I want an airplane -help me spend my money

[chrisreedrules]

I have over 800 hours in 210's... Normally aspirated, turbo-charged, and turbo normalized models. The non-turbocharged ones are great. Especially with tip tanks (2 extra hours of fuel). The turbo charged 210s are insane Mx hogs. I can not recommend them for private ownership.

 

[Nukem]

Needs better definition

That might be a nice problem to have but... we all fit.

All things considered I would prefer to mission creep down in size and rent up when needed.

A wide two place or a B19 maybe.

I have over 800 hours in 210's... Normally aspirated, turbo-charged, and turbo normalized models. The non-turbocharged ones are great. Especially with tip tanks (2 extra hours of fuel). The turbo charged 210s are insane Mx hogs. I can not recommend them for private ownership.

Thanks for that.

 

[Itchy]

Saratoga.

 

[jafra98]

Saratoga.

A Dakota is a better option...

 

[smack300]

Why not a 182? Unless you get the 180hp 172 with increase gross weight as mentioned before, you are going to have many restrictions.

 

[BaronPete]

Aren't 172S models (180 HP) hard to find these days? I've heard flight schools are buying them up as soon as they hit the market..

 

[Dan208B]

I would not recommend a pre-1970s 210. They are notorious for gear issues leading to expensive maintenance. Also highly recommend a 182. I've been researching for quite a while now and I think a 1970s 182 is the best bang for your buck as far as carrying capability vs speed. 206 is really great but probably not a good deal out there under 100k. Important to remember how much your annual inspection costs will increase with an RG airplane too.

 

[sweeps]

Cherokee 6?? From what I know they are economical, can haul 4 people no problem and can be found for under 100k

 

[Nukem]

A Saratoga is way out of my budget. The 210/206 is as well when considering maintenance and operating costs.

The C182 and Cherokee 180 are both viable for my needs -I think. The C182 might be easier to sell down the road when it is just my wife and me.

My estimate is I will fly less than 50 hours a year with the family, maybe a dozen trips to the coast (or similar) a year. So family hauling is the smaller consideration. I can rent a Saratoga for $229/hr if needed. Something large enough to be dual purpose would be great but maybe not realistic when considering sharing costs with time builders for an additional 300 hours a year.

I appreciate everyones input. Being able to bounce the idea helps.

 

[chrisreedrules]

A Saratoga is way out of my budget. The 210/206 is as well when considering maintenance and operating costs.

The C182 and Cherokee 180 are both viable for my needs -I think. The C182 might be easier to sell down the road when it is just my wife and me.

My estimate is I will fly less than 50 hours a year with the family, maybe a dozen trips to the coast (or similar) a year. So family hauling is the smaller consideration. I can rent a Saratoga for $229/hr if needed. Something large enough to be dual purpose would be great but maybe not realistic when considering sharing costs with time builders for an additional 300 hours a year.

I appreciate everyones input. Being able to bounce the idea helps.

If it's your first airplane, remember to keep it simple. Fixed gear, something easy to find parts for etc... Buy a cheaper airplane than you think you can afford. You can always sell it or trade it down the road for something bigger. I'd personally go with a used 172 if I were in your shoes. Payload isn't that great, but if you aren't going on day-long cross countries I'm sure you could manage just fine. Cheap (relatively speaking) to fix. If I showed you some of the monthly bills my former company had for fixing our various 210s it would make you cringe. Granted they were rode hard and hung up wet, but still.

 

[bimmerphile]

Don't forget the bastar'd child of the 210 family, the 205. A 210 without the gear headaches

 

[Roger Roger]

I would put in another vote for something in the Cherokee family. PA28-180, 235 if you can find one, or Cherokee 6 (though that might stretch the operating budget a little). They're simpler (read: cheaper to operate) and cheaper to acquire than equivalent Cessnas.

 

[killbilly]

A Saratoga is way out of my budget. The 210/206 is as well when considering maintenance and operating costs.

The C182 and Cherokee 180 are both viable for my needs -I think. The C182 might be easier to sell down the road when it is just my wife and me.

My estimate is I will fly less than 50 hours a year with the family, maybe a dozen trips to the coast (or similar) a year. So family hauling is the smaller consideration. I can rent a Saratoga for $229/hr if needed. Something large enough to be dual purpose would be great but maybe not realistic when considering sharing costs with time builders for an additional 300 hours a year.

I appreciate everyones input. Being able to bounce the idea helps.

At 50 hours or less a year, would it make more sense to join a flying club or buy an equity stake in an existing partnership?

 

[greg1016]

I have done a lot of research, as I will also be in the market for an airplane soon. In all the research I have done, in my opinion a Mooney with an (I)O-360 is the best bang for your buck in a certified aircraft, if you can handle the tight cabin. Do not forget to take maintenance costs and engine time into consideration when you make your purchase. A 6-cylinder Continental is going to cost a lot more to maintain than a 4-cylinder Lycoming. The older M20s with the manual gear cost about as much to maintain as a C-172 and burn the same amount of fuel while cruising 40 knots faster. An overhaul on an O-360 will run you about $25k, but on a 6 cylinder it will probably run into the 30s (I haven't priced 6 cylinder overhauls). Ask @ATN_Pilot how he likes his. You could potentially do complex checkouts and BFRs in it, if you are looking to supplement some of your flying with some income. You would fall subject to the 100 hour inspections, I am no lawyer, but I think under FAR 91 you would be safe if you only conducted training in the plane during the first 100 hours after each annual.

 

[Nukem]

At 50 hours or less a year, would it make more sense to join a flying club or buy an equity stake in an existing partnership?

It would, but the less than 50 hour estimate is just the time with the four people in my family. I would like to fly much more than that either by myself or sharing time. It may be a good compromise to get into a 4 or 6 place partnership (or rent) and buy a 2 seat or 2+2 to fly the wings off of.

Toying with the idea of 2 or 2+2, I like the Beech sport. I have some time in a Champ and they are fun but finding parts can be a challenge plus they are not really suitable for night and especially not IFR.

 

[Nukem]

in my opinion a Mooney with an (I)O-360 is the best bang for your buck in a certified aircraft, if you can handle the tight cabin.

Yeah, I really like a Mooney. Though I wouldn't be embarrassed by most any airplane. I have never been in a Bonanza but the claim is the Mooney front seat dimensions are similar. And the Mooney cabin is wider than most other GA singles just not as tall.

You could potentially do complex checkouts and BFRs in it, if you are looking to supplement some of your flying with some income. You would fall subject to the 100 hour inspections, I am no lawyer, but I think under FAR 91 you would be safe if you only conducted training in the plane during the first 100 hours after each annual.

Excellent idea! I hadn't thought of that possibility.

 

[jskibo]

If you get a Mooney, look for a Johnson bar gear model. Cheap (under $50k) and damn simple to MX. Also never worry if the gear is up or down.....Did the bar move? Then the gear moved

 

[Rudabega]

A Dakota sounds like a good fit. Bang for buck on those is pretty good.

If you aren't afraid of fabric and wood the super vikings put out some nice numbers.

 

[Nukem]

A Dakota sounds like a good fit. Bang for buck on those is pretty good.

If you aren't afraid of fabric and wood the super vikings put out some nice numbers.

I know nothing about the Dakota and yours is the second Dakota suggestion. I'm gonna read up on them. Same for the Super Viking...

 

[jafra98]

I know nothing about the Dakota and yours is the second Dakota suggestion. I'm gonna read up on them. Same for the Super Viking...

Dakota= Cherokee Archer simplicity with Cherokee Six performance, but you still have four seats...........