What aircraft would best fit...

[Murrgh]

Flying from NJ to VA?

The situation I'm in is this.. I'll have my PPL VFR by Mid May and will be commuting from VA to NJ monthly, which is a ~275nm trip, one way. I currently am training in a C172 equipped with a G1000 and is the only aircraft I have flown (There's about 6-8 C172/G1000 each with different features, we rotate flying each one)

Flying commercially is roughly $800 for one person, I may have another passenger which would double the cost. Trains are not an option, seeing as it isn't much cheaper than flying commercially.

This is where I need advice...

I can rent a C172, which would work for the weekend trips, but they're $169.99/hr, and I can't keep them with me while I'm in NJ for weeks or longer.

So what aircraft would you recommend using for this? I am relatively new to Aviation and would love to hear advice from every prospective. I would like to fly something as new as the 172's with G1000's, but that's not a requirement.

Thanks,
Murrgh

 

[somorris]

It kind of depends on how much money you can afford. The C-172 will handle that distance okay (in my opinion).

 

[John221us]

Are you looking to buy a plane? What is your budget? Are you going for your IR?

At the end of the day, it will never be cheaper than flying commercial (once a month) and it certainly won't be reliable. You won't be able to justify the cost or be able to depend on whether or not you can make the trip, so the trick is to not worry about any of that and just buy a plane and fly the trip when you can and have lot more fun when you do get to go GA.

 

[Murrgh]

Eventually I will be getting my IFR, hopefully working on that over the summer, then Multi after that. Budget is around $150,000, can spend more, just looking for a used plane around that area.

 

[comanchepilot]

C-172/C-182

PA-28-180.

Those are the plain vanilla garden variety anyone can maintain them prices are known for everything, easy parts availability anyone can fly them reliable dispatch airplanes. They'll have plenty of payload for full fuel and 2 people and are a great IFR trainers as well - because if you WANT dispatch reliability you will need +/- 1 day schedule flex plus an IFR rating to get it done in that climate zone.

For more speed or more fun:

Arrow - gain all of 10 knots brining the gear up - not much bang for lots of additional maintenance and insurance buck.

Tiger/Cheetah- fun to fly. Fixed gear simplicity. Hard to find used with updated avionics.

Musketeer / Sierra - again, fixed gear from Beech - wider cockpits - bigger all around - some think slower. Prob need a Beech guy and nothing Bonanza related is cheap.

Thems your options. Personally I'd buy either a 182 or a Cherokee 180 with decent avionics and interior and fly the heck out of it and get my instrument rating with the money I save over one of the other options.

I used my Comanche from CT-South Carolina for 5 years [which was 700nm] and flew over the route dozens and dozens of times. LOTS of places to land. Lots of divert alternatives - learn the ones close to Amtrak stations so that if you have to land for weather or a mechanical you can simply get on the next NE Corridor train home.

 

[poadeleted21]

V35. People are going to come along and say "Mooney" or "RV", they are wrong. Cherokees and 172s are nice honest planes. The novelty of double digit ground speeds in any sort of headwind gets a little old if you're traveling a lot.

 

[Morne]

I fly OH to VA 251 nm each way for business. A 182 is where it is at.

 

[JasonM]

Why not a used cirrus?

 

[Murrgh]

C-172/C-182

PA-28-180.

Those are the plain vanilla garden variety anyone can maintain them prices are known for everything, easy parts availability anyone can fly them reliable dispatch airplanes. They'll have plenty of payload for full fuel and 2 people and are a great IFR trainers as well - because if you WANT dispatch reliability you will need +/- 1 day schedule flex plus an IFR rating to get it done in that climate zone.

For more speed or more fun:

Arrow - gain all of 10 knots brining the gear up - not much bang for lots of additional maintenance and insurance buck.

Tiger/Cheetah- fun to fly. Fixed gear simplicity. Hard to find used with updated avionics.

Musketeer / Sierra - again, fixed gear from Beech - wider cockpits - bigger all around - some think slower. Prob need a Beech guy and nothing Bonanza related is cheap.

Thems your options. Personally I'd buy either a 182 or a Cherokee 180 with decent avionics and interior and fly the heck out of it and get my instrument rating with the money I save over one of the other options.

I used my Comanche from CT-South Carolina for 5 years [which was 700nm] and flew over the route dozens and dozens of times. LOTS of places to land. Lots of divert alternatives - learn the ones close to Amtrak stations so that if you have to land for weather or a mechanical you can simply get on the next NE Corridor train home.

Wow, great advice, this is just what I was looking for! If you don't mind me asking, what is the yearly ownership cost of a Comanche??

Why not a used cirrus?

Comanche/172/182/SR22/SR20 are all options, just wanted to see what others had to say before I made any decisions.

 

[EdFred]

Get a nice, COMFORTABLE, ROOMY 150kt+ plane for $75k and use the rest as fuel money, and don't worry about upgrading from the 115-120kt plane to the 150kt+ you're going to want later anyway.

Bonanza/Debonaire and Comanches come to mind.

 

[Ted]

It all comes down to how much time you want to spend on the trip and what your budget can allow. At your mission time, you're looking at 2.5-3 hours in a 172 depending on traffic and winds. You're looking at probably 2 hours relatively consistently in a Comanche 250/260 (or Twin Comanche), Mooney, Cessna 210, or Bonanza. If you went to a 310 or Baron you'd be looking at around 1 hour 45 minutes or so. Your $150,000 budget will easily buy you any of the faster options with a nice panel, even if you have to put the panel in yourself. There are a lot of advantages to that since you can make it exactly how you want.

Since you're talking about only doing this trip monthly, you could technically do it in a 172/182 and probably be fine with it. However, the same money will buy you one of the faster options. That will mean that on the days when the headwinds are 40+ kts, you'll still be going along at a much nicer clip than the 172/182 would have. Plus, that also means that longer trips become easier to do, as well when they come up.

As the person who is supposed to always recommend twins, you could also do well with a Twin Comanche, Baron, or 310, and easily get a nice example in your price range for purchase, but your hourly costs will increase substantially. Our 310 costs about $300/hr to operate wet and goes 185 KTAS. I'd figure the same for a Baron, and a Twin Comanche probably more like $200/hr. What that buys you is the second fan (only you can decide the importance of that) and a higher probability of being able to get on-board radar and de-ice. De-ice is important in the winter if you intend on flying on a schedule. Radar I think is less important for comparable summer operations, but is definitely nice to have. As someone who's flown de-iced piston twins with radar for the past 1600 hours (and piston singles for 400 hours before that), I can count the number of no-go decision I've made on one hand with one or two fingers to spare. If I'd been trying to fly all those trips in a Mooney, let's say, I probably would have cancelled more than I can count on my fingers and toes, mostly due to winter weather

If you think that your operating budget and mission needs will support a twin, then probably you are best off building time on rentals until you decide to make the leap and buy one. Otherwise, I think that you would do well with a Mooney, Bonanza, 210, or Comanche (whichever one suits your fancy best).

 

[poadeleted20]

Pretty much any simple 4-seat fixed gear 150-180HP airplane would do the job nicely, including the Cessna C-172/177, Piper PA28-150-181, Grumman AA-5/5A/5B, and Beech 19/23. The 180 HP planes would be faster, and cost only marginally more to operate, but would like cost at least $10K more than their 150-160HP cousins (that's the balance of market supply and demand at work). All are excellent choices for a first ownership experience due to their simplicity and good support. They'd all also be excellent platforms for your instrument training, as you're really going an IR to need to be making that run routinely.

No doubt plenty of folks will tell you need something with retractable gear or a much bigger engine, but that simply isn't so, and you'd be paying a lot more up front as well as in operating and ownership costs for capability you aren't planning to use. Given your current level of experience, a nice simple 4-seater makes the most sense for you and your mission. Fly that for a few years including getting your IR and some serious IFR experience in such a plane, and then you can decide if a bigger, faster, more complex, more expensive airplane makes sense for you.

 

[PBristolJr]

Lancair 320/360

 

[PilotAlan]

Pretty much any simple 4-seat fixed gear 150-180HP airplane would do the job nicely, including the Cessna C-172/177, Piper PA28-150-181, Grumman AA-5/5A/5B, and Beech 19/23.

Yep. Remember that there's a significant price delta between Cessna and Piper products. Because most people learn in Cessnas, they buy Cessnas. There's a smaller market for Pipers than Cessnas.

That means a 235hp Cherokee can be bought for the price of a 180hp Cessna, but have better useful, better climb, better speed.
That means that a Cherokee 180 will cost about the same as a 150hp 172.
A 150hp Piper will cost about $10k less than a 150hp Cessna, for about the same performance.

Grummans will cost a lot more than equivalent engine Cessnas, but will be a blast to fly and make you smile every time you crank it up.

Beech Musketeer/Supers will be significantly slower than equivalent Pipers or Cessnas, but very comfortable. There's a running gag about Musketeers having damage history from bird strikes on the back of the wings.

 

[weilke]

Any aircraft will beat driving on that route.

For a VFR pilot, this is only feasible if you own the plane. You DON'T want to be in a situation where you have to return in iffy weather because the daily minimums on the rental plane are clocking up. With your own plane, you just leave it behind and get a 1-week rental from enterprise for less than a single day of daily minimums would run on the rental plane. Drive home, return on the weekend to pick up the plane.

What other plans do you have for the plane ? Family travel, how many people ? Instrument training ?

I used to have a Warrior and went that route a couple of times. Anything with a basic 2-axis AP will make the trip. There is really little benefit to extra speed, what was 1:45 in the Warrior is 1:15 in the Bonanza.

Two things in VA will drive your cost of ownership: Property tax and hangaring cost. So dont go overboard on the value and buy something that doesn't mind sitting on the ramp. Also look at the mill rate of the different counties where you could base the plane.

 

[DavidWhite]

RV10 definitely.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Pretty much any simple 4-seat fixed gear 150-180HP airplane would do the job nicely, including the Cessna C-172/177, Piper PA28-150-181, Grumman AA-5/5A/5B, and Beech 19/23. The 180 HP planes would be faster, and cost only marginally more to operate, but would like cost at least $10K more than their 150-160HP cousins (that's the balance of market supply and demand at work). All are excellent choices for a first ownership experience due to their simplicity and good support. They'd all also be excellent platforms for your instrument training, as you're really going an IR to need to be making that run routinely.

No doubt plenty of folks will tell you need something with retractable gear or a much bigger engine, but that simply isn't so, and you'd be paying a lot more up front as well as in operating and ownership costs for capability you aren't planning to use. Given your current level of experience, a nice simple 4-seater makes the most sense for you and your mission. Fly that for a few years including getting your IR and some serious IFR experience in such a plane, and then you can decide if a bigger, faster, more complex, more expensive airplane makes sense for you.

The above is good solid reasoning (because it matches what I worked out myself :wink2: )

Additionally, when you throw in the commute time to and from each airport, pre-flight and fueling time, you'll have enough over-head time you can't rid yourself of that the time saved between a "fast" plane and a "slow" one is going to save only a small percentage of the total travel time. But the cost for speed doesn't go up linearly - a 180 kt airplane cost way more than twice a 90 kt airplane, all else being equal. (The purchase prices seem to increase roughly as the square of the speed, or more. That is true of the physics, where the energy cost increases with the square of the speed and the engine power has to increase with the cube of the speed.)

If you didn't have a passenger then even a C-152 with long range tanks could do the job! Consider, using "book" numbers to fly 275 nm:

C-152: 106 kts, 2:36 flying time
C-172R: 122 kts, 2:15 flying time
C-182T: 145 kts: 1:54 flying time

How much is that 42 minutes worth to you? What is the cost differential between the C-152 and C-182T? The C-152 takes 37% more flight time. That doesn't include the following which would reduce the percentage savings further:

Preflight, taxi, runup: :15 to :20
Landing taxi, shutdown, and securing airplane: :05 to :10
Commute to/from airport: ?
Fueling time: ?

 

[EdFred]

Now, refigure those numbers with a 30kt headwind, and an additional 10-15 kts from a Bo or Co that hold nearly 7 hours of fuel.

 

[poadeleted21]

Three things a pilot has never said about a cross country plane.

1. I wish it was slower
2. I wish it had less horsepower.
3. I wish it had a simpler panel.

Get the most speed, HP and panel you can afford. All three are much cheaper to buy up front. I burned quite a few $1000 bills learning that lesson.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Now, refigure those numbers with a 30kt headwind, and an additional 10-15 kts from a Bo or Co that hold nearly 7 hours of fuel.

Against the lowly C-152:

130 kts vs 76 kts:
2:07 vs 3:37

1:30 (71%) faster.

If you always run into 30 kt headwinds, even at low altitude, and then both ways, why yes that might be a reason to go for a faster plane.

Long distances or perpetual headwinds: yes, I'd consider a faster airplane.

 

[comanchepilot]

Wow, great advice, this is just what I was looking for! If you don't mind me asking, what is the yearly ownership cost of a Comanche??

Depends - have a good mechanic who knows the systems and knows how to put an airplane on a good replacement/maintenance cycle? $4k a year with $10k every 5 years or so.

Have a mechanic who thinks its a Skylane? Then its more like $1500-2000 a year and your life or a $15-20k annual- whichever comes first.

For that route, A comanche, Bo, Cirrus, is overkill. Anything over 175-200nm means something other than 120kt cruise. You WILL see winds to 40-50 knots at 6000 occasionally - and seeing the semi's passing you on 1-95 is very depressing.

Thus, I'd lean Skylane or Dakota [235hp version of the Cherokee] - and would consider a nice Tiger if you can find one. $50-60k would be the budget for a well-maintained, decent avionics, decently maintained airplane.

Ignore the experimental crown crowing about their RV dujour - great airplanes. But lots of folks [i.e., pax] get put off by the required notice placard. Cirrus is just too expensive for what you get.

Buying a Bo for a 250nm trip is like buying a Rolls to drive to the market. . . . it gets the job done, it looks good doing it, but it costs fortune to do something easily done in a Civic. . .

 

[wabower]

But quite have a few have asked "what the hell was I thinking" after finding their trip times didn't change more than a few minutes in what was purported to be a much faster plane. Portal to portal time for travel in any of the planes is going to be roughly the same for a 250 nm trip. If the R/T time is less than 5 hours on an ongoing basis, anything less is overkill.

Three things a pilot has never said about a cross country plane.

1. I wish it was slower
2. I wish it had less horsepower.
3. I wish it had a simpler panel.

Get the most speed, HP and panel you can afford. All three are much cheaper to buy up front. I burned quite a few $1000 bills learning that lesson.

 

[madtrader]

What about an early model DA40, say 2003? It's roughly equivalent to the 172 in terms of useful load, but faster and more fuel efficient.

 

[comanchepilot]

Trip in my Cherokee 180 - my first airplane - TAS 124:

30 knot headwind

271nm. 2.88hrs, fuel burn 27 gallons.

Trip in my Comanche - TAS 160:

30 knot headwind

271nm: 2.05 hrs. fuel burn 29 gallons.

So from a fuel perspective only my Comanche costs me $12 more in fuel cost and covers the trip in about 45 minutes less. That 45 minutes is well worth the additional fuel cost.


After operating both airplanes over several annuals - I have come to the conclusion that trip operating cost over 150nm is about the same. The Comanche is real world about 40-45kts faster - which makes up alot for the increased operating cost from the shorter flight.

[edit] = plus it damn nice passing a Skyhawk looking like its standing still . . .

 

[Jim Logajan]

Three things a pilot has never said about a cross country plane.

1. I wish it was slower
2. I wish it had less horsepower.
3. I wish it had a simpler panel.

Get the most speed, HP and panel you can afford. All three are much cheaper to buy up front. I burned quite a few $1000 bills learning that lesson.

Do you work for the government? I ask only because you sure seem at ease spending other people's money. The OP mentioned $150k - possibly more. You should have it spent in no time.

The physics and engineering of airplanes has conspired to make the cost of speed go up very quickly as one tries to make them go faster. I submit that many people simply don't bother to do all the math about what those marginal speed increases cost.

Since the OP presumably has the ability to spend the budgeted amount, they are no doubt equally astute enough to consider the highly non-linear cost for that speed - once it is pointed out. After that it is a matter of subjective preference.

 

[poadeleted21]

Do you work for the government? I ask only because you sure seem at ease spending other people's money. The OP mentioned $150k - possibly more. You should have it spent in no time.

The physics and engineering of airplanes has conspired to make the cost of speed go up very quickly as one tries to make them go faster. I submit that many people simply don't bother to do all the math about what those marginal speed increases cost.

Since the OP presumably has the ability to spend the budgeted amount, they are no doubt equally astute enough to consider the highly non-linear cost for that speed - once it is pointed out. After that it is a matter of subjective preference.

Head on over to Beechtalk and ask if anyone there want's to trade their A36 for a C-172.

 

[wabower]

Head over to the Cessna 180 forum and see how many want a Bo. If they can sufficiently overcome their convulsive laughter to raise their hand.

Head on over to Beechtalk and ask if anyone there want's to trade their A36 for a C-172.

 

[poadeleted21]

Head over to the Cessna 180 forum and see how many want a Bo. If they can sufficiently overcome their convulsive laughter to raise their hand.

You guys just like to play "pretend" backcountry pilots. OP seems like he wants to go places. A G1000 in a C180, He'll be lucky to find a 182 with dual KX170Bs.

 

[wabower]

Only Bo pilots need all that crap for 250 nm trips.

You guys just like to play "pretend" backcountry pilots. OP seems like he wants to go places. A G1000 in a C180, He'll be lucky to find a 182 with dual KX170Bs.

 

[weilke]

Head on over to Beechtalk and ask if anyone there want's to trade their A36 for a C-172.

I remember a good number of folks over there having 152s, champs, C120s and other assorted hardware in addition to their beeches.

 

[poadeleted21]

Only Bo pilots need all that crap for 250 nm trips.

Trips? That's just for taxing.

 

[poadeleted21]

I remember a good number of folks over there having 152s, champs, C120s and other assorted hardware in addition to their beeches.

Ask anyone with a more capable plane if they want to trade for a C172. Probably not unless their mission/circumstances have changed.

My suggestion to OP was to buy all the speed, HP and avionics he can afford, and I get accused of being a government worker for that Those are the three big dollar items that are cheaper to acquire up front than to add on later and most folks want more of all three. If I could afford a King Air or a PC-12 or G650 I'd have one.

 

[docmirror]

We go through the same drill 4-5 times a year. Any of the middle of the road GA planes will do the job. My 'need have' items were comfort and economy. Others like modern panels, and fixed gears.

None of the suggestions are bad, just get something that is in good shape and before you decide what brand or model, find the right A&P near you first.

Also, as the price of gas represents a significant cost factor for a regular use plane, find something that has enough tanks to get you round trip to the cheap fuel. That means 550NM plus reserve. You'll be tankering some fuel around, but the price delta for gas in that area can be $2-3 per gallon different. That right there is worth stopping along the way.

The Cessnas are overpriced for what you get. It's the old saw that what you learn on is what you buy later, and we see it constantly. For that mission, I'd prolly get something that retracts, but not a Cessna retract. The only product from Cessna that I would recommend is one of the late model Cardinal 177 with some modern glass panel stuff.

 

[weilke]

Ask anyone with a more capable plane if they want to trade for a C172. Probably not unless their mission/circumstances have changed.

I remember one who traded to a 172 for his kids to learn in and then there are others who quietly sold their Bo or Twin because the cost wasn't justified by the limited travel they do.

My suggestion to OP was to buy all the speed, HP and avionics he can afford, and I get accused of being a government worker for that

Well, that is the goverment way of doing things. Rather than 'what are the minimum specs to get the job done' it is 'what is the max we can squeeze into the capital budget'. That is how we ended up with a 110ft tower-ladder in a town that has no building taller than 2 stories :wink2: .

 

[poadeleted21]

I remember one who traded to a 172 for his kids to learn in and then there are others who quietly sold their Bo or Twin because the cost wasn't justified by the limited travel they do.



Well, that is the goverment way of doing things. Rather than 'what are the minimum specs to get the job done' it is 'what is the max we can squeeze into the capital budget'. That is how we ended up with a 110ft tower-ladder in a town that has no building taller than 2 stories :wink2: .

I bought a Cherokee.

New GPS.
New COMM.
New CDI.
New Annunciator.
New Interior.
New DG.
New AI.
New VSI.
New OAT/Timer etc..
New Hoses,filters,wires,mags,SB inspections etc..
New Every little thing that bugged me.
Ferry pilot + his ticket back home + fuel expenses+my plane ticket to go see it+pre buy bills etc..

Get it home, then I start looking at speed mods, look at HP increase STC, VGs, Wheel pants, HP increase etc... decide this is stupid. Sell it

Cost to own it after I sold it: Approx $15K

Buy Bonanza, cost to ferry across the country, fixing up the little things I wanted to do with it etc.. proficiency training etc...

I'm quite sure I'm at least $15K upside down in my plane buying than had I just gone for the faster, more powerful better equipped plane up front.

Now for doing that, you could say I did it "the government way".

My typical trip is 400nm, that 60 knots makes a huge difference and just buying the Bo first would have made it a lot cheaper than trying to Pimp my Piper.

I know the "Hey this little Cherokee is all I'm going to ever want" mentality when signing the check.

 

[Jim Logajan]

My suggestion to OP was to buy all the speed, HP and avionics he can afford, and I get accused of being a government worker for that

Sorry - that was mean of me. But at least I didn't accuse you of being a (shudder) politician.

 

[weilke]

My typical trip is 400nm, that 60 knots makes a huge difference and just buying the Bo first would have made it a lot cheaper than trying to Pimp my Piper.

No argument there. It is a point I frequently make.

I know the "Hey this little Cherokee is all I'm going to ever want" mentality when signing the check.

I had a Warrior for a year and got into a share of a very nice Bo thereafter. The difference is that the Warrior, while nothing to look at (8000hrs, original P&I), had everything I needed, I didn't spend any money to make it into something it is not. But as long as the requirements for the instrument rating go by hours and not miles covered, there was no point in burning any more fuel.

It sounds like the OP has a particular mission for a plane at this time, I didn't get a sense of 'I want to buy the plane of my dreams'. There are two things I consider the minimum for a travel plane: 2-axis AP (Stec30 and up) and an IFR GPS. I would also suggest to buy a commodity plane, either a PA28 or some sort of cessnoid. If not overpriced, they can be bought and sold like hogs.

 

[Ted]

The other question is, what will you get enjoyment out of?

I like levers, more dials, things, stuff. I don't like fixed gear airplanes. Just don't. Only a few piston singles that I like, and those mostly fall under the super fast experimental category. So if I got told I had to do the trip in a 172, it would be a chore. I didn't like 172s when I was a private, and not much has changed. But in a plane I enjoy, it's something I look forward to. This is something very important to consider. If you and your passengers enjoy it, you'll fly more. I wouldn't consider a 210 either for that reason - just don't like them. Nothing against them, just not my glass of wine.

 

[poadeleted20]

What about an early model DA40, say 2003? It's roughly equivalent to the 172 in terms of useful load, but faster and more fuel efficient.

That or an SR20 would also be an excellent choice -- just a lot more expensive to buy than an older C/P/B/G type.

 

[Geico266]

RV10 definitely.

Now we're talking.

Actually an RV-6, 7, 8, 14 would work well for commuting commuting also. Faster with a cheaper fuel burn and you can burn mogas and reduce your operating costs by $20.00 an hour. Parts are cheaper for experimentals, much better avionics choices at 1/3rd the cost, maintenance, no horror stories with annuals.

Authorized to perform overhead breaks. What's not to love?