I am looking for advice regarding a plane for commuting in the Colorado Rockies.

About Me: Student pilot, currently have 60ish hours in a 172 w/ 180 hp. Currently live in Fort Collins,CO, but will be moving to Durango, CO in the next 18 months. I will be bringing my current job with me to Durango and will be working remotely.

My mission: 95% of the time will be flying solo between Durango (KDRO or Animas Airpark) and Fort Collins (KFNL)

Budget: $40-65k

I have narrowed my list of planes to the following: Glasair Glastar, Cessna 172 180hp, Cessna 177 180hp, Cessna 182.

I really like the Glastar because it is a two-seater with a large cargo area. It appears to have better climb performance than the Cessna's even with a 160 hp. Does anyone have any real world solo climb performance numbers for the Cessna's (170 lb pilot)? I am really curious how they compare to the Glastar's advertised solo climb performance (2075 fpm for the 160hp). Is Glastar's number realistic? If not, what actually climb performance should I expect? The Glastar's cruise performance (130-140 kts) is close to a 182 and appears to better the 172 and 177.

I have heard of people removing the rear seat in a 177 and being able to fit two mountain bikes (the reason why I am moving to Durango) by just taking of the front wheel. The 177's large doors are a big plus, I'm not sure if trying to squeeze a mountain bike into 172 or 182 door is even feasible.

The one thing about the Glasair that worries me is insurance costs for a new pilot. I've heard it can be expensive relative to insurance for a certified plane.

Are their any planes that I am not considering that will fit my mission and budget? I appreciate any advice you can give. Thanks!

I'm biased, but the 182 is one of the best bang for buck plane out there. stable platform, parts a plenty, can carry a large load.

Hard to beat a good old early Cessna 182 for your mission.

Economical, lots of STCs, cheap(er) insurance, proven reliable, good speed, can haul a load, solid engine, and when you start hitting the backcountry strips within a few hours of Durango, you'll love the added HP and range.

Add an extended baggage, and you'll have no problem fitting mountain bikes and camping gear.

Flying any light single around the CO Rockies has to be done with diligence and respect, but the 182 does well. There's a reason why you see so many around here.

My 0.02

MM

I'll second some of the opinions here being based out of Denver myself and commonly flying to 00C/DRO/TEX, etc.
If your primary mission is to traverse the FNL-DRO route carrying personal cargo with a relatively low buy-in cost, a high horsepower 172 or 182 is well suited for the job.

SA Maule wrote: avoid tail draggers until you have a lot more experience

Why?????

Though based on the OP, an old C182 is the best bang for the buck out there right now for most kinds of private flying. Especially at your higher DA's.

Gump

F250 Superduty 4x4. Comfortable, reliable, good traction, and very crashworthy.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

GumpAir wrote:

SA Maule wrote: avoid tail draggers until you have a lot more experience

Why?????

Gump

Longer wait is just more lazy habits and more irrational apprehension to overcome when you do go there. IMO.
-DP

Ditto...ditto...ditto!! I have been looking at 180's/182's since spring for some of the reasons listed. A friend of mine, who flew bush planes in Alaska for 17 years recently sold his SC and was looking for a 180/185. We were discussing 180's and I mentioned I might possibly end up with a 182 due to the cheaper insurance. I guess he must have had the same thoughts because within a couple of weeks he had a 182 in his hangar. 180's are just pure sexy and I have always dreamed of having one, but old enough to know that what I want is not always what I need.

Wife is finally going to give up the D.C. job and relocate to MN. We are wanting something faster and that can haul a bit more load than my 172. 182's fit that bill very well. I have looked at Mooney's, Vickings', etc. the 182 is just a plain all around good aircraft. Part availability, and most any shop can and will work on it if needed. A person can find an older 182 for not much more than a 172. Maintaince and fuel cost will be higher than my 172 but I think I will be able to manage. Who knows, I may change my mind again by next week.
Good Luck in your search!

Hands Down Absolutely Cessna 182-Best Value, Utility, cost and performance in the mountains for your budget. Just buy a 182 and never look back. It will go 95% of the places a Skywagon will. I had a friend that was in a similar situation as you're in up here in Idaho. He was looking at some of the lower powered aircraft. Took him for a ride in a friends 182 and he "got it" right away and bought a 182. When I give up my high zoot 185, I will replace it with a 182.

You will not commute without an Instrument Ticket and VERY instrument capable airplane. Not to mention the intense vertical element of the mountains on your proposed commute clear across the state.

Of the airplanes you listed as possibilities I concur with the C182 for the best first airplane with the best bang for the buck.




I don't mean to be a spoiler, but, realistically the best advise for commuting was the F250 and 7 hour drive.

Unless I can fly class "A" airspace all day everyday, would drive a 4x4. Small air cooled engines need a lot of attention too. Just my experience so far.

Yeah.....

Actual IMC. In winter weather. In the Colorado Rockies. In a C182 of any flavor....

Would not be a real fun, or smart, thing to do.

But..... When the weather's nice, and there are a lot of really nice days up there year round, it beats the shit outta that drive any day of the week.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:

SA Maule wrote: avoid tail draggers until you have a lot more experience

Why?????

Though based on the OP, an old C182 is the best bang for the buck out there right now for most kinds of private flying. Especially at your higher DA's.

Gump

That was my first reaction too - but he's right. Insurance costs will be unduly high.

Of course if he's planning on doing a lot of hours, that will be a one-year problem only.

I didn't let it put me off, and I am happier for it. Last year's pain, is this year's gain.

Mooney!

Just buy a Pilautus Porter.

Gump

I hauled 4 bikes and two couples and our winter gear in two trips from GJT to the Utah backcountry for for a (chilly) canyoning trip a short while ago in the 182. I may have burned quite a bit less fuel than a 172 for that trip with the climbing and the remarkable headwinds.

The difference in instrument capabilities between a 172 and a 182 isn't a factor for me...I wouldn't tangle with the weather in either one going over the big rocks unless *maybe* if had a turbo. The notion is entirely theoretical, and a bit unthinkable for me.

The maintenance costs are lower with a 172, but not dramatically lower than with a 182. The purchase cost difference between a 182 and a 180 hp 172 is pretty small all things considered. The insurance on both is really low, especially with an instrument rating.

A 182 will let you carry pax and gear out of many of the strips in the area in the warmer months when a 172 would be marginable or impossible.

Since my Sis lives in Durango and I live in Ft. Collins, I fly the Ft. Collins--Durango route relatively often in my 180hp/CS equipped P172D and have flown it in a number of other airplanes. I echo that a 4WD pickup is the most reliable way to commute--I've driven it countless times in my 4WD Ranger, and many times I was glad for the 4WD.

The easiest and lowest flying route is essentially down the Front Range, then over La Veta Pass, then slightly southwesterly into NM, then back northwesterly to Durango. If you're following airways, which I think you should to keep from getting lost, it's V81--PUB--V83--ALS--V368--BRAZO--V211--KDRO. It's a 3 hour flight if the winds are favorable in my airplane, but I've had it take as long as 4 hours and a little less returning--I flight plan for 115 knots. It's a little quicker in a Skylane (and a lot quicker in a Mooney--you're welcome, Bryan ) IFR requires getting to 14,000'; VFR can be done lower, but still pretty high.

That route minimizes the need to know much about mountain flying, but still a low time pilot can get into all sorts of trouble on that route, especially in windy or marginal weather. I wouldn't recommend even thinking about any other route, like through the mountains, until you have a whole lot more time under your belt and specific mountain flying training. The Rockies are nothing to fool with, even if you know the ropes.

The quickest driving route is I-25 to I-76 to 285 over Kenosha Pass to Saguache to Center, west on 112 to Del Norte, then 160 through Pagosa over Wolf Creek to Durango. It's a 7 1/4 hour drive in good weather, not counting stops. My favorite lunch stop is at Villa Grove, about 20 miles south of Saguache--there's a little cafe in the back of the Villa Grove General Store which has outstanding sandwiches, If you're there during the dinner hour, their dinners are also outstanding, but you have to like what they serve, because there are no choices.

For the flying part, my 180hp Hawk works well enough if kept light; a Skylane would be better and could carry more of a load. The heaviest load I've carried in my airplane on that route was 2 people plus dog plus luggage, roughly 450-500 lbs. (I didn't weigh it). It was no trouble making it to the 14,000' MEA, but the winds that day made it a 4 hour flight. Take the back seat out of either airplane, and there's room for a dismantled mountain bike--might just have to take off the front wheel. I carry foldup bikes in mine with the seat still there. If you replace the hinge pins of the doors with stainless steel pull pins, you just take the door off to load large objects.

Incidentally, I think any low time pilot makes a huge, almost fatal mistake to consider a high performance experimental of any kind as his first airplane. Much better to stick with something a lot more docile until you've amassed several hundred hours at least. I have nothing against any of them, but they're more of a handful than you are likely to be able to handle for awhile.

Cary

I just threw that into foreflight, which is programmed for my 182j speeds. That's quite a commute. Flying direct shows 236 nautical and almost 2 hours with no wind. Looking at the ifr charts, there's no realistic way to file that route with a normally aspirated skylane, then there's oxygen requirements etc. Most all minimum altitudes are 16 ish which means 17 going East. It also requires cutting across a dozen victor routes into Denver. I can't imagine flying that route direct vfr either more than once to say you did it. Looks like if you carried a sleeping bag, you could turn the corner at Rominger or Durango and work it out sometimes. You'd get good at conversing with Denver. I don't see a 182 being much better than a 172 flying the realistic routes. 4gph more flying along the edge of the mountains at 9-10k. 15 knots faster.

Nosedragger wrote:I just threw that into foreflight, which is programmed for my 182j speeds. That's quite a commute. Flying direct shows 236 nautical and almost 2 hours with no wind. Looking at the ifr charts, there's no realistic way to file that route with a normally aspirated skylane, then there's oxygen requirements etc. Most all minimum altitudes are 16 ish which means 17 going East. It also requires cutting across a dozen victor routes into Denver. I can't imagine flying that route direct vfr either more than once to say you did it. Looks like if you carried a sleeping bag, you could turn the corner at Rominger or Durango and work it out sometimes. You'd get good at conversing with Denver. I don't see a 182 being much better than a 172 flying the realistic routes. 4gph more flying along the edge of the mountains at 9-10k. 15 knots faster.

Yeah, I've done it direct in the TR182 I was partnered in and in the Mooney 231 I flew for its owner for a couple years. In nice weather, it was gorgeous. In crappy weather, it was a no-go direct, and I used the route I described, down the front range and then west. Even that was dicey at times and sometimes resulted in a no-go, all depending on the icing level.

I think most of us will agree, that SE airplanes can be used to commute, but not 100% by any means. If the Rockies are in the way, it's probably barely more than 50%, unless the timing is really flexible.

Cary

So far this is what I have interpreted from the reply's:

GET A 182!

This will make my wife happy, as her input has been get the one with the biggest engine. She used to fly Chinooks for the army, so is used to a bit more horsepower.

Another question, would you ever buy a plane that has been used for skydiving? I found this 59 182 (http://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?id=907748). I like the skydiving door from the standpoint of loading cargo (mtn bikes). The price is good, the instrument panel isn't ancient, and engine time is low. I can deal with spending several grand getting the interior re-done. I really like the look of the straight tail 182's.

I plan on doing a fair amount of mountain flying training prior to flying DGO to FNL as a commute. I work with someone who has been flying year round from Steamboat to job sites throughout Colorado since the 80's with a 172 (180 hp), so I know it can be done (safely). I am prepared to make the 7 hour drive if weather isn't cooperating.

p.s. Cary, I lived in Durango from 1995 to 2004 and have driven that route countless times as well (in my Toyota 4x4 pickup w/ snow tires). I agree Villa Grove Trading Post is hands down the best lunch stop on that route. I also recommend Three Barrel Brewing in Del Norte.