My plane for my mission (sort of dreaming)

cleared4theoption

cleared4theoption

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
363
Location
Flowery Branch, GA
Display Name
Display name:
Jeremy
So, I know I don't even have my PPL yet...but I have been doing a lot of dreaming about my dream plane to try and get someday (this is a semi-realistic dream...not going for the Falcon or Lear)

My mission would be to have the ability to transport me, my wife...and my two small dogs (and some luggage) to fairly distant locations in relative comfort.
I think I really like the Piper PA-32R Lance II 78-79 model.
Any thoughts?
I know most people shoot lower for their first plane (C152...etc) But I figure might as well go for something that will get the job done.
When you look at the specs sheet, you can still run it around 11-12 gph, and get like 138kts...compared to the C172 getting 7-8 gph but only doing around 100kts, you would spend about the same fuel for trips around 500nm or more.
Any thoughts on this plane?
 
cleared4theoption said:
So, I know I don't even have my PPL yet...but I have been doing a lot of dreaming about my dream plane to try and get someday (this is a semi-realistic dream...not going for the Falcon or Lear)

My mission would be to have the ability to transport me, my wife...and my two small dogs (and some luggage) to fairly distant locations in relative comfort.
I think I really like the Piper PA-32R Lance II 78-79 model.
Any thoughts?
I know most people shoot lower for their first plane (C152...etc) But I figure might as well go for something that will get the job done.
When you look at the specs sheet, you can still run it around 11-12 gph, and get like 138kts...compared to the C172 getting 7-8 gph but only doing around 100kts, you would spend about the same fuel for trips around 500nm or more.
Any thoughts on this plane?
Click to expand...

Piper PA-32R Lance II is a pretty steep learning curve for a beginner.

Got bucks?
 
I'm in the same boat, and the Lance never entered the picture. The Mooney M20E is the bird for me, should the gods smile and start writing me checks.
 
cleared4theoption said:
Any thoughts on this plane?
Click to expand...
The Lance is a great and very useful airplane. As a kid, I have travelled all over the southwest in my dad's PA32RT. It is a great family hauler.

BUT, since you mentioned that you haven't finished your PPL yet.....it is going to cost you a TON to insure it in the beginning (at least the first year or two).

Lance's start becoming affordable insurance wise around 500 TT and 100 complex. You can certainly get into one earlier, but it is going to cost you a pretty penny.

Since you are in the southeast, I'd recommend avoiding the Turbos. You really don't need it and the fuel consumption of the turbo will eat you alive.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I'm in the same boat, and the Lance never entered the picture. The Mooney M20E is the bird for me, should the gods smile and start writing me checks.
Click to expand...
Relative comfort is the key. Mooneys are great, but not huge on the space department...the Lance II is pretty spacious, and has the 4 facing rear seat area for the wife to get more comfy and watch the dogs.
Like I said...I know it's it pretty high dollar GA aircraft...a fractional or partnership might work as well...:dunno:
This is one of those down the road thoughts. I don't mind renting and working up to it over time. Buying smaller airplanes and "trading up" only works when it's a sellers market...which, right now, it is not.
 
Fearless Tower said:
The Lance is a great and very useful airplane. As a kid, I have travelled all over the southwest in my dad's PA32RT. It is a great family hauler.

BUT, since you mentioned that you haven't finished your PPL yet.....it is going to cost you a TON to insure it in the beginning (at least the first year or two).

Lance's start becoming affordable insurance wise around 500 TT and 100 complex. You can certainly get into one earlier, but it is going to cost you a pretty penny.

Since you are in the southeast, I'd recommend avoiding the Turbos. You really don't need it and the fuel consumption of the turbo will eat you alive.
Click to expand...
Understood. I would rather rent, and build time and complex time, than buy a small plane that doesn't fit my mission, knowing that I will take a loss when I inevitably sell it to get a bigger plane.
 
cleared4theoption said:
Understood. I would rather rent, and build time and complex time, than buy a small plane that doesn't fit my mission, knowing that I will take a loss when I inevitably sell it to get a bigger plane.
Click to expand...
As long as you have access to decent rentals, then I think your plan is a good one.
 
CBeaulieu said:
I want a Bonanza :dunno:

An A36 for that crew seating.
Click to expand...
It's a trade-off.

A36 will get you there faster, but a PA32 cabin is more roomy AND the baggage compartment is a lot bigger.

Unless you need the speed, a PA32 is a better deal.
 
Fearless Tower said:
It's a trade-off.

A36 will get you there faster, but a PA32 cabin is more roomy AND the baggage compartment is a lot bigger.

Unless you need the speed, a PA32 is a better deal.
Click to expand...
Yeah...I think my wife wouldn't mind riding around with me in a plane...she just isn't keen on the "sardine in a can" feeling :wink2:
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
It's a trade-off.

A36 will get you there faster, but a PA32 cabin is more roomy AND the baggage compartment is a lot bigger.

Unless you need the speed, a PA32 is a better deal.
Click to expand...

Very true sir - but I am a young bachelor who wouldn't need a huge amount of space :yesnod:


cleared4 - keep maintenance costs in mind. While fuel costs may even out on long trips, there are other things to consider the more complex and powerful the plane.
 
CBeaulieu said:
cleared4 - keep maintenance costs in mind. While fuel costs may even out on long trips, there are other things to consider the more complex and powerful the plane.
Click to expand...

I am hoping part of those maintenance costs will be kept pretty low. I am going to school starting in August to get my A&P. I know I won't be able to do all the work myself...but a good bit of it.
 
cleared4theoption said:
Relative comfort is the key. Mooneys are great, but not huge on the space department...the Lance II is pretty spacious, and has the 4 facing rear seat area for the wife to get more comfy and watch the dogs.
Like I said...I know it's it pretty high dollar GA aircraft...a fractional or partnership might work as well...:dunno:
This is one of those down the road thoughts. I don't mind renting and working up to it over time. Buying smaller airplanes and "trading up" only works when it's a sellers market...which, right now, it is not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm a teenie-weeny little guy (and least in the vertical measurement) and I have a teenie-weeny little wife (and I'll belt the guy who says otherwise if she doesn't) and two teenie-weeny little dogs. A Mooney is more that enough, quick as can be, and don't I love the manual gear retraction. No need to pay for and pay to drag around all that space I don't need. But that's me.
 
cleared4theoption said:
I am hoping part of those maintenance costs will be kept pretty low. I am going to school starting in August to get my A&P. I know I won't be able to do all the work myself...but a good bit of it.
Click to expand...

Very cool. That should certainly help!
 
CBeaulieu said:
Very true sir - but I am a young bachelor who wouldn't need a huge amount of space :yesnod:
Click to expand...

That can change, occasionally in a really big hurry. Usually faster than you expect.

I wonder which aircraft is best for a diaper change in the field? On the ground, it would have to be a Piper PA28 (that low wing is just the perfect height).
 
cleared4theoption said:
So, I know I don't even have my PPL yet...but I have been doing a lot of dreaming about my dream plane to try and get someday (this is a semi-realistic dream...not going for the Falcon or Lear)

My mission would be to have the ability to transport me, my wife...and my two small dogs (and some luggage) to fairly distant locations in relative comfort.
I think I really like the Piper PA-32R Lance II 78-79 model.
Any thoughts?
I know most people shoot lower for their first plane (C152...etc) But I figure might as well go for something that will get the job done.
When you look at the specs sheet, you can still run it around 11-12 gph, and get like 138kts...compared to the C172 getting 7-8 gph but only doing around 100kts, you would spend about the same fuel for trips around 500nm or more.
Any thoughts on this plane?
Click to expand...

Ahhh go for it all man!!!!!!!!! Get what you need to fly this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PQZ27-kd_A
 
cleared4theoption said:
Buying smaller airplanes and "trading up" only works when it's a sellers market...which, right now, it is not.
Click to expand...

And if you already had a plane that might be worrisome. But you don't. This is a buyer's market, which you are. Five years from now things might be very different and your savings may not keep pace with inflating prices.

I bought a plane right before my PPL check ride. I intend to put 500-ish hours on it and then try to buy the plane of my dreams. At least consider that route.
 
Hmmm. New pilot. Wants to carry a lot. Sounds like Cessna 182 to me.
 
Morne said:
And if you already had a plane that might be worrisome. But you don't. This is a buyer's market, which you are. Five years from now things might be very different and your savings may not keep pace with inflating prices.

I bought a plane right before my PPL check ride. I intend to put 500-ish hours on it and then try to buy the plane of my dreams. At least consider that route.
Click to expand...

You make a good point...something to be said for crawling before walking when it comes to aircraft ownership
 
MAKG1 said:
I wonder which aircraft is best for a diaper change in the field? On the ground, it would have to be a Piper PA28 (that low wing is just the perfect height).
Click to expand...
Depends on how tall you are. I'm 5'11" and so far, the wing of the BE-76 Duchess is my preferred changing table. I'd have to be way out on the wingtip to not hurt my back changing a diaper on a PA28.
 
cleared4theoption said:
You make a good point...something to be said for crawling before walking when it comes to aircraft ownership
Click to expand...

I would suggest just the opposite. This is a buyers market, so you don't want to be a seller. I would buy the aircraft you think will fit your needs for the foreseeable future. Even if you have to fly off a lot of hours for insurance before taking it alone, that can be an advantage as well. I mean how well would you know your aircraft after Instrument and transition training, maybe 100 hours with a CFI? Just be prepared to get crushed on insurance for a year or two, that just comes with the territory.

Otherwise, I would rent and wait.
 
If you are going to fly FREQUENTLY don't let people scare you away from a lance. Get good transition training (15+ hours) and fly a bunch to stay current and LEARN! Make sure the CFI doing your transition training won't let you get away with anything. It's easy to build bad habits this early. Also, you don't have to fly everywhere at 75% cruise. If you find yourself getting overwhelmed or behind the aircraft, SLOW DOWN! Do this at the very first sign or doubt. This is coming from someone who transitioned to a 200+ mph complex airplane at 65 hrs.

Finally, remember, when in doubt slow down!
 
Any of the popular 4-seat 180 HP fixed-gear 4-seaters (Beech Sundowner, Piper Archer/180 Cherokee, Cessna Cardinal or 172 with 180HP STC, and Grumman Tiger) should be able to do the job, with the speed of the Grumman Tiger holding a significant advantage over 500 nm (at least 10 knots faster than its nearest competeitor, but not a great short/unpaved runway aircraft). If you really want non-stop flights, yes a HP/complex plane will be necessary, but you will pay a substantial insurance penalty until you get your instrument rating and at least 25 in type, and a significant penalty until you have 100 hours of retractable time.
 
Ron Levy said:
Any of the popular 4-seat 180 HP fixed-gear 4-seaters (Beech Sundowner, Piper Archer/180 Cherokee, Cessna Cardinal or 172 with 180HP STC, and Grumman Tiger) should be able to do the job, with the speed of the Grumman Tiger holding a significant advantage over 500 nm (at least 10 knots faster than its nearest competeitor, but not a great short/unpaved runway aircraft). If you really want non-stop flights, yes a HP/complex plane will be necessary, but you will pay a substantial insurance penalty until you get your instrument rating and at least 25 in type, and a significant penalty until you have 100 hours of retractable time.
Click to expand...

Flown PIC in a Sundowner, Tiger, and a 172. I have to say the best flying is the Tiger by far. The sliding canopy really makes it difficult to get in for some, and the head room is lacking in the back seat though.

The Sundowner is a good choice, and even myself at 6'1" can sit comfortably in the back (once which-ever front seat I'm sitting behind has been slid forward.

That said - my choice would be the Tiger. That's one nice flying airplane.
 
CBeaulieu said:
That said - my choice would be the Tiger. That's one nice flying airplane.
Click to expand...


Oh really? You have good taste. :)

However if the OP wants a true four seats, full fuel and bags plane, a 70's era C-182 is hard to beat.
 
Anthony said:
Oh really? You have good taste. :)
Click to expand...
Ditto.

However if the OP wants a true four seats, full fuel and bags plane, a 70's era C-182 is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
Agreed on that, too, but the OP said two adults, two "small" dogs, and bags -- and the 180 HP types will do that just fine (as long as the dogs aren't Mastiffs or St Bernards who are just small for their breed). And for the cost-conscious, the Tiger will go just as fast with that load burning 3 gph less (that's almost $20/hr cheaper just for fuel these days).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Agreed on that, too, but the OP said two adults, two "small" dogs, and bags -- and the 180 HP types will do that just fine (as long as the dogs aren't Mastiffs or St Bernards who are just small for their breed). And for the cost-conscious, the Tiger will go just as fast with that load burning 3 gph less (that's almost $20/hr cheaper just for fuel these days).
Click to expand...


Agreed. Since fuel at my home base has been $6.19/gal for some time now, I also find myself throttling back the Tiger to 55% - 60%, and getting around 8.5 GPH if memory serves.
 
Anthony said:
Agreed. Since fuel at my home base has been $6.19/gal for some time now, I also find myself throttling back the Tiger to 55% - 60%, and getting around 8.5 GPH if memory serves.
Click to expand...
You can certainly throttle a Tiger back to Cheetah speeds (about 120 knots) and get Cheetah fuel flows/economy, and still have Tiger power available for takeoff, climb, and payload capability. Nice, ain't it? :)

FWIW, I typically cruise my Tiger at 9.2 gph, getting 130 knots or so, depending on altitude.
 
Yep, it is nice. Most of my flying is just for pleasure, although I do go places, but I've come to realize at current 100LL prices that getting there five or ten minutes sooner doesn't matter that much. Since I bought the Tiger hourly fuel costs at 10 GPH has gone from under $20/hour to now over $60/hour. :(

Feeding another two cylinders like in a C-182 needs some real justification these days.
 
cleared4theoption said:
So, I know I don't even have my PPL yet...but I have been doing a lot of dreaming about my dream plane to try and get someday (this is a semi-realistic dream...not going for the Falcon or Lear)

My mission would be to have the ability to transport me, my wife...and my two small dogs (and some luggage) to fairly distant locations in relative comfort.
I think I really like the Piper PA-32R Lance II 78-79 model.
Any thoughts?
I know most people shoot lower for their first plane (C152...etc) But I figure might as well go for something that will get the job done.
When you look at the specs sheet, you can still run it around 11-12 gph, and get like 138kts...compared to the C172 getting 7-8 gph but only doing around 100kts, you would spend about the same fuel for trips around 500nm or more.
Any thoughts on this plane?
Click to expand...
For the mission requirements you gave I think a retractable Lance wouldn't be the best choice. IIRC, that 138 KTAS cruise speed is at 75% power which gobbles a lot of fuel. The PA-32 line (fixed and to nearly the same extent retractable) has a lot more payload than your mission needs and you'll pay for that with less speed, less range, and more fuel cost. A M20J (Mooney 201) will easily carry two people plus two dogs and a fair amount of baggage and it will be almost 25 Kt faster using about 2/3rds the fuel. It's also an easier plane to land and has lighter controls. OTOH, if you're "wider" than the average human, the 201 will feel a little more cramped but it is roomier than a 172 and IMO far more comfortable once you get used to having your butt closer to the ground when landing.

Other planes to consider are a relatively early model Bonanza (35 or 33). You'll probably want to avoid the E series powered ones but Beech started putting IO-470s and 520s on in 1959 and beyond. They're a tiny bit faster than a M20J but they burn a little more fuel. They also have very pleasant flying characteristics and depending on options can carry a significant payload with enough fuel to fly 600+nm with IFR reserves. Then there's the Piper Commanche, a little slower than the Bo or Mooney but typically more affordable both for initial purchase and for ongoing ownership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top