Next plane...

U

UngaWunga

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
2,265
Display Name
UngaWunga
Home Airfield
7B3
Since these tend to be fun threads... I have some ideas floating around about what to get next, but am open to suggestions.
Currently fly a 172M.
Most flights are under 3 hours, with 2-3 passengers. If two people, generally cargo is either the dog or two bicycles. No folding bikes.
Ex: NH -> northern Maine/NY/VT, MA Cape, NYC.
Other flights are NH to VA or NC, a couple of times a year. And 1-2 times a year down the FL. Two passengers with baggage and dog.
And of course out to Oshkosh.
Would like to bring occasionally 4 on the 2-3 hour trips.
I love my 172 for its simplicity, and the 172 can do most of these flights, but its really slow. The few flights where I caught a tailwind and my groundspeed got close to 140kts was an eye opener. And I won't take off from my home airfield with 3 passengers in the summer, especially with full fuel, as its 2000' long.

Looking for something faster that can carry a bit more. I don't have a PC-12 budget unfortunately. Its more of a what can I get when I sell the 172 + a bit type budget.
There are no larger/faster planes that I know of locally for rent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdb
Have you considered a Bonanza yet? You don't list your experience so insurance may be a blocker for you.

I bought a J model Bonanza as my first aircraft and it is perfect for similar missions to yours. The earlier 35 models A-P are generally cheaper than P/S/V models due to having smaller engines, but cruise around 145-150kts IAS. Despite what you read online, I've found maintenance and parts to be pretty affordable as long as you don't purchase from Textron.

Useful load can be an issue, but I've flown with the same pax/baggage and never ran into any issues. Despite there being a bit more maintenance to take care of with the retractable gear, I havent had much unexpected maintanance pop up, and no issue getting off in 1000' with full fuel and pax.

You can find some Bonanzas $75-120k with okay avionics and an older autopilot. Just make sure you thoroughly review the logbooks and maintenance history first! If you're interested, reach out to one of the ABS Ambassadors on https://secure.bonanza.org/Web/Web/Directories/ABS-Ambassadors.aspx. I'm also happy to answer any questions about the 35s, or give you a ride if you're in the GA/TN/SC/AL area.
 
asicer said:
The obvious is a 182 and it sounds like you've already ruled that out. Any particular reason why?
Click to expand...
I haven't, but the jump from 105-110kts to 135knts doesn't sound like a big gain for the price.
I have seen a few 182RG that look interesting.
 
S35 Bo is the fastest V tail without turbo. Go faster with a turbo, V35A-TC. Move into the long body 36 and haul more stuff, still going over 200MPH. I specialize in the early lightweight airframes from A35-G35. Very economical to buy and fly. Can burn mogas, carry 4 people with a few bags. Loading care is important. I can go about 160kts with 230HP but I rarely push it that hard or up that high. Prices run from $40-80k. Easy to fly and a gazillon mods avail. The concern is the early E type engine. Shares a lot of parts with the 0-470, but has a spline crank snout which limits props.
Style and power

BARNSTORMERS.COM Find Aircraft & Aircraft Parts - Airplane Sale, Jets, Helicopters, Experimental, Warbirds & Homebuilt

Aircraft for sale. Find the best new and used aircraft for sale such as business jets, helicopters, Experimental, Warbirds and more.
www.barnstormers.com
 
Sadly, I don't think you'll get a good benefit/cost ratio from any plane upgrade. More speed puts you into constant speed prop/retractable gear territory, and at that point cost/hr will jump a good bit. And insurance might not like you, depending on age.
 
Half Fast said:
Have you considered a Lance?
Click to expand...
That would fit the mission very well. 155 knots on 13 GPH, roomy, plenty of useful load, and except for the gear, no more maintenance than a 172. My friend had a Lance for many years - fantastic plane. If I had the bucks it’d be on my short list.
 
UngaWunga said:
I haven't, but the jump from 105-110kts to 135knts doesn't sound like a big gain for the price.
I have seen a few 182RG that look interesting.
Click to expand...
It's a 26% bump. That's pretty significant. What used to be 3 hours is now nearly 38 minutes less. 3 hours in a 172 used to get you 321nm but now gets you 405nm.

Now factor in a 20kt headwind and you're at a 33% difference.
 
Have you taken a peek over the fence at the experimental’s?

The RV10 will do 200 mph with 4 seats.

If you are ok with 2 seats. Vans has a few that’ll do the 200 and give the option of aerobatics.

I’m an A&P/Pilot and make sure I follow ALL the rules when working on my certified aircraft. When changing the o-ring seal in a 172 nose gear, a certified part is $65. The same spec o-ring without the certification is a bag of 10 for $15.

When you price out avionics, like a Garmin autopilot servo, the exact same servo sold as experimental Is 1/3rd less and it is identical except for the data plate.

There are used aircraft on the market. I know I am not up to build my own. I talked recently with a gentleman who spent 12 years building his RV7 and was flying it unpainted.

Paint shops want 20-30k and there is an 18 month wait to get in. Then they want 6 months to give it back.

With an experimental you can have a local automotive painter do the same job with the paint of your choice.

It’s worth a peek.
 
Last edited:
rockyfatcat said:
Have you taken a peek over the fence at the experimental’s?

The RV10 will do 200 mph with 4 seats.

If you are ok with 2 seats. Vans has a few that’ll do the 200 and give the option of aerobatics.

I’m an A&P/Pilot and make sure I follow ALL the rules when working on my certified aircraft. When changing the o-ring seal in a 172, a certified part is $65. The same spec o-ring without the certification is a bag of 10 for $15.

When you price out avionics, like a Garmin autopilot servo, the exact same servo sold as experimental Is 1/3rd less and it is identical except for the data plate.

There are used aircraft on the market. I know I am not up to build my own. I talked recently with a gentleman who spent 12 years building his RV7 and was flying it unpainted.

Paint shops want 20-30k and there is an 18 month wait to get in. Then they want 6 months to give it back.

With an experimental you can have a local automotive painter do the same job with the paint of your choice.

It’s worth a peek.
Click to expand...
RV-10 would be my 1st choice, but the prices are crazy
 
The 182 seems a good fit. Don’t discount the 135 indicated cruise speed with the large increase in useful load, climb rate and fuel capacity. Both straight leg and retractable available

Of course Bonanza (see my avatar). Great performance. It’s a retract and there is an insurance bump for that.
 
Your criteria is pretty broad, May want to refine your goals and provide a budget. Otherwise, if your criteria is just “faster” the list of possible planes is too big to be all that meaningful.

172s are pretty slow, but I think you’re right to jump past some of the usual suspects (I.e. 182s). To really make a difference worth going through the hassle of buying, selling, and setting up a new plane I think you’ll want a bigger lift than 20-30 knots. I think to make much of a difference you’ll want to get to 150-160 knot cruise or better. There are lots of planes that do that, the difference between them depend on load required, retract or not, budget, how bulky you and your cargo is, and what you’re willing/able to insure. Put some parameters to those things and it will make for a more meaningful discussion.
 
UngaWunga said:
Would like to bring occasionally 4 on the 2-3 hour trips.
...
And I won't take off from my home airfield with 3 passengers in the summer, especially with full fuel, as its 2000' long.
...
Its more of a what can I get when I sell the 172 + a bit type budget.
Click to expand...
4 up + full tanks + 2000' + summer may not be realistic unless you go full STOLbro (or katmai), but that does not sound like the 80% mission.

I'd lean towards 182, but many here are happy with the PA32 family truckster.
 
So... in typical PoA fashion, here's another answer you don't want: buy a second plane.

Keep the 172 for 3-4 pax short trips, get an RV-7/8 or similar fast 2-seater for long trips.
 
UngaWunga said:
Since these tend to be fun threads... I have some ideas floating around about what to get next, but am open to suggestions. Currently fly a 172M.
Click to expand...
I'm in a club with a nice Archer @ Laconia (KLCI) and intend to stay in it and was searching pretty hard for a 182, perhaps even a turbo and then a couple months ago a fellow club member who is also partners in a SR22G3 decided he need to get his own Cirrus as he thought he was flying the partner plane too much for work so he offered me his 1/4 share. I know the other members (two of the 4 are also in the Archer club).

A Cirrus wasn't really on my radar mostly for cost but a 4-way partnership makes it reasonable. In addition, the (heated!) hangar is owned by one of the partners so we just split the property tax and electric bill. I've only flown it once but it was neat to see 170 KTS going up to Rockland ME for lunch the other day. I start the insurance mandated training in a couple weeks. No, from what the charts tell me I would not fly it out of Hampton except light in the summer!

My point being this opportunity came up and keeping your 172 and finding a partnership/club in something high performance for trips? There's a club at Skyhaven that has a Cirrus - https://skyhavenflyingclub.org/
 
Have you flown any of the potential new planes?

If not, I'd start with renting (start with a 182) and try it out on a X country.

You need to not only look at the speed, but range, comfort in the cabin, loading, getting in and out, etc. You get that only by sitting in the plane / flying it. Then factor in the availability of parts, A&P's who can work on it, insurance, etc.

Given how well the 172 is working for you, I think you'll like what the 182 offers. Just a guess.
 
WDD said:
Given how well the 172 is working for you, I think you'll like what the 182 offers. Just a guess.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but @UngaWunga might also be using this as an opportunity to get right with God by repenting of his high-wing sins and getting into a more righteous low-wing craft.
 
Half Fast said:
You're probably right, but @UngaWunga might also be using this as an opportunity to get right with God by repenting of his high-wing sins and getting into a more righteous low-wing craft.
Click to expand...
Low wing means I can't fit cars in the hangar under the wings anymore.

I have over 400hrs flying mostly 172s. A few hours in Cubs, a Tripacer, and a 182. Freshly minted IFR rating.
 
I was in exactly the same situation and went from C172P with ~40 gallons usable, to C182R with 88 gallons usable (then added more). It was a major upgrade and I am super happy with it - have had the 182 for more than 8 years now and flown it on some fairly long trips! With the rear seats out I can easily fit non-folding bikes, and folding jump seats are available to give even more flexibility in cargo.
 
IMO the older manual gear late 1960's vintage Mooneys have always been and remain exceptional values. There are a lot of them out there still flying.

Three passengers with baggage, manual gear, Lyc 4 cylinder bulletproof 9 to 10 gal/hr engine, 135 to 150 kt TAS speed, with excellent range.

A nicely cared for one with mid-time engine and some decent avionics can be had in the $90K to $115K range.
 
Rick A said:
IMO the older manual gear late 1960's vintage Mooneys have always been and remain exceptional values. There are a lot of them out there still flying.

Three passengers with baggage, manual gear, Lyc 4 cylinder bulletproof 9 to 10 gal/hr engine, 135 to 150 kt TAS speed, with excellent range.

A nicely cared for one with mid-time engine and some decent avionics can be had in the $90K to $115K range.
Click to expand...
A short body Mooney might be a little tight for 4 on a 3 hour trip. Aren't mid-body Mooney's with manual gear rather rare?
 
My views on the usual suggestions:

Bonanza - Awful ergonomics if you’re tall or close, but the flying qualities are good. Best for people with 1947 style build.

Mooney - Awful control forces, like driving a school bus, but efficient. Best if your idea of flying is long straight lines on the chart, on autopilot.

I’d probably choose an early straight tail 182 if I was in your position using your runway, but if you could give on a few soft requirements and just wanted a bit more speed a Grumman Tiger might be worth thinking about. Or a Comanche, which would be my choice if a low wing retractable were acceptable. My priority is that any plane I own has to be fun to fly, but a lot of people either don’t know any better or don’t care about that attribute.
 
Last edited:
There's a reason Beech sold >10 times more Bonanza's than Piper sold Comanche, and 15 times what Mooney sold in the M20 line.

If size and comfort come in to play, find a Navion, or Navion Rangemaster. Then, try to support it. I have 7 hours in a Navion and loved it. But - again, the Bonanza is 25% faster on the same gas.
 
asicer said:
A short body Mooney might be a little tight for 4 on a 3 hour trip. Aren't mid-body Mooney's with manual gear rather rare?
Click to expand...

Agree on the 4 passengers being too tight on the short body Mooney back seats. Realistically they're for children on the 1967 (short body) and earlier M20-C. The OP mentioned two people and a dog. Lots of room for 120 lbs in the baggage compartment, plus a dog in the back seat.

The 1967 M20F is IMO the sweet older model. Long body, plenty of room in the back seats, 9 more gallons of fuel, lots of useful load, and all of F models (the Executive) are 200hp.

All the mid to late 1960's C and F models came with the manual "Johnson Gear" lever, as electric gear was only an aftermarket option (by Dugosh also located at the Kerville TX airport) across the field from the Mooney factory. There's a lot of C's and F's still around.


Tusayan said:
Mooney - Awful control forces, like driving a school bus, but efficient. Best if your idea of flying is long straight lines on the chart.
Click to expand...

Flown Bonanza's, C-182's and other GA singles that have lighter control forces than Mooneys. Certainly wouldn't consider any Mooney model as truck-like, not even close. Maybe because I've got around 6000 hours in 3 Mooneys (one 1967 F, one 1980 J, and the current 1982 J) I'm very familiar and really appreciate the modestly heavier control forces, push pull flight control rods, and honest handling. Plus, the ailerons are short coupled, and the yokes don't spin upside down like some Pipers.

Place a Mooney into a turn, let go of the yoke, and it just continues a coordinated turn like your hand is still on the yoke. Definitely the most solid instrument platform of any GA plane I've flown.

BTW, the 1982 (and later) M20J has important features I've grown to love:
Both of the rear seats, and the co-pilot's seat can be individually easily removed and re-installed, depending up the mission, so it's a 1,2, 3 or 4 seat aircraft.
145 to 160 TAS on 7.2 to 11 gal/hr (w/GAMI injectors) depending upon altitude and power setting.
Fully fueled, my J (with all four seats installed) can carry 570 lbs.
Filled with 64 gallons, depending upon the winds, IFR destinations (with legal reserves) can typically be reached flying 700+ nm or more.
Very strong... Mooney's don't break up in flight, and all pieces end up in one smoking hole following a LOC.
All metal with passenger protective steel cage around the cockpit.

Nicely equipped mid-time 1979 to early 1990's J Models are in the $120K to $200K price range.
 
Last edited:
Rick A said:
Agree on the 4 passengers being too tight on the short body Mooney back seats. Realistically they're for children on the 1967 (short body) and earlier M20-C. The OP mentioned two people and a dog. Lots of room for 120 lbs in the baggage compartment, plus a dog in the back seat.
Click to expand...
OP also mentioned 2-3 and occasionally 4 people aboard so that rules out a short body Mooney. An M20C also cruises no faster than a 182 and can't carry as much. An M20F is only a little bit faster than a 182, so an M20J would be the best Mooney to consider. But then you no longer get the Johnson bar and it's probably beyond the budget limits.
 
asicer said:
OP also mentioned 2-3 and occasionally 4 people aboard so that rules out a short body Mooney. An M20C also cruises no faster than a 182 and can't carry as much. An M20F is only a little bit faster than a 182, so an M20J would be the best Mooney to consider. But then you no longer get the Johnson bar and it's probably beyond the budget limits.
Click to expand...

You make some valid points. However, the extra 2 cylinders and the all too common top end cylinder repairs needed on the C-182's Continental O-470 more than negates (by a long shot) any cost differences between the Mooney Johnson bar and Mooney electric gear.

Saving ~5 gals/hr for a comparable TAS is only a plus if you actually need a higher useful load and more elbow/head room. The pilot side door on the 182 is a nice feature, but in my mind that feature is cancelled out by needing a ladder to inspect fuel quantity, and fuel it.

Not to mention the C-182's typically have a significantly higher acquisition cost than a comparable M20C. If truly buying on a budget, those extra dollars saved on selecting a Mooney C, E or F model can be spent on something else.
 
I'm 6'4", and just stand on the strut if I need to check fuel without a ladder. I do love the two doors on the 172. I've never flown a low wing plane, but don't really care about high/low as long as it fits what I'm looking to do with the plane.
My caution around Mooneys are the laminar flow wing and getting it consistently into a shorter airfield. I may have to look at moving home base to open up the possibilities, but the home airfield is ~2 miles from my front door.
 
UngaWunga said:
I'm 6'4", and just stand on the strut if I need to check fuel without a ladder. I do love the two doors on the 172. I've never flown a low wing plane, but don't really care about high/low as long as it fits what I'm looking to do with the plane.
My caution around Mooneys are the laminar flow wing and getting it consistently into a shorter airfield. I may have to look at moving home base to open up the possibilities, but the home airfield is ~2 miles from my front door.
Click to expand...

My 1967 F model had a 3-blade prop and I was able to land and takeoff on a hard packed sand unimproved 1150' runway. No tall trees, just low pine barren scrubby trees (less than 15' tall). Light on fuel with just me, and with a little headwind, there was room to spare on take off... needed to drag the brakes a little when landing.

As I recall the C-172 needed more ground roll to lift off than an old Mooney C model. It's probably close, but I could be wrong.
 
Do you like traveling in an SUV - more upright - or a sports car, sitting lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top