Zzz wrote: I have a mental block with my own frugality when it comes to considering 230hp class and above, though a considerable number of us own those planes. It's just money I guess.

I've experienced the same block, though I do have to remember a trip to Twin Falls I took for avionics work a while back. My buddy picked me up in his '59 182 and I paid the fuel bill for both planes (mine has an 0-360) round trip and they were identical.

As others have said here a 182 will happily fly around @ 9gph like an 0-360 172 at similar speeds. I don't like thinking about the $5000 prop overhaul we just had on a Maule that my plane will never experience.

Just money I guess-

My 235HP Maule will burn 8GPH at Super Cub speed. For some reason the black knob is usually much closer to the panel. zoom zoom. Love that HP when taking off from Simonds and the trees were coming up fast. I wanted 400hp about now!

Zzz wrote:..... I have a mental block with my own frugality when it comes to considering 230hp class and above, though a considerable number of us own those planes. It's just money I guess.

There's a quantum leap in fuel burn and pretty much all other costs too, jumping from a 150/160hp airplane to a 230-ish hp one. 150/160 works pretty well for a 2-seater, but if you want 4 seats better crank it up. The 180-210 hp class is kind of a "tween" category-- very capable, but not quite the bank-breaker the bigger airplanes are.

If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times.... a 170/172 will fill 90% the needs of 90% of the pilots. That is why so many of them were sold. Its one of the most versatile classes of planes built. Not really the best at anything but will do the job without much fan-fare. I'll even be nice and throw the PA20/22 in this group. Although I never could warm up to the 'ol milk stool profile of the tricycle geared version. This class of plane are generally reasonably priced and cheap to own and operate. With fuel approaching $7/gallon in many places in the lower 48 any plane that burns over 10 gallons/hr. is going to get mighty expensive to fly for anyone of us without deep pockets.

I currently fall under this "evaluation of mission" too.

I like the 90% rule. There will always be the want list and no airplane does it all.

Also, don't factor out the "grin factor". When you go out to the hangar and open the door, there needs to be that special smile. If you don't like what's in the hangar, you won't enjoy it as much and it will sit.

I have a pretty clear idea of what my new mission is. Now I just need to find the right plane at the right price.

I have a lot of flights that would benefit from a larger plane, but what I can afford to operate a lot, and maintain in really good condition, is a PA-22, milkstool and all, so that's what we have. We fly it a lot. I love knowing that I can afford to use it when I want to. I don't love knowing that it will take me two trips to get my family of 4 anywhere, but it works. I like putting 100 hrs on in six months of flying, in a bigger plane I couldn't afford to do that. So evaluate your mission, sure. But I can't afford the plane for 90% of my mission. I have a 60% plane, and I use it for about 90% by making multiple trips where needed.

WWhunter wrote:If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times.... a 170/172 will fill 90% the needs of 90% of the pilots. That is why so many of them were sold. Its one of the most versatile classes of planes built. Not really the best at anything but will do the job without much fan-fare. I'll even be nice and throw the PA20/22 in this group. Although I never could warm up to the 'ol milk stool profile of the tricycle geared version. This class of plane are generally reasonably priced and cheap to own and operate. With fuel approaching $7/gallon in many places in the lower 48 any plane that burns over 10 gallons/hr. is going to get mighty expensive to fly for anyone of us without deep pockets.

I have to agree, I've been pretty happy with my 170. I'd love to have a big engined 180 but I just wouldn't be able to afford to fly it near as much, it would also cost at least twice as much to buy.The 170 isn't too bad on fuel, it costs about $35-40 an hour to fly it. It's not the fastest and it wont climb the best or get off the shortest but it gets the job done. If you know what you're doing you can still take it in and out of some fairly difficult spots. I've had mine in and out of Vines, Dewey Moore, Mile Hi, and I've even had it off airport at nearly 9k feet. Just don't expect to be hauling anything with you when you do it. I also like the 170 for how much room it has. When I was first in the airplane market I was going to buy my Dad's 125hp 120. I'm glad I didn't. The 120 is a blast to fly but I would never be able to do the things we do now. The 170 has enough usefull load and room to load up a weeks worth of camping gear for my wife and I, 80lb dog, and full fuel that will get me a safe 4 hours of flying before I need to stop

This is a good thread. As far as I can tell, my 75hp Luscombe, based here at 5000 feet altitude in the summer is a 10% airplane. Maybe less. If I was a better pilot I'm sure I would feel differently about it. But I'm not, and I don't.

It's tough when we make most of our decisions using the old frank and beans instead of grey matter.

If it's good enough for PiperPainter it's good enough for me I think.


EB

Robw56.

I agree totally. I bought the closest plane to what I thought I had to have.

Instead of browsing Barnstormers and TAP and wishing and aching, I get to fly the river. It might not fit my desires 100%, but I am in the air.

The cool thing is that, with practice, a 70% plane will get close to 100%.

I have also learned that every time I look at my dream plane now, I have nightmares of my old 170 staring at me. Guess I'll have to keep her and let my 2 sons fly her.


Mercifully Free From the Ravages of Intelligence

In 93 while in college I did the math and figured that I could buy and fly an old tri-pacer for the same money I could rent to get ratings and build time. The airplane was great and I flew it all over the country usually packed crammed full of people and stuff. If somebody wanted to go some were I was game to take them.. Most of the time if we shopped fuel prices we could fly it for the same gas money as driving!!! I had great adventures and loved it.. BUT. There were a few cons.
1. With cross country I was always stretching my fuel.
2. With four seats it was easily overloaded and I was frequently pushing its performance limits.
3. For me it never had the grin factor that Matt talked about. The third wheel was always on the wrong end.
After awhile I found that my flying was changing to suit the tri-pacers abilitys and not so much the other way around, I would pass up chances at pure fun flying, but fly more cc missions. And I carried more cargo because I could.

In 96 I traded straight across for a Cessna 140. I loved that old ride!! It flew just a few mph slower on 5 gph instead of 8. With slightly better range. I found that I flew more because I could afford to. I lost some utility, I couldn't fit the family any more. But realistically I had the tri pacer for 3 years and hauled the whole fam damily only twice.

In the end I was happier with the 140.

1. It was cheaper to fly

2. It had the grin factor.

3. More fun flying

4. It's harder to overload. Just because there was room to put the weight.,but you get creative and can almost always figure out away to take what you really need.

Now I have a rans s-7 and it does every thing I loved the 140 for just ramped up a notch. I even use it for cross country more than I thought I would. Just compare it to driving instead of the C180.

Buy the two place. Then join a flying club that has a four seater for family outings.

This thing of flying slow being a bad thing, I kind of get. BUT, it does allow/ force one to log more airtime, obvious yeah, but I remember a friend with a 200 mph varieze complaining about how little hours he had in it due to getting wherever so quickly! I never forgot that, and of course don't have that "problem" flying a S-7! The 16 buck an hour direct operating expense (at most) makes the sub100 mph cruise much more palatable.

I've had a few chances to ditch the skylane and it always made more sense to keep it around. In my case, I'm lucky to get 100 hours a year. If I had a cheaper plane to fly, I might get more time in after work or just screwing around in general but I'd fly less for business or family trips. I pour $6000/yr into the 182 but I have radar service almost everywhere I go at 12k, it flys anything I can slam the doors on, crosswinds are a non-event, and it's a less contested write off than a fat tired taildragger. I do envy the guys pouring car gas in right now though.

Zzz wrote:5 gph (Rotax) vs 10 gph (O-360) burn suddenly sounds a lot better. I have a mental block with my own frugality when it comes to considering 230hp class and above, though a considerable number of us own those planes. It's just money I guess.

Try operating a turbine, and you'll be happy with any piston engine under 300hp for ever more....

The previous comment I made about having a slow aircraft in order to build more time can be taken too far. This pilot decided he wanted to fly, but not go anywhere.
From the shop bathroom library.

I'm really struggling with my mission as well. I'm uber-tired of renting, and ready to own. I simply cannot decide what I'm shopping for. One minute I'm drooling over J3s and the next I'm wondering if I really can get it up and over 13,5 to cross Rollins pass. Next minute I'm shopping for 182's, then thinking of what it's like to drive a pickup around the patch (not a dig - I like pickups). I could live with a citabria, but can't get a bicycle in the back without a struggle, certainly not with a pax. A maule would be the ticket - but finding a decent one I can afford is appearing to be a challenge - and the insurance is a bitch.

To top it all off - I have a small family - and they don't know if they want to ride with me yet. A two place will not cut it for the 3 of us, let alone camping gear. Today I wanted to fly us 3 to Steamboat for breakfast - and couldn't because all my rental aircraft (i belong to 2 clubs - access to 5 different 4-place planes w/ 180+ hp) were booked or down for maintenance. ;-(

Oh, the humanity.... Ready to buy - but can't decide what I'm shopping for - and determined not to make the wrong decision and lock myself into something that will be hard to get rid of.

Maybe the answer will be at bottom of another beer. We shall see....

Hard to see a 172 or a 182 as something that is hard to sell unless you overpay and are underwater at the time you want to sell.

Nosedragger wrote: I've had a few chances to ditch the skylane and it always made more sense to keep it around. ...... I do envy the guys pouring car gas in right now though.

The low compression 470's are approevd for 92 octane cargas. STC costs a buck-and-a-half per horsepower. That'd be $345 for 230hp. That's paid off pretty quick at 11-12 gph when you're saving up to $2 a gallon.

I've had my '58 182 for about 18 months now, and I have to say the 15 gph can be intimidating (P-Ponked). At my prices for fuel, that's about $92/hr for fuel alone.

On the other hand, one of the fundamental rules of airplane ownership is that big guys (6'4" 245#) and little planes don't mix too well. I fit in this plane, can take my 80# lab and all my hunting stuff to the duck shack, and not worry in the least about performance. I'm working on my short-field/rough-field techniques, and have hopes of getting my performance into the 300' landings, 400' takeoffs the plane is capable of. On my most recent trip back I saw 180 Kts on the GPS for groundspeed against IAS of 135kts. I guess I can always dial the throttle back a bit, but where's the fun in that?

If you play hard, you pay hard. Fact of life!
Does Knopp approve his 470+50 engine for mogas?

hotrod150 wrote:If you play hard, you pay hard. Fact of life!
Does Knopp approve his 470+50 engine for mogas?

I don't know. Seein's as it does is low compression, maybe he has. I'll ask the question - not that I'll use it, but nice to know.