Plane for the mission?

John221us

John221us

En-Route
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
4,268
Location
Rocklin, CA
Display Name
Display name:
John
Now that my plane is pretty much sold, I need to think about my next one. Here is my mission. Obviously there are a lot of options, but it seems, due to my budget, getting everything might be tough. The budget is about $50K.

mission requirments.PNG
 
Last edited:
BOs are a little pricey, so I might have to give something up to stay in my price range and get something that has been well maintained. Also, the BOs cost more to operate for the $100 HB stuff, which is about 1/2 my mission. It would certainly work, though and I can probably afford the cost to operate one.
 
Does Ed still have his Comanche for sale?
 
^^^^ Yeah, that one better. ^^^^^

I didn't know he had a Garmin 430. I'm a Bo fan, but that's a lot of plane for $45k. Why hasn't it sold? Maybe the paint...
 
I was going to suggest a Comanche 250. The "Poor Man's Bonanza." And these days, we're all poor!
 
John221us said:
I'd heard he sold it. It could work. No autopilot is a bummer, though. They aren't cheap to install.
Click to expand...

It is early in your search of course, so a bit premature to consider abandoning one of your requirements.
 
Something in the 230-235 fixed gear single class (e.g., Piper Dakota/Cessna Skylane) will meet all your requirements. Anything beyond that class would be gravy. Anything less (e.g., 180HP) would not haul the load at high elevations. However, finding a plane that meets all your requirements with all the equipment you want for under $50K might be tricky.
 
Ron Levy said:
Something in the 230-235 fixed gear single class (e.g., Piper Dakota/Cessna Skylane) will meet all your requirements. Anything beyond that class would be gravy. Anything less (e.g., 180HP) would not haul the load at high elevations. However, finding a plane that meets all your requirements with all the equipment you want for under $50K might be tricky.
Click to expand...

Yes, at one point I was thinking about a Pathfinder and I have browsed the 182s, but I might be $20K short to make those work. I was thinking I could get something without the panel GPS, maybe and add that later. BOs and Comanches sound attractive, but they will have a bit higher operating costs, though less fuel costs and I will end up with an older model. Again, getting everything for the price I am looking at will be tough.
 
Mooney C & E are both good options, just with less back seat leg room than an F. Vintage Mooneys came with full-time wing leveler; many have a single-axis AP hooked up [Brittain Industries still supports them--my right wing servo was just overhauled for $125]. Useful loads are often in the 1000 lb. range depending on what's installed; mine is 969 lb, but I run out of space before weight except when [very infrequently] carrying 4 adults.

Check out www.mooneyspace.com for everything you ever wanted to know about Mooneys, and then some. Plus a few opinions.
 
you should add 20k to your budget and buy the frankenkota
 
Piper 28R-200, post '72 (stretched cabin). That's what I got. Mine is a '73 modded to true out 135@ 9gph or 138-140 @ 10, 130 @ 8gph above 9k. 700fpm average to 12,000feet 100 pounds undergross. Cheap enough to run to the hamburger. Mine has 968 useful. It's a 500NM airplane, getting there with more than one hour's reserve if you're so inclined. Otherwise you can fly between 5:00 and 5:45 between 8-9gph and get as far as the wind will take ya.

For your reference, mine has autopilot (wonky OEM one, but it works) and Garmin 430W, bought it for less than your stated budget. Just sayin'.

If had the moola I would have capitalized on a post-N 35 Bo, straight tail non-turbo Lance, or fuel injected Comanche (only those with 90 gals or more). Alas, at my price range, Mooney 20F or post 72 Piper Arrow were the only choices worthy of upgrading from a warrior II. So I went with the Arrow for my own reasons (certain things about the mooney layout turned me off), but either works. I really wanted an Arrow III (72 gal tank) but that's water under the bridge.

Good luck!
 
hindsight2020 said:
Piper 28R-200, post '72 (stretched cabin). That's what I got. Mine is a '73 modded to true out 135@ 9gph or 138-140 @ 10, 130 @ 8gph above 9k. 700fpm average to 12,000feet 100 pounds undergross. Cheap enough to run to the hamburger. Mine has 968 useful. It's a 500NM airplane, getting there with more than one hour's reserve if you're so inclined. Otherwise you can fly between 5:00 and 5:45 between 8-9gph and get as far as the wind will take ya.

For your reference, mine has autopilot (wonky OEM one, but it works) and Garmin 430W, bought it for less than your stated budget. Just sayin'.

If had the moola I would have capitalized on a post-N 35 Bo, straight tail non-turbo Lance, or fuel injected Comanche (only those with 90 gals or more). Alas, at my price range, Mooney 20F or post 72 Piper Arrow were the only choices worthy of upgrading from a warrior II. So I went with the Arrow for my own reasons (certain things about the mooney layout turned me off), but either works. I really wanted an Arrow III (72 gal tank) but that's water under the bridge.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

I am not seeing a bunch in my price range and most of those have run out engines. Maybe, though, I will watch for something.
 
John221us said:
I like Mooneys. A J might be a reach. I could probably get an F with the mods, if I shop around enough.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was thinking. An F model has more room than a C and would fit your mission to a T. If you find one with the manual gear maintenance is extremely low.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Perezhr said:
That is exactly what I was thinking. An F model has more room than a C and would fit your mission to a T. If you find one with the manual gear maintenance is extremely low.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

I looked at these before and I found a bunch with poor maintenance issues. Many had leaking fuel tanks and I have heard they be expensive to seal. It would fit my mission, though, if I can find a good example.
 
C'mon, post 4 had a link to a plane with a A/P, IFR cert GPS, half time on the engine. Yeah it's older but it's in the price point.

Not sure what else you want.
 
docmirror said:
C'mon, post 4 had a link to a plane with a A/P, IFR cert GPS, half time on the engine. Yeah it's older but it's in the price point.

Not sure what else you want.
Click to expand...

One of them had a GX55 and two had wing levelers. They are interesting, but I was hoping for at least a two axis auto pilot or a 430 WAAS (getting both might be a stretch). The autopilot would definitely be the most expensive to add later.
 
John221us said:
One of them had a GX55 and two had wing levelers. They are interesting, but I was hoping for at least a two axis auto pilot or a 430 WAAS (getting both might be a stretch). The autopilot would definitely be the most expensive to add later.
Click to expand...

You're either going to need to wait a while and hope you get very lucky (but still compromise significantly somewhere) or just come to terms with the compromise earlier. You're asking a lot for $50K. The good ones sell very quickly, and usually at some premium to average.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
You're either going to need to wait a while and hope you get very lucky (but still compromise significantly somewhere) or just come to terms with the compromise earlier. You're asking a lot for $50K. The good ones sell very quickly, and usually at some premium to average.
Click to expand...

I get that, but I have to start somewhere. Also, some planes might be more bang for the buck, for instance the Cherokee I just sold vs a 172 (high wing / low wing thing aside) you get about the same performance for 1/3 less cost. I asked the question to see if I was missing anything. The Comanche might be slightly more plane for the money than a Bo, but I have heard there are some gear issues that can bite you on the Comanche. The Mooneys seem to be a good value, but the wet wings seemed to be a gotcha. All of these old planes seem to be a crapshoot on whether they are in the condition advertised and you aren't going to get a scanned log book for something that old in my experience. So, I have wasted some trips to read through a log book and get disappointed (bogus total time due to swapped tach, plane that had been sitting three years and miraculously passed a no repair annual, etc. and these brokers outright lied to me on the phone :hairraise:). There may be one sample on Controller that meets the criteria, but chances are there is something wrong with that plane if the average is somewhere way different, but you never know.
 
Here you go: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/11675-1961-mooney-m20b-for-sale-28500/

Add $7000 to seal tanks and $2000 for landing gear donuts. Do what you want to the panel. Speed should be 135-140 kts with 4+ hours endurance. Bargain it down some . . . You gotta start somewhere . . . . ..

Or stretch a little for a 430W and full IFR certification: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/10550-1968-m20c-ranger/#entry143271

Any Mooney F-model this low will have issues to correct. These, at least, both have low-time engines.
 
Last edited:
Hank S said:
Here you go: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/11675-1961-mooney-m20b-for-sale-28500/

Add $7000 to seal tanks and $2000 for landing gear donuts. Do what you want to the panel. Speed should be 135-140 kts with 4+ hours endurance. Bargain it down some . . . You gotta start somewhere . . . . ..

Or stretch a little for a 430W and full IFR certification: http://mooneyspace.com/topic/10550-1968-m20c-ranger/#entry143271

Any Mooney F-model this low will have issues to correct. These, at least, both have low-time engines.
Click to expand...

Must be the wrong link. This one is a 1961 M20B.
 
First one should be a 61 B; second one is a 68 C; both are in a different price group than the fuel-injected F with a longer, heavier fuselage and larger gas tanks.

B = 180 hp, carb, 48 gals, 135 kts
C = 180 hp, carb, 52 gals, 140 kts
F = 200 hp, injected, 64 gals, 150 kts

Useful loads are all over the map due to mods and installed equipment. Some are well over 1000, some are barely 900.
 
Well that M20C seems a little high for me at 60K. I am a bit curious why it is so high, but I am sure there is a reason.
 
I wouldn't rule out a partnership. Your $50K budget could get you in to a $100K plane. I'm in an Arrow partnership now and it works out great. We rarely have schedule conflicts.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I wouldn't rule out a partnership. Your $50K budget could get you in to a $100K plane. I'm in an Arrow partnership now and it works out great. We rarely have schedule conflicts.
Click to expand...

I might still have an opportunity to partner on that 235, but it has a poor autopilot (one axis) and no IFR GPS. It carries a good load, but is slow compared to a Bo, Comanche or Mooney and I am still unsure about how I would do with a partner. I am traveling a lot lately (maybe 50% to 70%), so it probably makes sense, but on the other hand, with that, I am not that flexible on when I am available fly and want to use the plane. I kind of like having it there at my beck and call and have grown comfortable with the costs of ownership.
 
John221us said:
One of them had a GX55 and two had wing levelers. They are interesting, but I was hoping for at least a two axis auto pilot or a 430 WAAS (getting both might be a stretch). The autopilot would definitely be the most expensive to add later.
Click to expand...

Well, if you can stomach the operation costs, Ted's got a 310 for sale with a 530 and an S-TEC 50 (2-ax, altitude hold) for $35K.
 
John221us said:
I am not ready for a twin. That is a big training commitment.
Click to expand...

Not really. To get your multi rating VFR should be less than 10 hours. And if you're going to be doing your instrument rating soon, you'll have so much time in the twin you'll be in great shape soon.
 
A C177B or RG would do what you want, but you'd be lucky to find one with a midtime engine, IFR GPS, and working autopilot for that price.

Sadly, the cat's out of the bag as to how great these airplanes are, especially the fixed gear B model.

Edited to add:

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by '1-axis', but if that means 'wing leveler' I've never flown one worth fooling with. YMMV.

If the autopilot has a heading bug that's all you really need.
 
JimNtexas said:
A C177B or RG would do what you want, but you'd be lucky to find one with a midtime engine, IFR GPS, and working autopilot for that price.

Sadly, the cat's out of the bag as to how great these airplanes are, especially the fixed gear B model.

Edited to add:

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by '1-axis', but if that means 'wing leveler' I've never flown one worth fooling with. YMMV.

If the autopilot has a heading bug that's all you really need.
Click to expand...

"1 axis", better known as "single axis", means pitch, roll, or yaw axis only, but generally means roll. An autopilot with a heading bug is a single-axis autopilot.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
"1 axis", better known as "single axis", means pitch, roll, or yaw axis only, but generally means roll. An autopilot with a heading bug is a single-axis autopilot.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my understanding. I was just trying to keep it simple. I know there is a bunch of other stuff out there, like altitude hold (this would be nice) and GPSS, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top