Plane selection question

R

Rneuwirth

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
39
Location
Wyoming
Display Name
Display name:
Rneuwirth
I'll be done with my PPL training next month,and I've scheduled an instrument training course for Jan/Feb 2012. I'll be flying 200-300 hrs per year, with lots of flights of 800-1500 miles (over multiple days, no leg over 400nm). Only 2 traveling without much baggage. Not in much of a rush either.

Essentially all of my training will have been in 172s, and I am very comfortable in this platform.

I've been looking at both 172s and 182s online, and it looks like I can afford a low time airframe and engine 172, nicely outfitted for IFR ($55-80K range). It seems that a similar time and outfitted 182 might be quite bit more. Given my mission profile, is the difference in planes (heavier weight and a bit faster) worth it?

I plan to keep this plane for 4-5 years, at which point my parasite drag (i.e. children) expense should diminish quite a bit, making a move up into a more complex and capable plane a doable option.

Thanks in advance for your input.

(BTW my home base is in eastern Wyoming, and my flights will be eastward to the Chicago region and southeastward to Florida. Excepting deep winter with our -20 F days, I'd like to be free to travel mostly year round.)
 
I would think that unless you need the extra hauling capacity of the 182 you would be better off with a 172 or maybe even a Piper. Spending that kind of money, you might could go straight to a retractable in a Piper. If it were ME spending that kind of money and myself and my passenger were small enough, I would look hard at a Mooney. It is fast and fuel efficient. Downside is that Mooney maintenance will be higher cost.

The 172 will use less fuel and be just generally more economical to fly than the larger 182.
 
MBDiagMan said:
The 172 will use less fuel and be just generally more economical to fly than the larger 182.
Click to expand...

Slow down there paatnuh. That depends on WHICH 172 and WHICH 182 he's likely to buy. The cost difference may be nil when you calculate nMPG (for fuel burned).
 
Hard to go wrong with a 182, but if you really are only going to be hauling you + 1 and little baggage, I would probably look at something like a Mooney. Faster on less fuel than the 182, and you don't really need all the capacity that a 182 carries anyway, so you would be paying fuel for hauling air.
 
182 handles ice better than a Mooney, and if you're doing that much IFR flying you're likely to encounter some.
 
Rneuwirth said:
I'll be done with my PPL training next month,and I've scheduled an instrument training course for Jan/Feb 2012. I'll be flying 200-300 hrs per year.

Stop. Hours are a derivative of distance/speed. Depending on your choice of planes, flying the same mileage could easily span the range of hours you mentioned. Either number is a lot of flying in a light airplane. When you say you're not in a big hurry, how does that equate to fighting 40 knots on the nose from Chicago to Laramie while being outrun by the trucks on I-80?

with lots of flights of 800-1500 miles (over multiple days, no leg over 400nm).

The difference between 2.6 and 3.3 hours/leg doesn't sound like much, but can be painful if repeated on a continuous basis.

Only 2 traveling without much baggage. Not in much of a rush either.

How big are the 2?

Essentially all of my training will have been in 172s, and I am very comfortable in this platform.

You should arrange for a long trip in the 172. Whatever else you do, you must do a demo flight in any airplane you consider for this much flying.


I've been looking at both 172s and 182s online, and it looks like I can afford a low time airframe and engine 172, nicely outfitted for IFR ($55-80K range). It seems that a similar time and outfitted 182 might be quite bit more. Given my mission profile, is the difference in planes (heavier weight and a bit faster) worth it?

Don't limit yourself to a choice between these two planes. For your proposed trips, many other options may provide better results for ~same cost.

I plan to keep this plane for 4-5 years, at which point my parasite drag (i.e. children) expense should diminish quite a bit, making a move up into a more complex and capable plane a doable option.

Five years is an eternity in the airplane ownership equation. Buy the plane that makes the trips enjoyable. Trading is expensive.

Thanks in advance for your input.

(BTW my home base is in eastern Wyoming, and my flights will be eastward to the Chicago region and southeastward to Florida. Excepting deep winter with our -20 F days, I'd like to be free to travel mostly year round.)
Click to expand...

Wish I could go to the slack at Cheyenne this year.
 
Last edited:
pericynthion said:
182 handles ice better than a Mooney, and if you're doing that much IFR flying you're likely to encounter some.
Click to expand...

I read an interesting article about the flight testing of the Mooney (K model IIRC) in icing conditions. IIRC they had 1/2" of ice on the wings and tail:hairraise:
 
Jaybird180 said:
I read an interesting article about the flight testing of the Mooney (K model IIRC) in icing conditions. IIRC they had 1/2" of ice on the wings and tail:hairraise:
Click to expand...

He wasn't bashing Mooney's. And I don't think he was saying that Mooney's can't handle some ice, but they do have a thinner airfoil than the 182. Generally, a thicker airfoil will do a better job when the ice starts building.

If you want to talk pure dollars per hour or dollars per mile, the C-172 pretty much wins every time. Initial cost, annual, maintenance, and overhauls are just so much cheaper on that bird. Maybe a Cherokee 140/150/160 might be about the same.

For the number of hours you say you'll be flying, you might find the Mooney to be comparable. It will have a higher initial cost (assuming equivalent airframe and engine times) and a higher Mx cost, but it is so much more efficient in cruise that you may be able to make back the difference at 200-300 hours per year.

Then it comes down to traveling comfort. If you like flying slow, then 115 knots might not be too bad.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I read an interesting article about the flight testing of the Mooney (K model IIRC) in icing conditions. IIRC they had 1/2" of ice on the wings and tail:hairraise:
Click to expand...

That would terrify me in a Mooney. In a 182 it would merely be concerning.

I'm not taking my VariEze anywhere near ice!
 
Based on your requirements, the payload capability of the 182 versus a 180HP airplane is not needed. You'd do fine with another plane which is just as fast but doesn't burn as much gas or cost as much to maintain. For $55-80K, you can get a real nice Grumman Tiger which is just as fast, carries two people four hours at 135 knots TAS (with an hour's reserve), burns less fuel (10 gph vs 13 gph). Download to "tabs" fuel and leave the bags out, and you can happily fly with one kid in the back even on summer days in those elevations.

If you want to go the RG route, a Mooney would also do well in that price range and go 150-160 knots, as long as you're willing to pay the extra insurance and maintenance.

The only kicker is winter flying in your area, for which no light single in those classes is suitable on many wintery days, but there's no difference in that regard between any of the types mentioned, no matter what some braver-than-I souls may say.
 
Ron Levy said:
The only kicker is winter flying in your area, for which no light single in those classes is suitable on many wintery days, but there's no difference in that regard between any of the types mentioned, no matter what some braver-than-I souls may say.
Click to expand...

+100!

---

At your stated usage, you should strongly consider something a little more capable (as a traveling airplane) than a 172 (and I am not slighting the 172, a plane which I dearly love, but don't particularly care to endure on long cross-countries).

Examples could certainly include the Tiger (as Ron notes), 182 (but they cost a lot because they make good working airplanes), Mooneys, Cardinal RG (sweet bird), Comanche (you can sometimes find a nice Comanche 180 for slightly more than the cost of a good steak dinner, and it's a VERY efficient airframe) or (of course) a Bonanza (OK, an older one).

You can slide into a Bellanca Super Viking for very reasonable cashish as well.

Don't let gallons per hour in a big-engined bird scare you - my Bonanza uses less fuel - on a trip - than a 172, because it is really movin'...

---

Like suggested, you need to get out there and fly in some other planes. The 172 is a comfy pair of shoes for you now, but you might want something different after you've experienced other aircraft. Wyoming to Florida in a 172 is a long sentence... :D
 
Thanks to all for the input. Certainly opens up lots of other options.

BTW- I clearly understand that a pilot needs to earn his IFR certification, however, I see that certain planes are listed as "IFR certified" as well. Does this entail something other than the presence of a minimum list of functioning equipment to allow safe IFR procedures, or is there some other step that a plane owner must go through to allow that designation?
 
In an ad, it can mean anything. You'll probaby need to see the logs and/or talk to the owner or broker who placed the ad to know for sure. For example, an airplane can be IFR-equipped if it has the minimum list of required equipment, but may not be IFR-certified if the 411.413 inspections are not current.

Rneuwirth said:
Thanks to all for the input. Certainly opens up lots of other options.

BTW- I clearly understand that a pilot needs to earn his IFR certification, however, I see that certain planes are listed as "IFR certified" as well. Does this entail something other than the presence of a minimum list of functioning equipment to allow safe IFR procedures, or is there some other step that a plane owner must go through to allow that designation?
Click to expand...
 
I will try to throw a little icewater on you. LOTS of pilots get their tickets and think they'll be flying all over creation. You hear 200 hours a year lots from new pilots. However, after a year or two they're down to 125. Then a year after than 80, and then a year after that 60.

The reality is that traveling by light aircraft is challenging to do on a routine basis. You're much more victim to the weather, illness, and cost than any other kind of travel. Trips of 800 miles or more are doable, but in the kinds of aircraft you're looking at you'll arrive pretty tired from tahe stress, noise and vibration of a piston single. Are you up for that every single week? Another reality is your family. I have owned five airplanes. My wife never so much as sat in two of them. She didn't mind going places, except the lack of air conditioning bugged her. Shoot some approaches on a bumpy day and watch the technicolor yawns begin.

My advice would be to hold off on buying an airplane until you explore the realities of travel by light aircraft a bit. You may decide, as many of the people on this board have, that it's a great way to get around. You may also decide, as many of the people on this board have, that flying for transportation doesn't fit well for whatever reason, and that you have more fun doing sport flying, or sightseeing, or gliding, or whatever. Owning an aircraft is an expensive proposition, made more so if you trade airplanes frequently. Best to take it slowly, learn more about what you're doing and what you can really get out of it. Rent for a year or so, or join a club, and see how you really end up using the airplane. Not nearly as much fun as having your own airplane, but you will be a smarter consumer when/if you ultimately decide to take the plunge.
 
If you want to travel that much, you will be much better served getting into a faster plane. I personally set a lower limit of 180kts but I travel longer legs. a 150kt plane would serve you fine. I would be looking at a Cessna 177RG, a Mooney 20 C through J series, a Piper Arrow or even a 35 Bonanza (some of which will cruise 180+). The 177RG is a very nice platform with the best view of those I listed. Going slow on long trips gets expensive and aggravating.
 
Last edited:
For flights of 800-1500 nm, you will find that a 172 gets old fast. You'll want 150 kts minimum for trips like that. A Comanche 250/260 is a hard plane to beat there, and definitely the best value for your money. A Bonanza 35/33 is an even better option if you can afford it (assuming you can find one with a 520 or 550).

If you get a 172 or 182, these trips will get slow and old, very fast. None of the singles that would be good for your mission here will be particularly good options in the winter out in the mountains of the west. You'll need de-ice and turbos for that. The Mooneys and Bonanzas have the option for TKS and turbos as add-ons when you're ready.

To the comments about choosing a non de-iced airplane that handles ice better because you'll probably encounter it: If you do, that means you did something wrong. If you don't have the tools and the knowledge of how to handle it, you need to stay out of it. You're looking at another plane down the road before you get something that can handle de-ice.
 
Listen to Ken Ibold. He knows what he is saying and he speaks the truth.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
For flights of 800-1500 nm, you will find that a 172 gets old fast. You'll want 150 kts minimum for trips like that. A Comanche 250/260 is a hard plane to beat there, and definitely the best value for your money. A Bonanza 35/33 is an even better option if you can afford it (assuming you can find one with a 520 or 550).
Click to expand...

You should look at that market again, it turned a few months ago. I've seen V-35Bs in the $70s...
 
Rneuwirth said:
I'll be done with my PPL training next month,and I've scheduled an instrument training course for Jan/Feb 2012. I'll be flying 200-300 hrs per year, with lots of flights of 800-1500 miles (over multiple days, no leg over 400nm). Only 2 traveling without much baggage. Not in much of a rush either.
Click to expand...

You will look long and hard to beat this aircraft on your mission, on half the budget.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1355012.html

You don't have to load it to gross, it will fly great with 2 and bags, and do the 800 mile hops with ease.

Here's another one a little higher in your budget range.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1350222.html
 
Last edited:
There's more to budgeting than just purchase price. The operating cost of that 210 is going to be at least half again that of a 200HP Mooney, and its capabilities are way overkill for the OP's stated needs. Think about the hourly op cost as well as the purchase price when you're making your decisions.
 
Ron Levy said:
There's more to budgeting than just purchase price. The operating cost of that 210 is going to be at least half again that of a 200HP Mooney, and its capabilities are way overkill for the OP's stated needs. Think about the hourly op cost as well as the purchase price when you're making your decisions.
Click to expand...

Don't believe all the OWTs you here about the cost of operation of the 210. It has a bad reputation by those who never operated one..

Over kill is in the eye of the operator, I'd much rather be at 40% of gross in a 210 than 80% in a Mooney or a Grumman.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
There's more to budgeting than just purchase price.

This is true, and why he should hold back a large chunk of his budget on any aircraft.

The operating cost of that 210 is going to be at least half again that of a 200HP Mooney,

How do you rationalize that statement when the aircraft has had all this completed already.
Long Range Tanks - 84 gals.
Magnetos Overhauled 07/10
New Fuel Bladders ??? Rt (02/08) and Lt (03/06)
New Starter 07/01
New Hydraulic Power Pack (01/04)
New Fuel Caps (05/99)
New Gear Saddles (07/92)


and its capabilities are way overkill for the OP's stated needs. Think about the hourly op cost as well as the purchase price when you're making your decisions.
Click to expand...

the IO-520 isn't that big of a fuel pig, at the speed it's probably equal to the Mooney.
 
Henning said:
You should look at that market again, it turned a few months ago. I've seen V-35Bs in the $70s...
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Noticed that myself, but left brain kicked in and said "get the Skylane". :D

Maybe NEXT one . . . . :dunno:
 
Tom-D said:
the IO-520 isn't that big of a fuel pig, at the speed it's probably equal to the Mooney.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but it has two more cylinders, more maintenance-intensive systems, and two more seats (which runs up the liability insurance rate). Run the numbers for total annual cost including reserve for overhaul, and you'll see what I'm talking about. And I really doubt fuel flow will be the same as the Mooney's -- probably 2-3 gph more.
 
Have your wife sit in a few different planes. Buy the model she wants. I noticed you didn't mention sizes, or heights. That can make all the difference in what plane to get. There is no way I would fly in a Mooney for any significant amount of time. They just don't fit me well - and I am by no means a fatty. I'm about 5lbs under what I should weigh for my height. And in some of the planes, because of my height, I'm banging my head on the canopy and ceiling.

If you are one of the FAA sized persons, yeah, you can open it up to anything. But if you aren't an extra from the Wizard of Oz, go to the local airport with your wife and just ask around to see if you can sit in someone's plane to see how it feels.
 
Henning said:
You should look at that market again, it turned a few months ago. I've seen V-35Bs in the $70s...
Click to expand...

That's good to know, thanks for the price correction. I don't pay as close attention to the purchase prices singles, normally I'm perusing the Navajos and 400-series Cessnas these days.

The Bonanza is a hard airplane to beat for the stated mission, and certainly has the best options in terms of STCs. Never flown a V-tail, but I sure like the straight tail ones I've flown. Fast, efficient, comfortable.
 
Ron Levy said:
Maybe so, but it has two more cylinders, more maintenance-intensive systems, and two more seats (which runs up the liability insurance rate). Run the numbers for total annual cost including reserve for overhaul, and you'll see what I'm talking about. And I really doubt fuel flow will be the same as the Mooney's -- probably 2-3 gph more.
Click to expand...

Most owners never overhaul cylinders anyway, plus the real cost of a 6 over a 4 is offset by the effect of the lessor vibrations on the pilot and equipment, Yes it does have 4 more spark plugs to buy, but that is about all the owner will buy, and the rear seats can come out, Most 210 owners don't use them anyway.

For my money the 210 is a best buy for a family traveling machine, plus the OP stated he intends to move up in a few years, so, do it now, It's a logical step up from the 172 he is training in now. ( it's just a 182 RG with 285 HP)

my advice is buy the 210 at half his budget and put the other half of his budge in the bank for up grades later, after he gets some time in his log.
 
EdFred said:
Have your wife sit in a few different planes. Buy the model she wants. I noticed you didn't mention sizes, or heights. That can make all the difference in what plane to get. There is no way I would fly in a Mooney for any significant amount of time. They just don't fit me well - and I am by no means a fatty. I'm about 5lbs under what I should weigh for my height. And in some of the planes, because of my height, I'm banging my head on the canopy and ceiling.

If you are one of the FAA sized persons, yeah, you can open it up to anything. But if you aren't an extra from the Wizard of Oz, go to the local airport with your wife and just ask around to see if you can sit in someone's plane to see how it feels.
Click to expand...

That's a great point. Mama must be happy or no one is.

Big cabins are a plus, bit generally big cabins are slow aircraft, or fuel pigs.
 
Here's another 2 cents. I bought my Skylane 13 years ago in the middle of my private pilot training. Finished up in that and flew in 800 hours since (doing the math, that's a LOT less than you're imagining doing, even though I imagined similar in your shoes).

Love the airplane; can't imagine I could have done better in type or specific aircraft. But, now with 2 kids under three, it's too damn slow for our 630nm to my parents or 590nm to hers. It's not literally too slow, and can easily make it non-stop against 80% winds, but 4.5-5 hours is too long for the family. So, I'm upgrading to a P210.

This post isn't an ad for my Skylane (which isn't for sale yet), but I think that a Skylane is a near perfect first airplane for someone who intends to travel. It's fast enough to please, is forgiving enough to keep you out of some trouble, is stout enough to tolerate new pilots, and cheap enough to not bankrupt you too quickly. Buy a good one, learn to always land mains-first, and go fly it. I'm not saying there aren't good Bonanzas out there in a similar price range, and I'd consider one of those as well, but they're much more sensitive to loading and the retractable gear will make insurance more expensive for low-time pilots.
 
Here is an early 210 ( basically a 182 retract) with 2 gps, both coupled to the autopilot, that will sell for less than 50k ( it was on e-bay at that price and got no bids.
50 hour engine and prop, low AFTT, and good records with no damage history.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1346418.html

the market is really down, If you got the urge, do it now.
 
Last edited:
Probably an older Bo with the 470.
 
MSPAviator said:
What's the fastest piston complex single that you can get a Mogas STC for?
Click to expand...

Lancair IV-P with an automotive engine instead of a TSIO-550. No STC required.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Lancair IV-P with an automotive engine instead of a TSIO-550. No STC required.
Click to expand...


I was talking to the Continental guys and he pointed at a 350hp TSIO engine and said "94 UL right now" for the engine. The key issue though with a high altitude application is not one of engine performance but one of fuel performance in the way of vapor pressure. That is why lead was introduced in the first place way back when because as the planes started getting above 12,000' on the poor quality gasoline they would start vapor locking in the fuel lines. At least that's what was related to me by an old man reputed to have been a petrochemical engineer way back then. That is still an issue with getting the Mogas STC today. There are actually 2 for any airplane, one for the engine and one for the airframe and they have to be climb tested with heated temp specific fuel (I spoke with Mr Petersen and his fuel handling rig is available for public use, I'm sure there would be a price attached.) and you can't have any problems. If there are no problems in the testing, good to go. If you have problems you have to Engineer (as in employ a licensed engineer $$$) a solution. The higher you climb, the more difficult this is. One solution I thought of would be have the fuel tanks be bladders within a pressure vessel and you just keep adding a bit of air to make up for the fuel consumption and pre pressurize the entire fuel system a couple of pounds. This also eliminates venting losses (miniscule, I know).
 
EdFred said:
I didn't know any of those were retract. Probably a bit pricey for 99% of the people looking to buy.
Click to expand...

He didn't ask a budget. ;)

Henning said:
Nooooo..... Pressurizes 4 seat single over 300kts on 350 hp...:goofy: I'd be looking at the Audi V-12 TDI out of the Q7 to power it....
Click to expand...

High 200s, not over 300. And the V12 TDI would run out of boost at altitude, you'd need to come up with some sort of sequential twin-turbo setup to get the manifold pressures required at altitude. I'd be curious to see how the W&B would work out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top