So, how did you chose your first plane?

U

UngaWunga

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
1,969
Display Name
Display name:
UngaWunga
I spend way too much time on barnstormers. I've trained in Cubs and 172s. Love the taildraggers, and would like to get one. But I want to fly with 2 people + some stuff + full fuel, so no Cubs.

My flying will probably be a mix of trips up/down the east coast, and flying around for fun. 10+ gph are right out, and I'm not made of money.

Suggestions on what to look for?

Thanks
 
I made my choice by cost, speed, useful load, avg maintenance costs, and handing/difficulty to fly for someone like me with low time.

I also wanted to fly for fun but with destinations in mind, carry me + at least one person and bags. Possibly occasional use for 4.

I ended up with a 78 Piper Archer II. Typical fuel burn is just under 10gph and making just under 120kts typical cruise. As you may already know useful loads vary but mine is 1004# One of the cheaper aircraft out there to maintain, very easy to fly, robust, better value IMO than the Cessna 172.

Been very happy with my choice.
 
What is your budget?

My first plane was a fat ultralight. Rans S-12. ($12). Fun airplane with a 2 stroke, but a 300 hour TBO. I ended up owning and selling 4 ( up to $40k) and only wrecking 2. :D. :redface:

Don't over look RV's. 6s can be had fairly cheap. Flyies fast, lands slow, economical to maintain, and you can legally work on them, AND you can burn mogas. :D;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I figured 350-400lbs of people for most flights that a cross country, with 40-80lbs of stuff. So round up to 500lbs + full fuel is needed. Prefer taildraggers. No real reason other than I just like them and don't mind being busy with my feet.

Don't mind fabric planes. Tandem vs side by side, doesn't matter.

Cost is a factor. It is mostly going to be a toy, after all. No 60K planes here.
 
I was looking for a twin with turbos I could buy for $40k and operate economically, I found a 58 Travelair with a Riley kit on it.
 
I got a nice low time Stinson 108 for sale, that's a real 4 seater taildragger. I'm selling because I just got a 185F.

C170 would also be a possibility, if you want to stick to Cessnas.

Maybe a Maule, they can get a little spendy though.

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
I always thought the Cessna 177 looked like a great traveling machine for 2.
 
Bought a 172, took the airplane from Ma. To fla ,for sun n fun twice. A little slow,very economical. Built a lot of hours ,then moved to a Cherokee arrow.
 
I put pictures of airplanes in a circle on the table, and spun a bottle. Thank god it didn't land on the Gulfstream.
 
UngaWunga said:
Yeah, I figured 350-400lbs of people for most flights that a cross country, with 40-80lbs of stuff. So round up to 500lbs + full fuel is needed. Prefer taildraggers. No real reason other than I just like them and don't mind being busy with my feet.

Don't mind fabric planes. Tandem vs side by side, doesn't matter.

Cost is a factor. It is mostly going to be a toy, after all. No 60K planes here.
Click to expand...
I've owned quite a few taildraggers. To fit your limitations I would buy an F model Luscombe with a solid background and an intensive prebuy or annual. They are great flyers and a lot of fun to fly. They also do a roll or a loop with ease if you must. Only the F model.( 90 hp) They come up on both tap or barnstormers. Be patient and a nice one will show up! I kept hearing about them and bought one. It was a great little airplane. Sold it for 3 grand more than I paid. And YES! a stinson 108 is another Mercedes Benz of the air if it's in nice shape.always wanted one, great airplane!
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
I made my choice by cost, speed, useful load, avg maintenance costs, and handing/difficulty to fly for someone like me with low time.

I also wanted to fly for fun but with destinations in mind, carry me + at least one person and bags. Possibly occasional use for 4.

I ended up with a 78 Piper Archer II. Typical fuel burn is just under 10gph and making just under 120kts typical cruise. As you may already know useful loads vary but mine is 1004# One of the cheaper aircraft out there to maintain, very easy to fly, robust, better value IMO than the Cessna 172.

Been very happy with my choice.
Click to expand...


Ditto....Archer is hard to beat. I have all the Knottstotyou speed mods and 129 TAS is about where I'm at on XCs. 1001 useful which translates to 700 pounds on full tanks. With me and the wife, we can stuff just under 400 more pounds in. Or, three grown, well fed men and no bags.

Can't do that in a 172 w/o the 180 hp conversion. :no:
 
My wife told me that if I was gonna buy a plane...I should buy a John Deere...not a Murray..com.com

I bought a new 172SP.
 
Last edited:
Unit74 said:
Ditto....Archer is hard to beat. I have all the Knottstotyou speed mods and 129 TAS is about where I'm at on XCs. 1001 useful which translates to 700 pounds on full tanks. With me and the wife, we can stuff just under 400 more pounds in. Or, three grown, well fed men and no bags.

Can't do that in a 172 w/o the 180 hp conversion. :no:
Click to expand...

Neither is a taildragger which he says he wants. Either one is above his pay grade if they are decent.
 
First is defining what you want to do with the plane and that will help you. I knew that I wanted to fly twins, and I also knew that I wanted to be able to fly in weather. I also knew my budget, and that pretty much narrowed me down to an Aztec, 310, or Baron.

Then a local bought a Cheyenne and my instructor/A&P was brokering his old Aztec. He made me an offer I couldn't refuse, especially since he'd known the plane for the previous 5 years or so. It fell into my lap, but it was absolutely the right plane for me at that time and was a great first plane.
 
James331 said:
Maybe a Maule, they can get a little spendy though.
Click to expand...
A buddy of mine bought a new M7, then turned too sharp and dug wingtip into runway. Did not flip over like me, so he just righted the airplane up and continued taxiing. Later he found $12,000 in damage. Apparently unlike all normal airplanes, Maule's spars extend right into the wingtip and he bent a spar (on models with shorter wings).
 
He was taxi ing the maule and dug a wing into the ground?! WOW! It's a good thing he didn't get airborne! He needs help! This fellow had defined clearly what he wanted and the price range. Nothing to do with twins, expensive maules, etc.
 
Last edited:
A Pacer or Stinson are the best in the bottom price range. I don't know how much below $60k he needs to be.
 
Henning said:
A Pacer or Stinson are the best in the bottom price range. I don't know how much below $60k he needs to be.
Click to expand...

+1. You can get a Pacer for less than $30K. Also, there are some Tri-Pacers that have been converted to tailwheel, and some of them have an 0-320. I do hear some grumbling about O-290 parts becoming scarce, I'd investigate that before committing to a Pacer that had one.

If you'd like something even more vintage, take a look at the Clipper, it has control sticks instead of wheels.
 
I bought my 172 after 15 years of stopping training. I wanted a plane to get my private and IFR ticket in. Now that I am a check ride away I will decide on a plane for my current needs.
 
FormerHangie said:
+1. You can get a Pacer for less than $30K. Also, there are some Tri-Pacers that have been converted to tailwheel, and some of them have an 0-320. I do hear some grumbling about O-290 parts becoming scarce, I'd investigate that before committing to a Pacer that had one.

If you'd like something even more vintage, take a look at the Clipper, it has control sticks instead of wheels.
Click to expand...

In the PA-12 it was cheaper to replace the O-290 with a low time 320 than rebuild the 290.
 
I bought the Warrior I spent many hours in training when it became available. It fits most of my immediate needs. Unfortunately, not being IR yet, I have been reluctant to take that long distance trip (+500M).
I'll get there either with or without IR.
 
I bought my first aircraft 1 month after I graduated from college, so price was THE main factor. I bought a Stinson 108-1, and have owned 2 other Stinsons since then.

Love those planes; good comfortable cross country plane for two people.
Back seats are super easy to remove and I could fit 2 mountain bikes plus camping gear inside. Rugged construction and docile handling for a taildragger unless you're taxiing in a strong cross wind with the big tail and original Goodyear expander tube brakes!
They really are like a classic model Mercedez Benz. Everytime I flew into airshows with the Stinson the marshals would send me to show parking!
 
I've been looking a Pacers and converted TriPacers, but there's very few in my area (North East US). I would like to look at a plane up close before getting a pre-purchase inspection, and flying across the country to do so is an impediment.

I'm also 6'4", so training in the Cub was... interesting. I do fit in Pacers and Stinsons.

Stinsons worry me with the Franklin engine. Sure, you can get parts for the 165hp Franklin, but finding mechanics that can work on them? And they don't like lead, and they're a 10gph engine.... The frame on a Stinson is pretty impressive. Looks like it'd survive well in a crash.

I've flown a TriPacer, and found it very straightforward to fly. It still had the bungies connecting the rudder to the ailerons. You can almost fly them hands off, with your feet. The airspeed needed for landing was surprisingly high due to the short wings. I'm used to a 172 with a STOL kit, coming over the fence at 60-65.

Are there any other models of planes I should consider in my search? Thanks for the suggestions so far.

Yes, not interested in twins and IFR just yet. An inexpensive first plane is what I'm looking for, so we can see how it fits in our lives.
 
UngaWunga said:
I've been looking a Pacers and converted TriPacers, but there's very few in my area (North East US). I would like to look at a plane up close before getting a pre-purchase inspection, and flying across the country to do so is an impediment.

I'm also 6'4", so training in the Cub was... interesting. I do fit in Pacers and Stinsons.

Stinsons worry me with the Franklin engine. Sure, you can get parts for the 165hp Franklin, but finding mechanics that can work on them? And they don't like lead, and they're a 10gph engine.... The frame on a Stinson is pretty impressive. Looks like it'd survive well in a crash.

I've flown a TriPacer, and found it very straightforward to fly. It still had the bungies connecting the rudder to the ailerons. You can almost fly them hands off, with your feet. The airspeed needed for landing was surprisingly high due to the short wings. I'm used to a 172 with a STOL kit, coming over the fence at 60-65.

Are there any other models of planes I should consider in my search? Thanks for the suggestions so far.

Yes, not interested in twins and IFR just yet. An inexpensive first plane is what I'm looking for, so we can see how it fits in our lives.
Click to expand...


Are you looking only at tailwheel aircraft, or do you want to include trigear airplanes as well?
 
FormerHangie said:
Are you looking only at tailwheel aircraft, or do you want to include trigear airplanes as well?
Click to expand...

I like the idea of being able to put skis on it someday.... But who knows if that will actually ever happen. Which is why I want the first plane to be inexpensive, so we can figure out what fits and what we really want to use it for. I have some ideas (east coast XC and local fun), but we'll see how it pans out.
 
UngaWunga said:
Stinsons worry me with the Franklin engine. Sure, you can get parts for the 165hp Franklin, but finding mechanics that can work on them? And they don't like lead, and they're a 10gph engine....
Click to expand...

TCP additive worked well for me and I never had fouled plugs. The engine compartment opens up with two dzus fasteners so it's pretty easy to check the plugs if you suspect fouling. The Franklin 6 is a smooth stable running engine. I never had an issue with maintenance for the Franklin, but then I never had to have anything major done on it.
 
UngaWunga said:
I like the idea of being able to put skis on it someday.... But who knows if that will actually ever happen. Which is why I want the first plane to be inexpensive, so we can figure out what fits and what we really want to use it for. I have some ideas (east coast XC and local fun), but we'll see how it pans out.
Click to expand...

Any of the O-320 powered four seaters would fill your needs. In that group, my personal preference runs towards the Grumman AA5A/Cheetah, but you may find that the Cherokee 140 or 172/Skyhawk is more comfortable.
 
Does the engine start?
Is it ready to fly?
Does it have a current condition inspection?
Is the owner's wife a co-owner and are they going through a divorce?
 
I bought the cheapest one could find. It's that simple.

Went to the bank, fetched the cash, then picked the rental truck, threw a few pillows from WalMart into it, grabbed my gun and went to Arizona. Then handed money to the seller, loaded the airplane on the truck and brought it home.

The only snag was, I was unable to reassemble it back by myself, so I had to grovel for my wife to hold the wings while I attached the struts. Even so we managed to get stuck. Fortunately, a guy in a Cub landed at our field for bad weather and was looking for a parking spot to overnight, so he helped us out.
 
I can get a hanger. Don't want the complexity/weight/whatever of folding wings. Don't need it.
 
UngaWunga said:
I can get a hanger. Don't want the complexity/weight/whatever of folding wings. Don't need it.
Click to expand...

No worries, for me a trailerable amphibious sea plane that I can load on the deck of a boat would be highly useful and versatile to me, especially since I can ship it anywhere pretty cheap.
 
The Ka-6 kinda found me. My buddy Matt was trying to find it a new home, and kinda played matchmaker on it.
 
UngaWunga said:
Stinsons worry me with the Franklin engine. Sure, you can get parts for the 165hp Franklin, but finding mechanics that can work on them? And they don't like lead, and they're a 10gph engine.... The frame on a Stinson is pretty impressive. Looks like it'd survive well in a crash.
Click to expand...

Yeah 10gph on average, engine parts and finding folks to swing wrenches never was a problem, nothing too exotic, swapping a carb or exhaust, new mags, its nothing an average A&P can't handle, anything that's out of the norm can be solved with the help of the Stinson groups like the Yahoo one.

100LL never gave me and troubles in over 400hrs.
 
James that's a beautiful plane, how much are you asking for it? Also what beach is it parked on in that Photo? Sincerely Sidneyfw:)
 
My first airplane chose me, on field with a lonely for sale sign in mid "cold" February......a very flyable 1971 Cessna 150....paid a hefty sum of $3,500.
 
Go fly something... Buy what makes you smile.

I went in search of a piper with the old manual flaps - cheap and I think they are cool.

Ended up finding an of bo looking for a pilot. Decided if I would essentially be restoring whatever I got, I figured why not the old bo..

Flying the old bird makes me smile...
 
UngaWunga said:
I spend way too much time on barnstormers. I've trained in Cubs and 172s. Love the taildraggers, and would like to get one. But I want to fly with 2 people + some stuff + full fuel, so no Cubs.

My flying will probably be a mix of trips up/down the east coast, and flying around for fun. 10+ gph are right out, and I'm not made of money.

Suggestions on what to look for?

Thanks
Click to expand...
You sound like a candidate for a Cessna 170.
 
I was looking for aerobatic, and there was a Citabria about 40 miles from my house. I drove over there, and the manager/CFI and I hopped in and strapped up. We went and did a little tootling around and a couple of rolls and a loop.

We landed, I offered, he accepted and gave me flight instruction at $25/hour. It was a great investment way back then, and would be a good plane now but won't carry that weight.
 
Last edited:
First planes are kind of a personal thing. We talk about mission and price, and all the other trappings of what's important.

Maybe an early Maule. The C-170 is also a good fit. Since you're a big guy, if you want more comfort, but at slightly more cost look at the Beech Musketeer later years or early years Sundowner. They are slow, but big and comfy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top