what fits my needs the most, and best for the money

J

Jared Smith

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Messages
6
Display Name
Display name:
Arrow 11
hi all I'm just starting to look into buying a plane but not really sure what would fit me the best. Ill be finishing my ppl very soon and i can't find any good clubs nearby and no body is interested in renting anything bigger than a c152 so taking much with me is nearly impossible.

My primary uses would be traveling to see my parents and siblings, maybe an annual vacation to florida (I'm in IL), traveling to buy or look at equipment who knows where, and inspecting our crops. Its pretty well myself, wife, 2 yr old son, and hopefully one on the way.

Im willing to spend up to about 50K. Not only am i interested in initial purchase price but maintenance costs, annual insp., insurance cost (fixed landing gear vs. rg), and resale value. All those factors id like to keep in mind when deciding which model is best for me.

here are a few I've have in mind...Cessna 172 (everyone tells me NO), 182 (my choice pick), Piper comanche, arrow, archer, Mooney m20.

Let me know what you think. Am i missing a better plane that isn't mentioned?
 
you cant buy anything good for 50k all that stock is now gone . anything you buy you will spend 25k on in the first year . hangar ,annual , ect . i always told my friends first buy a hangar first than the a/c .
 
Socata Tampico. Paid MUCH less than that for a cream puff 2400TTAF, 400SMOH (factory) with full IFR.

Buy something from at least the last 30 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
Socata Tampico. Paid MUCH less than that for a cream puff 2400TTAF, 400SMOH (factory) with full IFR.

Buy something from at least the last 30 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yup. Ours was 38. Not fast by any means but built like a rock, roomy, 1994.
Great planes
 
The only reason they aren't more expensive is the fact that very few exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On your budget I would get a plane for around home then rent for the IL to FL trip. 50K will get you a decent 172. If you were going to do a lot of traveling the 182 would be hard to beat for the budget you are working on if you can find a good one for that price?????
 
Like Bryan said - consider a Grumman Tiger.
I trained in 172s and then quickly bought an AA5B - no comparison: agile, good traveling plane, good support (Grumman Gang, AYA, GPA), there's a good Grumman specialist A&P in IN.

(Glad to see brYan is still looking at Grummans)
 
Based solely on the models you listed most likely an archer will be closest to your budget or maybe an m20C but with a full family the archer would prob be more comfortable.
 
Somewhere, I have a thread on here about "best planes under $40k", and there were lots of good 182's in that range.

You shouldn't have any trouble finding a good quality 182 for less than $50k that will do what you need, plus your family won't outgrow it.
 
If you actually plan to go places in the airplane, skip the 172 and the Archer. Unless you're looking at a Turbo Arrow, skip the Arrow too (it's a trainer, not built for speed). The Tiger is a great airplane, a nice tradeoff of simplicity and speed.

The 182 is a good all-around airplane, but it's not a speed demon either. You need to determine how far and how often you think you'll be flying. If you're taking long trips, the 182 is going to seem slow. The M20C isn't going to blow the doors off the 182, but the Commanche should be a solid 15-20kts faster than a standard 182. In the $50k range, for 2 adults and 2 kids, take a look at the Bellanca Super Viking.
 
as you've already mentioned, check on the costs to maintain your airplane. annuals, insurance, hangar, fuel, GPS updates, etc. add up quickly. The purchase price of the $50k airplane is usually the easiest part to digest. The surprise annual inspection or surprise top overhaul can ground your plane fast if you don't have the funds to fix it.

I'm partial to the 182 if you plan to haul the family and "stuff". Keep in mind, it has another 2 jugs vs the other models. Being fixed gear, the insurance may be a little less.
 
for Il to FL I would be looking at Tiger or 180 Comanche in that price range. get some speed when you need it and lower operating costs for staying local. Ive done ATL to S. MI in a Dakota at ~132 KTAS and it was a 4hr single leg trip. Anything slower would really suck.

Can a decent 177 be had for that price?
 
Add up you and your wife's weight. Add a few pounds for the effects of aging. Then add how much you weighed when you were 18 and your wife when she was 18 (or maybe a brother and/or sister-in-law if one or both of you are statistical outliers in your respective families). If the grand total is more than 600lbs then buy a 182. Otherwise, buy something more efficient like a Tiger.

Look at the last few times you took a 1-2 night trip as a family. If the trunk of your car was filled to the brim then buy a 182. If you managed everything in 4 medium sized bags or less then buy something more efficient.
 
Thanks for all the input, several of the planes mentioned I've never heard (not a surprise) of but I've been doing a little research checking into them. The socata tampico seems like a really cool plane but sure aren't many around to be had. One thing I always tried to keep in mind with buying things is buy something that is very common, sure you won't stand out in the crowd but when you need parts or something fixed everyone and there brother know about them. Ive ran into that on excavating equipment and now i run the common brands, i pay more up front but less in parts and labor and down time, i figured this still runs true on planes. Im not familiar with the tiger but everything i find is good reviews.
 
As you can see everyone has their heavily biased opinion but here's the bottom line. Grumman, Cessna, Socata, Piper, Mooney...none of them are hands down, slam dunk better than the other. In fact they are all pretty close when you look at the big picture because everything is a trade-off. To go faster you gotta give up elbow room and slow steep approaches and a few other things you might want. You've defined a "mission" but honestly at this point in your flying experience you're still just dreaming and don't know for sure what you're really going to do with your PPL. The fact is your "mission" is going to be partially determined by what airplane you end up getting and for 50k (to carry maybe four people) you're looking at an old airplane. So my advice is to - rather than tether yourself to any particular brand - just find the best used airplane within your budget and leave yourself some room for some upgrades and good maintenance. Any good airplane is going to take you on a fantastic journey to who knows where. No need to try and corner that journey into a pocket.
 
Not a speed demon but a Cherokee 180 has about as good of a utility as any plane ever made and a pretty good one can be bought within the budget. Unless you're frequently taking 500+ mile trips the speed isn't going to be a big deal. My vote is for a nice Cherokee 180 or maybe an archer but a good one will push the budget.

Comanche might be doable too but you're likely going to have higher ongoing expenses with it over a fixed gear.
 
A good Cessna 182 you can't go wrong for a STARTER airplane.

Pros

#1. Higher wing so you won't have a problem with fuel distribution and switching tanks gravity does that.
#2. The kids will like the view from the windows, (Then again these days they might not even care...I would've enjoyed it as a kid)
#3. No retractable gear so not as much maintenance.
#4. Who DOESN'T know how to fix a Cessna? and I would guess parts are more available.
#5. Not fast but pretty zippy they still go 155mph (135kts)
#6. Over 1,000 pounds of stuff.
#7. Better shade and less direct sunlight.

Cons

#1. If you have a headwind..it feels like running on a treadmill.
#2. Pilots that own one are generally the most overlooked pilots on the planet, (If you care about that stuff)
#3. The resell might be difficult because there are many on the market.
#4. 50k is the lower end for a 182 but it's possible.
#5. Aircraft visibility is difficult above you.
#6. You can go through 55 gallons pretty quickly.
#7. It's possible you will get bored of this plane quickly and would like a faster, better option. (We all do)

If you have the price in cash, don't be afraid to offer less than asking price. It's not like Airplanes are flying off the shelf, if you don't ask you don't get. Good luck!
 
No...quite the contrary. Very few to set the basis for pricing on. What makes a four place, mid 90's lycoming powered aircraft with semi-modern avionics worth the same as a mid 70's Cesspool that's a foot narrower, 3 kts faster, with a mismatched panel and faded plastic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You won't get more bang for your buck with the Mooney, which does huge speeds with a tiny little engine. Just saw a couple M20C's on Ebay going in the 20's that didn't look like they needed much. But like the man said, its all trade offs. I like the Mooney because I'm a tiny little person and I like to go places.

My suggestion is to start looking in your local market. If you've access to nothing more than a 152 you aren't going far, and being your first airplane purchase you want to keep it as simple as you can manage. Remember, any airplane you want to buy should be inspected by a mechanic, preferably the guy you're going to have working on the aircraft. You have one of those, right? You have a hangar lined up too, right? You've budgeted in this stuff?

You never know exactly what your mission will be, it might be partly determined by the airplane you purchase. So look around your local area. What's for sale? What's in the best shape, that has the stuff you want, and cost the least money? One hopes you're thinking about an instrument rating, living in the Midwest with its fickle weather gods. If so you want to get one with decent instrumentation as well. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Tampico Trauma said:
No...quite the contrary. Very few to set the basis for pricing on. What makes a four place, mid 90's lycoming powered aircraft with semi-modern avionics worth the same as a mid 70's Cesspool that's a foot narrower, 3 kts faster, with a mismatched panel and faded plastic.
Click to expand...

I am quite surprised at the prices the retractable Trinidad's are going for - 250 hp, low time airframes (many haven't even made it to the first TBO interval), decent avionics in most cases for not much more than a nice Arrow that's 15 years older and probably not nearly as comfortably appointed.

Is it the fact the airframes are not American made (French) that discounts them

They seem a bit heavy for a metal airplane?
 
They're heavy, but roomy. My empty weight on the Pico is 1553...which leaves me a paltry 784lbs of UL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My guess is that there just isn't enough demand for them and they're a relatively low-turnover plane---no one sells them. I found this one by accident while under contract for a shiatty Mousketeer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top