lawndart wrote:Most of my (limited) hours are in a PA28-140/160, and I enjoyed it much more than the 160HP 172s I got my training in. But I've never tried to land either on a gravel or grass strip, so my opinion is might be irrelevant.

I've been reading the threads on this forum about PA28s, and it seems like they can be flown into some challenging fields if flown right. Seems like all that is also true for just about any other aircraft, including the 152s and 172s that are in my price range.

Steve

If you’re camping, the built-in shade that comes with any single-engine Cessna is worth a lot. It also works in the rain.

High wing allows me to hoard more junk in my hangar. My good old former PA23-250 required the entire floor space vs high wing. Just watch out for the Cessna flaps and ailerons, very sharp on trailing edge.

8GCBC wrote:.... Just watch out for the Cessna flaps and ailerons, very sharp on trailing edge.

Just ask the guy with the diamond shaped tribal scarring across his forehead.
This is one situation where being short is an advantage.

8GCBC wrote:High wing allows me to hoard more junk in my hangar. My good old former PA23-250 required the entire floor space vs high wing. Just watch out for the Cessna flaps and ailerons, very sharp on trailing edge.

That's another reason perfectly justifiable reason to put an airglas fork and 850's on......safety Lol

Wasn't going to chime in but...screw it, here goes.

Seems (as mentioned) you prefer the low wing Cherokee types over the high wing Cessna. Might this be due to their less intimidating stall and landing characteristics? From my limited experience, they stall more mildly and also much less effort needed when landing in a crosswind. I realize this is due to the wing lower to the ground in ground effect and less suseptible to crosswind like the wing up in the air Cessna. The downside to this is when you land at those 'less maintained' strips and that low wing is down in the grass getting hit with who knows what that might be hidden there. The high wing has little to no worries in such a situation. Granted, yu might not be landing in those types of places, but it's insurance that you don't pay for.

After reading all your replies, it seems like you need to do a little more research in what you really 'need'. Don't buy an airplane based on what you think you will be doing, buy it on what you rally will be doing. That, in the beginning will be local flying with the occassional cross country into airports easily accessed. Get a bunch of hours under your belt before trying the riskier places. You'll be surprised how slowly the hours add up.

I see you were/are looking at a Cessna 162, sort of 180 degrees from what you initially thought you needed. Nothing wrong with it at all, nice little plane. Personally, and I have said this many times on here, sounds like you need to get that Cherokee or a 172 (my favorite) and build some time before settling on the dream plane. I'm not sure of the market for the CHerokee, but will say that the market for 172's is nearly aslways good. Fly it a couple hundred hours and upgrade. This was my initial plan when I started flying over 33 years ago. Bought a 172 for time building. Guess what? I STILL have that same plane.

I have purchased a few other planes over the years but have held onto the 172 because it has been the best all around airplane for me. It's taken me all over the lower 48 states with excellent reliabilty and it's relatively cheap to own and operate. Plus, any time you have any issues, well, any A&P worth a crap can work on it. Yes, still have that trusty steed and after writing this....I think I am going into town, fire the old girl up and go flying!

WWhunter wrote:...
After reading all your replies, it seems like you need to do a little more research in what you really 'need'. Don't buy an airplane based on what you think you will be doing, buy it on what you rally will be doing. That, in the beginning will be local flying with the occassional cross country into airports easily accessed. Get a bunch of hours under your belt before trying the riskier places. You'll be surprised how slowly the hours add up...

This.

You want too much out of your first airplane. Everyone does. The lucky ones don't get what they think they want, but end up with what they actually need...a fun, AFFORDABLE airplane in which to learn how to really fly, as apposed to just getting a pilots license.

I'll say it again: Get yourself a Taylorcraft or Luscomb or J3 or a Cessna 120/140 and really learn to fly. They're a LOT more fun to buzz around the local area and time-build than a Cherokee will ever be, and you'll be an infinitely better pilot with a couple hundred hours of anemic tail dragger time under your belt than you will be with twice the Cherokee time. 10 knot x-wind in a Cherokee...ho-hum. Same x-wind in a 90hp taildragger...now you're really challenging yourself and learning something.

Cross country flying? No problem. My wife and I regularly flew our Cessna 140 from California to Idaho, Utah, Arizona and Montana, and that involves crossing the Sierra Nevada's just for a start...

Buy a classic taildragger in good shape and keep it nice and you'll sell it for the same money when you're ready for a larger airplane. I flew mine 600 hours and sold it for exactly what I originally paid.

Thanks a lot for the input guys!

I've been running numbers, and am thinking a tri-pacer might be a good first airplane, as was suggested earlier by at least a couple people. I think it would be a happy middle ground between the planes in the Luscombe/C140 class, and those in the PA28/C172 class. The acquisition cost is significantly lower than the PA28 I was gravitating toward. Fuel consumption and engine overhaul reserve would be lower, and insurance cost would be slightly lower as well. I don't know how the annual costs would compare. I was surprised by how little it gives up in cruise, and I assume it will climb similarly to a PA28 when carrying a similar load even with lower power. It would probably be much more fun to putt around in, and would have high-wing advantages when flying into progressively more challenging back country spots and camping out. I could probably convert it to TD for a reasonable cost once I'm ready to make that jump if I don't decide to upgrade to something more capable by then.

Now here's the crux... It sounds like $1500 a month for a hangar would be a deal here in Eastern MA. It looks like tie-down, on the other hand, would only cost about $85 a month at Beverly. Beverly is the next closest airport other than BOS Logan, which is about 5 minutes from my house, but I assume would be totally unfeasible in terms of cost...

Do you guys think it's feasible to keep a fabric aircraft from deteriorating outdoors by using a full-aircraft cover? I don't think I'd mind removing and reinstalling the cover every time given my physical condition and the long pre and post-flight inspections that I'm used to performing on Blackhawks. I think MA is a relatively low UV environment, but I really know nothing about fabric and would appreciate some schooling!

Thanks,

Steve

If the UV layer was correctly applied then the fabric was put on, there won't be any issues tied down outside. Go up to Alaska and see how many fabric aircraft are tied down. Even without covers on.

lawndart wrote:I could probably convert it to TD for a reasonable cost once I'm ready to make that jump if I don't decide to upgrade to something more capable by then.

Don’t plan on this. Waaaay cheaper to sell a Tripacer and buy an already converted PA-22/20 or a straight up PA-20.

Storing a fabric plane outside is ok if the finish is good, but personally I’d prefer to buy a set of wing covers at a minimum if I was storing my Pacer outdoors for an extended period of time.

Pacers are great airplanes. They do a good amount of things pretty well, and are pretty affordable as far as airplanes go.

CamTom12 wrote:...Pacers are great airplanes. They do a good amount of things pretty well, and are pretty affordable as far as airplanes go.

Yep. They're okay enough at everything that I've found it fairly hard to 'justify' a second airplane. I kind of think of my Pacer as the equivalent of my Jeep Cherokee (XJ). They're cheap to buy, but you can sink a ton of money into it if you want. Tons of mods available for anything you can think of. Does alright for cross country, not the fastest or most comfortable, but not too slow. If you can restrain yourself and keep it simple, a stock Pacer/Tripacer can be very capable.

For any Jeep/offroading guys here you may understand what I'm talking about: I figure Supercubs are the Wrangler guys (Carbon Cubs are JK/JLs), Pacers are the XJs, and 180/185s are full size trucks...

kevbot wrote:For any Jeep/offroading guys here you may understand what I'm talking about: I figure Supercubs are the Wrangler guys (Carbon Cubs are JK/JLs), Pacers are the XJs, and 180/185s are full size trucks...

Hahahahaha

Sounds like we might have a winner! If only there were a Stinson 108 nosedragger, we could keep going around in circles!

Any thoughts on fabric vs metal PA22s? I see an all-metal one on TaP. I'd want to upgrade the engine. Not sure how much performance metal gives up, but might solve my issues with outdoor storage...

lawndart wrote:Sounds like we might have a winner! If only there were a Stinson 108 nosedragger, we could keep going around in circles!

If someone made a Stinson 108 into a nosedragger I'd burn it to grease and piss on the scorch mark. Just saying.

I would consider the possibility that people who say you can't store a fabric airplane outside are maybe being a little overcautious for many use cases. Just something to consider.

lawndart wrote:Sounds like we might have a winner! If only there were a Stinson 108 nosedragger, we could keep going around in circles!

Any thoughts on fabric vs metal PA22s? I see an all-metal one on TaP. I'd want to upgrade the engine. Not sure how much performance metal gives up, but might solve my issues with outdoor storage...

It’s been said before but bears repeating: find the best, flying airplane you can afford. Unless you’re looking for a project instead of an airplane. I’d shy away from anything that you know you’d want to upgrade the engine on.


Also, fabric really is fine outside, so long as the fabric is in good shape.

You have said in past posts that you think a 182 is over kill, but then want to re-engine a tripacer or 172, or get a pa28-235. I think you really need to figure your mission out. Or just do as Cam mentions above and buy what you can afford and fly the wings off it and learn to fly the wing rather then needing HP. If you are going to re-engine then just start with a 182 and be happy.

A1Skinner wrote:You have said in past posts that you think a 182 is over kill, but then want to re-engine a tripacer or 172, or get a pa28-235. I think you really need to figure your mission out. Or just do as Cam mentions above and buy what you can afford and fly the wings off it and learn to fly the wing rather then needing HP. If you are going to re-engine then just start with a 182 and be happy.

I figured out that re-engine is not worthwhile. I'm pretty much down to PA28-180 or PA22 (not sure if metal or fabric, but definitely 150 or 160hp). The 28 because I know I like it and feel comfortable with it. The 22 because I can afford a better one and think it might let me grow more as a backcountry pilot than a 28 would. I did plan to have a second aircraft for cruising flight and IFR training at some point in the future. If I could get both in a PA28, that would be a pretty strong point in its favor...

I sound like I'm all over the place, but having gone all those crazy directions and gotten input on them has gotten me to a narrower selection, and I feel like I haven't missed any major types that might work along the way!

A1Skinner wrote:You have said in past posts that you think a 182 is over kill, but then want to re-engine a tripacer or 172, or get a pa28-235. I think you really need to figure your mission out. Or just do as Cam mentions above and buy what you can afford and fly the wings off it and learn to fly the wing rather then needing HP. If you are going to re-engine then just start with a 182 and be happy.

Yep!

lawndart wrote: I did plan to have a second aircraft for cruising flight and IFR training at some point in the future...

OK...this is simple insanity for anyone who works for a living and doesn't file a income tax return with much less than three commas.

Lawndart, you apparently have no idea what you're getting yourself into, and unless there's a trust-fund on one or both sides of your marriage, you're getting yourself into a world of hurt.

You really need to step back and spend some time going over the REAL financial numbers of aircraft ownership, as well as getting a realistic grasp of what owning a airplane (any airplane) will actually do for you. I think you vastly underrate the former, and a vastly overrate the later.

Maybe you've got a money-well where you can scoop up all you want, any time you please. If not, you need to take a chill-pill and get better acquainted with reality.

Sorry to be an ass, but you seem to have zero idea what your aircraft mission is, and zero idea what buying or owning the airplane that fits that mission actually entails.

Do yourself a favor and don't buy anything until you get a better grasp on both of those factors.

The question hardly matters. If you don’t know what you need or what you want or what your mission will be, the 182 covers the broadest mission profile there is.

182, 182, 182.

Find an old straight tail, or whatever one you can find that won’t break the bank at time of purchase, or at first annual.