What plane would you choose for this mission?

N2124v

N2124v

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
633
Location
Austin, TX
Display Name
N2124V
Home Airfield
KEDC
Ok, I am looking at a new business opportunity that is 150nm away as the crow flies or anywhere between 2.5 - 4 hours in the car depending on the traffic. Pretty flexible on flights, so most will be VFR, with some IFR once I finish my ticket. Usually two SOB and some cargo. There will be some longer legs, but those will be a lot fewer. Budget, under $200k for now. Looks are important.

I have been going back and forth between C182, SR22, Archer, or Mooney. What would you choose?
 
How much do the S.O.B.s and cargo weigh? A Cessna 152 would do the job...:)
 
Needs to be bigger than a 152. Lets say 450-600 on the people and cargo.
 
Definitely fixed gear so either 182 or the Archer (SR22 is an overkill for this mission, SR20 would make more sense). Not sure about looks though, $200,000 isn't bad but I don't think you will be winning any beauty contests.
 
N2124v said:
Ok, I am looking at a new business opportunity that is 150nm away as the crow flies or anywhere between 2.5 - 4 hours in the car depending on the traffic. Pretty flexible on flights, so most will be VFR, with some IFR once I finish my ticket. Usually two SOB and some cargo. There will be some longer legs, but those will be a lot fewer. Budget, under $200k for now. Looks are important.

I have been going back and forth between C182, SR22, Archer, or Mooney. What would you choose?
Click to expand...

Of the three, the C182 is the winner. First of all, there's just more room in the Skyhawk than the other three. Yes, it isn't as sexy as a Mooney, and not nearly as fast as that or the SR22, but it is tried and true, GREAT for IFR, and reliable. I'd go either with a early 2000s C182, or if you want more speed, a "late model" retract.
 
Get an older 182 with a low time engine in great shape (say 110K). Spend 70K on avionics (aspen and the new Garmin unit comes to mind) and a nice paint/interior refresh.

You've got a new-looking airplane with a great payload, 20K for unforeseen stuff, and it's a GREAT platform for everything.
 
I would go for a 182S 98-02 you can easily get 150-180k (you don't want to buy a old plane and add new avionics in my opnion, the bad thing about that is you only get at best 1/2 of your money back on avionics when you sale if you are lucky, plus starting with the s models they have lycoming io540

great plane, make sure crankshaft ad has been complied with (most have)

182 holds value well, great ifr platform, can carry the load, good speed, best ins. rates (prob a 1/3 of cirrus for good reason), low maintenance, can be worked on about anywhere, on and on

basically because it is the best :)
 
Last edited:
I suppose I'd pick the Mooney. It'll make the legs average about an hour, which is a nice number. Looks the best (you said looks are important).
 
Howdy.
For a 150mi mission, the speed of an SR22 and the complexity of a Mooney are overkill. What's the difference between 1.0hr and 0.8hr on a trip, especially after you add preflight and postflight, climbout, pattern, etc.
The differences in cruise speed will be lost in the background noise of other delays and time expenditures.

That said, I'm an airplane owner, so I know reasonableness often yields to "I want it!"

Seriously, a Cessna 182 is probably a good fit. Comfortable for pax. Lots of room. You can take one more pax than you called out in your post (added flexibility with pax and cargo). Stable IFR platform.
Your choice of buying a 2000ish Skylane and eating the depreciation, or finding and older one with the avionics you like and getting it painted, new interior, whatever else.

At worst, you put avionics in and eat the loss of unrecoverable investment, or eat the depreciation of a newer 182. The newer 182s don't have the useful load of the older ones, but if appearance in important, the new production 182s do have the "wow" factor and a really nice interior, plus a well integrated avionics suite.
The only downside is that it has a newer Lycoming, and I'm still mad at those guys for the crankshaft debacle.
 
How often will you be making the trip? Will trips be of short duration? Predictable schedule or on-demand as-needed? Why are looks important?
 
Last edited:
PilotAlan said:
Howdy.
For a 150mi mission, the speed of an SR22 and the complexity of a Mooney are overkill. What's the difference between 1.0hr and 0.8hr on a trip, especially after you add preflight and postflight, climbout, pattern, etc.
The differences in cruise speed will be lost in the background noise of other delays and time expenditures.
Click to expand...

While that is true, I've found that nobody complains about getting there faster.

The only downside is that it has a newer Lycoming, and I'm still mad at those guys for the crankshaft debacle.
Click to expand...

Knowing what I know about that issue (which is a lot), I wouldn't be angry at them over it.

However, I'm not sure I'll buy another Lycoming-powered aircraft for other reasons. Primarily, I like the way Continentals fly better.
 
PilotAlan said:
Howdy.
For a 150mi mission, the speed of an SR22 and the complexity of a Mooney are overkill. What's the difference between 1.0hr and 0.8hr on a trip, especially after you add preflight and postflight, climbout, pattern, etc.
The differences in cruise speed will be lost in the background noise of other delays and time expenditures.

That said, I'm an airplane owner, so I know reasonableness often yields to "I want it!"

Seriously, a Cessna 182 is probably a good fit. Comfortable for pax. Lots of room. You can take one more pax than you called out in your post (added flexibility with pax and cargo). Stable IFR platform.
Your choice of buying a 2000ish Skylane and eating the depreciation, or finding and older one with the avionics you like and getting it painted, new interior, whatever else.

At worst, you put avionics in and eat the loss of unrecoverable investment, or eat the depreciation of a newer 182. The newer 182s don't have the useful load of the older ones, but if appearance in important, the new production 182s do have the "wow" factor and a really nice interior, plus a well integrated avionics suite.
The only downside is that it has a newer Lycoming, and I'm still mad at those guys for the crankshaft debacle.
Click to expand...

All the reasons he should buy the 210, solid radios, good speed, good cargo space, same engine, same prop,
Any thing the 182 will do the 210 will do better. and this one is ready to go, the big maintenance is done.
 
Thanks guys! You have all just confirmed the direction I am heading. I love the 210 idea, but doubt it will be around when I am ready to pull the trigger. This will be probably 2-3times a week flight, with a once a month 350nm trip tossed in. Looks will matter b/c it is a real estate venture and I have to look the part of the land baron that I am trying to become. :-)
 
N2124v said:
Thanks guys! You have all just confirmed the direction I am heading. I love the 210 idea, but doubt it will be around when I am ready to pull the trigger. This will be probably 2-3times a week flight, with a once a month 350nm trip tossed in. Looks will matter b/c it is a real estate venture and I have to look the part of the land baron that I am trying to become. :-)
Click to expand...

G-650 it is....
 
You need retractable gear to have good looks. A 182... no.
 
Now, I don't want to be to, flashy, just flashy enough...
 
If you're looking at a 2-3x/week flight then I would go for the Mooney that much more, unless your baggage needs dictate otherwise. Doubly so on longer trips.

Since I'm assuming you don't play the cello or harp... :)
 
N2124v said:
I have to look the part of the land baron that I am trying to become. :-)
Click to expand...

Most real land barons I've met who actually made a profit and got to KEEP it wore newish jeans, nice flannel shirts, and drove a Ford F-150 most of the time with a larger passenger car for carting clients around in. Often a Lincoln Town Car type vehicle.

Simple blue blazer or dark suit and tie for the once-in-a-while trip to the bank to set up the loans on the next deal. The bank loved to see them coming.

The ones with flashy stuff? Out of the biz in five years. Or ended up minor partners with the guy in flannel running the show.

Homework for ya: Read this.

http://www.theskylanepilotscompanion.com/

For as short a trip as you're doing, the Skylane would do great and not eat you alive at maintenance time. The 210 too.

Mooney, I'm leery of buying into those for the long-haul, even though I enjoyed my M-20C time because the manufacturer isn't stable and hasn't been for a long time. Sometimes you need to call the mother ship for information.

Cirrus? Nice, but not my thing. Might be yours. Lots of $. Less utility.

Just my opinion. Enjoy the free book. It's a little dated but it really gets the point across that the Skylane is a workhorse. Not perfect at any one job, but meets the 80/20 rule on just about any aviation job you throw at it in its price range and against similar aircraft types.

The suggestion of the RV would be fun if you didn't mind frying the bald heads of any of your potential customers in the summertime. Ball caps or sunshades required.
 
Just another voice saying that you should give serious consideration to the C182 Skylane. The C210 I flew had about the same payload capacity, and would cost a lot more to operate and insure. An SR-20 may be acceptable too. I'd avoid the retracts for complexity & insurance reasons, though something like a Mooney would certainly be more efficient than either the C182 or SR20. It wouldn't have the payload (and room?) of either, though!
 
I used to have a Mooney M20E that I loved, but I think it is out for this job. Mainly because of the luggage compartment and cabin size. I am not as flexible as I used to be. Thank you for the book!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You need retractable gear to have good looks. A 182... no.
Click to expand...


Well, I think the Tiger is a good looking plane even with fixed gear, but I am biased. :)

A Tiger would work well here, and I have previously, and currently using it for this exact mission. C-182 speeds, (135 KTAS) and 960 lbs usefull load. At an average 10 GPH it has a five hour range, (4.5 with VFR reserve). You don't need to spend $200K either.

If you have to have a couple of more knobs to play with I'd go Mooney M20J/201.
 
Last edited:
You can buy a Bo for the same $$ as a 182 in similar condition, I'd like someone to prove to me how much more expensive owning a Bonanza is over a 182, forget a 210, the Bo will win that hands down.
 
Henning said:
You can buy a Bo for the same $$ as a 182 in similar condition, I'd like someone to prove to me how much more expensive owning a Bonanza is over a 182, forget a 210, the Bo will win that hands down.
Click to expand...

A Bo would probably be a better option. Personally, I like flying Mooneys better than Bos, but I'm also in the minority.

And if you found an A36 Bo (which is easy in that price range), you could even fly with a cello!
 
Experimentals are out due to passengers and potential concerns. Not my concern, I love some of them.

I had not even thought about a Bonanza. Tell me more, specifically mx cost concerns.
 
N2124v said:
Experimentals are out due to passengers and potential concerns. Not my concern, I love some of them.

I had not even thought about a Bonanza. Tell me more, specifically mx cost concerns.
Click to expand...

Parts are pricy but they are laid out to be a little easier to work on lowering labor costs.

The Bo I worked on the simple 182s were cheaper, but not by a whole lot.
 
I realize that you never get your money "back" from an avionics upgrade (or a kitchen, or a bathroom, or a car, or a...), but I still think that the value of increased capabilities and the attractiveness to passengers of an upgraded panel and interior are worth the money. Of course, if you can find an airplane already "the way you want it" in your price range, that's fine. But in most cases you can't, and if you get one that doesn't have what you want but is cheaper you can make it the way you want and stay within budget.

Given the OPs concern about appearance, I don't think that "resale" is a big factor.
 
Why not consider a Diamond DA40? You can get 140 kts or better on about 10 GPH. Outstanding safety record. Fairly economical airplane. Plenty of used ones on the market.
 
How many advisors here think it is smart to max out the budget on the buy, and leave nothing for maintenance reserves?

When he has a 200k budget he will have no problems buying insurance on the 210.

Two King radios both with glide slopes, should be plenty good to do the IFR flights he has stated he will do.

buy the 210 fly it it the way it is and set on the bucks saved.
 
Tom-D said:
How many advisors here think it is smart to max out the budget on the buy, and leave nothing for maintenance reserves?
Click to expand...

Not I.

When he has a 200k budget he will have no problems buying insurance on the 210.
Click to expand...

Nor should he have a problem buying insurance on any of the other options listed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top