I guess I should have read a few more posts before making my own , but getting to know a group of experienced pilots around home is like trying to swat flys with a shoe string they are always touch and go . I hope the thread hasn't put anyone out . I think I have narrowed my search down to the 170 and the 182 . Fabric is out but deffinately want the taildraggers , probably harder to learn but they just look cool .

Drillerdave wrote:I guess I should have read a few more posts before making my own , but getting to know a group of experienced pilots around home is like trying to swat flys with a shoe string they are always touch and go . I hope the thread hasn't put anyone out . I think I have narrowed my search down to the 170 and the 182 . Fabric is out but deffinately want the taildraggers , probably harder to learn but they just look cool .

Tail dragging a 182 will get expensive, and there's a long learning curve. (For the airplane)

Nosedragger wrote:

Drillerdave wrote:I guess I should have read a few more posts before making my own , but getting to know a group of experienced pilots around home is like trying to swat flys with a shoe string they are always touch and go . I hope the thread hasn't put anyone out . I think I have narrowed my search down to the 170 and the 182 . Fabric is out but deffinately want the taildraggers , probably harder to learn but they just look cool .

Tail dragging a 182 will get expensive, and there's a long learning curve. (For the airplane)

Yeah, I think you're thinking 180 vs. 182 (taildragger vs. trike). Like it or not, learning in a trike is a whole lot easier than learning in a taildragger--no offense to all my taildragger friends here. I would never recommend converting (no offense, EZ), as being a very expensive way of taking one good airplane and making it into very possibly a substandard airplane. Better to start with something already created the way you want it.

Incidentally, that's not a bad idea with all sorts of airplane decisions. It's always less expensive to buy something already equipped the way you want it, than to equip it that way later. For instance, a nice airplane equipped only for VFR will cost an arm and a leg to change into a nice IFR airplane--you could easily spend your total budget ($20-30K) on avionics.

On the size of your budget, that's really, really minimal. A catastrophic maintenance issue would shut you down altogether. For instance, I paid a premium price for my very low time P172D, with a 180hp C/S conversion. I was willing to pay that, because the airplane was relatively ding-free and had an engine which by reputation should have lasted another 1000 hours. Instead, it lasted only 15 hours--threw a rod and I landed in a field. The newly created engine was $23,000. While it was down, I had other upgrades done. $30K and 3 months later, I got my airplane back. So you have to be ready for pretty expensive contingencies--purchase price is only the beginning.

Cary

lesuther wrote:
Mooney E F G. easy to maintain, no student would likely have an issue using it for training.

Are you kidding? As far as I've heard, Mooneys have earned a worldwide reputation for being more difficult to maintain, difficult acess for your hands and tools, and that you have to be a 75 pound anorexic Korean teenager to work on it.

Altough there's plenty of pilots here with lots more time in their logbooks than me, I will stand by the statement that a slick low drag high powered retractable gear airplane will get ahead of a student and create a dangerous situation much faster than a draggy Cessna or Cherokee. You don't teach your 16 year old kid to drive in a fast or twitchy car.

It's been my experience that the people who dislike the Mooneys for perceived maintenance issues, cabin room, and difficulty in flying have never actually worked on one or flown one.

I'm not real high time in them, maybe 400-500 hours total in E's and F's. Flown properly, and not like a C150, they are a joy to fly, dirt simple, and get you down the road faster, on less gas than just about anything else out there. They are fussy about speed in the pattern, and flown properly slow, will short/soft field just fine.

The O/P needs a car he can drive on the freeway, at freeway speeds. A Mooney does that with a simple learning curve. Sure, a C150 is a better teenager car, but in a short period of time this student will be a grownup pilot. Being stuck 800 miles each way as a commute in a draggy Cessna or Cherokee would be like riding a Moped on the interstate.

Gump

I have to agree with Gump and others, get a Mooney or something similar built for speed and efficiency. I have a 170 and I think it's a great plane..... But 800 mile cross country flights isn't one of its strong suits. That would get old real fast. I would want something fast that burns as little fuel as possible.

GumpAir wrote:It's been my experience that the people who dislike the Mooneys for perceived maintenance issues, cabin room, and difficulty in flying have never actually worked on one or flown one.

I'm not real high time in them, maybe 400-500 hours total in E's and F's. Flown properly, and not like a C150, they are a joy to fly, dirt simple, and get you down the road faster, on less gas than just about anything else out there. They are fussy about speed in the pattern, and flown properly slow, will short/soft field just fine.

The O/P needs a car he can drive on the freeway, at freeway speeds. A Mooney does that with a simple learning curve. Sure, a C150 is a better teenager car, but in a short period of time this student will be a grownup pilot. Being stuck 800 miles each way as a commute in a draggy Cessna or Cherokee would be like riding a Moped on the interstate.

Gump

There is a reason that for a good long while, after Cessna and Piper quit making airplanes that Mooneys kept selling in large numbers. I did owner assisted annuals and I/A supervised repair on mine without any unusual difficulties that I recall. Don't forget the C model with the carburetor either. I flight planned 155-160mph at 9gph. The 1963 through 1967 models with the manual gear are the best buy and the simplest to maintain; but you want to have that type specific pre-buy inspection to make sure that the AD on the manual gear has been complied with and a check for corrosion on the inner 4130 fuselage cage caused by leaky windows. Other than the new manual gear AD I don't think (?) that there is a single airframe AD on any all metal Mooney airframe from those years. In 1968 Mooney quit flush riveting the bottom side of the wing and they slowed down about 5-10 mph in cruise. All models were slower from 1968 until the J model (201) came out in '74-'75. I wouldn't buy any electric gear Mooney until the J model. Finally, I think my C model was easier to land smoothly and in MUCH stronger cross-winds than any Cessna.
Just $.02 from a one time very happy low time owner.

GumpAir wrote:It's been my experience that the people who dislike the Mooneys for perceived maintenance issues, cabin room, and difficulty in flying have never actually worked on one or flown one.

I'm not real high time in them, maybe 400-500 hours total in E's and F's. Flown properly, and not like a C150, they are a joy to fly, dirt simple, and get you down the road faster, on less gas than just about anything else out there. They are fussy about speed in the pattern, and flown properly slow, will short/soft field just fine.

The O/P needs a car he can drive on the freeway, at freeway speeds. A Mooney does that with a simple learning curve. Sure, a C150 is a better teenager car, but in a short period of time this student will be a grownup pilot. Being stuck 800 miles each way as a commute in a draggy Cessna or Cherokee would be like riding a Moped on the interstate.

Gump

A really good alternative would be one of the RV's! Fixed gear (no retrac. issues to deal with) and around 200mph on less than 10gph.

Drillerdave wrote:I need experienced advice and opinions. I work in the oilfield and drive approx 800+\- miles one way to work once a month . I am looking into getting my private pilot license, and I'm thinking my money would be better spent if I applied the 140$ an hour toward the purchase of my first plane instead of rent . I need a plane that will get me there and back with short field capability. It doesn't have to be a speed Demon to beat my 16 hour drive time , I would prefer dependability and control over speed . I have access to a 1400' grass strip near home in mississippi with covered hanger , but for the 14 days at work the plane will be exposed to the elements in New Mexico . Any recommendations for a starter plane would be greatly appreciated . If my thinking is way off base I take constructive criticism well

Old straight tail 182 hands down - most utitilty for buck . 120-130 knots all day at 10-12 gallons per hour - with 0 470 and no alka car gas ( with stc) 800-1000 useful load , easy to insure and fly. Keep it simple -

Yep, bang for your buck is either a straight tail 182 or an older Mooney.
Mooney will save some time and fuel. 182 will build you a little more time if that's what you are looking to do.
Cost on fuel will be pretty close running that distance between a 170-172 and 182.

Insurance will be cheaper with the fixed gear too.

I have no experience flying a Mooney, but I do have experience wrenching on them. When you made your mission statement, and budget known, my first thought was an older Cessna 182. You will have ok speed, gentle training, and great parts availability. As an experienced mechanic, I do understand the dependability and simplicity of the Mooney. With that said, parts availability is becoming an increasingly major issue for these older "legacy" aircraft. I would venture to say that it would be much easier to find parts for the 182 than older Mooney aircraft. Also, knowing you will be far from home often, it will be much easier to find a mechanic willing to work on a 182 than a Mooney. For you Mooney fans, I do think they are good aircraft, and a great bang for their buck, and I'm not afraid from working on them, but I hear often in mechanic circles "I hate working on Mooneys". Not every shop is willing to help out a Mooney owner.

My opinion - In your budget, and mission statement - Cessna 182

I have 800'ish hours in taildraggers (most of it Maule TW time). 99% of the time, I would recommend a nose-dragger... They can do 99% of what a TW airplane can do and you will worry less about x-winds at your destination airport. May not seem like a big deal now (because of the coolness factor) but if you are doing long x-country's (e.g. 5-700 miles), the TW airplane will become a limiting factor...

Jim

A 182 is hard to go wrong in. And if you do go wrong, it is easy to resell.

And if you're going to fly a 182 after you get your license, just learn to fly in a 182 to begin with. It won't cost that much more.

Be prepared to drive as often as you fly due to weather.

800 mile commute? Seriously? I would go commercial. Heck, I even pay people to fly me from Kenai to Anchorage sparing me a 3 hour drive. 800 miles is farther than from Soldotna to Barrow and there is no way I would want to do that commute in my plane........just me.

Really a Cherokee 180 would have to be a good allrounder. Simple to fly with a bit of carrying capacity, some speed and not over expensive maintenance. The SIDS compliance requirement may make them far better than the Cessna, down here you could spend your whole purchase budget trying to achieve compliance

I sometimes commute 600 miles either in a Bearhawk (similar in cruise to a C-182) or go commercial. Same time and expense either way. Personal aircraft is way more convent and flexible. Personally, if I were to buy a plane given your relative flying experience, it would a C-182, Cherokee 235, or something like an RV-6. A retract like a Mooney is a good choice too, but with higher insurance costs. I'm a big fan of higher horsepower machines given NM's density altitudes especially given your size and full fuel tanks, you'll want a lot of ponies taking off from there. They make the shorter strips you mention more possible once you gain experience flying out of them lightly loaded. It is much less expensive to buy the machine you really need the first time rather than compromising only to find out later you should have bought the larger model to begin with.

Drillerdave wrote:I need experienced advice and opinions. I work in the oilfield and drive approx 800+\- miles one way to work once a month . I am looking into getting my private pilot license, and I'm thinking my money would be better spent if I applied the 140$ an hour toward the purchase of my first plane instead of rent . I need a plane that will get me there and back with short field capability. It doesn't have to be a speed Demon to beat my 16 hour drive time , I would prefer dependability and control over speed . I have access to a 1400' grass strip near home in mississippi with covered hanger , but for the 14 days at work the plane will be exposed to the elements in New Mexico . Any recommendations for a starter plane would be greatly appreciated . If my thinking is way off base I take constructive criticism well

You might not like what I have to say, but here's my two cents worth.....
If you are getting your pilots license (and plane) for the main purpose of commuting 800 miles each way to work, I think you may be setting yourself up for disappointment. Weather conditions will probably make it un-doable as often as not, even for an experienced pilot, esp when you have a strict time window you have to meet. You push that (esp as a newbie) & you may be setting yourself up for disaster. Plenty of pilots, even experienced ones, have killed themselves pushing weather & time due to get-there-itis. You might be better served by just continuing to drive, or by finding some sort of commercial air options, even if you have to have a car on each end.

If you want to fly for fun, and the commuting thing is just a potential side benefit, go ahead on.

A good question for the OP would be this, how far is the actual flight? You say it's a 800 mile drive, so that could he a 400 mile flight for all we know. A lot of good responses on here, but lots of negatives regarding an 800 mile flight. Just curious if you've sat down and figured how long the flight will actually be?

I have to agree with most of the thoughts here... If you are a new pilot (dont have your ticket yet) its pretty unrealistic to think you can rely on an airplane to commute. The honest and unfortunate reality will be you will end up driving most of the time.

If you truly want to commute, I would wait until you have your private AND IFR, and even then it will be hit/miss. I would focus on the "first plane" part of your requirement and if you get nice WX, then heck, fly the commute.

Excellent point about outgrowing a trainer very fast. No offense to the 172 crowd here, but I would skip that and go with a 170B. That would fall right in your price range and give you some room for unforeseen issues.

Good luck!

Squash wrote:800 mile commute? Seriously? I would go commercial. Heck, I even pay people to fly me from Kenai to Anchorage sparing me a 3 hour drive. 800 miles is farther than from Soldotna to Barrow and there is no way I would want to do that commute in my plane........just me.

Good point on trying to commute, even 2 weeks apart, for 800 miles. That's a long distance in any light single, no matter how fast it is, because the likelihood of having to traverse 2 or 3 weather systems is good, especially in the middle of the summer and in the dead of winter. While doing it a couple times a year makes for adventure, trying to do it a couple times a month every month could get not only pretty old, but pretty chancy at times. Even very experienced, well credentialed pilots, can find it pretty daunting, let alone a newbie with little experience, no instrument rating, etc. All that FWIW.

Cary