to maintain because of the manual gear and flaps, etc. I was a bit disappointed when he told me the Arrow was far more simple, cheap and easy to keep in the air. I took my Commercial and CFI checkrides in two different Arrows. I don't hate them.

But the other posters are correct: retracts are cool but if you can leave two seats out of the equation and cruise at 170 in an RV4 then fixed gear would be welcome in my hangar.

Oh, and "occasional IFR" is an oxymoron. To fly in actual IMC you have to be in practice, and to be in practice you have to fly quite often in the system. I found out many years ago that cross country travel is far easier when you just file IFR. If I'm in unfamiliar territory (for example ferrying a plane across the country), I'll file IFR even in severe clear weather.
 
I have ownership in an RV and an Arrow. RV is what you want right now. Maybe in a few years sell it for a better option.

And, for gosh sake, climb rate out of CHO? C'mon, man, what are you even doing out there? :p
 
As many have said there really isnt a whole lot that will hit that KTAS for that fuel burn, unfortunately i think some compromise will have to be made somewhere. A 182 will definitely give you the lift and passenger range but the ones in your budget will fall short of the speed by about 15-20knots and a burn about 11-13gph. There isn't a lot out there that will hit all those points

from personal experience I did a lot of flying in a non turbo arrow, and i personally do not like that airplane, hard to get in/out, very hot, poor ventilation, climbs not that great, won't really take 4 people, and the cruise speed was no where near 150ktas
 
ShuRugal said:
Bit of background: I've just recently obtained my Sport certificate. I plan to go on to full Private Pilot and beyond, in fact I only need to wipe out a couple hours of night-training and hood-work to meet requirements for PP practical. Probably get that done in the next couple months, and look at buying something around January, after taxes come back.

I am looking ahead at the possibility of purchasing a plane for myself. For comparison, the bird I fly right now (renting) is a Tecnam P2002. I absolutely love the way it handles. My only real complaint about it is that it is slow.

My preferences for a plane are as follows:
  • Cruise speed around 150 ktas
  • initial climb rate in the neighborhood of 1k f/m under favourable conditions
  • Good fuel economy (prefer not more than 10 gal/hr unless cruise speed is very high)
  • Duration: 3-4 hours + 30 min
  • 2-4 pax (most common usage will be solo or +1)
  • CS prop
  • highly responsive controls
  • IFR approach capable
  • retracts (preferred, not required if cruise speed is at or above target range)
  • stick preferred over yoke, but yoke won't kill the deal
  • budget is $30-$50k

Doing some research on my own, I have come across three that i like:
  1. Van's RV-4 w/ hartzell prop
Pros:​
  • Fast cruise
  • Excellent climb
  • (reportedly) light and extremely responsive handling
  • fuel economy
  • Centerline seating
  • Stick
  • LH throttle/engine/prop controls
Cons:​
  • Two pax only
  • Fixed gear
  • Typically sell at or above the upper boundary of my price range
  • Taildragger - gotta find a CFI who can get me up to speed on that
2. Piper Arrow I/II
Pros:
  • Typical sale price is firmly within my budget
  • Cruise is acceptable
  • Fuel consumption is acceptable
  • 4 pax
  • retracts
  • CS prop
Cons:
  • Climb rate is kinda meh
  • yoke
  • off-center seating
3. Mooney M20C/E mk21/super21 -- By all accounts, similar to the Arrow, but slightly faster and slightly more expensive.​
Please note that I have NOT had an opportunity to test-fly anything other than a Tecnam at this point. Any recommendations or advice appreciated.



EDIT: moving some of my answers to detail Q's up here. Editing a few expectations as well.

To address some of the refinements:
  • it it's gonna drink ~10+ gph, i def want 150 ktas out of it. If that rules me out of the Arrow, so be it.
  • 135 ktas would be acceptable in an aircraft that will cruise on 6~7 gph. The P2002 I've been flying drinks 4~5 @ 110 ktas. I want a fair bit more speed than the Tecnam offers, but not at the cost of efficiency (which is another thing that attracts me to the RV-4, it has both)
  • I find RG preferable to FG simply because it tends to improve fuel economy. Anything that matches or exceeds the P2002 in fuel efficiency can have whatever gear it wants, though.
  • I expect to be flying solo or +1 far more often than I expect to fly +2 or +3, so cramped second-row seating is not a huge problem.
  • IFR is a contingency requirement: I want to be able to make instrument approaches if i find myself in a situation where i need to, but i don't plan on making many XC instrument-only flights
Click to expand...

For less than $50K you want a IFR four passenger, 150 kt, retract with a 1000 rpm climb, burning 10 gph. Good luck.
 
Clip4 said:
For less than $50K you want a IFR four passenger, 150 kt, retract with a 1000 rpm climb, burning 10 gph. Good luck.
Click to expand...

There are a few Mooney M20F's around that fit the criteria as long as you don't want fresh paint and a brand new engine and prop.

If the two in the back are small people, an E or C fit very well. Mine would and it DOES have fresh paint and a new engine and prop.
 
MBDiagMan said:
There are a few Mooney M20F's around that fit the criteria as long as you don't want fresh paint and a brand new engine and prop.

If the two in the back are small people, an E or C fit very well. Mine would and it DOES have fresh paint and a new engine and prop.
Click to expand...

And don't want an IFR GPS or compliant transponder. Not having both those items are going to limit operations a lot within the next 8 years.
 
My C has a 430W. Do you consider that an IFR GPS? I also will be spending a few thousand for a slide in replacement ADS-B transponder which will still keep me under the $50K budget set forth by the OP.
 
Just some numbers to chew on...

A 180 hp Piper Comanche will normally true 135-140kts at around 9 gph.
A 250 hp Piper Comanche will normally true 150-160kts at around 14 gph.

Either could be had for around you budget amount and meet most of your criteria. Biggest difference is do you want to be able to haul four real people, and is 20kts worth the 5 gph to you. Having flown both quite a bit, I favor the 250.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Just some numbers to chew on...

A 180 hp Piper Comanche will normally true 135-140kts at around 9 gph.
A 250 hp Piper Comanche will normally true 150-160kts at around 14 gph.

Either could be had for around you budget amount and meet most of your criteria. Biggest difference is do you want to be able to haul four real people, and is 20kts worth the 5 gph to you. Having flown both quite a bit, I favor the 250.
Click to expand...
My Mooney C does 140 at 9gph with 1000lb useful load and >800 mile range.
 
ShuRugal said:
Bit of both, really. Part of what I intend to accomplish asking these questions is find out if my expectations are realistic, or if i need to modify my thinking.

Based on the specs of the RV-4, i feel like my performance expectations are not impossible, but may perhaps require more budget than I have at this time to accommodate. I am prepared to be flexible.
Click to expand...

You can't defy the laws of physics...even in a Mooney. ;)

If you want to go fast on minimal fuel you need tiny and light, so fergetabout 4 people, etc. Comparing an RV-4 with an Arrow is like comparing an MGB with Grandfather's Ford Fairlane - they are both cars with 4 wheels & tires, and that's about where the resemblance ends. Each of the RV-4 and the Arrow can do things the other cannot.

And don't expect Tecnam fuel/speed ratios to extrapolate to faster speeds. Parasitic drag goes up with the square of velocity. That 150 kt criteria is expensive to achieve, but if it is a must on your capital investment and fuel economy budget, then stick with tiny and light, such as the RV, and accept the other compromises that entails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top