Another airplane question
 

Ive started my lessons and also started looking at planes to buy. I know it's cheaper to rent, but I'm planning on buying. And no partners either. So I'm thinking that I could swing 50K or so, but of coarse would rather spend 35k.

So that puts me into the Cessna 172, Cherokee 180/160, and Mooney M20c range. And they are all going to be over 30 years old to fit that budget also. So does anyone here have any opinions on one of these, or one's that I may have missed. I'm not planning on buying anything for a while, just trying to do some DD at this point.

Most trips will be in the 200nm range to visit relatives. I would also like to think that we would use it for the occasional vacation in the 500nm + range, but I'm not sure about that yet. And there would be a lot of just joy rides, site seeing around the local area.

Any thoughts?

Also the ability to haul 4 people for at least a short trip is important. Say 700lbs worth.

The thing that bummed me out about looking for an airplane to buy was most were being sold because the guy couldn't get a medical anymore.

Biggest thing for me to recommend is for you to get an hour in each.

The Mooney is a very nice and effecient airplane but... how big are you? Mooneys are made for people up to 5'10" tall and thats about it. Anyone taller or big frame is going to be cramped.

I like Mooneys but am just too big for them. Then I like the lighter control feel of the Cessna's but thats me. Try all three of them.

Sage advice.

Take your time and get time in each.

I'm personally a low-wing guy - love 'em, but the venerable C172 is about as bulletproof, simple and reliable as you can get. You'll have no problem getting students to fly in it if you're looking to do leaseback and defray your costs.

My $0.02:

Cessna - great, reliable, gravity-fed fuel system (no pumps to fail), proven reliable. Cheap insurance, cheap operating costs, good visibility, everyone out there has time in 'em, etc.

Piper - most of the same characteristics as the Cessna. Looks like a "real airplane". Easier to get ice/snow/crap off the wings IMHO than the Cessnas (try clearing ice off the upper surface of a Cessna some morning when it's 25 degrees out!) Visibility not quite as good for sightseeing pax. Rock solid stable IFR platforms. Worries about fuel pumps are generally overstated (electric w/ mechanical backup). Usually fuel issues are someone forgetting to switch tanks - proper training will burn this into your head.

Mooney - my personal faves. Did my Commercial and CFI/CFII in a M20J way back when. Super fun, quick, efficient. The Porsche of light singles - great numbers and good looking. Tight on space as has been mentioned. Insurance (especially for a low-time, new pilot) will be a deal-breaker.

Shopping for airplanes is fun! I'm in the market too - another few months... Gotta' pay some bills first!

I'm 6' and 195lbs. Its easy to rent a Cherokee or Cessna, not any Mooney's around here for rent. I have noticed a couple at the airport and hopefully I can talk with one of the owners and at least see if I fit in one.

I'm training in a Cessna 172 and that's all Ive been in. I'm just looking for some opinions at this time. Some Ive talked with feel the Mooney is a little better quality than the Cherokee and Cessna, I don't know. It also seems that I can get a little more for the money by going with a Cherokee over a Cessna.

I'm 5'8" and have been in the front seat of a Mooney. It really is a plane made for someone my size. Really cool planes and fun to fly, but 4 people in one can get cramped fast.SmileWavy

Jeff brings up a good point that I forgot.

With your low flight time, getting insurance in a Mooney will be expensive. Now if you want to spend the extra bux, an older Piper Arrow is something that you might afford if you want a retractable gear airplane. Reason is that they have an "auto-extend" feature on the airplane that will lower the landing gear unless its disabled. Insurance companies like this as it keeps the gear up landing chances to a minimum. What you might want to do is get a "stiff leg" airplane for a couple of years and once you get your flight time built up then move over to a retract airplane.

Kurt is right and the rear seat passengers on a Mooney need to be kids or you will hear complaints and fast. That said, they are fast and economic to fly and have a very strong following. I used to fly a 231 and loved it but then there were only two of us in the bird and I am 6'1".

According to the AOPA online quick insurance quote, a Cessna 172 would run $882, a Mooney M20C would run $1280. This is with a PPL with 50hrs. None in type with the Mooney. Both with a 50,000 hull value and everything else the same. So not really a deal breaker there, but the size may be.

I'd really not buy something and then wish I had something else in a few years. I hate the buying and selling process. I generally sell cheap just to get rid of something, and then pay to much as I get impatient.

But I may also be perfectly happy with a Cessna 172 for years, there seam to be a lot of them out there. But then I would also have to figure out which model to buy. There is always something.

Another thing is I'll be 55 soon and I have also noticed several planes for sale due to medical. So I don't know how many years I'll have to fly. But my CFI is 77 so who knows.

I really have a hard time recommending these types of airplanes because ultimately they are boring to me. I fly mainly for fun and the planes you are looking at are not really what I think of as fun having been immersed in general aviation for nearly 20 years. Most airplanes I lust after however would not be good beginner planes and/or are not four (or even two) seaters.

I think you should simply buy a midtime engined 172 and then as/if you get more involved with attending local fly-ins, EAA chapters etc you will likely become infatuated with antiques, homebuilts, aerobatic or go fast planes. At that point you can simply keep your 172 as the family "truckster" and buy a second "just for fun" airplane.

IMO, that is the "best" plan. :D Any other plan just simply does not sound good to "me".

In your price range, I'd be looking for a Grumman/American Aviation/ Yankee Tiger.

Four seats, cool sliding canopy, sporty control feel, much faster than a Cessna or Piper for the same fuel burn.

Tiger:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1323821744.jpg

The Tiger has 180 hp.

There is also the Cheetah, which is less expensive- Same airplane, but with only 150 hp. Pretty minimal performer if you ever want to fill all four seats.

I owned a 2 seat Grumman Yankee.... If you fly much in warm weather, you will hate the bubble canopy. It is like an oven in there in the summer when flying down low at $100 hamburger altitudes. The Yankee while underpowered, is a fun agile little bird once you get it up in the air. After getting the hang of one, a 172 or a Cherokee will feel like a turd in pitch and roll. The 4 seat tigers and cheetahs are not nearly as agile feeling as the two seater as the wings are much longer, but they are a bit "sportier" than a 172 or Cherokee.

Tiger. Speed of an Arrow with the gear down and welded. Garmin Aera 796 as a backup to the steam gauges. Stay out of IMC and ice.

The Grumman Tiger is a good airplane too - I've flown the AG5B for a few hours. Love the sliding canopy - fun to taxi around with it open - live your personal fighter jock fantasies!

Good, solid airplane too - good call.

The castering nosewheel takes a little getting used to but once you get the hang of it, ain't too bad. It does help with parking it if you have to use the hand tow bar.

RVs (the one pictured above) are phenominal airplanes, you just have to build it first.

Or buy an existing one, and trust the amateur who put it together after he lost the directions.

I'd only fly an RV if I built it, or better yet, Tim Hancock built it!

Not to be a negative Nancy, but if the 3 F's apply.....rent. Everytime i think about buying another airplane, the common sense side of me just kicks in. The price of avgas is just making it prohibitive. Hangaring, Gas, Annuals, other MX, Insurance, etc. Death by a thousand cuts.

Make sure you're going to fly your plane A LOT to really balance those things. If you're going to get the time out of the airplane that you want (in the midwest, where I'm from) you're going to need your IFR rating, and the plane will need to be equipped as well. Figure this into your cost. Here in the desert, I can count the number of IMC days we've had since last year on one hand. Back home...not so much.

i owned a twin for several years and it was great fun, but eventually the costs outweighed the fun and i sold it. it is GREATLY cheaper just to rent and a lot less headache. of course no different than owning a boat or such. as far as buying an airplane, it is always best to determine your mission first, then buy a model that fits that mission. you say you want a plane that can carry 4 people for 200nm and a 172 can fit that mold, but then the occasional trip to 500nm? that is 182 range whereas the speed of a Mooney is one thing, but no way youre fitting 4 adults in one.
you should also check out older cherokee models, like a 235 or such.

this is from aerocontroller:
WHICH AIRPLANE IS RIGHT FOR YOU?
One of the toughest decisions will be to honestly explore what your airplane will be used for. Many of us do a lot more $100 hamburger runs than serious “business” travel. Do you have a vacation home or other frequent destination? Who and what do you normally take with you on a trip? How important is speed? Do you need to fly in weather? Your logbook is a great place to start. Once you have a good grasp on the mission, it will be easier to choose the right airplane.


Unless you are extremely fortunate, price will be a factor. While the purchase price may seem to be a large number, other costs can end up being more important. That’s why knowing your total cost of ownership is so important. For example, older light twins can often be purchased for less than a newer single, but the higher cost of training, insurance, fuel and maintenance can quickly eat up any savings in purchase price.

You should also have a serious discussion about your skills and experience with your instructor before purchasing any airplane. You should also talk with an insurer early on to see what requirements or additional training they have before writing you a policy. The most important aspect of safety is the pilot, but the planes do make a difference. Ease of use, dependability, safety features and crash worthiness vary from model to model. You should consider the safety features and records of the models you are comparing.

Desirability is a final consideration. Owning an airplane is often the fulfillment of a dream. You want to buy an airplane that you are proud to own. Don't get so caught up in all the numbers that you buy a plane that lacks appeal. Remember, the most expensive airplane is one that sits in the hangar unused.

I only have an opinion (of course) - the 172 is the best all around aircraft of the bunch, generally does everything asked of it within reason and when you need a part you can pick up the phone and order it.

All of the mentioned aircraft are pretty simple but none are still in production. I have owned five aircraft so far, two have been Cessna's including the one I have now. Check out the Cessna Pilots Association for general support similar to this forum. Cessna Pilots Association

Glad to help if you have questions, GA needs new blood. Good for you.

Pilot, A&P, IA, DART, DARF, Bermuda DAI.

Thanks everyone, primarily the plane will only be hauling my wife and I. But we want the ability to take friends on some short trips, and the son and his wife to the relatives 200 miles away for the day. The 500 mile trips would just be the wife and I on vacation. And since I can be at the airport in 5 min. there would be quite a lot of just me buzzing around. I do think that I will want to continue and get my IFR training, but that's still down the road.

Consider a Maule
 

Consider looking into the nosegear versions of a Maule. Although they have the reputations for having fit and finish that is a little on the rough side, they are extremely sturdy, you get a lot of airplane for the $ and they fly well. The parts cost is much less than w/ a Cessna or Piper. An added bonus is you can actually call the factory and talk to people there.

Get one w/ the Lycoming O-540 and you will be amazed at the climb rate/angle. We sold our Maule M5-235 several years ago and I regret it everyday.

The trouble with Aviation is that 200 miles, at the 80 knot groundspeed of a 172 (I'm assuming some winds aloft), followed by a ground stop and a return, is enough time for weather to move in.

The vast majority of Aviation-related deaths are caused by VFR into IMC. I think Embry Riddle did a study that showed that the average duration before loss of control following inadvertent penetration of IMC (in the simulator) by VFR private pilots was like 90 seconds.

So what I'm saying is, the practicality of a VFR-only airplane for the mission you describe may limit you to high pressure days with a long and predictable weather window, with frequent weather checks to verify that you're still OK. EVERY pilot has had an episode where the ceiling was falling and he or she pressed on- and only the lucky ones are the ones who survived to tell about it.

On the other hand, getting your IFR ticket is a great idea that will slightly expand the mission capability of the airplane. I say slightly, because the ability to penetrate IMC and not die from an upset then introduces a whole myriad of new threats: icing, systems reliability and redundancy, convective turbulence, etc. The means of buying yourself time to get out of these situations requires very, very expensive capital equipment, and even the Ancient Pelicans here (you guys know who you are!) will concede that they give thunderstorms a very wide berth indeed. An IFR rating should increase your safety margin, even for VFR flying, and will dramatically expand knowledge and awareness of the weather, air traffic control procedures, precise navigation and situational awareness.

Sorry for the lecture but I'm basically sharing my own conclusions that led me to buy a Citabria for fun and fly commercial when I had to get somewhere. Hope this is food for your own thoughts on the subject.

Cessna 172, without a doubt. Are there other planes I like better, hell yeah. The Grummans mentioned above really turn my crank. But for the most bang for the buck, easy to work on and maintain, parts are everywhere, every A&P knows them inside out, will haul whatever you put in them and are easy to fly and stable, you get the point, 172!!!!! If you want to spend a little more, look at a 182. Get an IFR certified plane and work on that instrument ticket as you go along. You won't regret it.

Thanks again guys, I am planning at this time to go ahead and do the IFR training after my PPL. My instructor say's it shouldn't take to long for me to get my PPL at the rate I'm going. I am set up for 3 days a week. So far we have not had the weather to do 3 day's, and I'm taking 2 weeks off in January, but I'm working on it.

I'm thinking that I'll just stick with the plane I'm renting now, 172, till I get my PPL. Then hopefully really start the search for a plane of my own. Then do the IFR training in it. Unless of coarse a deal that I just cant pass up presents itself.

Hopefully by then I'll have a better idea on what my mission will be with a plane. If its just going for a joyride on a pretty day I kind of like the old piper pacers, ect. The wife likes the idea of getting somewhere fast and likes the Mooneys, ect.

182 not 172
 

The 172 is a great trainer, but can be surprisingly limited in terms of range, payload, speed and rate of climb as a personal plane. The 182 solves all those problems. Most people who have just gotten their PPL will not "outgrow" a 182s capabilities for many years, if ever.

An instrument rating will certainly help your skills and confidence as well as mitigate the possibility of an incident due to continued VFR flight into IMC but it will NOT substitute for sound judgement.

IMHO the most dangerous pilot out there is one with the ink still wet on his/her instrument temp certificate, their own airplane and a plane load of family members, coworkers or friends with "get-home-itis".

Once you're in the soup it's a lot easier to end up in bad stuff (turbulence, convection, icing, etc). Make sure that your instrument training spends just as much time (more!) on meteorology and aeronautical decision-making as on practice approaches and mechanics.

Being IFR rated can certainly keep you out of some trouble, but it can land you in much worse trouble if you're not careful.

Fly safely!

I never got my instrument rating for two reasons.

One is that the type of airplanes I have been able to afford are not well suited for flying IFR. Yeah, legally one can do it, but hand flying small light aircraft for extended periods in actual IFR is not pleasant even for experienced high time commercial pilots.

The second reason is that knowing myself, I would likely end up flying in weather that I should not be flying in. Commercial pilots keep themselves current by flying in real IFR conditions quite often. The average private pilot is likely not going to get much weekly/monthly real IFR experience and a year or two down the road will be very rusty when faced with making an actual IFR flight to get home.

Now "if" I had enough dough to buy and operate a nice twin with auto pilot, radar, ice boots, etc..... I would definitely obtain an instrument rating and likely use it often.

Totally agree and would have gotten a C-182 except for one thing... fuel burn. Love the airplane and what it will do but it burns another 5 or so gallons per hour over a C-172 or my favourite, the Cardinal C-177. The C-182 is the pickup truck with wings on it, and carries just about anything you can get in the cockpit.

If its 2-3 people on trips 3-400 miles long, might look at a Cardinal. Fast, roomy, fuel burn is good and sexy looking. Only issue I can see with them is that they went out of production years ago. They have really large doors that allow you to get in and out easily. Its really a C-210 downsized a bit and cheaper to operate.

Joe A

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1324300240.jpg

All great advice, methinks. Jimbo, my buddy in the RV7a pictured, USES his. Retired USAF (F-111) and American (737's mostly) pilot, he has homes in both Reno and Yuma. He commutes between the two, sort of an airborne snowbird.

Fuel Burn
 

"Totally agree and would have gotten a C-182 except for one thing... fuel burn. Love the airplane and what it will do but it burns another 5 or so gallons per hour over a C-172 or my favourite, the Cardinal C-177. "

If you pull the throttle back on a 182 so that you fly at 172 speeds you will be surprised at how low the fuel burn falls. When I would fly in our O-540 equipped Maule and go places w/ a friend in his 172, I had to pull the power back to about 15 inches of manifold to stay w/ him. Fuel burn per hour would then be in the 8 - 10 gal/hr range.

It also gets interesting when you compare fuel burn per hour to speed to get a miles per gallon figure. The larger engine in a 182 will burn more fuel at the same speed than the engine in a 172. OTOH, there are times when the climb rate or speed of a larger engine are invaluable. I will avoid flying a 172 into our airpark because it simply does not have enough power to comfortably clear the obstacles in all conditions.