Pinecone wrote: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.

Hum...One person, MAYBE one passenger, with no load to haul and no performance requirements, trying to build time and learn to actually fly, on the budget of a new family just starting out.

Ya...182. Makes perfect sense...if money is not an object. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all.

I still think a 172 will be your best bang for your buck. Build time, decent IFR trainer, decent backcountry performer, sure climb rate is less, but you'll learn to fly the wing that way. If you just can't get over the climb rate then get a 182 which will be decent for back country and IFR. 2 planes is just a very costly endeavour...

Just in case this got overlooked...

https://backcountrypilot.org/knowledge- ... -ownership

just buy a turbine maule and fill all your needs in one fell swoop

asa wrote:just buy a turbine maule and fill all your needs in one fell swoop

Haha. Then you can pull all your hair out trying to get parts from them when you need... just in case you wanted to go bald.

asa wrote:just buy a turbine maule and fill all your needs in one fell swoop

Hey...if money was no issue there would be about five people on here burning avgas, and they'd be flying Beavers. Everyone else would be debating whether a Otter is enough airplane, or do you really need a Twin Otter?

I think this thread has used up its useful life. 5 pages is enough, we are repeating ourselves. I suggest the original poster go do some more flying and come back and revisit (re read) this thread next year and go from there.

Kurt

I chimed in earlier but I will expand on the pacer talk being that is what I fly.

I learned in a 172 and a a cherokee. Then moved straight to my tailwheel pacer. Left side brakes only. 160hp in the high DA Colorado summer. I survived. And I know when I had a good day of flying as my right leg hurts! The pacer has taught me so much. I love it and it is very capable. You can put some 8.50s on it and a cruise prop and make some good tracks. Or put a borer prop and big tires on it, you’ll be playing on gravel bars. It’s no supercub. But then again it’s a fraction of the cost. I would also say buy an already converted 22/20. Not try to convert one. And I wouldn’t have one less than 150hp for the bush operation stuff anyways. I took my back seat out and it’ll never go back in. If you want a four seater buy something different. My thoughts.

I vote Pacer ! Actually decided if you want a nosewheel or tailwheel. Then get a tri-pacer or a pacer.
You can even find both in IFR
Get cloth though. Not metalized

Well put! Love my 96 ZJ also the 185 is pretty ok.

Hammer wrote:

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.

I don't consider giving candid advice being an ass.

Some guys I served with in the Army came back from training or deployments and bought $80k pickups. Some got married right before shipping out and lost it all in a divorce as soon as they came home. Some bought a fixer-upper house and a good used car, used their educational benefits as efficiently as possible, and saved all their income from that point forward...

My home is paid off, my car is paid off, and I don't have any student debt. I'll have my master's in mechanical engineering next week, and will start working the day after my last exam. The company I'm going to work for has needed me since March. I won't be getting married until 2023 because my girl is in med school until then, and we certainly won't be having kids before then. She does not expect me to put my savings toward her education. I've set my budget for acquisition cost at about $35k, which is half of what I could offer in cash at this time without any impacts on the rest of my life other than the opportunity cost of what I may or may not make on the stock market instead of buying a plane.

I might not know exactly what I'm getting into in terms of the financial implications of aircraft ownership. But I have worked hard and lived frugally for a decade to be in the position I am in now. That whole time my dream has been to own a plane. You're probably right that I overestimate what owning a plane will do for me. But my favorite part of being a UH60 crew chief in the Army was that I owned my bird. You've never seen cleaner windows and shinier pitot tubes... I think I'm experiencing empty-nest syndrome, so there is definitely an irrational aspect to me wanting to buy. But then again, I'm the type to sit in a hangar and contemplate life on a rainy day. I think that the CoVid crisis will result in an economic recession, and that there may be opportunities to get a good deal on a good aircraft.

I've learned a lot about what to expect in terms of costs of ownership since I started this thread. I posted over on piperforum regarding the PA28 and PA22 to get an idea of what their costs would be, and they were actually not far from what I expected. A little lower on the annual, a little higher on the incidentals. I imagine a C172 would be in the same ballpark as the PA28, though I'd welcome a correction if I'm wrong!

You're right that I don't know what my mission is, or at least the backcountry portion of it.
Here's what I do know:
- I won't need more than 2 seats 95% of the time. That, and the budget I have set, mean that I will stick to a 4-banger or low displacement 6. The C182 and PA28-235 are not in the running. I had to put it out there to realize it, but I've realized it. The reason these came up early in the discussion is that I was thinking in terms of the of acquisition costs I can afford. I've halved my budget since then.
- I think 180hp is definitely enough, but I don't know yet if I can get away with less. I am at MSL, and will be for at least the next 3 years. What I don't know is exactly what kind of backcountry spots there are in New England. More on this below.
- I'm an outdoorsman, and I want to be able to camp from my aircraft. That's why I'm on this forum. My max payload requirement in this role would be 2 FAA standard people, 2 nights worth of summer camping/hiking gear, and fuel.
- I'd like to be able to seat 4 FAA standard people for regional hops, but would not need baggage capacity, full fuel, or STOL performance in this mission.
- I like the idea of learning to fly IFR, because it sounds like a good skillset to have from a safety standpoint, so being able to serve as an IFR trainer would be a plus. I don't plan to fly in bad weather, so this may be a stupid thing to consider. I'd appreciate some thoughts on it.
- I enjoyed flying the PA28 I flew after flight school more than the C172s I flew in flight school. They also seem to be cheaper when comparing similarly equipped aircraft with equal power.
- I don't envision backcountry flying or camping by myself anytime soon, so the benefits of being able to hang out or camp under a wing are not really a factor in my decision. I figure most people I might fly with will have a high wing I can squat under.
- I hear a lot more about the performance of STCs like the Sportsman STOL kit on Cessnas than analogous ones for PA28s like the Robertson kit.

I've posted in the destinations subforum to get some input on what kind of backcountry flying there is in New England. This will help me figure out what features and performance figures I really need. I figure there are good beaches, and I know there are nice grass strips. I don't know how long they are or what height obstacles are around them. I don't know what proportion of them really require a high wing, and I also don't know if there are areas with good gravel bars. I don't think the flying in this area requires a taildragger. I'd love to get my endorsement, but I'll take the lower acquisition and maintenance costs if I can get away with a nosedragger. I have decades left to fly, and I feel that I can always take that on in the future.

Sorry for all the mixed messages. This has been a very exploratory thread for me, and I've gained a lot from all those that have posted their input on it.

Thanks!

Steve

Keep at it Steve! I like your enthusiasm and drive. I know you have a lot of questions and desires, the more time you spend around the actual airport And flying the more the answers to these questions will be answered. The airplane you describe is going to be very hard to find for what you want to spend, you are probably going to have to adjust that list of requirements some to find the airplane in your budget. Get something good that fits your budget. In all the years I have been flying I have never approached airplane shopping by saying to myself I want a high wing or low wing, that really doesn’t come into play for most people. I think most people define their mission and find the best airplane that fits that mission. So for example, lets say a Cherokee and a 172 checks the most boxed on you list, I would pick the best actual airplane of those you may be looking at for sale what ever type it is. Just get a good condition sound something within your budget and fly! Doing this will be quite an educational endeavor! In a few years down the road when you have saved a few more bucks you can then get the airplane that will check more boxes. I would get out of the mindset that you have to get your long term airplane right away, shift into the mindset of getting a good airplane that checks the most boxes for now. 172, Cherokee, Tri-Pacer, or what ever, they are all good. As I mentioned Hampton, NH airport in a different post, go there on a nice Saturday, have a burger at the restaurant on the field and wander around and talk to people, its a cool place! I used to keep my airplane there.

Kurt

G44 wrote:Keep at it Steve! I like your enthusiasm and drive. I know you have a lot of questions and desires, the more time you spend around the actual airport And flying the more the answers to these questions will be answered. The airplane you describe is going to be very hard to find for what you want to spend, you are probably going to have to adjust that list of requirements some to find the airplane in your budget. Get something good that fits your budget. In all the years I have been flying I have never approached airplane shopping by saying to myself I want a high wing or low wing, that really doesn’t come into play for most people. I think most people define their mission and find the best airplane that fits that mission. So for example, lets say a Cherokee and a 172 checks the most boxed on you list, I would pick the best actual airplane of those you may be looking at for sale what ever type it is. Just get a good condition sound something within your budget and fly! Doing this will be quite an educational endeavor! In a few years down the road when you have saved a few more bucks you can then get the airplane that will check more boxes. I would get out of the mindset that you have to get your long term airplane right away, shift into the mindset of getting a good airplane that checks the most boxes for now. 172, Cherokee, Tri-Pacer, or what ever, they are all good. As I mentioned Hampton, NH airport in a different post, go there on a nice Saturday, have a burger at the restaurant on the field and wander around and talk to people, its a cool place! I used to keep my airplane there.

Kurt

Thanks a lot for all your input Kurt, and everyone else! I think the high / low wing point was trying to decide whether to look for a C172 or PA28. I agree that both of these types, as well as the PA20/PA22 will work for me, and that I just need to find a good, well maintained aircraft.

I also really appreciate your input on what kind of "backcountry" flying we've got up here. I suspected that what you said was the case. Little or no federal land, no gravel, etc.

I think I still need to decide on how much power to shoot for. My gut tells me to look for a 180hp. I intentionally set my budget optimistically low to force myself to wait for a good deal rather than just going out and buying.

I'll definitely take a drive up to Hampton when this CoVid thing blows over!

Steve

Steve,

A 180hp something is going to cost a lot of money compared to 150,160hp, just keep that in mind. A 150,160hp 172 for example is still a pretty darn capable airplane, especially in New England. That being said, there are bigger engine airplanes out there that are reasonably priced that do come up for sale but not very often.

Kurt

PA-28 VS. C-172.
You mentioned PA-28 prices are less than C-172 prices. Do keep in mind that Embery Riddle had a wing depart from an PA-28. This incident resulted in a major AD on the PA-28 series. From what I have heard, buyers(especially flight schools) much prefer the C-172. I believe this could be a lot to do with the price difference. I personally would research this issue extensively before considering a PA-28 purchase.

I’ve had no issues with my 160hp PA-22/20 when packed appropriately in smaller strips. Or at gross in larger airfields.

One thing that I did not appreciate about owning a plane was how much time it takes up. I enjoy it, but I am also lucky enough to have that time available.

Just basic maintenance, purchasing fluids, spares and filters, cleaning, keeping the paperwork in order, charts, subscriptions, learning foreflight, planning maintenance and annuals, tires, brakes...... Its a lot to manage.

And then as a brand new pilot and owner I knew nothing so had a lot of learning to do. And I like to fly at least twice a week to stay current and hopefully keep learning. And I like to go to busy/complex airspace regularly to stay comfortable in it.

You have clearly done your research (I literally asked one guy I trusted what I should buy and luckily he replied a 170), but I think you just need to buy a plane and own it to learn any more. Just buy the nicest middle of the road 172, 182, Pacer or Cherokee that you can find and fly the pants off it. Or a cheap taildragger like Hammer said. But if you buy well and you stick to classics you will not go wrong (get lots of help with the purchase or be very lucky). You need to get flying your own plane.

All this talk of motor swaps etc. is down the road. And you would have to be really stupid to do it yourself, buy the plane you want. (oh wait Im doing that right now)

One thing I have not seen mentioned is to find a good IA before you look look much harder. I understand you know what nuts and bolts are but the IA is the one that will sign off the annual and if they are not happy it can get expensive. Have that IA do the pre-by and never fall in love with an airplane until he/she approves. On that note before you get to far from that military community get a letter stating total hours you have worked in your field and general duties. It will go a long way towards getting the A&P when you get that itch. I would not get too hung up on horsepower at this point. It is nice to have a 180 HP but that usually add a fair bit to the price. Take off performance and climb and be quickly improved by a simple change in prop pitch. You will loose some top end, but it can turn a 150 hp aircraft into a fun machine.
DENNY

FWIW - I am a relatively low time pilot (<300 hours) with an 18+ year gap after the first 112. I currently fly a 160hp 172P and a 180hp Archer II, both are great planes for what I used them for. I routinely take the Skyhawk into grass and have been down to 1,600' (slowly working my way shorter to get more comfortable and experienced). Typically fly alone with full tanks and have no issues getting out of the 1,600' strip, so I think a regular Skyhawk would likely fit your bill, and a 180hp Skyhawk or Cherokee would as well.

I typically fly the Archer if I am going somewhere longer (GPS & autopilot equipped, about 10 knots faster, etc.) but seem to enjoy flying the Skyhawk more (I had learned on a Warrior, so the high wing was pretty much new to me when I got back into flying), especially for camping, grass, and general fun flying.

Steve,

Go back and listen to what Hammer said. Your first airplane isn't a traveling tool, or a camping tool, it's a learning tool, a very expensive learning tool. Get a cheap one that is easy to feed and insure then go from there.

If you don't care about tailwheel, just go by a 150/152 or an older/low cost 172 and learn to fly. Right when you are starting to get competent is when you will just barely start to understand what you don't know.

Don't get hung up on 180hp. Look at what this guy did with his lowly 150:



I suspect he could get in and out of stuff many wouldn't touch with a cub....

It's more pilot than machine, so get something you can afford to fly ALOT.

Remember: it's easier to be a poser with 180HP+