Another vote for a Commanche 250.
Seem to run a good bit cheaper than a Bonanza.
Maybe a bit more part availability issues. But fly very nice and imo look sleek.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:
Just sitting here sipping a bourbon and loving every word of this thread. I don’t have the math to even pretend to be a pilot, but I love aircraft and listening in to knowledgeable discussion about them.

Not a pilot but also enjoying the discussion. My dream of a used 911 (1999-2008) appears to be reasonable in comparison.

Also not a pilot and this thread has me looking up all of these planes. Was fortunate enough when younger to have several family friends who were pilots and they took me up numerous times. That got me interested in all facets of aviation. I’m still that adult who will stop everything to watch a plane or helicopter go over…

Here's a snazzy Comanche 250 >>

https://www.controller.com/lis...ston-single-aircraft

A bit of a heavy pig - low useful load. With full fuel it's a 2-place, no baggage bird.

^ I was over 50% to my check ride when I stopped.
College & flight costs got in the way of a broke college student.

Had a free plane, Cessna 150M in high school, and an instructor that was $50/lesson regardless of length.

Losing those put a damper on things.

My office is on the departure path of IAH, can't not stop when they fly over.

Buying the airplane is the easy part. Add insurance, fuel and oil, maintenance and hangar rentals.

I would check to see if there is anyone locally who would want to cut expenses and get a partner

When I retire in a few years I will sell my Ferrari and buy into an airplane.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

You may find that a multi-engine airplane might serve your needs, but again, seek training.

A Mooney was mentioned. Not a bad choice.

I wouldn't overlook an experimental; some have better craftsmanship than factory airplanes, with more performance, lower maintenance costs, etc.
A Cozy or LongEZ is a relatively fast machine that's made for cross country.


That said, a 210 is a nice cross country airplane, and a Cessna 310, even better. It depends how far up the food chain you want to go or invest, but the initial costs for some twins are less, and the costs of owning more.

I can buy a nice 55 Baron for less than a nice V-tail - but I've been there, done that, and am not going back to that expensive circus.

If you fit in a Mooney they are indeed a good choice. Most mechanics hate to work on them...

Sold my LongEZ after flying it for 39 years - it would be perfect for what the OP needs as it's 175KTAS @ 7gph fuel burn. Long legs, at least 1,200nm non-stop. But, I'm now 70+, and the calisthenics to get in and out of it are for a younger man - it went to a young SCALED Composites flight test engineer in Mojave who wants to frequently visit family in NH. Don't overlook an experimental.

I had a friend, who stumbled across the airplane that he wanted; it was for sale at a decent price, but more than he could afford, so here's what he did (this was a while ago, the numbers have changed since then, but the concept is valid):

The airplane price was $50,000.00. He figured that he could swing the payments if he ate rice and beans, and lived a frugal life, so he went for it.

He formed a non-profit company and bought the airplane. He then advertised, got a bunch of responses, and picked the seven that seemed the most compatible. He sold seven shares of stock in the company for $7,000.00 per share. He now had one dollar invested, and he owned 1/8 of the airplane.

Each shareholder paid $35.00 / month to cover hangar costs and most of the insurance, plus $35.00 / flight hour (dry), to cover operating costs like engine overhaul reserve, inspections, tires, brakes, etc.

The whole deal worked out very well for them. Eight pilots sharing the operating costs of the airplane, at a very reasonable buy-in.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
...Eight pilots sharing the operating costs of the airplane, at a very reasonable buy-in.

Being in a club is a great option, and I'm not on the rice & beans diet. I'm in two (C-152 and 172 at different airports) though I was not around when the planes were first purchased. Sharing expenses works out well, and in each club we have a guy who takes care of all maintenance issues.

https://www.wampuscatsflyingclub.com/

http://www.clintonaeroclub.com/

A few year ago I thought about buying my own used 172. I could afford it but decided I did not want all the headaches that come with ownership.

A lot of good stuff here. As usual, folks have covered a lot of good points.

Just a few thoughts -

Love the Bonanzas, but not sure I'd limit myself to the very early ones with the smaller ruddervators and the speed cap. I had a G35 (can't remember if it was 56 or 58) that had the E225 and a Hartzell hydraulic prop and was faster on less fuel than my friend's B35. When the AD came about the stabilizing cuffs on the ruddervators, the earlier ones had a speed cap that the later ones did not.

Building more time in something fixed gear would help *a lot* with the insurance cost. Operating an aircraft that is well inside your budget would make dealing with the unexpected bills easier to deal with.

If you are stuck on retractable gear, the Commanche suggestion is probably a good one. You won't get Beech fit and finish, but the Commanche is darned efficient and probably cheaper to operate.

I'd steer clear of twins for a first airplane. Having that second engine provides peace of mind, as long as you stay sharp on your single engine procedures, but the operating costs are higher, the insurance will likely be higher, and you have twice as many engines to fail. On the positive side, if you do lose an engine, you still have the second engine to get you to the scene of the crash. There is a reason that twins are cheaper than comparable singles - they cost more to operate, cost more to insure, don't have a huge performance advantage, and have a smaller market. Don't get me wrong, I love the Travel Air, but there are lots of Bonanzas that are faster on less gas and less maintenance...

You will need to decide what works for you, but I'd start flying for fun, doing the hundred dollar hamburgers and shorter trips. Build some time, build some experience, then think about upgrading.

Enjoy the adventure whatever aircraft you decide on!

I'll toss in the obligatory "If it flies, floats, or fornicates, rent, don't buy."

I've not flown in decades but I came to really like the high wing Cessna design over the low wing panoply of purveyors (Beechcraft, Mooney, Piper). I wasn't, however, considering ownership costs and fuel efficiency because I always rented. I just like the better ground visibility as the Earth rolled by below.

The Cherokee 235 (in later models called the Dakota) is a flying wagon. The one I rented years ago could carry 4 FAA-standard people, full fuel, and a 90-pound picnic basket before hitting gross. It has fixed gear, which reduces maintenance costs. The engine is 6 cylinders, so might use a bit more fuel. It is VERY capable. It is also VERY stable, and I believe would be a good IFR platform.

Based on your initial choices, consider this: almost no smaller plane will go all the way without a stop - your bladder will stop you even sooner in most cases. The amount of time it will take for your route is going to be pretty much a full day. The number of hours for the trip won't change enough to be a huge consideration. You'll probably need at least two stops on the way to ensure enough fuel in the tanks at each stop. Those stops will coincide with your bladder relief needs, fluid intake, and walking to stretch your legs.

The Comanche is the predecessor to the Cherokee - it is going to be older. I'm not aware of the availability parts reserves for it.

Just buy what John Travolta bought

quote:

Originally posted by Schmelby:

Just buy what John Travolta bought

Which one? There are a couple here, in his private compound at the airport just a bit north-east of the Ocala FL airport. Lifestyles of the rich and famous.

I’m also looking/planning the first aircraft.
Piper Tri-Pacer has been mentioned, and is currently at the top of my list based on my income, aircraft price, parts, insurance, etc.
They seem to be a solid choice.

VictomNoMore, I learned to fly in a Tri-Pacer AKA the flying brick. There are three versions, 135hp,150hp,and a 160hp. There also exists a Colt which was basically a 135hp trainer. I then switched to Cherokees, later on owning a Warrior. I think if you look around you may find a Cherokee 140 that might fit your budget. I would recommend the Cherokee over the Tri-Pacer given the choice.

I recommend adding a Cherokee 6 and a Grumman Tiger to your WTB list. Got my PPL in a Grumman Cheetah (160 hp)…Tiger is 180 hp (in lieu of the Archer). The Cherokee 6 has a couple of engine variants and I flew the 300 hp model; original model was 260 hp. If it fits in the door, you can take it.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

I've not flown in decades but I came to really like the high wing Cessna design over the low wing panoply of purveyors (Beechcraft, Mooney, Piper). I wasn't, however, considering ownership costs and fuel efficiency because I always rented. I just like the better ground visibility as the Earth rolled by below.

Same here. Had a brief flight in a Piper 4-seater variant, Sundowner I believe, and it flew well, but I didn't like the low wing, nor the single entry door & having to climb over the seats.

Ok, my initial ideas behind the retractable gear were to prepare me for a Mooney a couple years down the road.

After taking some advice given here and advice given to me by a pilot uncle I've decided to look for an early model Cessna 182 instead. What I should save in insurance and maintenance should make up for the extra fuel burn. And I do like the idea of the larger cabin. I'm a big guy. 6' and about 265 lbs. And I am currently learning in a 150 so transitioning shouldn't be too difficult.

So a question about 182s. I'm seeing some have an O-470-R engine. Those are certified for 80/87 octane. Any problem with using 100LL in those? Not sure I could find 80/87 octane at many airports.

You can't go wrong with a C182! Somewhere Cessna 182's went from the cabin width of the 172 to about 4" wider - unsure when. 100LL will be fine.