Opinions on a 1st plane?

I have a 20 year loan on my 414a so it is very possible.

 

Don't go beating up a $250K airplane learning to do touch & go landings.

Find you an old retired pilot/instructor who can solo you in a tailwheel trainer from an uncontrolled grass strip airport. Should be a few of those around where you are. It's like learning to drive - better learn in the stick shift - transition to automatic is easy afterwards, not so the other way round. Learning the radio/traffic procedure at a controlled field is easier once you can fly the airplane. Grass is forgiving to taildraggers, and once you have soled there and have some skill, then transition to hard surface runways - better traction - less forgiving to sideload from a sloppy landing.

Do your private license training in a 152 or any training airplane you like, from a controlled airport, then buy an airplane to use for business/pleasure flying. You can do instrument training, etc. in that airplane - no problem.

Overall, I think you will be happier doing it this way than trying to buy a "crosscountry" airplane that you will be satisfied with as a primary trainer. And, you will be a more well-rounded pilot having flown a few different types of airplanes. Just my 2 cents - good luck.

 

When looking for a first airplane you might wish to assess what kind of flying you intend to do. Are you going to just piddle around, go for the $100.00 hamburger, or make weekend vacations out of what would otherwise take a week with driving? Will you be usually flying alone, with 1 passenger, or with several?

I would recommend buying a 4 place aircraft of 160 horsepower minimum. A trainer may be less expensive both in acquisition costs and operation costs but not by much. You'll appreciate the difference when you acquire your licence and begin to stretch those new wings. The added horsepowerwill come in handy on those hot Texas summer afternoons when the performance of a trainer suffers to the point of scariness.

Most trainers have been "rode hard and put away wet". Expect a lot of maintenance dollars to be expended where airframe cracking will need to be addressed. They are also spartan when it comes to avionics. No, I'm not talking Garmin 530's here, just a good panel. You will not find many (if any) IFR certified and although IFR may be a bit off it is good safety to have back-up radios.

Above all DO NOT even consider a Beech skipper or a Piper "trauma"hawk. These so-called "trainers" never lived up to their advertizing and have been orphaned by their respective manufacturers.

Try and keep an open mind in the category of high wing vs. low wing. there is no clearcut difference to either and both will do just as well. It is only a matter of personal preferrence.

I would be looking at Piper warriors or Cessna skyhawks in the 160 horse power class. For a bit more you might consider upgrading to a Piper Archer or a Cessna hawk XP both at 180 horsepower. (those extra 20 ponies will make you smile too)

There is no reason why you cant train on any of the aircraft I just mentioned. They are all forgiving, easy to maintain, have excellent parts availability, etc. They will reward you with good training, and if you buy right, an appreciating investment. Besides, the moment you are signed off as a private pilot, you can actually go somewhere... with friends, too! You will not need to go out and rent a more suitable airplane.

Try and find the best airplane which fits your budget. A fairly modern avionics panel will make for hours upon hours of joyful flight. You need not have the latest "gadgets" to get the job done. None of this "jewelry" will make you a better pilot, and in fact may draw away from doing so.

Lastly, and most importantly, make sure that you have a thorough pre-buy inspection performed by a maintenance facility you trust without reservation. Take anything a seller or broker will tell you with a healthy dose of suspicion until YOU independently have it verified. Nothing is worse than buying what will become a money pit. The key thing to be aware of is corrosion, so make sure the shop of your choice knows where to look and what to look for.

That's enough for one response, I think.

Good luck and keep me posted on your progress. Feel free to ask me any specific questions. I'll give it my best shot.

Planeflyr

 

172's make good trainers. It is no wonder that flight schools discourage training on an owners aircraft... They're not making money on the rental! Personally, I don't see why they will not accommodate an owners aircraft. (will probably mutter something about insurance), But if you are determined to do so, training on your own aircraft will certainly save you a lot of money over the course of your training. And the best part is... YOU GET TO KEEP THE AIRPLANE! )

I would suggest you go ahead with the flight schools aircraft until you are certain that you are going to pursue this for the long haul and then perhaps pursue supplying your own airplane. You'll have the benefit of always flying the same airplane throughout, with no scheduling difficulties, and without the differences between airplanes of the same model which flight schools may have. It will make for a more consistant - and shorter - training period. You have much time to make your decisions.

During this time, try and fly different models from different manufacturers to get a feel for what your personal likes and dislikes are. For example, once you have a dozen or so flights in a 172 behind you, make the opportunity to take the next dozen in a warrior. This way you won't get yourself mindset into a particular make or model.

For what you described as your "mission" requirements post license, the 172 or warrior would be good for the shorter trips, but after a few 5 hour legs in one for the longer trip you will really like the hawk XP or archer.

Once you are in it for the long haul and with a couple of hundred hours behind you, you'll want to consider stepping up to a complex/high performance aircraft.

Congratulations for taking the plunge. You will not ever be sorry you've done so. As an airplane owner for more than 30 years, I've never been sorry for one moment.

Planeflyr

 

I have been monitoring the chat about aircraft preferences and what you will do during and after training. I enjoyed some brief time in a Mooney and thought that it was a very good airplane but I think that my favorite in the modern stuff was the fix geared Cessna Cardinal. It was smooth, nicely balanced controls, stable, easily accessable, good cruise speed, and handled four people with ease. Don't see many of them so I suppose they are not as popular as the Skyhawk. A real Cessna was the 195 but they are scarce and exsensive now. Damn nice bird , though.
Switches

 

Rob Lay: Since you are training in 172, you might want to consider a 180hp 172 and if you can find one with LR tanks, that would be pretty sweet. That 180 hp really climbs(compared to stock 172) and has decent speed. We climbed out of Mammoth Lakes, CA at gross on 80+ degree day and were pulling easy 500 fpm and not sweating it at all. We were doing 140-145 and calculated less than 9gph for the day. If I wanted high wing, thats what I'd be looking at.
N Dennis

 

You have a quarter of a million dollars to make an aircraft purchase?

Can you adopt me?

Planeflyr

 

Yeah, I don't know how many mechanic's kids I've sent through dental school in the last 30 years.

Planeflyr

 

Not being the most practical guy on the block and not having to worry about a wife and kids I would look for a good Super Cub.

Not the fastest but you can put 'em down just about anywhere. Lots of fun!

 

You need a serious A/P for that. Cubs aren't known for their range, for sure.

 

Rob Lay:
"Does a high wing provide as much more ground visibility as it would seem? A low wing seems like it would block out all your straight down visibility. Is that not a problem with low wing because the wing is behind you or are you are looking more out than down?"

As a low wing pilot, I find that I dont really need to be looking straight down under normal flying conditions. After a bit of practice you get a sense of where the runway is while you flare and touchdown. For sightseeing, the ability to lookdown is an advantage. Since I am the pilot, I don't sightsee...I fly the plane. When you become proficient, I am sure you will find that you won't actually need to see down to flare and land.

"Would a Skyhawk be able to carry 350 lbs. of adults (wife & I) + 100 lbs. kid + 100 lbs. bags = 550 lbs. with full fuel load?"

172S would be borderline. 172R defintely No.

Based on the stats below I don't think there would be any issue making a 420 nm trip to Salina, KS from NW Regional in Roanoke, TX with the full load listed above?

The R & S models have 53 gallons usuable and figuring 10 gallons per hour at 120 knots, you have 4 hours/480nm of fuel range with 13 gallons left over. You have the capabiltiy of making the flight comfortably, even if moderate unfavorable winds slow you down.

"Comparing the R and SP below, is the extra cost and HP worth the 2 kts cruise speed it appears to gain?"

YES. You get 100lb more gross weight and I bet most of that is usable payload. You have more ponies for climbing and that will show up on those hot Texas days. They both use the same basic engine, and overhaul cost difference will be minimal. Performance spec offered by Cessna does not show much, but that 20 extra horses is worth it and it will in climb.

"We're talking about $250k for a Skyhawk. Why shouldn't I just rent a Skyhawk through my pp, instrument, and complex and then when about 150 hours get a used Cirrus SR22 for around $250k. Wouldn't a SR22 blow the Skyhawk out of the water (air)?"

That is another option for you that I can argue against. I would compare insurance costs, due at one point the cost of insuring a SR22 was staggering for lowtime pilots. I heard reports of cost being close to 20k per year.

If your future involves flying in and around moutainous area, I would look at nothing less than the Skylane.

For 250k, I would be looking at a Mooney M20R.

Remember that most counties hit you with a yearly tax on an airplane...here it is 1% of the value THEY place on my plane. On 250k plane, that is another 200 a month. Hangar fee where I am is 240 per month and that is reasonable here. A hangar is worth every penny in protecting your plane and providing a place to tinker, relax, socialize, work, and store your plane stuff that the wife doesn't want in your house.

You might want to consider a fractional membership or even consider partnership.

 

Geez! Do all you folks from Texas have oil wells in your front yards?

All kidding aside, in my humble opinion you're getting way ahead of yourself. I'm sure you already know that and are just looking at the options.

It sounds like you'll pretty much need a good cross country airplane with reasonable load carrying capabilities. Recognizing that all airplane designs are a compromise, I have a few thoughts on what you might want to consider somewhere down the road.

In particular, the 172/182 options may leave you wanting. For a trip of 450 miles or so you would most likely need to consider a retractable gear aircraft.
Just adding a "T" to the 182 buys you more heartache than speed.

I'm curious, though as you keep mentioning these mega-buck aircraft. is there a particular reason why you are not considering an older - read fully depreciated - airplane? An older 172, 182, or any airplane for that matter will have exactly the same performance as the new one off the line.

In the retract arena, of course there are the Mooneys, Not certain if the load capabilities, and cabin space may be an issue, but they are excellant airplanes. A Piper Arrow or Saratoga/Lance will certainly fit your mission requirements as will a Beech Bonanza. The T-182RG ditto.

Of course if you want the best bang for the buck, I can't help but recommend a Piper Comanche! [ask the man that owns one] I can assure you from 27 years of owning one that it will tool you along at an honest 160 knots on 12.5 gal/hr. with a useful load of around 1100 lbs and with 90 gallons in the tanks can take you 1000 nm with reserves. (going from Denver to Reno Wendesday, non-stop of course)

The concern you might have, if I understand what you've been talking about, is that it is not a shiny new off the assembly line airplane. Mine is a 1965 model and the newest one is a 1971 (or maybe 1972) when they ceased production.

The cost of a new airplane is way out of line with its value. I think that this is why the industry is suffering as it has for so long.

I recall being at Oshkosh for the show the year that Cessna went back into piston engine airplane production after a 10 year hiatus. I taxied to my place in the grass and right next to me taxied in a brand-spankin' new 172. It only had 11 hours on the tach. I looked at it... then I looked at my Comanche... I looked at the Cessna again... and again at my Comanche... the Cessna once more and I let out such a belly laugh they could have heard me across the airfield.

That 11 hour old 172 came out of Wichita with a base price of $146,000. I bought my Comanche for $30,000 and by then it was worth maybe $45,000. (today it is almost triple my purchase price). What did the owners get for their $146,000+ check? A 30 year old design with a 160 hp engine with 4 seats you can't fill and which cruises at maybe 115 knots.

My 20, or so, year old Comanche (at that time) just beats the pants of of the Cessna in any terms you wish to compair except newness.

That same trip I was perusing the new aircraft displays and the salesman for Rockwell caught me eyeing the new Commander 114B. Came over and gave me the full glad-hand treatment extolling the virtues of his product. Cost - a mere (at that time) $450,000. When he finally asked me what I'm currently flying and I told him a 260 Comanche, you could see the dispair in his face as he realized that there wasn't a ghost of a possibility of a sale. Now I'm certainly not knocking the Commander. I love their looks and how well they're built and how comfortable they are. Even if they are rather doggy in their performance. It's just that it wasn't worth the asking price in terms of value.

Anyway, I've rambled on a bit. I'm sure you'll keep your options open and the bottom line is that anyone can spend their money in any way which suits them and it is neither for me nor anyone else to pass judgement.

(good time for a second request for adoption, though)

Planeflyr

 

Rob:

We're flying a 30 year old Piper Archer that is about $150,000 less expensive than a new one. I have flown a new glass panel Archer and liked it, but not at the price differential.

We have an IFR certified Garmin 430 in the panel with a Garmin 396 wired at the bottom of the panel that automatically switches to battery if the panel goes out (as it did once several months ago). This represents an excellent compromise in terms of taxes and maintenance. Hanger fees (almost $300 a month here but it's a twin hangar so there's lot of room in it for our stuff), of course, would be the same for a new plane or a classic. In Kansas, we don't pay any yearly taxes because, if 30 years old, it's a classic.

 

Rob -

Being an ex-Mooney owner, I would normally tout the Mooney as a good choice. However, the major drawback is the low-wing obstruction for some of the things you want to do (checkout hunting locales). There's plenty of visibility for flying, but for sightseeing, the high-wings are definitely better.

Taking the Mooneys off the list, I would definitely consider a Cessna 182. They have good useful load and decent speed and will be familiar to you coming from 172 training. It would be nice to have retractable gear for an extra bit of speed, but not having it is one less thing to worry about. When I first got my Mooney, there were multiple landing gear extension failures that required using the hand extension procedure. I finally got it wrung out, but the workload when on approach as a low-time pilot and the concern from family on board that might not be comfortable with flying yet are things you probably could do without.

 

Rob:

If you haven't had a lesson in a Cessna 150/152, with little in the way of instruments, you ought to try it. There really is a special treat flying in one. In fact, I think that there was a thread on this forum some time back in which the people made a good case for learning in one. You can always move up to the glass later after you've learned the basics.

Just a thought.

 

Well, so much for Mooneys.

Planeflyr