What plane would you choose for this mission?

The reality is that $100k will buy a plenty good example of a plane that will do the mission. You could buy my Aztec (which is for sale) and have people ooh and ahh about having a twin. Then you've spent well under $100k, leaving you lots of money to spend on operation, upgrades, etc.

It's a good idea to spend less money, if nothing else so you can spend money on engines and the like as needed.
 
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...

With the EXP aircraft you might have a problem with the mission being a commercial operation, and not be able to use a EXP in that mission.

Bonanza is fine aircraft, and will do the mission easily, but I have never heard any Bonanza owner bragging on how cheap they are to operate. Annuals are going to be about the same basic cost as the 210, engine op costs will be about the same also, but here is the kicker, If you do not know the Bo inside and out and backwards or have a owner/mentor that really does, you can buy a money pit really easy. So, If you buy one that will be maintenance free for a few years, and low time, you will pay for it up front.
 
Another vote for the Bonanza. For a few reasons: Argueably, it's the nicest flying general aviation aircraft ever produced. It's very refined - having been manufacutred since 1947. The control yoke fits your hand, you sit right above the leading edge of the wing, with great big picture windows. Back seat passengers enjoy a similar view and comfortable seats/foot well area. Beech products all have delightfully responsive and well harmonized flight controls - after you fly one, everything else feels like a truck. There is a terrific owners network, (American Bonanza Society) many of whom do fun stuff like collectively fly to Oshkosh every year...usually well over a hundred airplanes! I've flown most of the Cessnas/Pipers/Mooneys/Bellancas/Grummans, etc, and while many offer similar performance, Bonanzas feel like a Mercedes compared to everything else. Fly a S model or later Bo...you'll see.
 
Tom-D said:
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.
Click to expand...

except put landing gear down better, 210's have a rep of gear up landings

I would not own a Bonanza, just me. My mecanic says the Bonanza would be much higher on mainenance. The ins. would also be much higher since it is a 6 seat.
 
Last edited:
Gary F said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? I never get 140 out of a DA 40, more like 133.
 
dennyleeb said:
except put landing gear down better, 210's have a rep of gear up landings
Click to expand...


That's because idiots buy 210s, not because 210s have a major issue with the gear. An old 210 does have the crappiest most over convoluted gear system I've seen in a small GA plane, but the biggest problem is still forgetting the switch.
 
Henning said:
That's because idiots buy 210s, not because 210s have a major issue with the gear. An old 210 does have the crappiest most over convoluted gear system I've seen in a small GA plane, but the biggest problem is still forgetting the switch.
Click to expand...

enough said "the crappiest most over convoluted gear system I've seen in a small GA plane"

not to mention the maintenance and ins difference
 
I don't think its fair to blame the 210 for gear up landings if the pilot forgot to put the gear down. That's like hitting a tree with your car and insisting that it was the tree's fault.
 
Last edited:
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...
Defining the mission is good. Also, define your capabilities. You mentioned that you are not (yet) instrument rated. Do you have high-performance and complex endorsements? What sort of birds have you typically flown thus far?

I have a similar mission profile (250nm each way to the plant). I bought a 50-year old 182 and got it painted. You could do that for 1/4 of your budget. Also, get one with the regular (not long range) tanks. Even your "long legs" of 350nm are fine with 4 hours of fuel onboard. The LR equipped birds will have you hauling an extra 20-30 gallons of AvGas for no reason. Personally, I always like to take off with full tanks since it simplifies planning. Unless you're on fire, you can never have too much AvGas.

I see no need for the 210 for either of us. The only reason I might ever buy a 210 would be for the pressurized model.

Other options if you like high wings for this modest mission would be a 177RG. The lack of struts is sexy and with the gear retracted they perform really well. Low operating costs, too.

I know nothing about low wings. But seeing as how I lust after the 36 Bonanza based at my field I daresay that'd be a great option (if a bit of overkill).
 
Morne- 300 or so hours, HP and complex endorsements, I've taken my instrument written 2 times and have had it expire on me both times. I've got all the requirements, just need to get it done.

I am really liking the 182 idea. Thank you to everyone for your thoughts. Please keep them coming. I am learning a lot and seeing some different ideas.
 
I read in "Flying" magazine about 20 years ago, "The most popular airplane in the world is a Cessna 172. If you poll their owners, they would for the most part like to be in a Cessna 182."
 
172 sounds good for the job. Pimp it out and make it look purdy (or just buy one pre-pimped)
 
N2124v said:
I have been going back and forth between C182, SR22, Archer, or Mooney.
Click to expand...
For 150nm trips, the speed differences between those planes won't be much of a factor in block-to-block times, so I don't see any reason not to go with the cheapest option that meets your needs -- a 180HP fixed gear plane like the Archer. If looks are important, you might consider an SR20 -- cheaper to buy and operate than the SR22, but almost as fast block-to-block over a 150nm route, looks just as sexy, and enough payload for two plus plenty of baggage/cargo.

What would you choose?
Click to expand...
What I would choose would be a Grumman Tiger -- like the one I have, but with that much to spend, newer and nicer version than mine. Cheaper to operate than the C182, SR22, and Mooney, faster than the Archer, and has the fold-down back seat for all the junk you might be carrying. And a whole lot more fun to fly, I think.:D
 
Last edited:
As far as the "looks good" issue goes, if it's old it can't look old. That means no cracked plastic, no worn-out upholstery and good paint. For whatever reason, passengers also seem to be impressed with glass although it can't make any possible difference to them.
 
Tom-D said:
With the EXP aircraft you might have a problem with the mission being a commercial operation, and not be able to use a EXP in that mission.

Bonanza is fine aircraft, and will do the mission easily, but I have never heard any Bonanza owner bragging on how cheap they are to operate. Annuals are going to be about the same basic cost as the 210, engine op costs will be about the same also, but here is the kicker, If you do not know the Bo inside and out and backwards or have a owner/mentor that really does, you can buy a money pit really easy. So, If you buy one that will be maintenance free for a few years, and low time, you will pay for it up front.
Click to expand...

How does that statement not apply to a 210? Especially if you have an old one and still have the gear doors...
 
OP mentioned "Looks matter" -- Impressing clients? SR22 is all sizzle. A Duke would work too, but that's financial ruin and hardly a good mission match, but it will impress those same minds who like sizzle in their aircraft.

Also the people who would be impressed with an SR22 would also find relief in the BRS system.

If I had to impress MY moron clients with an airplane ride, I'd go for the Cirrus. It's modern. It doesn't typify all of the "small plane" stereotypes (ad thus, raise the anxiety level) like any Cessna will, and it is ergonomically comfortable/appropriate for any businessperson -- in that they're not going to be doing too many "weird airplaney" things. They can hop in and go, just like their BMW, and they will be delighted at how simple it was.

A Cirrus won't smell like 1960's dunk oil. It won't leave a diamond-shaped tattoo on their forehead. You won't have to say "sit back while I close your door for you, it's tricky"

Do the preflight when they're in the restroom and they might not even know they did anything "weird" or "adventurous" at all -- yet they can tell their minions that they were out playing chuck yeager all day.

$0.02.

PS Whoever named any Cessna and the Aztec as client-impressers need to put on the "Mister Funnylaffs" hat for a day. :)
 
Another factor is where you are going to have your maintenance done?

I would want to find someone on my home field if at all possible. If you're using this for business you want to be able to call up the mechanic and say, "fix...", without going to the airport or thinking another thing of it.

That said, types like a Mooney, need a good Mooney mechanic IMO. The Cessna will be much easier. Regardless, I would keep it in mind.
 
dennyleeb said:
except put landing gear down better, 210's have a rep of gear up landings

I would not own a Bonanza, just me. My mecanic says the Bonanza would be much higher on mainenance. The ins. would also be much higher since it is a 6 seat.
Click to expand...


33 & 35 Bonanzas are mostly 4 seat. Bonanza maint is no higher than anything else, cheaper than a 210 or 182 RG for the same condition aircraft. You think Cessna & Piper parts are cheap? Besides, you rarely ever have to buy a factory new part for a plane anyway unless you crash it. Most parts for any make of airplane you buy come from the exact same set of 3rd party suppliers.
 
Friends don't let friends fly plastic airplanes... just kidding. Never flown one.
 
you are probably gonna save half an hour-45 minutes flying vs driving on a 150 nm trip. Better off hiring a driver to take you there and do what you have to do on the way. i wouldn't buy a small plane with the business justification. For Fun hell yeah.
 
cirrusmx said:
you are probably gonna save half an hour-45 minutes flying vs driving on a 150 nm trip. Better off hiring a driver to take you there and do what you have to do on the way. i wouldn't buy a small plane with the business justification. For Fun hell yeah.
Click to expand...


Considering drive to the airport, pre-flight fuel, then tieing down the plane at the destination, getting a ride to your business location, then coming back, putting the plane away, and then driving home, I would have to agree with you. However, it still is more fun to fly, as you say.
 
Henning said:
How does that statement not apply to a 210? Especially if you have an old one and still have the gear doors...
Click to expand...
When was the last time you saw a ruddervator AD on a 210? or electric props, bonanza specific switches?

The only 210 specific item on the equipment list is the hydraulic package, and the one I linked has a new one, The rest of the aircraft is typical Cessna.

But you are right, If you don't know what you are buying , Don't.
 
Tom-D said:
When was the last time you saw a ruddervator AD on a 210? or electric props, bonanza specific switches?

The only 210 specific item on the equipment list is the hydraulic package, and the one I linked has a new one, The rest of the aircraft is typical Cessna.

But you are right, If you don't know what you are buying , Don't.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you saw a Ruddervator AD that was still an issue? When was the last time you saw an electric prop flying on a Beech that wasn't replaced there for authenticity? Those guys know what they're buying... Most Bos have the same AD issues that most 210s do because most of the new ones apply to common engine and appliance manufacturers. 60 year old ADs that were complied with 55 years ago aren't really a great concern.

What is so much simpler about a Cessna than a Beech? I don't get it. They are built using the exact same technology, designed by guys that used to work together. I worked as much on 210s as I did on Bonanzas, I used the same tool set; the fasteners turned the same directions.... As for parts, when I worked for Al Martin we rebuilt wrecks and ordered lots of parts from Cessna, they were no cheaper than their Beech counterparts.

Both planes are equally as difficult to work on and have drawn pretty equal quantities of blood. I have own(ed) Cessna and Beech twins, so far, same same....

As to the last, exactly, there is no plane you can buy that you don't risk buying a (potentially deadly) heap of s-t if you're not careful.
 
Last edited:
At his price, he could have the cleanest lowest time S-35 Bonanza (best of the breed IMO) with glass.
 
schmookeeg said:
Also the people who would be impressed with an SR22 would also find relief in the BRS system.
Click to expand...

All of the people I've flown are far more impressed by having a second engine. The concept of single-engine service ceiling isn't something they understand, but they assume "Oh, if one fails, I can just keep on flying to the airport."

PS Whoever named any Cessna and the Aztec as client-impressers need to put on the "Mister Funnylaffs" hat for a day. :)
Click to expand...

Hmm. I've impressed my share of clients with the Aztec, 310, and Navajo.

I was once parked (with the Aztec). There was a Cirrus, and one of my passengers asked about it, saying it looked cool but only had one engine. So I started telling her some of the facts, at which point she was even more convinced than she already was that it was better to be flying with me.
 
Normally I would agree that flying vs. driving was a wash for this short of a distance. However, this drive involves going through through two large urban areas (Austin and San Antonio) that both have terrible traffic. I have had it take 45-60 minutes to go 5 miles. Plus, where I am thinking about basing is just a few minutes from my house.

As far as a twin goes, not right now for me. I do love a 310!
 
Flight-time vs. drive-time calculations typically do not include orange cones, accidents and rush-hour traffic. Anybody who has driven through Austin, TX understands the reasons for flying.

And am I correct in thinking that we are:

1. Considering a $200k acquisition budget while a the same time trying to pick they fly-shlt out of the pepper regarding ongoing MX costs? What's wrong with this picture?

2. Thinking "the looks" of any little airplane will matter to the 95% of the population that doesn't know or care one from another and thinks they are all death-traps and/or rich-guy toys? What's wrong with this picture?

Having owned and maintained a couple of 210s for 20+ years and helped friends maintain a few others, I wouldn't be interested in anything older than a D model. Tom's protests notwithstanding, the original gear systems weren't very good, which is why Cessna changed them after only a few years.

Having lived in TX for the past 25 years, I'm somewhat familiar with the weather patterns, including our 8-9 months of summer weather. If I were trying to emulate a land baron, I'd be damn sure whatever I was flying had A/C, so I wouldn't arrive to survey my vast holdings looking like a rumpled and sweat-soaked escapee from a sauna demo. And I sure as hell wouldn't spend anything close to $200k for those trip requirements.





Anthony said:
Considering drive to the airport, pre-flight fuel, then tieing down the plane at the destination, getting a ride to your business location, then coming back, putting the plane away, and then driving home, I would have to agree with you. However, it still is more fun to fly, as you say.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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...

Depends on if you buy all the fancy clothes and sunglasses to keep up the Bo image. :) :) :)

The upcoming control AD (the one the Aussies just issued) could get spendy for a few folks too...
 
Diamond DA40 - whitout any hesitations - I'd go for a 2003+ model with glass for +/- 150K and keep the rest to enjoy it fully. For all the requirements the OP asked for... and more... It's just one of the most pleasant and comfortable plane available today, plus, it's damn good looking.
N614DS.jpg



Now, If I had 200K to spend on an aircraft, I'd swap my RV-6A and have the best Van's RV-10 in America ;)
 
Last edited:
schmookeeg said:
PS Whoever named any Cessna and the Aztec as client-impressers need to put on the "Mister Funnylaffs" hat for a day. :)
Click to expand...

I have a Cessna that is a client impresser, It's even an FBO Hottie impresser as I've had them come out to compliment it. It may not fly as slick as a Baron, but my 310 is prettier and much roomier in the cabin. That has also been a client/passenger impresser, room to lounge; that combined with a modern panel, everybody I've had in her has been very comfortable with the condition and quality of the plane.
 
lockeed said:
Diamond DA40 - whitout any hesitations - I'd go for a 2003+ model with glass for +/- 150K and keep the rest to enjoy it fully. For all the requirements the OP asked for... and more... It's just one of the most pleasant and comfortable plane available today, plus, it's damn good looking.
N614DS.jpg



Now, If I had 200K to spend on an aircraft, I'd swap my RV-6A and have the best Van's RV-10 in America ;)
Click to expand...


The problem with a DA 40 in TX is the heat. The airframe has temp limitations that will ground it about 75 days a year in central TX. The other issue, also heat related, is their horrible ride in turbulence with those long wings. I flew one in TX for a few months and it beat me up a lot worse than the PA 12 did.
 
I think you may be misconstruing their interest. Most are just amazed that anything that old will still get off the ground.:wink2:

Henning said:
I have a Cessna that is a client impresser, It's even an FBO Hottie impresser as I've had them come out to compliment it. It may not fly as slick as a Baron, but my 310 is prettier and much roomier in the cabin. That has also been a client/passenger impresser, room to lounge; that combined with a modern panel, everybody I've had in her has been very comfortable with the condition and quality of the plane.
Click to expand...
 
Just as I suspected: No shortage of opinions! Unlike many of posters on this thread, I've never owned an airplane. But any airplane I WOULD own has to possess these qualities:

I have to be able to maintain it well. Got to have a support network of people who are familiar with the breed...and parts have to be readily available. Unsafe airplanes are NOT FUN. Personally, I'd love a partnership of folks willing to get together come annual time and get'r done.

Pride of ownership. Has to please me every time I open the hangar.

It has to fly beautifully. Most light airplanes fly like Chevy pickups - control feel and harmony were last considerations for the vast majority of manufacturers. I've flown a few airplanes...I know better.

Airplanes are fun, but it strikes me as a little absurd that one would choose an airplane solely based on its utility - partly because almost any of the aforementioned airplanes will do, and partly because of the impracticallity of providing RELIABLE transportation in a light airplane with an inexperienced pilot at the helm. Sure, it can be done, sometimes, but I'll bet you can think of lots of other way to use (and have fun in) an airplane. Don't narrow your choices to one mission.

I have to be able to sell it. One hour spent browsing the pages of tradeaplane or surfing through barnstormers is enough to verify that there are 100s of aircraft for sale - sort of like boats. It's a blessing and a curse: Easy to buy and, well, you know the rest. There are plenty of 182s, Mooneys, Bonanzas and every other model that have been on sale for what seems like years! So it pays to buy a pristine example of an airplane for which there exists a cult following...and take really good care of it.

So, buy what you like...after you've flown them all.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Just as I suspected: No shortage of opinions! Unlike many of posters on this thread, I've never owned an airplane. But any airplane I WOULD own has to possess these qualities:

I have to be able to maintain it well. Got to have a support network of people who are familiar with the breed...and parts have to be readily available. Unsafe airplanes are NOT FUN. Personally, I'd love a partnership of folks willing to get together come annual time and get'r done.

Pride of ownership. Has to please me every time I open the hangar.

It has to fly beautifully.
Click to expand...


At this point there is only one GA aircraft that fits and that's a Bonanza...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top