I want an airplane -help me spend my money

A partnership is something I have considered and it could probably work well if there was an opportunity nearby. Also, there is a pretty good club I could join on Redstone Arsenal. The only problem with the club is the restricted access to the base. I wouldn't be able to share time as readily. Otherwise the club is the most sensible solution.

I have violated two thirds of the "three F" reg. Flies is the only one left to bust.
 
Nukem said:
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...
Click to expand...
Reach out to @fholbert. He drives a Viking and may be willing to share some info. Fholbert, hope you don't mind me throwing your name out here.
 
Nukem said:
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.
Click to expand...

My votes for a Stinson 108-2 or -3. Am I Right @Nark :)

You couldn't give a hi-perf check out but you could do tailwheel. You won't get any where fast but you can usually take four adults some place with full or almost full fuel.
 
I'm looking at the Beech Debonair (basically a four seat A36). 150-160 kts in cruise, 11-12 GPH and it burns MOGAS, which is $2.95 at my local field. When you account for the operating cost of the MOGAS, it comes in under a Mooney M20x in terms of fuel burn per knot. It's a great flying airplane and roomy inside, unlike the Mooney counterpart.

Another alternative for a simpler airframe is the Cherokee 235, 130 kts TAS on 14-15 GPH but it also burns MOGAS. They have 1400+ lb useful loads, you can basically take four adults, full fuel, and 200 lbs of baggage. Pretty decent plane.

I'd like to do a twin but I'm not sure I can justify the large difference in operating costs. Another $30-$40/hr for fuel and another $10+/hr for engine reserve, plus another bit for other stuff.

A big part of my requirement is the MOGAS alternative. I want to future proof the plane purchase. Eventually 100LL will go away.
 
Last edited:
PositionAndHold said:
My votes for a Stinson 108-2 or -3. Am I Right @Nark :)

You couldn't give a hi-perf check out but you could do tailwheel. You won't get any where fast but you can usually take four adults some place with full or almost full fuel.
Click to expand...
Just to echo what @PositionAndHold said, my Stinson is very affordable, reliable, and simply fun.

Having a classic garners plenty of attention, plus getting into a grass strip is the cats-ass.
 
Nukem said:
Yeah, I keep coming back to the 172. Three of the four adults are female. My hope is we can handle two hours in a 172.
What kind of economy fuel burn could be expected in a 182? The question could be rhetorical as I'm looking it up now but am still interested in anecdotal evidence.

While I also really like the Bonanza and 210 (and most other planes) they are bigger than I would take full advantage of. Using it regularly is a high priority and the added operating cost might make many people hesitant to share time. I expect over 80% of the time to only have two on board.
Click to expand...
I have done a ton of 2 hour IFR trips in 172s. Other than being slow, no issues. Assuming you don't have 250lb passengers, weight isn't a huge issue.

An Arrow would probably do what you want as well, for about the same price.
 
wheelsup said:
I'm looking at the Beech Debonair (basically a four seat A36). 150-160 kts in cruise, 11-12 GPH and it burns MOGAS, which is $2.95 at my local field. When you account for the operating cost of the MOGAS, it comes in under a Mooney M20x in terms of fuel burn per knot. It's a great flying airplane and roomy inside, unlike the Mooney counterpart.

Another alternative for a simpler airframe is the Cherokee 235, 130 kts TAS on 14-15 GPH but it also burns MOGAS. They have 1400+ lb useful loads, you can basically take four adults, full fuel, and 200 lbs of baggage. Pretty decent plane.

I'd like to do a twin but I'm not sure I can justify the large difference in operating costs. Another $30-$40/hr for fuel and another $10+/hr for engine reserve, plus another bit for other stuff.

A big part of my requirement is the MOGAS alternative. I want to future proof the plane purchase. Eventually 100LL will go away.
Click to expand...
have a buddy that just sold his debonair in favor of a bonanza but he loved the thing...went in it a few times and it was pretty sweet.
 
shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg

Everytime I see this thread...
 
wheelsup said:
it burns MOGAS, which is $2.95 at my local field.
A big part of my requirement is the MOGAS alternative. I want to future proof the plane purchase. Eventually 100LL will go away.
Click to expand...

There is not a good supply of MOGAS near me unless I haul my own to the airport. Which I could do, I suppose, depending on where I base the plane. HSV probably not but DCU or Moontown would be OK -I think. 100LL is (or was) $3.99 in Winchester TN and much less than $5 lots of places nearby.

Unfortunately the eventual loss of 100LL is something to be considered.
 
Last edited:
Nukem said:
Or I could do SES addons!
http://www.controller.com/listingsd.../STINSON-108-3/1948-STINSON-108-3/1357881.htm
Isn't it over 200hp?
Click to expand...
Well yes, this one is since it's an O-470K 230hp conversion. The standard 108-2/3's came with a 165hp Franklin. I think they called this conversion a "Super Stinson", since it also adds a constant speed prop. I've never flown one but have heard they're bad ass. What people love about this, is you can haul any thing that'll fit through the door off the ground, pull it back to 65-75% and still have the same 9-11gph fuel burn of the Franklin Stinson.
 
If you are considering an aircraft type cause it can burn MOGAS, consider that it has to be ethanol free. In many areas this isn't possible. I once bought an Apace cause you could STC it for car gas only to have the local gas stations switch to gas with ethanol. Just something to think about.

I have a Cherokee 180 and it's a great entry level plane. Can take 4 pax and three hours fuel off a longer runway. They are dirt cheap, too.
 
Nukem said:
Which airplane?
My kids are mostly grown so I would like to be able to carry four adults plus minimal baggage. Most trips we might make would be less than 3 to 4 hundred miles i.e. to the beach for the day/weekend. A Mooney would be awesome but a 172 might be more practical.
I realize for the cost efficiency aspect a two place would be better and I could rent a 4 place when needed. I am open to any ideas even a tailwheel (I could do endorsements). Being comfortable is important and IFR capability is a factor as well. Oh, lets keep it under $100K.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the majority of your departures and landings will be on paved runways, and that you don't mind a nosedragger. If that's the case, then I would go for a fixed-gear C182. Here's why...
First of all, choose a 1962E-1986R model because those are the wide-body ones and would be a much more comfortable ride. That extra elbow room is a really nice feature on long trips. Also, starting with the 1965H model, the horizontal stabilizer/elevator was widened ten inches for improved stability and elevator authority, and a one piece windshield replaced the center post, so you may want to consider those factors too if you're looking at 182s. Don't forget the fact that you can open both windows. I'm sure it gets hot and humid during those Alabama summers, and a little ventilation goes a long way in improving comfort and safety.
The Skylane's high-performance 230 hp Continental O-470 has plenty of power to actually take four "real" adults (as opposed to FAA adults) and baggage. There's no tailwheel, but you can give high-performance endorsements. You might never need to use all of the power available, but it's nice to have if you find yourself in a jam and you do need it. Yes, that big engine can burn more fuel than the O-300/320/360 that the C172s have, but it can be managed. I think I used to get 12-15 gph when I flew them. You can reduce power if fuel efficiency is more important to you than speed and get a pretty decent fuel burn. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get it down to 9-10 gph or better.
Speaking of fuel, starting with the 1979Q model, Cessna increased the fuel capacity from 65 gallons to 92 gallons and replaced the bladders with integral fuel tanks (wet wing). That's about twice as much fuel as a Skyhawk holds, and gives an endurance of 6-10 hrs. It's another thing to consider if you decide to get a 182 and are trying to determine which model you'd like to operate. You should NEVER be in a position where you run out of fuel in one of those 182s, even if you take it to remote parts of Canada or Alaska, or over large bodies of water where fuel may be scarce.
It's a really decent IFR bird that cruises at around 140 kts, give or take, depending on power settings. It would be challenging to load a 182 outside the W/B envelope, even after you consider used fuel. It can take pretty much anything you can load into it, and has the power to get you in and out of runways with minimal distance.
I strongly advise against retractable gear though. Retractable gear is a bigger headache than what it's worth for private ownership. It's expensive to maintain and expensive to insure, so stick with fixed-gear. Yes retractables are faster and more streamlined, but it's only like 10 kts or so and any cost savings in fuel efficiency will be spent on insurance and maintenance, and then some.
I don't know if you are an A&P or not, but maintenance costs (annual, etc) on a fixed-gear 182 are relatively low and even if you aren't an A&P, you can still do some simple, limited maintenance yourself if you are mechanically inclined. It's a pretty straight foward, simple airplane. Easy to fly, easy to maintain, lots of them are available, and most are under $100k.
This machine is a true aeronautical marvel. The unobstructed view makes it a real pleasure for sightseeing, and the Continental sounds amazing! I realize that last statement is subjective, but I really liked hearing that engine.
I've been looking at getting an airplane too. My mission is slightly different than yours though. I want an airplane that can carry myself and my wife, and maybe a couple of friends, plus some camping/hunting/fishing gear to remote places. Like you, I looked at LOTS of aircraft before narrowing it down to a C170B with the 180 hp upgrade, a C180, or a C182. I've done lots of research on all of those aircraft.
Right now I think I will probably go with the C180 and get a Sportsman STOL kit because my mission is into off-airport locations. The tailwheel should give me better prop clearance than if I had a 182, and I can put skis or floats on it. I intend to use it in all three configurations (wheels, skis, or floats) at one time or another. I still haven't 100% decided because the 182 is such a nice plane, relatively inexpensive, and they're a lot of bang for the buck, but it has that damned nosewheel! I'm still saving up and won't have the money for a couple/few years, but I think I mostly know what I want to get.
But for you, I think you will have a hard time finding something more fitting than a 182.
 
Last edited:
There are quite a few fixed-gear Ce-177Bs out there. Seems like the Cardinal might be a nice fit between the 172 and 182.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rosstafari
Hey, pilots: make sure you have enough insurance. Mine just saved me from ruin.
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
derg
derg
future pilot
Changing careers with a young family
Replies
13
Views
2K
galleycartinop
G
F9DXER
Looking for my first airplane
Replies
12
Views
2K
knot4u
knot4u
NewsBot
  • Locked
Dispatcher
Replies
0
Views
336
NewsBot
NewsBot
barchaim
40 Year Old Career Changer - Looking for Advice
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
///AMG
///AMG
Back
Top