Vote: what is the best econobox bird

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
1,097
Location
Lompton,CA
Display Name
Capt.Crash'n'Burn
I didn't want to set up a poll because I didn't know the best options to post.

Simple question, if you were to buy a plane, (certified or home built, doesn't matter) that had a cruising speed of at least 130 KTS, IFR, 2-4 seats with room for luggage, what would it be and why??

low fuel burn rates and low maintenance costs are a big plus.
 
Last edited:
Certified: C182: good all around plane. Just over 130KTs.
Homebuilt: RV-10. Ask Chris why! :)
 
I'll second the 182. Not sure I'd call it an "econobox", but it does do what you're looking for quite nicely.
 
Mooney or 182. Both have aspects that are more or less economical than the other. And yes there are Pipers too but you asked about ME ;)
 
Would a Grumman Tiger work?
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, definitely, since he said 4 seats and not 4 people.


:wink2:
Click to expand...

:rofl:

You must have a death wish, taunting the Grumman Mafia like that!

I also vote 182.

Or, save a few bucks and buy a Dakota. I don't like climbing in on the pax side, though, so I wouldn't buy one.

You probably know this already, but putting 4 people in a 4 seater means you will have limited range. Assume your average 4 seater has a payload of 600lbs (maybe generous). If you're like me, and have 2 little kids and a fit wife, the weight is not an issue. If you're dragging around the front 4 of the local NFL team, you won't get off the ground.
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
I didn't want to set up a poll because I didn't know the best options to post.

Simple question, if you were to buy a plane, (certified or home built, doesn't matter) that had a cruising speed of at least 130 KTS, IFR, 2-4 seats with room for luggage, what would it be and why??

low fuel burn rates and low maintenance costs are a big plus.
Click to expand...

You need to make up your mind.

Do you want an econobox or a 130 knot IFR hot rod? :wink2:
 
Obviously I would choose a 172RG.

Two people, 6+ hours fuel and ~200 pounds for luggage or a third person. Same or slightly better cruise speed than a straight leg 182 on 25% less fuel per hour. Plus initial cost is less, ongoing probably a little higher at annual and for insurance.

However it is smaller than the 182 and cannot carry four people in reality due to space and weight.

Define your mission for better responses.
 
If you can dial back the cruise speed requirement to 110-115 kt, it's hard to beat a 172 for economy.

Also depends on what your definition of IFR is - you're not likely to find affordable '60s and '70s 172 with autopilots or approach certified GPS either.
 
timwinters said:
Yeah, definitely, since he said 4 seats and not 4 people.


:wink2:
Click to expand...

Grumman Mafia here. :D

You can fill all four seats if they are not all fat asses, and you fuel to the tabs (38 gallons) which still allows a 3.5 hour endurance, and at 135 knots you can still go places. My personal, bladder endurance is typically about that time anwyway. Yes, the Tiger will work.
 
Archer or Cherokee 180 will do 125kts once in cruise. Useful load of around 950-1000# depending on the model year. This means that 3 adults and full fuel is easy. Sometimes 4 adults depending on their size and fuel loading.

Typically around 5-10k lower cost than a similiarly equipped 172 from the same model year. And it is 180hp instead of 160hp.

Parts are easy to find (Piper is still in business, the Archer is still in production, and most Archer parts work on a Cherokee).

Maintenance costs are about as low as it gets for a 4 seater.
 
Well, if we are throwing retracts out there as possibilities...
 
I'd note that the Hershey Bar wing PA28s are awfully short of rear seat legroom. The tapered wing ones seem a whole lot better to me, at least from my 6'-2" perspective.
 
Trapper John said:
I'd note that the Hershey Bar wing PA28s are awfully short of rear seat legroom. The tapered wing ones seem a whole lot better to me, at least from my 6'-2" perspective.
Click to expand...

Note that the Archer and Challenger (1973-1975, iirc) have
the longer fuselage but the Hershey Bar wing.
 
Sac Arrow said:
They are, but but it's still very doable. All of my Arrow time is in a Turbo Arrow (tapered wing and longer fuselage) but I have recently flown (and rode in the back of) a II, and it could still accomodate me in the rear seat. Headroom was more of an issue than legroom. I'm an even 6'.
Click to expand...

I thought the Arrow II had the fuselage stretch, but I could very well be mistaken.
 
Sac Arrow said:
They are, but but it's still very doable. All of my Arrow time is in a Turbo Arrow (tapered wing and longer fuselage) but I have recently flown (and rode in the back of) a II, and it could still accomodate me in the rear seat. Headroom was more of an issue than legroom. I'm an even 6'.

That said, maintenance for a TA definately removes it from the "econobox" category but it's real efficient crusing above 12,000 feet.
Click to expand...

Maybe with a midget in the front seat.
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
I didn't want to set up a poll because I didn't know the best options to post.

Simple question, if you were to buy a plane, (certified or home built, doesn't matter) that had a cruising speed of at least 130 KTS, IFR, 2-4 seats with room for luggage, what would it be and why??

low fuel burn rates and low maintenance costs are a big plus.
Click to expand...
Sportsman 2+2
http://www.glasairaviation.com/kitcontentsportsman.html
The Sportsman has a nearly 1,000 pound useful load, and, with 2 pilots and full fuel, the Sportsman will not only haul over 300 pounds of gear, cargo, or extra passengers, it will easily handle all of the bulky stuff you never thought you’d take with you in your airplane – 2 sets of golf clubs, snow skis, 9’ fishing rods and reels, folding tables, chairs, aluminum framed backpacks, all kinds of camping, hiking and scuba gear and lots of it!” said Setzer. Taking all of this with you, you can cover 600 miles in 4 hours and still have a ½ hour fuel
Click to expand...
 
flyersfan31 said:
:rofl:

You must have a death wish, taunting the Grumman Mafia like that!

I also vote 182.

Or, save a few bucks and buy a Dakota. I don't like climbing in on the pax side, though, so I wouldn't buy one.

You probably know this already, but putting 4 people in a 4 seater means you will have limited range. Assume your average 4 seater has a payload of 600lbs (maybe generous). If you're like me, and have 2 little kids and a fit wife, the weight is not an issue. If you're dragging around the front 4 of the local NFL team, you won't get off the ground.
Click to expand...

Mah GF is 5'5" @115 lbs. I haven't knocked her up yet so I'm not worried about having to lug around a fat wife. :fcross:
 
Trapper John said:
If you can dial back the cruise speed requirement to 110-115 kt, it's hard to beat a 172 for economy.

Also depends on what your definition of IFR is - you're not likely to find affordable '60s and '70s 172 with autopilots or approach certified GPS either.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. Depends on your definition of affordable but there are Cessnas with both sporting asking prices in the 40-50k range.
 
Trapper John said:
I wouldn't pay 40-50k for any pre S-model 172 regardless of what was in the panel.
Click to expand...

As we are currently in the market, it seems you are one of the only ones with that mindset -- prices on "airworthy C172s without a story" seem to have spiked 20% recently.

Find me an S for 50k and I'll buy every single one you can muster. :D
 
schmookeeg said:
As we are currently in the market, it seems you are one of the only ones with that mindset -- prices on "airworthy C172s without a story" seem to have spiked 20% recently.
Click to expand...

Good for the sellers, I guess...

Find me an S for 50k and I'll buy every single one you can muster. :D
Click to expand...

Have you tried Wentworth or White Industries? :D
 
steingar said:
If you have to ask buy a boat instead.
Click to expand...


I will not travel in a boat,
I will not travel with a goat.

I will not paddle here,
I will not paddle there.
I will not paddle anywhere.

I do not like green lakes and sand,
I do not like them Sam I am.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Since the M word was already thrown about, it's hard to beat an Arrow. Taking it easy, 130 kts at 9 gph with four adults and luggage. Probably being a retract takes it out of the true econobox category though. A little slower than a Mooney but big people can fit in it.
Click to expand...

Trapper John said:
I'd note that the Hershey Bar wing PA28s are awfully short of rear seat legroom. The tapered wing ones seem a whole lot better to me, at least from my 6'-2" perspective.
Click to expand...

Bob Noel said:
Note that the Archer and Challenger (1973-1975, iirc) have
the longer fuselage but the Hershey Bar wing.
Click to expand...

The 1969 PA-28R-200 I've got some time in is two seats plus plenty of cargo space. Payload isn't the issue, legroom in the back seat it. I haven't had a passenger I disliked enough to subject to the back seat of that thing, especially with me in the left seat. The C-182P, on the other hand, does not suffer from this problem. Neither does the C-172N. And with the Penn Yan 180 hp conversion, that 172 has a payload of 755 pounds with full 50 gal tanks. Neither the Arrow nor the 182 can touch that when their tanks are full.
 
I'll throw in the numbers for a Comanche 250 with tip tanks.

1250 useful
90 gallons
12ish/gal fuel burn @150kts
Range ~ 1000nm/7hrs
Widest cabin in class
4 normal sized adults with no problem

Negatives

One door.
Good deal tough to find.
Recurring ADs on certain configurations.
Retractable gear maintenance costs
 
EdFred said:
I'll throw in the numbers for a Comanche 250 with tip tanks.

1250 useful
90 gallons
12ish/gal fuel burn @150kts
Range ~ 1000nm/7hrs
Widest cabin in class
4 normal sized adults with no problem

Negatives
Good deal tough to find.
Click to expand...

There's 14 of 'em for sale at controller.com

Is there much difference in fule burn rates between carbureted and fuel injected?
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
There's 14 of 'em for sale at controller.com

Is there much difference in fule burn rates between carbureted and fuel injected?
Click to expand...

You can probably save 1/2-1gph with the FI if you run LOP.

I flew from 9D9 to SRQ nonstop with a 15kt tailwind at 9,000 and 11.5gph in February.
 
Best combination of low purchase price and economical operation: M20C (johnson bar gear and hydraulic flaps).

Lowest price of operation, but higher purchase price: Grumman Tiger

Lower purchase price but higher operating/maintenance costs: Piper Arrow 180
 
PilotAlan said:
Best combination of low purchase price and economical operation: M20C (johnson bar gear and hydraulic flaps).

Lowest price of operation, but higher purchase price: Grumman Tiger

Lower purchase price but higher operating/maintenance costs: Piper Arrow 180
Click to expand...

As long as the people in the back seat are both double amputees, and the people in the front seats have 26" waists.
 
EdFred said:
As long as the people in the back seat are both double amputees, and the people in the front seats have 26" waists.
Click to expand...

The M20C and E are great two people and bags planes. (Bags have no legs) :wink2:

The M20F may make the list though as it has the stretched body and you can actually put adults in the rear seats.

For some reason, I still think the Tiger should get all around accolades. :rolleyes2:
 
Anthony said:
The M20C and E are great two people and bags planes. (Bags have no legs) :wink2:

The M20F may make the list though as it has the stretched body and you can actually put adults in the rear seats.

For some reason, I still think the Tiger should get all around accolades. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

True, but he did say C model, and the OP said 2-4 people.

I actually looked at buying a Grumman for my first plane. :eek:
Short field performance pointed me elsewhere.
 
EdFred said:
As long as the people in the back seat are both double amputees, and the people in the front seats have 26" waists.
Click to expand...

I don't know...my father didn't complain about the ride in the
back seat of a 1968 Arrow. It's not as bad as the backseat
of my 1974 cherokee 140.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top