Next step up from a pa28 140?

[wsmempson]

I've been busy building hours on my a/c - which I really adore - but now want to fly a bit further afield than the usual 1 hour, £100 bacon buttie; I've flown a fair bit to Northern France , Cornwall, Wales and Yorkshire, but the thought of chugging away at 100 kts for 3 hrs + make my backside start to tingle.

Also, I need to be able to take more than 2 people plus a meaningful fuel load.

I would like to stick with the low-wing format (no good reason, I've just got used to it and prefer the handling to 172's), so what is the next step up from what I've got, that isn't going to bankrupt me? Is it an Arrow with r/g or is it a 235 Dakota with fixed gear or will a PA28 180 make sufficient difference?

Socata's look nicely designed, but I have heard mixed reports about maintenence/spar corrossion and the chap qouted in the new edition of "Go Flying" describes his aircraft as the most thrown-up on a/c on the Kiddlington fleet....

Oh yes, budget is £35-45k. Any suggestions???:rolleyes:

[Three Yellows]

I've PM'd you.

[AC-DC]

"Oh yes, budget is £35-45k. Any suggestions???"
I think that this budget will restrict you a bit, you will find two aircraft that fits it, the first is the Piper Dakota and the second the Piper Comanche 250, both are very different to each other. The Dakota is a fixed gear Archer, good speed and load and due to the fixed gear is cheaper to maintain. The Comanche is a very good load carrier, will fly further and faster for very little extra fuel but because of the retractable gear will cost more to maintain. Both have no problems of spare parts. I don't know anything about the TBs..

[QNH 1013]

The Archer is fixed gear, but the Dakota has a bigger engine.

[englishal]

I'd go for the Dakota myself.......Nice aeroplane to fly, plenty of power, no wobbly gear to worry about (or forget). I prefer it to the TB10 which is a bit under powered but a comfortable aeroplane and nice to fly (good cross wind).

A real go-places machine would be a TB20 but you'll be lucky to pick up a good one in your budget....

There is not much difference between a PA28-140 and PA28-180, the 180 is a few knots faster but IMHO, and no offence meant, just as boring :O . If "upgrading" to another PA28, I wouldn't even consider anything less than 200HP. I would consider a 200HP Arrow, the retractable gear add a few knots to the speed but at increased maintenance costs.

[Rod1]

A Robin DR400 180 will fit the bill. You will get full 4 seat plus 135kn with no need for disappearing Dunlops or wobbly props. The aircraft is still in production and you can even arrange to go round the factory…..

Rod1

[IO540]

At the budget specified you will be looking at 20-30 years old metal no matter what you get.

At that age, the ongoing maintenance costs will be highly significant; you can expect Annuals possibly well into 4 digits each, unless you are lucky.

Socata's look nicely designed, but I have heard mixed reports about maintenence/spar corrossion and the chap qouted in the new edition of "Go Flying" describes his aircraft as the most thrown-up on a/c on the Kiddlington fleet....

That must be the pilots, not the aircraft. A TB has a higher wing loading than any common spamcan and therefore has a correspondingly better ride in turbulence. There is no real maintenance cost issue - all old planes are likely to cost a packet. That's why people tend to form groups - the £5000 bill gets split up among the members.

If you can up your budget another 20k or so you can get something a lot better.

I fly a TB20 but you won't get a good one of those under about £100k.

[smarthawke]

At least in a group owned TB you can afford to by the maintenance manuals. The CD (includes maintenance and parts manuals, SBs etc) is supplied by EADS-SOCATA for the princely sum of 1000 Euros, oh and 400 Euros a year to keep it up to date....

You aren't likely to find many maintenance organisations that will buy the manuals to look after one aeroplane type (you need a different CD for each of the TB9/10/20/200/21).

There have been issues of spar corrosion requiring new wings (and on some not so old airframes), parts aren't as easy to get as for the American stuff.

[wsmempson]

I love the idea of a DR400 but whatever I buy may HAVE to live outside. I'm not sure that wood and fabric a/c living outside is a good idea.

I'd heard stories about expensive operating costs and spar corrosion with Socata's and, If Airbus becomes Airbust, I wonder what will happen vis-a-vis spares.

Having said all that, if I had a bigger budget a TB20 looks like a credible option - but I don't.

So that leaves....er, Pa28's with bigger engines than I have at the moment. Nothing else?

[Human Factor]

Saul,

You have email.

HF

[IO540]

At least in a group owned TB you can afford to by the maintenance manuals. The CD (includes maintenance and parts manuals, SBs etc) is supplied by EADS-SOCATA for the princely sum of 1000 Euros, oh and 400 Euros a year to keep it up to date....

We are going off at a tangent here, but the above scam is not Socata specific.

The whole GA aircraft business runs on (supposedly) regularly updated maintenance manuals. The main quasi-monopoly provider of these is an outfit called ATP, which has done "deals" :yuk: with the manufacturers under which the company gets money for allowing ATP to republish the info, and in return doesn't make it available for free. And ATP charges the users a lot of money for the service, of the order of $1000 per CD.

For aircraft servicing, there is a presumed legal requirement to be in possession of the latest service info (this I believe is spelt out in the FARs; not sure about G-reg) even if nothing has actually changed, which plays into the hands of ATP.

In reality a lot of service firms have the information already, on paper, on microfilm, or on CD. Often it's not current but hey who cares if nothing has changed for years? They can get the really important data (SBs and ADs) separately. Every maint firm chucks the "old" CD out every month but they aren't supposed to pass it on to anybody. In reality you can pick up the ATP CDs on Ebay and other places... they are quite freely available.

Finally, if the maint firm has never seen your aircraft type before, would you really want them to do the work???

There is no shortage of maint firms who will work on a Socata and who have the data. There is a shortage of maint firms that will do a decent job - on any plane type - and sussing this out is one of the "joys" of ownership ;)

Socata spares are not a problem and never will be. Most planes flying today are out of production, but all the time the spares business is viable they will be available. The spar issue was an AD which like any AD would have been done, in this case years ago. Again, every plane you look at has an AD list as long as your arm - this is aviation, after all. Some are longer than others. Socata are a long way from being the longest.

The one criticism of TBs is that while the build quality is very good (compare one close up with a Cirrus or a Diamond or a Piper/Cessna, for example) some of the internals can be hard to get to, which can add a few hours to the labour cost of connecting up a new GPS or whatever. This is the price one pays for a well designed ergonomic cockpit layout - most spamcans have a flat piece of metal in which holes were cut for the instruments, and the result looks like a control panel from the Titanic.

[Cumulogranite]

If you were to consider forming a small group this would open a lot more options for you, it depends on what availability you want personally. I would guess that you don't fly every day, or every weekend, therefore set up a group of 3 or 4 including you. Make sure that you aren't getting the sort of guy that will disrespect the aircraft in any way (scraping bags along the wing comes to mind). This would open up things like the DA 40. Now that IS good for going places. The one I had a go of the other week is 120kt cruise (not a rocket, but not bad) and runs on Jet A1 with a fadec system, fixed gear keeps the costs down, and (I stand to be corrected here) 6 hours tanks. This means central / southern France in one go!!!! Or on basic maths 720 NM

Then there are some good examples of the turbo arrow, wobbly prop, dunlops away and all the toys in the £130K ish bracket. Speak to the guys that do your maintenence now, they might know of something coming up. And if buying an aircraft it makes good sense to become friends with an engineer anyway!

[deice]

Sorry for barging in like this, but I have always been a believer of the Piper Indians certainly in preference to the 172.
However, after 50 hours in a 177RG and about 12 in a C182RG I must admit, they're pretty darn good.
The 182 has about the same power as the Dakota but is larger and lifts anything you can stuff inside it, plus, you can take it anywhere without worrying about field length. They may be a tad pricey so the FG versions could be an option.

Just for reference I have twice the time in Pipers as in Cessnas, but I still find them more attractive than the Piper counterparts mainly due to accessibility (two doors), visibility (especially the 177) and total performance. My current mount however is a Commander 114B, but we shouldn't go there...

[englishal]

Do you really need 4 seats? Do you intend to fly IFR? If not you could always consider some modern permit aeroplane like a Vans RV6/9.Vans (http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/models.htm)

Looking at the performance figures for the RV6, a 180HP version will give a 75% cruise speed of ~200 mph at 8000' and a 475' landing distance and 720sm range. Certainly much faster than a PA28.

The other beauty is cost. You could probably pick up an RV6 with low hours for under £50k. There is an RV4 on therhangar with a zero timed engine for £40,000, which to me would be much better value for money than an old PA28. Maintenance will be much cheaper......

[wsmempson]

Thanks for the replies Guys.
Yes, I do want something that I could fly IFR in as, having done my night rating, I'm moving straight on to my IMC. I doo want four seats, just so that the wife can't accuse me of owning a purely selfish indulgence....
I flew 160 hrs last year and plan to fly that or more this year, so I want to own outright rather than join a group.
The Mooney at Booker sounds nice but, given I had a heartpumping incident with someone backtracking a Mooney down RW 24 - straight across RW 35 whilst I was in the middle of my take off roll - I think I'm more comfortable owning by myself.
On paper I agree that a 182 looks like the answer, but it's just not my cup of tea.

[Rod1]

Wsmempson

I went through the same thought process as you. I started out with a share in a Pup 150, and then went for the DR400-160. I was convinced I needed 4 seats and IFR. 10 years later a review of my log proved that;

1/3 – ½ of my flight time was in France, My IMC was not valid in France.

Most of the flights I had flown IFR could actually have been done VFR.

Most of the time I flew two up, next most common was solo, and the occasions I needed 3 let alone 4 was so rare it would be cheaper to hire a 4 seater as a one off.

I ended up building a PFA aircraft which I now tour in quite extensively. The advantages of this approach are many, the disadvantages few, but you may need to travel the path to realize this.

Of course, the other solution is to buy a de-iced twin and get an IR, which allows flight in icing conditions with none of the geographical limits imposed by the IMC rating. This is ideal if you fly for business, but may not be everyone’s idea of fun...

Rod1

[S-Works]

may not be everyone’s idea of fun...

It is mine...... :)

[wsmempson]

"Of course, the other solution is to buy a de-iced twin and get an IR, which allows flight in icing conditions with none of the geographical limits imposed by the IMC rating. This is ideal if you fly for business, but may not be everyone’s idea of fun..."

Fantastic!!! But my wife would never, ever stop carping if I did that. Weird, because although she was happy for me to buy a 4 seater, a 2 seater was deemed selfish.....and she's flown in it 3 times now. Ho-hum - family politics!:rolleyes:

[deice]

I suppose you own a saloon instead of coupe for the same reasons then, eh?:}
Why not get a single seater and just accept being selfish, you just can't win...

[the dean]

...a..GREED..:}

[wsmempson]

"I suppose you own a saloon instead of coupe for the same reasons then, eh?
Why not get a single seater and just accept being selfish, you just can't win..."

Actually, a very boring diesel estate. But I do have an Aston Martin V8 Vantage (the 1980 one) tucked away in the garage. Which I'm allowed because we have the boring diesel estate.....

As I say, politics.

Meanwhile, any more suggestions on the aviation front?:8

[deice]

I was going to suggest an Archer, but that's already been done. Unless you want to get really exotic there isn't that much to choose from in the 4-place market at that price. The Piper 6 is a real load hauler in case that's of interest and they were introduced in teh sixties so you could find a bargain. Bullet proof engine which even runs on mogas if you need it to. In fact, it outperforms the Seneca I fly as well in terms of load and utility.

Do you fly from short grass strips or mainly hard runways? The Commander 112/114 would probably make it to the list.The main issue with the Commanders is that the 112 has poor useful load, if you go by the book. The 114 is alot better but it's heavy and doesn't enjoy short damp grass fields.
By comparison you won't find a sturdier aircraft than the Commander. They're built like tanks. If safety is in your mind then the two doors and massive structure are two very comforting items. Our 114B cruises 145 kts burning about 13gph US at 6-7' feet. Don't know book speeds for the Rockwell variants but I believe they're similar.

I'm not being very helpful am I.
If I were you I'd try to find a nice Archer or Dakota unless you want a bigger airplane in which case I would choose the Six. If maintenance costs are not an issue either the Arrow or Lance/Saratoga would be on the list. The 6-seat Pipers are very nice - much more comfortable for travelling even if you don't fill the seats and you can load the cabin with gear. The biggest reason for the improved comfort, in my point of view, is the stability for IFR and the fact that the engine is separated from the cabin by the luggage compartment. It does wonders for sound proofing. Then again there's ANR these days.

Good luck hunting!

[gcolyer]

PA32 300 if you can afford it

Grumman AA5-B . It is pretty fast for a 180hp engine.

[wsmempson]

"Do you fly from short grass strips or mainly hard runways?"

Mostly Tarmac during the winter, but will use some of the longer grass strips during the summer. The current weather here seems to be a constant round of torrential rain and I have a morbid fear of having to dig an aircraft out of a grass strip (has Popham re-openned yet?).

Unless I'm missing something, we seem to come back to the Cherokee 180/Archer/Arrow choice, whith a Dakota or a 114 being out of budget?

[S-Works]

Cessna 172 XP or Reims rocket. 210hp, wobbly prop, 130kts at 33lph. Lifts for and full fuel, 980lbs load. Will go in and out of your back yard at max weight, grass, tarmac, sheep dung whatever the surface!

[Cusco]

Go for an Arrow: it's a no- brainer.
OK retractable makes upkeep an bit more expensive but you can carry 3 reasonable adults(four if they're not porkers) , bags with ease and 135kts cruise.
Oh, and there are tons of 'em about.
Safe flying
Cusco.

[wsmempson]

CUSCO, I think you've just hit the nail on the head. The alternative is to exercise the standard a/d on my 140 and re-engine with a 160 motor which, given the weight of the a/c, gives performance somewhere between a Warrior and an Archer.

The instrument fix is a standard ifr setup x2 nav/com, adf, dme (but not fm immune) 12 years and 1900hrs comes up on the current motor in November, so it doesn't owe me anything - hence this isn't as silly an option as it might sound.

So before I press the button on this I'll see if I can find a suitable arrow; either one that has been loved (with money spent on it) or one that is fundementally sound, but unloved and priced accordingly.

Any suggestions gratefully received...

[Cusco]

Mempers:
Hmmm. I flew a 140 which had been re-engined with a 150 motor a few years ago.
Its performance wasn't outstanding and it didn't have a baggage compartment: ie two windows each side.Any 'stuff' had to go on back seat: it certainly wouldn't have carried four.
Arrow (especially 200HP) has excellent capacity and a 200lb max baggage compartment.and pretty good short strip capability: and it will operate off grass. (ours has for 15 plus years).
Problem with Archers, especially new ones is that all the fancy kit cuts into load capacity: Keef and I flew an Archer 3 in USA last year : we're both pretty big and with full tanks I had to leave some baggage behind at FBO to keep well below MTOW as we were planning hot/high.
Safe flying
Cusco;)

[wsmempson]

Thanks Cusco. My PA28 has the 140 engine but the a/d allows you the 160 engine.
As standard Empty weight 1250, MAUW 2150 gives 900lb load. Fuel to tabs 190 lb so pax + bags up to 720lb. Three adults plus a bag or two behind seats or (as i potentially need) lardy pilot, small wife and two kiddies. Whilst the upgrade won't change the POH figures, in real world terms it will make enough of a difference for me to persist with what I have as to make a real upgrade on the tweeked current mount is beginning to look likely to cost me more than seems reasonable. However, part of the reason for the change is to get a fresh challange - but if I have to throw another £40k at the problem to achieve this, the sad reality is i'm just not rich enough.
All the arrows that I've seen advertised in the £40-50k range seem to have nice avionics, a nice interior or nice paint or a newish engine - but never more than two out of the four.....

[A and C]

The Robin DR400-180 will do almost what the PA28R will do but without the expence of retracting gear and CS prop.

To me that makes the PA28R too much expence for too little extra performance, if a PA28R is what you want get one with the Continental TSIO-360 engine, at least with the turbo the performance gap between the DR400 and the PA28R starts to make some sort of sence in terms of cost vs performance.

[wsmempson]

Thanks. I think the Robin looks great, but whatever I buy will - at some point - probably have to live outdoors.

As for turbo-arrows, where they really score is at altitude, as there is no drop-off in power. One of my pax is 12 months old and whizzing up and down to FL100 makes him howl.

Also, I'm not sure that I want to run a turbo installation without a waste-gate, as in this day and age that seems a bit odd not to have one. warning light on the dash seems a poor substitute.

:)

[Wessex Boy]

What about the Grumman AA5s?
I've never flown one, but they seem exceedingly good value, reasonably well made and seem to have pretty reasonable performance?

If you buy the right aged one, you can claim to own a Gulfstream!!:cool:

[rateone]

I have a share in a AG-5 Tiger. Its a nice aeroplane and a lot nicer to look at than the Cessnas and Pipers. Well built and pretty comfortable but a little cosy if you're on the large side. Nose wheel is the weak point but fine if you fly it properly - probably not good for rough grass. We burn about 35 lts/hr properly leaned and cruise at around 120. Endurance is as good as my bum and bladder. Not a great short field performer - 500m tarmac can focus the attention. Wouldn't want to consider short grass strips.

[wsmempson]

AA5B looks good, I just don't seem to fit!
Still searching for an Arrow II, but can't seem to find one that isn't completely shagged out or even a shagged out one for sensible money. On paper £50-60k should buy a really pucker a/c.

Unbelievable really - here I am with money burning a hole in my pocket and I can't seem to give it away......
:uhoh: :ugh:

[ThePirateKing]

You want to give £50k away? PM me. :}

[BeechNut]

You can get a Beech C23 Sundowner at a fair price. I'd sell you mine but I'm across the pond :) (I'm looking to get something smaller as in 2 seats so I can fly longer into my, umm, declining years).

It has a 180 hp O-360, which is reliable. Gross is 2450 lbs, my useful is 867.1. Some have a lower empty weight, mine has the aerobatic kit so is a bit heavier. Mine's a '79 and in its serial number range, can carry 59.8 gallons of fuel, 57.2 usable. That can take you far but eats into payload. However there are tabs with markings for 37.4 gal. usable and 27.4 gal. usable. Looking at the performance page, perhaps a bit optimistic, at 2500 ft and 60% power you will true out at 108 knots/124 mph on 8.2 US Gal/hour.

So with 30 gal (27.2 usable), I am good for about 3 hours endurance at 108 knots, and I can carry 4 standard adult males. Bump up the fuel to 40 gal/37.4, and endurance moves up to about 4.5 hours; but you lose 60 lbs payload, so you can carry two standard males and two standard females. With tanks topped up, endurance is a full 6 hours, but you lose payload; still you can just barely carry three standard adult males on full tanks.

On the other hand you can go faster and burn more: 73% power at the same altitude is 118 knots/136 mph, burn is 10.4 gph. Book even lists 88% power (God knows why) giving 128 knots but sucking down 13.2 gph.

The thing has a very large cargo area, and as I said most are non-aerobatic and somewhat lighter than mine so you may gain a few pounds of payload.

The really nice thing about this aircraft is the wide comfortable cabin.

It ain't as sexy as an Archer but it's nearly as capable and prices are lower than for Archers. Plus they fly great, don't listen to the old wive's tales bout difficult landings, mine is the easiest-landing aircraft I've ever flown, the trick is to stick to the numbers; too fast is when you run into problems so the practice of adding 10 knots on approach for the wife and kids is to be frowned upon (in really choppy weather, no more than 5 knots extra); in any event approaches are fairly quick, 80 knots clean/1-notch flaps, 75 two notches, 68 knots full flaps. Great stable x-wind machine too. And being Beech, built like the proverbial brick sh!thouse! Repairs can be expensive if you prang it, but if not, just standard stuff.

[larssnowpharter]

A few people have suggested that your budget is a bit restrictive. Just a suggestion, but why not form a small group and get something really fun and with the range/performance you want? While we are at it why not make it fully aerobatic. More than 2 seats? You don’t have to have 4, why not a 3 seater?

SF 260

Good ones out there for around $200K and it’s difficult to get more smiles per mile!

[wsmempson]

Sia Marchetti looks wonderful, but isn't the direction that i'm going in, use-wise.

No groups thanks, once again.

I Have looked at two aircraft now where out of a group of four, two want to sell and two don't. In the mean time, the a/c is grounded because of a major fault/out of time engine.

A third was a group of five, where four were selling because the fifth was such a pain in the proverbial.

Having lived in a flat within a building - where the four residents struggled to agree on the coluor of a front door - I think life is too short for life by commitee. After all, I do that at work.

Fo some reason, I don't seem to fit comfortably in an AA5. Same with a mooney. Surgery, perhaps.:ugh: