What plane would you choose for this mission?

[Everskyward]

I disagree. Esp. if you go with a newer plane. I have never had anybody that was not impressed. (maybe not the pilot so much)

What kind of airplane do you fly? I have had people not impressed with almost all of the airplanes I have flown, even a brand new one. It depends on what they are comparing it to.

 

[Tom-D]

Tom-D, I was just thinking down the road. I have flown some dogs before and trust me, if it has a windmill out front and is safe to fly, I don't care if it looks bad. But wife and other non pilot passengers equate looks with safety, plus, I like gadgets and gizmos.

As far as a twin goes, since I don't have the rating yet, I was not looking at them. Plus, with other family issues (older parents) not climbing up on the wing to get in is a plus.

Then buy a good solid airframe with a good engine, (like the 210 I linked) and upgrade it to your liking or go with a newer 210. You won't find a nicer ride than the 210 for a family aircraft. Don't listen to the nay sayers, those who own them love them.

try this one, you know you can't build one for what you can buy this one for.
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1441563.html

 

[Ted]

Don't listen to the nay sayers, those who own them love them.

This could be said about most aircraft.

 

[Tom-D]

This could be said about most aircraft.

yes it could, but we nay sayers can say every aircraft is a pig that needs to be overhauled too.

One persons junk may be the next persons treasure.

 

[wabower]

I've been through the Cessna ownership drill numerous times, with 172, 182RG, 210D (7 years) and T210N (19 years) 340A, 421C, '54 180 and '60 180C (current ride.) The instrument panel in the '60 180C is identical to the 210B you're touting, both horrible for placement and scan.

After about two weeks, I decided the instrument panel had to go, and it was in much better condition than the one in the blue dog.

Before and after:





Numerous D's are currently listed for sale for minimal additional cost with wider and more-comfortable cabins, more power and performance, greater useful load, modern and more-reliable hydraulic power pack, current-configuration post-lit panels, Uvalde gear STC and many other improvements including non-butt-ugly blue paint jobs. There's simply no reason to buy that airplane with so many other options available. And once you own it, who else in the world is going to want to buy it?

I know you and I have flown much worse equipped aircraft on much greater missions, There are a lot of hours in the 210 that could be flown with out spending any money other than op costs.

Every one doesn't have to fly the best example of the type, some can simply go fly, have fun, and do what they must get done.
Remember some of us still look out the window, if the picture ain't right, we simply fix it.

 

[Ted]

yes it could, but we nay sayers can say every aircraft is a pig that needs to be overhauled too.

And it is all about mission. As a buyer of planes that many people think are junk, I sympathize with the plight.

One persons junk may be the next persons treasure.

But some are still junk, nonetheless.

 

[Geico266]

It looks like you suggest that somebody who purchases a homebuilt can do the maintenance on it. I thought that that only applies if you built that airplane yourself.

This is the biggest misconception about experimentals and the biggest reason to buy one if you want to control maintenance costs.

Anyone can do the maintenance on an experimental aircraft. If you hold the repairman's certificate you can sign off the annuals. If you own an experimental and do not have a repairmans certificate you need and A&P to sign off the annual.

I find it amusing that certified owners will push the FARs way past the grey areas to do the work themselves and have an A&P buddy looking over his shoulder. Do I care ? No, but why not at least look at airplanes where you can do all of the maintenance yourself legally. Anyone can do any repairs, maintenance, or overhaul of experimental aircraft.

You need to hold a repairman's cert or be an A&P to sign off the annuals.

 

[Geico266]

Oh, I did not know that RV's were certified

The RV crowd has a chip on their shoulder. You could come on here asking which turboprop to buy a tbm 850, meridian, or pc 12 and some RV guy would say why not a RV 10 it goes 300 kts on 9gph and has a 10000 lb usefull load,

it gets so old

I hear ya Denny. I've been alittle bit of a loud mouth jerk about RV's I admit that. Just my way of trying to be funny and informative at the same time. I'm kinda like the Rodney Dangerfield or airplanes.

I read a lot of threads where POA members don't even consider experimentals and that isis sad to me. I would never own a certified plane. $1,500 for a PMAed starter? not on my watch.

 

[Ted]

I read a lot of threads where POA members don't even consider experimentals and that isis sad to me. I would never own a certified plane. $1,500 for a PMAed starter? not on my watch.

I'd love to own an experimental. But there aren't any that meet what I'm looking for, and I don't have the knowledge to design one from scratch.

 

[PilotAlan]

I'd love to own an experimental. But there aren't any that meet what I'm looking for, and I don't have the knowledge to design one from scratch.

That's my problem. I need 4 seats, 150kts or more, good IFR platform, tri-gear, and standard handling.
The RV-10 is perfect, except my budget's about $75k.

The price difference between an RV10 and a Comanche or Bo will pay for a lot of $600 starters and a whole lot of A&P shop rate maintenance.

 

[wabower]

If the shed-built designs spanned an equivalent range of options, more people might be interested in them. That's never going to happen, so beating us over the head with EXP propaganda doesn't change anybody's mind. You need a different choir to preach to.

I read a lot of threads where POA members don't even consider experimentals and that isis sad to me. I would never own a certified plane. $1,500 for a PMAed starter? not on my watch.

 

[Geico266]

If the shed-built designs spanned an equivalent range of options, more people might be interested in them. That's never going to happen, so beating us over the head with EXP propaganda doesn't change anybody's mind. You need a different choir to preach to.

Nice attitude.

Shed built designs? I doubt seriously anyone would refer to Vans Aircraft as shed built designs.

The term "preaching to the choir" means talking to people who agree with you. Talking about experimental aircraft here is hardly "preaching to the choir".

So what you are really saying is you are closing your mind to additional information about aircraft. Nice trait for a pilot.

 

[Geico266]

That's my problem. I need 4 seats, 150kts or more, good IFR platform, tri-gear, and standard handling.
The RV-10 is perfect, except my budget's about $75k.

The price difference between an RV10 and a Comanche or Bo will pay for a lot of $600 starters and a whole lot of A&P shop rate maintenance.

I hear ya. If money was no issue we would all be flying SR-71s (home built models) .

No need to cut yourself out of the RV-10 market though. Check out a partnership arrangement. You could be 1/2 ownership at today's prices. I know it might not be the best arrangement, but really how many hours a year are you going to fly? Having someone else pay for 1/2 is not a bad thing.

The money you save every month on maintenance is more money you can spend to fly and pay bills. Cheap annuals at 1/2 price!

 

[wabower]

Adios.

Nice attitude.

Shed built designs? I doubt seriously anyone would refer to Vans Aircraft as shed built designs.

The term "preaching to the choir" means talking to people who agree with you. Talking about experimental aircraft here is hardly talking to the choir.

So what you are really doing is closing your mind to additional information. Nice trait for a pilot.

 

[Jim Logajan]

That's my problem. I need 4 seats, 150kts or more, good IFR platform, tri-gear, and standard handling.
The RV-10 is perfect, except my budget's about $75k.

I've seen used Glastars come close to meeting those requirements. But probably not close enough. Since homebuilts with retracts are rare, I don't think there are too many 150kt models that exist to compete with the certified models that fly at those speeds and seat 4 people. Any certified airplanes that can meet those requirements that don't have retractable gear?

 

[jmp470]

The only airplane that fits your mission is one with A/C. The SR22 is the way to go. You can be down at 500-1000 feet over the ranch with the A/C on and in total comfort. Once you've seen the land, you can climb like a home sick angel back up to 6500-8500 feet where the chops stop during the TX summer and cruise to your next location. Also, the interior is the bees knees! But we had a SR 20 and sold it because we got did the Houston Bravo at 2500 in the summer. We havent bought the sr22 yet, because we are talking about having a 3rd child. But now that they can hold 5, we might get one. The other aircraft are nice, but no A/C is a deal braker for me. I would own a car without one, why own a plane without one? The best bet would be a jet, great customer appeal, but way over your price and not needed for the mission.

 

[Ted]

So what you are really saying is you are closing your mind to additional information about aircraft. Nice trait for a pilot.

More accurately, he's sick of the Vanova's Witnesses knocking on the door.

No need to cut yourself out of the RV-10 market though. Check out a partnership arrangement. You could be 1/2 ownership at today's prices. I know it might not be the best arrangement, but really how many hours a year are you going to fly? Having someone else pay for 1/2 is not a bad thing.

I thought these things were cheap? If they're so cheap, why can't I afford to buy one? I don't want to share my plane with someone else and have to compromise with him.

I'll just buy the cheaper certified plane. Why do people mess with experimentals? I don't get it.

 

[Geico266]

More accurately, he's sick of the Vanova's Witnesses knocking on the door.



I thought these things were cheap? If they're so cheap, why can't I afford to buy one? I don't want to share my plane with someone else and have to compromise with him.

I'll just buy the cheaper certified plane. Why do people mess with experimentals? I don't get it.

Some people just like to experiment?






The Cirrus SR-22 would be my certified choice.

 

[wabower]

My Cessna 180 doesn't seem to have any problem doing so, although it has a few more horses than others.

I've seen used Glastars come close to meeting those requirements. But probably not close enough. Since homebuilts with retracts are rare, I don't think there are too many 150kt models that exist to compete with the certified models that fly at those speeds and seat 4 people. Any certified airplanes that can meet those requirements that don't have retractable gear?

 

[Gary F]

This is the biggest misconception about experimentals and the biggest reason to buy one if you want to control maintenance costs.

Anyone can do the maintenance on an experimental aircraft. If you hold the repairman's certificate you can sign off the annuals. If you own an experimental and do not have a repairmans certificate you need and A&P to sign off the annual.

I find it amusing that certified owners will push the FARs way past the grey areas to do the work themselves and have an A&P buddy looking over his shoulder. Do I care ? No, but why not at least look at airplanes where you can do all of the maintenance yourself legally. Anyone can do any repairs, maintenance, or overhaul of experimental aircraft.

You need to hold a repairman's cert or be an A&P to sign off the annuals.

How do you get a repairman's certificate?

 

[Gary F]

180hp 172 does 130-133, so does an Archer best I remember. DA 40 typical cruise power settings ended up 130-133.

Now lets look at the difference in airframes. The DA 40 is super slick and clean, not a rivet out there, a low drag waste reducing the surface (drag) area over the C&P models significantly and equipped with airfoils that are decades and billions of dollars of R&D ahead of the C&P models as well.

The plane has the same horsepower and a design that is 3 generations ahead of the C&P competition yet goes the same speed/distance for the same fuel.

Let's use a modern comparison plane, an SR-20. Pull the power back on the SR 20 to 180hp and it will walk away from the DA 40 with 10+ kts to spare. Funniest thing about that is the SR-22 is heavier than the DA-40.

So why is the DA-40 a dog? It has a glider wing on it, great for efficiency when slow, but suck balls for getting anywhere quickly unless you are doing so at extreme altitudes which the non turbo DA 40 is not able to take advantage of.

IMO the DA 40 has the aerodynamics for a mission that it is not equipped to do nor marketed for. To make the DA-40 into a really useful plane with those wings it should be turbocharged and pressurized, either that or cut a few feet off each wing and make it an honest naturally aspirated airplane.

Next we combine that with seats that are a long way from being comfortable (I flew one from Key West to Grand Cayman and by the time we were on approach my rear end was seriously hurting) and the worst ride in turbulence that I have experienced from small planes so yeah, I call it a dog.

I did a little experiment today when I flew my wife to Appleton for a shopping trip in my 2003 DA40.

At 6,500' 23.7/22 and I got 136 to 138 kts TAS. I have the larger tires and no fairings (removed for winter). At 23.7/24 I got 142 kts. I also have the slower 3 blade prop. A newer DA40 with a 2 blade prop and smaller tires and better fairings (speed kit) should be able to go at least 5 to 7 kts faster.

 

[Geico266]

How do you get a repairman's certificate?

If you can demonstrate to the local FSDO that you were in fact the builder of the experimental aircraft you can apply for it.

I have one for the plane I built, but not for the one I bought. I can sign off the annuals on the one I built, but I need to hire an A&P to sign off the annual on the one I bought.

Regardless of who built it anyone can perform any level of maintenance on any experimental. Ownership of the plane is not a requirement.

Hope that helps clear it up, alot of pilots are confused by this.

 

[Geico266]

I am sorry but the safety records are not even close. Certified aircraft are much safer. Even the EAA has had many articles saying the same thing.

The safety record of homebuilts is not as good as certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.[

Denny, those stats are simply not accurate. The report you are rreferring to was biased towards certified by AOPA (no surprise here) . Here is the Kitplanes article on the subject.

http://kitplanes2.com/blog/2010/03/commentary-homebuilt-aircraft-safety-picture-blurred-by-bad-data/

The data is squewed by many factors including bad math, bad data, biased reporting.

 

[dennyleeb]

What kind of airplane do you fly? I have had people not impressed with almost all of the airplanes I have flown, even a brand new one. It depends on what they are comparing it to.

2005 t182t

maybe it's not the plane?

 

[Everskyward]

2005 t182t

maybe it's not the plane?

Perhaps not, people often mistake me for the flight attendant or the CSR.

 

[dennyleeb]

Denny, those stats are simply not accurate. The report you are rreferring to was biased towards certified by AOPA (no surprise here) . Here is the Kitplanes article on the subject.

http://kitplanes2.com/blog/2010/03/commentary-homebuilt-aircraft-safety-picture-blurred-by-bad-data/

The data is squewed by many factors including bad math, bad data, biased reporting.

keep telling yourself that, hell Hightower would disagree with you

I am a lifetime EAA member, I just don't like homebuilts for safety reasons

 

[wabower]

Yeah, it's often difficult to distinguish one hottie from another.

Perhaps not, people often mistake me for the flight attendant or the CSR.

 

[Everskyward]

Yeah, it's often difficult to distinguish one hottie from another.

Have you checked the prescription in your glasses recently Wayne?

 

[gprellwitz]

Are experimentals an option in this case? It wasn't clear when the OP was talking about a business opportunity and carrying cargo. 91.319.

 

[Geico266]

Are experimentals an option in this case? It wasn't clear when the OP was talking about a business opportunity and carrying cargo. 91.319.

That is a good and productive point. They cannot be used for hire, but you can use them for your own business. I use mine for business. Hauling your own stuff is fine.

 

[Ted]

Have you checked the prescription in your glasses recently Wayne?

Glasses? What are those? Would they help me tell the difference between the 100LL and Jet-A pumps?

 

[Geico266]

Glasses? What are those? Would they help me tell the difference between the 100LL and Jet-A pumps?

Glasses help me from spilling my rum & coke. Although plastic cups don't hurt as much if I hit someone after I toss them at 5,000' msl.

 

[Ted]

Glasses help me from spilling my rum & coke. Although plastic cups don't hurt as much if I hit someone after I toss them at 5,000' msl.

Well, we all know that red Solo cups are the best receptacle for barbeques, tailgates, fairs, and festivals.

But less so in a plane.

Now where's Toby Keith...

 

[wabower]

We knows the hotties we likes when we gets to spend time with them.

Have you checked the prescription in your glasses recently Wayne?

 

[N2124v]

Ok, you multi guys, I have never really looked at them because I always thought they were way expensive, but how about piston twins. Like a Cessna 401/402?

 

[Ted]

Ok, you multi guys, I have never really looked at them because I always thought they were way expensive, but how about piston twins. Like a Cessna 401/402?

They look beautiful, but you're looking at much higher hourly operating costs. You're looking at a pair of turbocharged 6-cylinders instead of a naturally aspirated 4-6 cylinder. For your mission, I'd say it's overkill on everything but the looking cool. You'd also be unlikely to get insurance in them without some multi time.

If you were to get into twins, a 310, Aztec, or Baron would be good. 310 looks the coolest, in my opinion.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Ok, you multi guys, I have never really looked at them because I always thought they were way expensive, but how about piston twins. Like a Cessna 401/402?

Purchase price is the cheapest part of operating them.

 

[Ted]

Purchase price is the cheapest part of operating them.

Same is true of most used planes.

 

[Tom-D]

Same is true of most used planes.

That's why you never spend all your budget on the purchase. 45k out of 200 is about right.

But a friend just bought a Apache for 30k to get his twin rating and use as a family aircraft. 5 hour engines and props, new paint, new glass and new interior, tires and brakes. @ $30K

 

[Henning]

For ALL experimentals versus ALL certified, you're correct.

Meaningless in a discussion about a specific RV model, though.

FAA called Van to the carpet for a reason, and it wasn't over the sterling safety record of Van's Airforce.