Selecting the RIGHT First Plane Purchase

Jaybird180 said:
The 500 mile trip is perhaps 2-4 times/yr. My flying is expected to be in the range of the 2nd paragraph with majority flying within 1-2 hrs.
Click to expand...

Greg Bockelman said:
If you are only doing the 500 mile trip two to four times a year, you really don't need a 4 plus baggage plus fuel plane. What you need to do is to determine the type of flying you will be doing about 80% of the time and find a plane that fits THAT profile. For the two or four times you fly further, you can justify making a fuel stop. If nothing else, your passengers will appreciate it.

You really can't go too wrong with a Cessna 182.
Click to expand...

For just 2-4 times a year, unless the destination is one that is not well served by a major or regional airport, then these trips should continue to be commercial airlines.

Yeah yeay to the hassle, TSA, parking, etc associated with that, but when you can get from start to finish for around $300 +/- per ticket, it still plays. Plus when weather keeps you grounded, the airliner is going. When you're not feeling good to safely operate the airplane, the airliner is going. When you just want to take a nap or enjoy an adult beverage while at altitude, the airliner is going.


It's too easy to justify the 'overspending' on an aircraft based on the activity you'll do the least. We must remember that for us "flying for a hobby" folks, aircraft ownership is more of a want vs. a need. And wants always need to be considered carefully before you get zapped by a big stupid tax bill (mistakes that have several zeroes after them).


It's more practical to look at an easy to own/operate/afford fun machine (like the C172/182's, Cherokee/Warrior/Archers, etc) that gets you to the burgers, breakfasts, fly-ins and occasional 200-300nm get-aways without causing problems to the rest of the annual family budget.


I agree with Greg that a C182 will be a decent compromise. It's kinda the "minivan" of the light airplane world in that it fits a lot of folk's needs. A local friend is partners in one and is always going on how well if fits both the short haul and longer haul missions.

There are some other aircraft that will likely suit. Another bit of good advice I've been given is not to be in any sort of rush for the purchase. As a very low time pilot myself, I really don't know how frequently I will be flying nor how far. Plus there are some local club options that provide good access (read available much of the time I'd want to fly) to aircraft at a good price. One such example is a 2-place LSA Breezer for $55/hr wet.


What you will find out Jay is that there is so much to consider, that you really need to take your time to uncover all of the rocks and research what shakes out of the trees. Just like obtaining your ratings, there is lots to learn and take on board. Take your time so that when you do pull the trigger, you're always happy with the decision.
 
If you still want to fly those 2-4 trips per year, the best thing to do may be to look around for a 6 seater you can rent. I would think you should be able to find a suitable 6 seat plane somewhere in the DC area.

I must admit, I am somewhat spoiled having a flying club nearby with tons of 4 seat trainers plus retracts, twins and a couple 6 seat singles.....not much reason to own here.
 
gismo said:
While the fixed gear version of the Lance can carry a big load, most of the retractable versions are a bit more limited so I wouldn't assume that any Lance/Saratoga could meet the mission requirements.

And FWIW, the Bonanza I used to own had about 1150 lbs useful. With enough fuel to fly 500 nm with an hour reserve I had about 800 left for the cabin so it was close to meeting the requirements.
Click to expand...

The drawback of the Bonanzas are the CG range. You may have 800 left for the cabin but you have to be extremely careful of the loading.
 
Fearless Tower said:
What kind of Bonanza - 1150 useful sounds about right for a -35, but that is before fuel. Add the fuel and you lose the payload ability.
Click to expand...
That was an E35 with tip tanks and yes I was posting useful load not full fuel payload. But like I said, fuel needed for a 500 nm leg with an hour reserve would bring the payload (about 830) down to slightly less than the OP requested 850. Close but no cigar. A slightly newer model with tips could probably be found that handles the requirement easily.
If you are talking -36, then price-wise, the Lance is generally a better deal. I've got time in both fixed and retract PA32s and what the OP is looking for shoudln't be a problem for either. The biggest challenge I have seen in the 32 is CoG and where to put the stuff to keep it within the envelope. Not super difficult, but you can't just load the plane and assume that you are within CG.
Click to expand...
A 36 might cost more than a similarly equipped PA32R but the Bonanza will go further and faster with the same payload plus it's a lot more pleasant to fly.

WRT to loading a Lance the forward baggage compartment between the cabin and firewall usually makes it pretty easy to balance things out if you're paying attention.
 
Last edited:
Rotor&Wing said:
The drawback of the Bonanzas are the CG range. You may have 800 left for the cabin but you have to be extremely careful of the loading.
Click to expand...

Very true. The Bo I had ended up with a fairly forward CG after I dumped the boat anchor ITT autopilot in the tail and removed the 20 gallon aux tank behind the rear seat. And if you can afford it an A36 with TAT Turbonormalizing has a similarly forward CG if you don't put much in the way of avionics in the tail. Comes with a 400 lb GW / 250+ lb payload increase as well.
 
I agree, fiscal responsibility comes in degrees for a hobbyist. It is more economical to fly Southwest, Jetblue, etc but it's not as fun...and besides if I had my own plane on the ramp, I wouldn't want someone else flying me. Heck, I still get nervous when the CFI is at the controls (LOL- I hope he's not watching this forum).
 
Have you looked at the Cherokee Six? PA32 both in a 260 & 300 model. Carry 6 & baggage yet fixed gear for the less experienced pilot(think way cheaper insurance than a retract). Fast enough, hauls a load almost 1500#, and in the price range you stated. Dave
 
Ok. That's it, I'm gonna tout the Comanche!!

You want to put 850lbs in the cabin? You can still go 660nm and have an hour of fuel in the tanks. No wind 500nm range (plus an hour reserve) = 928lbs of junk in the cabin.
 
gismo said:
While the fixed gear version of the Lance can carry a big load, most of the retractable versions are a bit more limited so I wouldn't assume that any Lance/Saratoga could meet the mission requirements.

And FWIW, the Bonanza I used to own had about 1150 lbs useful. With enough fuel to fly 500 nm with an hour reserve I had about 800 left for the cabin so it was close to meeting the requirements.
Click to expand...

That's right. We have a '66 Cherokee 6 and it has a useful load of 1625 lbs. All of the subsequent PA-32s have a smaller useful load as Piper started installing more cool stuff, like retracts, air-conditioning, fancy interiors, etc.

I would suggest a fixed gear Saratoga. They can easily accommodate 4 above FAA average passengers, luggage and full fuel for a 900nm+ range.
 
EdFred said:
Ok. That's it, I'm gonna tout the Comanche!!

You want to put 850lbs in the cabin? You can still go 660nm and have an hour of fuel in the tanks. No wind 500nm range (plus an hour reserve) = 928lbs of junk in the cabin.
Click to expand...

Which Comanche? Seems they offered many engines for this airframe.
 
gprellwitz said:
Chris,
Your spreadsheet seems to assume that the flying is business-related and therefore deductible based on the income tax rate in B6. To adjust for a personal flying situation like the OP appears to be positing, just change the rate to 0. Am I understanding it properly?
Click to expand...
Yeah, Grant, you're right...I need to add in a cell for "% of Biz Use." To your question, yeah, you're doing it right.
 
Jaybird180 said:
My ideal plane is fast and can transport me and my family up to 500 miles non-stop and performs well in Cross-Country IFR conditions. It is a certified- production design that is reasonably inexpensive to operate and maintain. I can find safe, clean, well-maintained examples for well-under $150K before any negotiating and bang-for-the-buck makes it more attractive. High and Low wing types are equal in this regard, but I seem to be more attracted to low-wing types.
Click to expand...

There are some types that will do this, but I think for your first airplane, you want a Cessna 182. It's not screaming fast, but it'll do your 500-mile trip in about 3:45 in the no-wind situation. You can buy a nice one for maybe half of your $150K figure. It's not sexy, but it'll do pretty much anything you ask it to do.

I’m thinking a normally aspirated single is preferred due to added complexity and operating, maintenance costs. I’m also concerned that there may not be as much value for me based near sea-level and without a pressurized cabin, I just don’t know if I’ll spend much time in the Flight Levels after I get my Instrument Rating. I’m also thinking that it should be something that I would like to fly 10+ years, transfer, and its new caretaker could do the same. I know very little about how composite designs fare in this area.
Click to expand...

The 182's are easy to sell because they'll fit a wide variety of missions and are very popular. It's also easy to find one that's equipped how you want it for the same reason - There's a ton of them out there.

As far as the composite designs - Well, it doesn't really matter. I don't think that there are any composite, certified airplanes that fit your entire mission profile for under $150K.

EdFred said:
4 REAL sized adults plus baggage? Yeah, that's probably not happening in any "4 seat airplane" like a Mooney, Comanche, 182, etc...
Click to expand...

Sure it is. N271G, Wings FlyBQ 2007. 4 people with an average weight of 200 lbs, bags for the weekend, and 4 hours of fuel. With that 4 hours of fuel, our 182 can take 903 lbs in the cabin. Lose the bags and take slightly lighter (but still over the FAA standard) people, and you can go full fuel.

I thought the Comanche could do as well?

Anyway, I think Greg said it best:

Greg Bockelman said:
You really can't go too wrong with a Cessna 182.
Click to expand...

Fixed gear to keep your insurance and maintenance costs down. (Expect your variable costs to run ~$120/hr at a fuel price of $4.50/gal - Add your particular insurance and hangar rates and you'll have a good idea of what it'll cost to own.) An airplane that's stable and relatively forgiving, but still fast enough to get you places (I've flown the 182 from FTG-MSN and EFD-MSN in a day, both ~850nm). An airplane that'll land on "unimproved" runways and take a beating, but be relatively inexpensive to fix if you beat on it a little too hard. An airplane that practically every A&P in the country has worked on at some point...

I could go on, but I won't bother. If you later decide to get something bigger or faster, it'll be easy to sell the 182 and you will have learned enough about airplane ownership to know what you're getting into. Or, you may just decide to keep it.
 
Just a data point for the costs on a 182.

I belong to a club that owns a 1999 182S (in addition to a R172K and a TR182). Members pay a monthly fee of $150/mth to cover fixed costs (hanger, ins, note on aircraft, etc). The hourly rate is wet, and is supposed to be set to as close to the actual operating cost of the aircraft, including engine/mx reserve. Right now the 182S is $105/hr. The R172K (keep in mind it is 195hp w/ const spd prp) is $95 and the TR182 is $135, but will probably be going up to $145-$155 due to inc. mx costs/low utilization. The 182S is actually cheaper to fly on XC due to the increased speed compared to the R172K.

Edit: The fuel cost used for determining hourly rate is the fuel price at KSBS. This summer fuel was running in the $4.60-$4.80 range. Right now it is at $5.05. I expect that at our January meeting we will be raising the hourly rates on all the aircraft...
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Sure it is. N271G, Wings FlyBQ 2007. 4 people with an average weight of 200 lbs, bags for the weekend, and 4 hours of fuel. With that 4 hours of fuel, our 182 can take 903 lbs in the cabin. Lose the bags and take slightly lighter (but still over the FAA standard) people, and you can go full fuel.
Click to expand...

OMG. :hairraise: You mean it is possible to take off withOUT the tanks topped off? I thought they would fall right out of the sky if they didn't have every drop of fuel you could possibly stuff in them. :wink2:
 
I only fill up the Tiger (50 gallons useable) if I going to need the fuel with reserve. I fill to tabs for all other flights. 38 gallons still gives me three hours with reserve. Also, if I need to trade fuel for payload that's what I do. Its not a KC-135 so why treat it like one?
 
I might get in on a 182N deal. Just thought I'd share.

from pilotfriend.com
SPECIFICATIONS
Horsepower: 230Gross Weight: 2950 lbsTop Speed: 146 ktsEmpty Weight: 1640 lbsCruise Speed: 139 ktsFuel Capacity: 65.00 galStall Speed (dirty): 50 ktsRange: 550 nm

From the above numbers it meets the mission, seems a good transition from the Skyhawk, will teach me a lot about being a pilot and my wife just may be able to sit still long enough for us to actually get somewhere.
 
Good call, if too reasonable for my taste.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I might get in on a 182N deal. Just thought I'd share.

From the above numbers it meets the mission, seems a good transition from the Skyhawk, will teach me a lot about being a pilot and my wife just may be able to sit still long enough for us to actually get somewhere.
Click to expand...

Excellent! I found that after getting in the 182 I started going places - I've had that bird in about 30 states and to the east, west, and gulf coasts from Wisconsin. 400+ hours in her.

And it appears you can listen, too: ;)

Greg Bockelman said:
You really can't go too wrong with a Cessna 182.
Click to expand...

AggieMike88 said:
I agree with Greg that a C182 will be a decent compromise.
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
I think for your first airplane, you want a Cessna 182.
Click to expand...

Have fun, and fly safe! :thumbsup:
 
Hmm good choice, I was gonna recommend one

I just did some math and mine will haul four folks and bags at an average weight of 220lbs 500 miles + reserves.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Top Speed: 146 knots
Click to expand...

In a dive. ;)

Jaybird180 said:
From the above numbers it meets the mission, seems a good transition from the Skyhawk, will teach me a lot about being a pilot and my wife just may be able to sit still long enough for us to actually get somewhere.
Click to expand...

The 182 is quite comfortable as a cross-country ship, but nobody, nowhere, is getting 146 knots out of them in cruise unless you're talking TAS and way up high... With a tailwind. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
In a dive. ;)



The 182 is quite comfortable as a cross-country ship, but nobody, nowhere, is getting 146 knots out of them in cruise unless you're talking TAS and way up high... With a tailwind. ;)
Click to expand...

Katmai...without even having the knobs all the way in... down low...on a warm day even.
 
Henning said:
Katmai...without even having the knobs all the way in... down low...on a warm day even.
Click to expand...

Heh, I knew someone would bring up an STC. He ain't talkin' about that though.

Even a nice P.Ponk'd 182 would do it or a screamer from Texas Skyways. Don't need to go "full Katmai" on my ass, Henning! ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Heh, I knew someone would bring up an STC. He ain't talkin' about that though.

Even a nice P.Ponk'd 182 would do it or a screamer from Texas Skyways. Don't need to go "full Katmai" on my ass, Henning! ;)
Click to expand...

Go big or go home... no "half way" conversions....
 
Henning said:
Go big or go home... no "half way" conversions....
Click to expand...

LOL! It'd be easier to buy a Cessna 210.

The P.Ponk is nicely priced as an "upgrade" though, when the engine overhaul is due, more than a conversion.

Texas Skyways wants 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of the entire aircraft to get you up to Cessna 210 speeds.

Seems kinda silly really.

Katmai might come in handy if you regularly find yourself in deep backcountry or landing in people's suburban backyards. :rofl:
 
denverpilot said:
LOL! It'd be easier to buy a Cessna 210.

The P.Ponk is nicely priced as an "upgrade" though, when the engine overhaul is due, more than a conversion.

Texas Skyways wants 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of the entire aircraft to get you up to Cessna 210 speeds.

Seems kinda silly really.

Katmai might come in handy if you regularly find yourself in deep backcountry or landing in people's suburban backyards. :rofl:
Click to expand...


Just gotta find yourself there once to make it all worthwhile... BTW, What does a 210 have to do with anything?
 
Last edited:
Haha agreed. But we were talking about the mythical 145+ knot Cessna 182N in his post about what he might purchase. :popcorn: :nono:

I'm not a huge C-210 fan. Some people love 'em, though. "Fast Cessna" doesn't really work for my desires of a Cessna.

If someone gave me a free Corvalis TT I could probably find a way through the pain in my heart to fly it though. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
Haha agreed. But we were talking about the mythical 145+ knot Cessna 182N in his post about what he might purchase. :popcorn: :nono:

I'm not a huge C-210 fan. Some people love 'em, though. "Fast Cessna" doesn't really work for my desires of a Cessna.

If someone gave me a free Corvalis TT I could probably find a way through the pain in my heart to fly it though. ;)
Click to expand...

If somebody gave me a Corvalis I'd sell it. I can think of a bunch of planes I'd rather have with that kind of budget. Heck, I could afford to put diesels on the 310 for that and maybe put some deice gear on and nacelle tanks. I can do everything I need to do under Experimental R & D. $500k buys a lot of mod especially when the engines are already certified.
 
denverpilot said:
The 182 is quite comfortable as a cross-country ship, but nobody, nowhere, is getting 146 knots out of them in cruise unless you're talking TAS and way up high... With a tailwind. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, those numbers *ARE* true airspeeds (who cares about anything else when referring to cruise speed?).

I've seen 140 KTAS out of a new (<50 hours TTAF) 182 lean of peak - At best power and guzzling gas, I can see it getting 146 KTAS.

And what does a tailwind have to do with TAS? :dunno: ;)

denverpilot said:
The P.Ponk is nicely priced as an "upgrade" though, when the engine overhaul is due, more than a conversion.

Texas Skyways wants 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of the entire aircraft to get you up to Cessna 210 speeds.
Click to expand...

Really? Huh. When I first looked into it, Texas Skyways was the cheapest of the engine mods.
 
Skyways will make you buy a NEW engine, PPonk will mod your engine.

Now the extra 500hrs TBO on the Texas engine is nice but for a part 91 operator how important is it?
 
Skylane81E said:
Skyways will make you buy a NEW engine, PPonk will mod your engine.
Click to expand...

Aha.

Now the extra 500hrs TBO on the Texas engine is nice but for a part 91 operator how important is it?
Click to expand...

It's an extra 1000 hours TBO on our engine... And that 2500 hours is just about how long our last overhaul lasted anyway, so the number itself isn't a big difference.
 
Just to mention (for integrity's sake and to avoid someone pestering me later asking if I got "it") the "deal" is a club deal (zero equity) not a purchase. Not official yet, but it looks like about 5 guys and its hangered about a 15 min drive from home. Just pacing the floor playing the waiting game:heli:
 
Skylane81E said:
Skyways will make you buy a NEW engine, PPonk will mod your engine.

Now the extra 500hrs TBO on the Texas engine is nice but for a part 91 operator how important is it?
Click to expand...

Correct. Steve Knopp will rebuild. TS will take your core, but I don't believe they'll take it if you're swapping engine types (most are, of course)...

I believe Texas Skyways has three engines and a total of five different combinations (turbo, non-turbo) for mid-vintage C-182s, actually -- and I also believe there are TBO differences on all of them... I'm hunting for the spreadsheet... hmm, where'd I put that thing. I need to clean up my Dropbox.

As one VERY famous Cessna mechanic said recently to me, "They convinced someone to give them a higher TBO number." He said he's seen no evidence that the original O-470 should be a 1500 hour TBO or that the Skyways should be 2500. No hard metalurcial studies, nothing. Just some FAA person said, "Sure".

Whether there really is such evidence somewhere, I don't know. I'm sure Skyways thinks so. But, lots of folks go well beyond 1500 on the original O-470 too...

flyingcheesehead said:
Aha.
It's an extra 1000 hours TBO on our engine... And that 2500 hours is just about how long our last overhaul lasted anyway, so the number itself isn't a big difference.
Click to expand...

Oil analysis (top-end) and monitoring the filter for ferrous metals (bottom-end) will tell the story from any O-470. Most of the time, they'll tell you when they're "done". I believe you guys also saw signs it was time to do your O-470 at the end, didn't you Kent?

Can't speak much for the Lycs, since I have no experience or time studying their care and feeding.

TBO often seems like it was pulled straight out of someone's tookus.
 
denverpilot said:
Most of the time, they'll tell you when they're "done". I believe you guys also saw signs it was time to do your O-470 at the end, didn't you Kent?
Click to expand...

Yeah... It gave us plenty of notice that it was gonna need to be done. The first sign I saw was abnormally high oil consumption and that was about 75 hours before it started making metal.
 
denverpilot said:
Can't speak much for the Lycs, since I have no experience or time studying their care and feeding.

TBO often seems like it was pulled straight out of someone's tookus.
Click to expand...


I had a Lyc eat a cam and never give a hint, no metal in the oil, rated power, everything A-Ok but when I pulled her off (1000 past TBO and we had a spare) 3 out of 6 lobes were almost round:hairraise:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top