Upgrade!

J

JB1842

En-Route
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
3,569
Location
Huron, OH
Display Name
Display name:
Josh
So the wife gave her blessing to upgrade from the 150 or buy a new truck. Think I'm going to go with a plane upgrade. I even have an interested party to purchase it! Now the question is what do I upgrade to? A 172 will fit my needs just fine, but a Mooney M20C seems like it will give me more options for further and faster travel and more payload. I just registered over on mooneyspace, so I'll be bugging then over there with a bunch of question. In the mean time, if anybody has any leads on a Mooney for sale, let me know. My timeframe for purchase, if the sale of the 150 happens, will probably not be until early spring.
 
Did the wife give her blessing for the increased annual costs of a complex? A 150 to an old retract is a big jump.
 
tyndall said:
Did the wife give her blessing for the increased annual costs of a complex? A 150 to an old retract is a big jump.
Click to expand...

SHHHHH!!!! Don't ruin it for me. I know annual and insurance costs will increase, but I can handle that.
 
I'd keep it simple and go for the 172, if it fits your needs,overall less costly to keep and maintain. No pesky gear problems in the 172.
 
Go for the Mooney. Much better trip vehicle.
 
JB1842 said:
So the wife gave her blessing to upgrade from the 150 or buy a new truck. Think I'm going to go with a plane upgrade. I even have an interested party to purchase it! Now the question is what do I upgrade to? A 172 will fit my needs just fine, but a Mooney M20C seems like it will give me more options for further and faster travel and more payload. I just registered over on mooneyspace, so I'll be bugging then over there with a bunch of question. In the mean time, if anybody has any leads on a Mooney for sale, let me know. My timeframe for purchase, if the sale of the 150 happens, will probably not be until early spring.
Click to expand...

Get a Mooney, or maybe check out some taildraggers.

Why would anyone buy a 172 :dunno:

I mean one can't complain, 172s are a very honest plane, but about as exciting as a wet towel.
 
James331 said:
Get a Mooney, or maybe check out some taildraggers.

Why would anyone buy a 172 :dunno:

I mean one can't complain, 172s are a very honest plane, but about as exciting as a wet towel.
Click to expand...

My third choice plane would be a 170.
 
James331 said:
Get a Mooney, or maybe check out some taildraggers.

Why would anyone buy a 172 :dunno:

I mean one can't complain, 172s are a very honest plane, but about as exciting as a wet towel.
Click to expand...

I don't need exciting, just faster and more useful load.
 
JB1842 said:
My third choice plane would be a 170.
Click to expand...

There ya go :yes:

You'll get way more enjoyment per hour, better off field abilities, float and ski options, and about the same speed, did I mention way more fun
 
I'd agree with a 170 over a 172, just because of the taildragger/coolness factor.

But really, go with a Mooney. Great planes. Not much not to like about them. Also easy to work on, probably one of the simplest of complex aircraft.

Also consider a Comanche, as for not much more money you can get even more speed/useful load.
 
Keep the 150 and put a deposit on the Icon.:lol::no:
 
Also when you get comfy in tailwheels, they are safer.

I had a engine out and put the plane in a riverbank, had it been a nose wheel she would have probably gone on her back or jacked the nose wheel up, tailwheel plane I was flying didn't even have a scratch.
 
Hey wait a minute...you won that 150, right? I think that means that in fairness to everyone else here, you should give it away. Dibs!
 
Jump to a C182, straight leg, you won't be sorry.
 
BillTIZ said:
Jump to a C182, straight leg, you won't be sorry.
Click to expand...

For that kind of money get a Maule, way more capabilities.
Or if you want speed get a PA24

All a 182 is, is a true 4 seat 172.
 
PA24 is a 4 people and all their stuff plane. Speed is decent... 160kts @8000, 75%
 
I purchased a 1967 M20C three years ago and I could not be happier! It has the 180HP O-360 and burns 8.7 GPH at 7500 and 65% power while cruising at 142Kts. Push it to 75% and its close to 150 kts. I have 1000 lbs of payload to play with and 52 gallons is enough for 4 hour legs with over one hour reserve, enough to get me from north Florida to southern Maryland where I fly sometimes for work. The manual (Johnson bar) gear is my favorite. No hydraulics or electrical motors to worry about. If your right arm works the gear goes up or down in less than 5 seconds. My insurance is $820. Started out at $1500 my first year because had little Mooney time but it has dropped every year. It's a great IFR platform. Like any airplane, make sure you get a good pre purchase inspection. The folks at Mooneyspace can guide you what to look for.
 
James331 said:
Also when you get comfy in tailwheels, they are safer.

I had a engine out and put the plane in a riverbank, had it been a nose wheel she would have probably gone on her back or jacked the nose wheel up, tailwheel plane I was flying didn't even have a scratch.
Click to expand...

I already have a tailwheel endorsement and a little over 40 hours in a Cub.
 
Brother....

Get an Archer. 1000 pounds, 125+ knots, very forgiving airplane, 10 gal/hour, $1200 annual, insurance about $850 first year.

You can also find a 172 180hp conversion that will step you up to the Archer specs as well. I trained PPL in 152/172 and Inst in a Warrior and Cherokee 180. I bought an Archer II if that says anything.


Step up to a complex and/or HP- 30 more knots, same or less load, annuals double the cost, insurance around $4k-ish till you hit 100 hours, then drops about $500,

If you only need two seats most of the time, why go Mooney/Bonanza other than the cool feeling up pulling the gear up and down?

If you need 5 seats or better, Bonanza and be prepared for the total cost of ownership. Not saying its crazy, but you will have sticker shock coming from a 150!
 
Unit74 said:
Brother....

Get an Archer. 1000 pounds, 125+ knots, very forgiving airplane, 10 gal/hour, $1200 annual, insurance about $850 first year.

You can also find a 172 180hp conversion that will step you up to the Archer specs as well. I trained PPL in 152/172 and Inst in a Warrior and Cherokee 180. I bought an Archer II if that says anything.
Click to expand...


+1


An Archer or Cherokee 180 would be a nice step up. The 172/180 is a nice idea, however, you could probably pick up an older 182 for about the same price. 182 burns a bit more gas, but it's quite a bit more airplane. A Cherokee 235/Charger/Pathfinder would be a good'n also. Trouble with the early Cherokee series is the back seat room. There ain't none. This is the case from the 140 right up through the 235. If that's an issue, the Archer has a little more room and the Cherokee 235 also got stretched a little in '73 (i think) and the name changed to Charger or Pathfinder.

If you want go complex, I dig an older Bonanza. Good speed and pretty darn roomy. Preferrably one with an Cont. 0-470.

Commanche would be nice. Also has good speed and pretty darn roomy.

The Mooneys are fast on not much gas and really cool.....if you fit inside one.


If you would like to haul the entire contents of your home somewhere, a Cherokee 6 has a useful load of about 1600 lb. Not quick, but it's a flying Suburban.


Edit: On second thought, a Grumman Tiger would fit the bill. I think the Grummans are pretty fun.
 
Last edited:
If you're talking 170's, you might want to talk skywagons.

Insurance and maintenance will be neck and neck and you get a much more robust aircraft.

Get one with the extended tanks and you have a very good X-country machine. Pretty fast too. And the swag factor is off the charts.... :rockon:
 
Since we're spending your money, make sure to look at a PC-12!!:D:D
A 172 is a good all around airplane, not going to win any races, but simple to operate and maintain. A lot for sale and a lot being sold, so if you decide to move up again, it's very marketable. It's just a bigger 150, like a 182 is a bigger 172. :D
 
N747JB said:
Since we're spending your money, make sure to look at a PC-12!!:D:D
A 172 is a good all around airplane, not going to win any races, but simple to operate and maintain. A lot for sale and a lot being sold, so if you decide to move up again, it's very marketable. It's just a bigger 150, like a 182 is a bigger 172. :D
Click to expand...

If I had PC-12 money, I wouldn't be on here looking for advice. I won't completely rule out a decent 172, but when I look to my current needs, and future flying goals, I think I would eventually grow out of it.
 
txflyer said:
If you're talking 170's, you might want to talk skywagons.

Insurance and maintenance will be neck and neck and you get a much more robust aircraft.

Get one with the extended tanks and you have a very good X-country machine. Pretty fast too. And the swag factor is off the charts.... :rockon:
Click to expand...

Love the skywagon, but a little more than my wife will let me spend.
 
It sounds to me like a Mooney or Comanche is the ticket for you. Both can be had very reasonably and provide a lot of plane for the money.
 
A gorgeous 69 260C just came up from an older gent who's lost his medical. Listed on the Delphi Airworthy Comanche forum and Controller. Don't know what your budget is, but it's a nice one!
 
Unit74 said:
Brother....
Step up to a complex and/or HP- 30 more knots, same or less load, annuals double the cost, insurance around $4k-ish till you hit 100 hours, then drops about $500,
Click to expand...

Waaaaht?! You need to find a diffrent insurance carrier, that's nuts


txflyer said:
If you're talking 170's, you might want to talk skywagons.

Insurance and maintenance will be neck and neck and you get a much more robust aircraft.

Get one with the extended tanks and you have a very good X-country machine. Pretty fast too. And the swag factor is off the charts.... :rockon:
Click to expand...

That's a huge price jump, even a ratted out 180 is way more then a nice 170.

But yeah, 180/5s are about the ultimate aircraft, I fly a PC12 for work which is a great plane and I still would rather fly my 185.


Back to the OPs mission, I really think the PA24 fits his profile like a glove.

Go get yourself a flight in a PA12 PA-24, you'll probably be sold on it, speed, economy, great IFR platform, simple systems, and more room than the Mooney, it's near the very top when it comes to bang for your buck.

As a bonus, it's a rather attractive plane to boot, one which many experienced aviators have chosen to set records in.

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Waaaaht?! You need to find a diffrent insurance carrier, that's nuts









That's a huge price jump, even a ratted out 180 is way more then a nice 170.



But yeah, 180/5s are about the ultimate aircraft, I fly a PC12 for work which is a great plane and I still would rather fly my 185.





Back to the OPs mission, I really think the PA24 fits his profile like a glove.



Go get yourself a flight in a PA12, you'll probably be sold on it, speed, economy, great IFR platform, simple systems, and more room than the Mooney, it's near the very top when it comes to bang for your buck.



As a bonus, it's a rather attractive plane to boot, one which many experienced aviators have chosen to set records in.



image.jpg
Click to expand...


You started with PA24 and divided it by two later in the post. Taildraggers on the brain today? ;)
 
I just sold a 172 with a 180 conversion because it just wasn't enough airplane. I feel if you are going to the expense of upgrading, yo should make it worth the trouble and expense.

Sure, a 172 will be better than the 152 but not a whole lot better. Unless you want to upgrade again in a few years, I would suggest taking a little bigger step. A C180 or 182 would be a very logical double step that should keep you happy for quite a while.

Or if you really like the Mooney and feel comfortable with the expense and the "complex", then go for it. Better to do it now than do the 172 and wish you went with the Mooney.
 
tyndall said:
Did the wife give her blessing for the increased annual costs of a complex? A 150 to an old retract is a big jump.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:

Mooney is a very robust complex airplane, find a good C, and it isn't going to cost you much more than the 150 in MX. Honest.

Also, consider the 182 is you like flying into grass fields. Comfy, reasonably fast, and carries a good load. I'd go 182 before I'd consider 172.

If you like tailwheel and want to do some grass fields, Maule is nice choice.

Lots of planes to look at.

As for a new truck.......meh. I'm still driving my 14yr old F-150 Supercrew, and I expect it to last at least another 5-10. Very durable and dependable.
 
JB1842 said:
SHHHHH!!!! Don't ruin it for me. I know annual and insurance costs will increase, but I can handle that.
Click to expand...

The increase in those costs between a C and F model won't be significant, but the F gives you the mid length fuselage I believe with a more versatile back seat. You ought to be able to find a mid body for the price of a new pick-up.
 
Bill Jennings said:
:rolleyes2:

Mooney is a very robust complex airplane, find a good C, and it isn't going to cost you much more than the 150 in MX. Honest.

Also, consider the 182 is you like flying into grass fields. Comfy, reasonably fast, and carries a good load. I'd go 182 before I'd consider 172.

If you like tailwheel and want to do some grass fields, Maule is nice choice.

Lots of planes to look at.

As for a new truck.......meh. I'm still driving my 14yr old F-150 Supercrew, and I expect it to last at least another 5-10. Very durable and dependable.
Click to expand...

Unless you're going to do some real backcountry work you don't really need much. I've landed a PA24 on grass plenty of times, it is more than capable of handling most any unimproved strip you'll see on a sectional.
 
James331 said:
Unless you're going to do some real backcountry work you don't really need much. I've landed a PA24 on grass plenty of times, it is more than capable of handling most any unimproved strip you'll see on a sectional.
Click to expand...

A Bonanza is even better on the score.
 
Henning said:
The increase in those costs between a C and F model won't be significant, but the F gives you the mid length fuselage I believe with a more versatile back seat. You ought to be able to find a mid body for the price of a new pick-up.
Click to expand...

Do you happen to know how much the useful load takes a hit on the F? Probably not enough to affect my mission, but I'm use to only have less than 500 pounds to play with. I also understand that the C model seat don't fold down, but I'm assuming the F does?
 
JB1842 said:
Do you happen to know how much the useful load takes a hit on the F? Probably not enough to affect my mission, but I'm use to only have less than 500 pounds to play with. I also understand that the C model seat don't fold down, but I'm assuming the F does?
Click to expand...

I'm not that familiar to give all the particulars on a Mooney. I have very limited time in the C and a turbo Exec which I think was an F/mid length. I don't recall the F useful load being less than the C.:dunno:
 
Henning said:
I'm not that familiar to give all the particulars on a Mooney. I have very limited time in the C and a turbo Exec which I think was an F/mid length. I don't recall the F useful load being less than the C.:dunno:
Click to expand...

I just found some info on the differences. More useful load in the F, but since there are larger fuel tanks, you lose a few pounds with full fuel. Comparably priced of the models, the F's seem to have way more engine time on them. That might be more of a concern to me in the long run. Not too concerned about the stretched fuselage, I'm not going to be sitting in the back.:D
 
JB1842 said:
Do you happen to know how much the useful load takes a hit on the F? Probably not enough to affect my mission, but I'm use to only have less than 500 pounds to play with. I also understand that the C model seat don't fold down, but I'm assuming the F does?
Click to expand...


My F has a 965 lb. of useful load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top