Buying an Aircraft beyond one's capability

[akoch]

The SR-20 is limited to 12,000 flight hours; which is more than most private owners will fly in 240 years...

Well, we all are flying to get to our final destination a bit faster, aren't we?

[Cat Driver]

I would pick an RV8.

[Big Pistons Forever]

172 is 105 knots

182 isn't much faster
.

My experience has been different. I flight planned 135 kts at 12 USG for the 182 I used to fly, and it climbed a lot better than the C172.

[Skyhunter]

"Food for thought: next time you see an F-18 doing surface
level aerobatics at an airshow, remember that he almost
certainly doesn't have enough flight time to fly left seat
in a clapped-out king air in the civilian world. Hmmmm.

And they do single pilot M-IFR in those too!

Actually TC does not recognize the CF 18 as a Multi engine aircraft because the engiens are mounted side by side on the aircraft centerline

The Hornet, like the Mixmaster is recognized by TC as a multi engine aircraft; but they are in the centerline thrust category."


The Hornet is Multi and not, I repeat, not centerline thrust. Slow and heavy, and one engine in burner and you have to have a boot full of rudder in. As far as single engine control speed, we use and Angle of Attack not speed for it, but yes there is one.

[. ._]

Yep. I think buying a Hornet with a PPL is a bad idea. Centreline thrust and all.

LOL! I can't believe I'm trying to get this thread back on track!

Fly what you're comfortable with, then push it up incrementally- that's what I get out of this thread.

Or you could be a hero like JFK junior.

My absolutely useless $0.02.

-istp

[Hedley]

135 kts ... for the 182

Really?! I used to get maybe 120K out of the 182's I
used to fly, but I didn't run a big power setting, and it
was down low - normal VFR cruising altitudes.

182 carries a good load, but it is not a speed demon,
and I really don't like the carburetor. I have done some
pretty weird and stupid things in airplanes over the years,
but I draw the line at flying a carburetor in the clouds.

(carburetor rant follows - skip ahead to next posting)

For the lurkers, a carburetor is inherently a refrigerator -
it is a cooling device, caused by the evaporation of the
fuel and the pressure drop in the venturi.

When you operate a refrigerator in cloud - which by
definition is air which is completely saturated with
moisture - it would be reasonable to expect some
ice to form.

This ice inconveniently forms in your intake, plugging
off the air from being able to get into the engine.

Yes, I know there is a carb heat control. But most
pilots don't know that after application of carb heat
you must immediately lean the mixture.

And you don't even need a carb temp gauge to fly
IFR, so you don't even know when it's forming - or
how fast. Without instrumentation, you cannot use
partial carb heat. Under some conditions, partial
carb heat can INCREASE the rate of ice formation!

IMHO (and I have four years of court experience on
this subject), flying a carburetor in the clouds is a clear
contravention of CAR 602.01 - reckless and/or
negligent.

I will happily fly a surface level outside loop in formation,
because in my opinion, it incurs a lower level of risk.

If you think I am nutty on this subject, ask around and
find out how many helicopters have crashed over the
years due to carb icing.

Pop Quiz: why is Cairns airfield (Ft Rucker, Dothan AL)
named Cairns airfield? Hint: this is not a non sequitor.

(Carburetor rant over)

Back to the original thread - speedy airplanes.

I doubt the OP is up for a homebuilt airplane, from what
he has said so far. A friend of mine just died in one, and
I thought he was a pretty good stick, and I thought the
airplane was pretty good, too.

If there is one thing I would like to be able to teach new
pilots, it is this:

Know when you are operating with a high risk

Many pilot engage in extremely high risk activities -
which I would NOT do, and everyone thinks I'm nuts -
and they don't even know they are.

[piston]

Viking Dragonfly MkII with fixed hoop gear...160 to 175 kts

[LousyFisherman]

So what would you guys recommend as a first aircraft for somebody finishing his PPL? I would think a lot of people like me are naive beginners and looking for guidance.

Well I differ from all the above opinions, but I am a low time amateur like you.
Your FIRST plane is not your dream plane. I view most of your desires as irrelevant for your FIRST plane.

Buy something underpowered! It will make you a better pilot, and then after a couple of years buy your dream plane

YMMV

LF

[iflyforpie]

The 182 (230HP) is pretty much a 130kt plane with a ~65% power setting if you've got everything tweaked. The Cardinal RG (200HP) and the 206 (285 METO HP) eek out a little more speed, but not enough to be noticeable.

The 172 (150HP) is a solid 100kt airplane. Some might go a tiny bit faster, some noticeably slower.

The thing I've always noticed about Piper owners is how they add knots to their aircraft.

I flew a Cherokee SIX 260 with a claimed speed of 130 kts at 65%. It turned out to be more like 120. I was told that the 150HP Cherokees and Warriors were way faster than the 172s. They aren't. They're just a 100 kt airplane that doesn't climb as well as a 172, so they are actually slower here in the rock.

[Dust Devil]

The 182 (230HP) is pretty much a 130kt plane with a ~65% power setting if you've got everything tweaked. The Cardinal RG (200HP) and the 206 (285 METO HP) eek out a little more speed, but not enough to be noticeable.

The 172 (150HP) is a solid 100kt airplane. Some might go a tiny bit faster, some noticeably slower.

The thing I've always noticed about Piper owners is how they add knots to their aircraft.

I flew a Cherokee SIX 260 with a claimed speed of 130 kts at 65%. It turned out to be more like 120. I was told that the 150HP Cherokees and Warriors were way faster than the 172s. They aren't. They're just a 100 kt airplane that doesn't climb as well as a 172, so they are actually slower here in the rock.

As many here probably know rigging makes a huge difference.

[akoch]

Well I differ from all the above opinions, but I am a low time amateur like you.
Your FIRST plane is not your dream plane. I view most of your desires as irrelevant for your FIRST plane.

Buy something underpowered! It will make you a better pilot, and then after a couple of years buy your dream plane

YMMV

LF

This actually looks counter-intuitive to me... will it really work like this? Would you enjoy or even be safe for a good XC in such a plane?

[Mostly Harmless]

You could look into a Grumman Tiger.

[GoinNowhereFast]

If I were in your position, I would buy an airplane slightly above those in rental fleets, which is what you seem to be doing. I am assuming you are doing your PPL in a 152, 172 or DA20, so stepping up to a C182, DA40 or similar would not be a big stretch.

[shitdisturber]

Pop Quiz: why is Cairns airfield (Ft Rucker, Dothan AL)
named Cairns airfield? Hint: this is not a non sequitor.

Because the brand new Commanding General, coincidentally named Major General Cairns; thundered in a helicopter and killed himself due to carb ice.

[Shiny Side Up]

The market isn't serviced at all so no one knows for sure what the actual market size is.

There have been attempts. I know of a few operators who've attempted to run Cessna 210s and another who attempted to put a Saratoga on the flight line. Long story short, the numbers simply don't work. As I said, people who can spend the money to rent and stay current with such an airplane also can afford their own.

I think that your assumptions are not exactly valid. I would consider it an enormous pain in the ass to buy an aircraft, lose money on it and then move onto the next aircraft to do that over again to finally arrive at the third aircraft that I really wanted in the first place. The economics of that don’t make any sense.

Of course the economics don't make sense, an airplane only really makes its value back if you can justify the time it saves you as saving you money. Even those with reasonably high means have trouble justifying it, those who have high enough means simply hire pilots to charter themselves places. It also might indeed be a pain to buy and sell an airplane - I'm not sure why you'd lose money on it aside from the money you spent to upkeep it - The only inconvinience is time. It might take a while to re-sell the plane to recoup some of your investment (during which I might add, you still have access to the plane). Strictly from a money perspective, you're right, it doesn't make sense. Only if we factor in the possibility of smashing up an airplane and our own potential fatality (hopefully not those of too many others) does now the money and time spent on this process make sense.

Renting a series of increasingly complex aircraft to arrive at the point where I buy the one aircraft I want makes a good deal more sense. But I know what the entrenched attitude of the flight schools/rental companies are. I know of one or two places that offer a next step aircraft (C-182/Arrow) and they can’t keep up with the bookings. So, the market is there but no one wants to get into that market. Fair enough.

Then why don't they have more of these beasts on the flight line? There is indeed money to be made on this step. The issue is that while there is enough business to justify one C-182 or Arrow, there isn't enough to justify two. Projecting from that point, there is less business for something the next step up say the larger stablemates, The Saratogas, Malibus and Centurions. Multi engine aircraft have the incentive in that there is specific training that is desired to justify the utilization of said aircraft (which I might add also then have more charter capability to justify more business) than the large singles - despite the fact that most of the twins actually fall behind their single engine appropriately sized brethren (compare the numbers for the C210 and the C303, even better the Seneca and the Saratoga - which both share the same wing and fuselage).

Dual time makes money. People fly dual on a C-172 or similar aircraft. That’s all we offer. I know it is the economics of the game. So, don’t blame/point fingers at the guy who buys the end product of his desires because he isn’t following your interpretation of the route he should take when there are not alternatives available. Buy, or rent what slim selection is available.

Personally I do blame these guys, they're the ones who want the priviledge of zooming around fast, they're the ones who don't want to take the time and effort to learn it. I was talking to a fellow who was getting some work done on a SR22 a little while ago, asked him what happened. Turns out he went into the weeds off the end of a runway and banged her up a bit. I asked how much flying he does in it, to which he replied, "only when I got to go somewhere." Do you ever spend time practicing some landings I ask. "No" he says "that's a waste of time and costs too much in fuel" hmmm.

I have trained a few of these “rich” guys who bought high performance aircraft and every one of them was a serious student who had no problem spending the time and effort it was going to take to learn to fly properly. All of them are still alive. So, there are some pretty broad and general statements/assumptions being made here on this board. I am not alone in having made some large jumps from one aircraft type to the next.

Then your experience is different than mine. I don't know how many times someone who was wealthy enough to own his own machine asked me if I could cut him a special rate for us flying his machine (forgive me when I get upset when someone insinuates that my time isn't of value), or what's the minimum time they were absolutely required to do (there's that fixation with "hours" I so despise) to get flying their machine. Since we're talking about time remember that your average private pilot flies 30 hours or less a year. Is that really enough to stay on top of some of those machines? Especially when you consider that those 30 hours might be made up of say six five hour trips and a total of 12 take offs and landings a year.

It’s all about the individual and easing into the airplane until you are comfortable with it. It’s not about the airplane it’s about the pilot.

You said it yourself. Its all about the pilot puttin in the time.

[Invertago]

An interesting article you might want to read. They look at the best value used aircraft out there. I think they're looking for options a bit older then what your thinking, but it gives good ideas.

http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/181782-1.html

If you have to go newish, and you're not too tall (under 6') the DA40 is a nice aircraft, cruises fast, burns little gas, flys easy, the view is great and insurance is low being a fixed gear. That would be my recommendation, I did a 13 hr xctry in one around BC and Alberta one weekend. Other then head room, only complains would be that the air vents are noisy when opened and the seats need more padding. Otherwise it flew beautifully, G1000 displays are amazing and the viability rockes. Safety record is very good also.

[akoch]

If I were in your position, I would buy an airplane slightly above those in rental fleets, which is what you seem to be doing. I am assuming you are doing your PPL in a 152, 172 or DA20, so stepping up to a C182, DA40 or similar would not be a big stretch.

This is what is making the most sense subjectively to me. I'm training on a DA20. So the DA-40, Socata, Mooney all look like a logical continuation and simply look attractive. Realistically a used DA40 is most "affordable" and can be had well under 200k. But people seem to like the C182 a lot, which naturally raises my curiosity - is there something I don't know? Apparently. And I know people swear by their Mooneys..... No one seem to mention Socata at all.

PS. Invertago - thank you for the link! Great advice. Did you find DA-40 performance adequate for the AB to BC trip?

[Shiny Side Up]

This is what is making the most sense subjectively to me. I'm training on a DA20. So the DA-40, Socata, Mooney all look like a logical continuation and simply look attractive. Realistically a used DA40 is most "affordable" and can be had well under 200k. But people seem to like the C182 a lot, which naturally raises my curiosity - is there something I don't know? Apparently. And I know people swear by their Mooneys..... No one seem to mention Socata at all.

Of the bunch the c182 is probably the most affordable, it also by far and away has the most carrying capacity and range (though that depends on the fuel tanks) they have by far the widest CoG envelope, so unless you have some particularly heavy stuff you're moving around if you can get it inside, you can fly. That being said, the Cessna 182 is the most SUV of the bunch as well, and the best rough strip performer.

Anyone who owns a Mooney will say the Mooney is the best and definitely is the fastest of the bunch. They don't usually say that when it comes for maintenance time. Go take a look at the cowls of especially the older mooneys - count how many screws there are there, its representative of how the rest of the airplane was built. If you go the mooney route its also adviseable to find a "mooney guy" AME. Most Mooney owners I know fly long distance to take their machines to an experienced shop.

The same could be said of the Socata, with less of them around I imagine if you owned one, you're going to end up paying for someone to learn how to do maintenance on it. That being said of the bunch the Socata has the nicest control feel to it, but that's not a particular reason to buy an airplane - it does however have the nicest seats and certainly beats all the other three for passenger entry and comfort, Not much there for baggage or cargo.

Lastly the DA-40 had by far the most benign flight characteristics and was a plane that made an average pilot look good - its hard not to land well. The avionics packages are also the nicest. Comfort wise it was a tie with the mooney for last place with the seats, and personally I'm not a fan of the canopy. The DA-40 also had the smallest CoG envelope and realistically was a two place airplane - with a full fuel load - and virtually no bags (and that was actually the DA-40XL with the bigger engine).

With all that in mind, unless you have your heart set on another, the Cessna 182 is your best bang for your buck.

[akoch]

Very informative, thank you Shiny Side Up.

Any particular reason you don't like wrap-around plexi canopy? I thought it gives you great visibility which I really like with the DA20.

[Cat Driver]

Speed in small private airplanes is subjective, for instance I can fly to Kelowna or Calgary in a lot less time in a Cub at around 100 miles an hour than I can drive.

But like all single engine little airplanes the weather can really be a big factor in how fast one can complete a trip.


Right off the top of my head I can not think of a single engine piston powered airplane I would fly IFR....especially in this area. ( B.C. ) actually I have zero time IFR in a single engine airplane.

[Shiny Side Up]

Very informative, thank you Shiny Side Up.

Any particular reason you don't like wrap-around plexi canopy? I thought it gives you great visibility which I really like with the DA20.

I'm not a big fan of the way it opens, entry to it is probably where I had the problem, there's also not much headroom, its a bit decieving on how close it is to your head. Entry and exit of the airplane is the most difficult of the bunch and its hard not to get a foot on your seat. Not very convinient for winter.

Right off the top of my head I can not think of a single engine piston powered airplane I would fly IFR....especially in this area. ( B.C. ) actually I have zero time IFR in a single engine airplane.

I made that mistake.... once. I never want to do it again. I think I spent a grand total of 30 minutes penetrating cloud. I'll admit that I fully intended to do it, it was perfectly legal, and my younger self at the time thought it was an acceptable risk. Granted it was over Saskatchewan and not BC, that just means I had a better chance of surviving being stupid. My older self knows better now. It is the single best piece of advice I try to impart on anyone who has any notions of single pilot single engine (and I'm not big on single pilot multi-engine) IFR flying - Don't. If you must (and there's some who will and do), have a good nav package and a good 3 axis autopilot. Have a co-pilot if you can get one. Have your will made out.

[Invertago]

mention Socata at all.

PS. Invertago - thank you for the link! Great advice. Did you find DA-40 performance adequate for the AB to BC trip?

Performance wise, the DA40 took 3 of us and light bags and almost full fuel, the seats were lacking in comfort so even though it had good range, 4 hours was about my comfort limit though for any given leg, but that matches my bladder anyhow. Only close comparison aircraft I've flown would be C182s and Piper Arrows. The DA40 It is the best budget cruiser (fuel wise anyhow). We where jumping between small town airports, nothing that would challenge any normal GA aircraft operated under gross. After the trip I had to fly pick up my trusty old C172 to fly the last hour home and those 40 year old Cessna seats are better then anything Diamond is putting in these days. The turbo arrow was nice, but I hate only having one door for everyone to pack in and out of. The C182 is truly the SUV and the only one where you can fill 4 seats and bags for a long trip. The DA40 really is the Economy Sedan of the bunch, both are easy to fly, the difference is greater comfort and fuel burn for the C182, or if you want to go off strip.

I can't really make up my mind on how I feel about the Arrow, nothing really wrong with it other then I hate 1 door.

Big warning for you / your passengers on the DA40 though, who ever is in the front and not flying (or when the autopilot is on) has a stick bouncing around between their legs which can be annoying. Sticks are fun, but only for the pilot and not for long trips IMO.

Oh, and if you open the cabin / door on a Piper or Diamond in the rain, everything gets wet inside.

[Shiny Side Up]

I can't really make up my mind on how I feel about the Arrow, nothing really wrong with it other then I hate 1 door.

I'm not a big fan of the Arrow as it seems like a one trick pony and a poor conversion of the basic Cherokee. The retractable gear and big engine makes it a poor climb performer, especially compared to the Cherokee D (or Cherokee 180, whichever you like) which in my experience out climbs and out hauls the Arrow - the Arrow only winning with about 10 extra knots at cruise (though with a higher fuel burn meaning their range is similar). Not that Arrows are bad airplanes, but the fixed gear Arrow, simply gives you more for less. Its unfortunate that Piper phased the Commanche out of its line up to introduce the Arrow as it was a superior performing machine. I keep wishing to find one of the rare Commanche 400s to try - rumor has it they post eye popping rate of climb numbers.

[akoch]

The safety statistics does not seem to support the multi-engine advantage very clearly. Often you would even see the light twins being appreciably below single-engine IFR in safety record. Am I wrong?

It was an interesting thought about penetrating the cloud layer. So it seems that the single engine plane is not likely to climb as well as a twin, hence spending more time in the cloud? So you are exposed to the loss of orientation and icing etc for longer. Is this the primary concern?

So what if you do have a good 3-axis AP, G1000-like avionics - would you still be as averse of the single-engine IFR?

[Cat Driver]

So what if you do have a good 3-axis AP, G1000-like avionics - would you still be as averse of the single-engine IFR?

If the engine quits the 3-axis autopilot and the avionics will not keep the airplane in the air.

So you are exposed to the loss of orientation

Loss of orientation in cloud is not a factor once you become competent flying by reference to the instruments only, in fact it is easier than flying visual.