A Well Overdone Question ... What Is The Dream ???

[Aphrican]

As a new pilot who is completely addicted, I was wondering about the age old question : what is the perfect aeroplane for recreational flights of 500 nm or so in the South Western United States with a lot of quite big mountains if one has a reasonable amount of money to spend but wouldn't mind recovering some costs through rentals / partial flight school leasebacks?

As a low time private pilot, this is obviously about fantasy rather than reality in the near to medium term but it does help clarify a training path which will certainly include an IR.

The question doesn't have anything to do with a possible professional pathway as I am way too old to consider it.

The contenders, at roughly the same price, are :

1. A new DA42 TDI
2. A 5 year old Baron
3. A 10 year old Piper Meridian

The compromises that I have identified so far boil down to the following :

- Composite versus traditional skins / airframes
- Newer versus older aircraft
- Advances in avionics over the last 10 years
- Singles versus twins
- Avgas versus Jet A
- Pressurised versus oxygen
- Established versus more recent marques
- Warranties versus private costs
- The ability to reduce costs by putting an aeroplane into a rental / school fleet

Thoughts would be appreciated ..... So far, I think that if I had to allocate 100 points between the three aircraft, I would give the Meridian 35, the DA42 34 and the Baron 31.

[BackPacker]

I think the most important compromise would be the number of seats. How many people would you typically take, and how much spare capacity do you need to have for fuel and baggage?

(Very few two-seaters will take two adults, full fuel and a reasonable amount of baggage. Very few four-seaters will take four adults, etc. etc.)

The next compromise would be your IFR/weather capability. From Basic VFR (or Night VFR) to basic IFR (non-deiced, non-pressurized, so fair-weather IFR only) to advanced IFR (deiced, pressurized, all-weather capable).

And remember the more complex the aircraft is, the more training and currency is required (legally, insurance-wise and practically). That doesn't apply just to you, but also applies to the potential renters of your aircraft (including flight schools). Also consider that you have to do a considerable amount of renting out the aircraft to make up the gap between "insured for a single (named) pilot only" and "insured for everybody with the proper license or student endorsement". And the more complex the aircraft is, the larger this gap will be.

Anyway, if that's your shortlist and ballpark budget I think Cirrus definitely should be added to it.

[172driver]

It really depends on how important the leaseback/rental aspect is to you. Unfortunately some of the nicest touring machines around (C172RG, C182RG, C210, etc) are not very popular as rentals.

Given that you are/will be based in SoCal, may I suggest you talk to the numerous FTO/FBOs there first? It'll give you a good idea what rents and what doesn't. A great place to start would be to go down to KSMO and have a chat with Joe Justice (of Justice aviation). Very nice and knowledgeable gentleman who runs one of the bigger rental fleets in the L.A. area.

That said, of course it also depends on what YOU want to do with this a/c. Tarmac to tarmac, back country flying, high dispatch rate (IOW full IR capable) or VFR/good wx IR only?

Writing all the criteria down and perhaps creating a three-axis diagram should help you find the 'sweet spot'. Then, of course, it's down to your preferences - hey, it's your money, after all!

I would definitely stay with a single engine, glass cockpit (nobody likes steam gauges anymore). The perfect machine doesn't exist, but unless you need back country capabilities a Cirrus may well be what ticks most boxes.

Good luck and let us know how you get on!

[Aphrican]

Thanks for the comments.

Based on comments to date, it does seem that the Cirrus is something that I should consider too.

I struggled with the "stick" in the Skycatcher when I started flying and was much more comfortable with the traditional yoke on a 172. I have the same problem with the t-bar cyclic in Robinson helicopters and find a fully independent cyclic much easier to use. This shortcoming on my part is why I overlooked the Cirrus.

The flying that I will do will be two up flights with a few days worth of clothes for luggage between towns and cities with large, paved runways. I won't buy anything or fly to more interesting destinations in rental aircraft until I am instrument rated. With a the ink barely dry (or plastic barely cured in a more literal sense) on my PPL, I know that I am "allowed" to do significantly more than I am capable of doing at the moment.

"Good weather" IFR is as far as I need to go. I only want to fly for fun so if weather is known to be bad, I simply won't fly or will go commercial if I need to be somewhere. I just want to have a back-up IFR capability (and obviously rating) if I get into a jam.

After reading through a lot of posts on this site, it does seem that a piston engined aircraft with a parachute is probably the least risky option for a low hours PPL with a light piston twin being the least safe option even in the South West where there are obviously a lot of mountains to fly over.

Does anybody have an opinion about a DA 40 versus a SR22?

I am not back in SoCal for another couple of months so I will continue to do more research.

[BackPacker]

I have an opinion on the DA40, but I have not flown an SR22 so I can't comment on that. Other than that, both with regards to price and with regards to capability, they really are in a different league.

The DA40 with the 1.7/135HP thielert that I used to fly (until the club sold it) is a very nice aircraft. A relatively roomy and very logically laid out cockpit that's very comfortable to fly long distances in. Good visibility all around, very economical cruise performance (115 knots IAS on 5 USG of Jet-A per hour). The main drawback is that it is a bit underpowered (the 2.0s/155 HP Thielert or Austro engine should fix that, but I have never flown one of those), which means that it needs a relatively long runway for take-off and that it has less than stellar climb performance. Other, minor, drawbacks are the location of the stick (in your crotch, which together with the tunnel in the center of the cockpit means that anything but the smallest kneeboard interferes with the controls), the long wings (easy to taxi into something, costs more in hangar fees) and the castoring nosewheel/differential braking steering (which is something that most eventually get used to, but is initially more difficult than normal nosewheel steering).

The DA40, at its best, is a fair-weather IFR machine. I don't think it's available in a de-iced or anti-ice version (even though the DA42 is).

As far as I understand, the Cirrus is really a league up from the DA40. Somewhere around double the price, twice the horsepower and 1.5 times the cruise speed. So as a serious go-places machine the Cirrus should be your choice. But for budget leisure flying, mostly VFR with the occasional IFR departure or arrival, the DA40 is hard to beat.

Of course, being new designs, the 2nd hand market for DA40s and SR22s is relatively small at the moment. You can pick up a traditional 30-year old spamcan as a bargain, but those bargains are simply not there when you look for a DA40 or SR22.

[cldbstr]

A 10 year old Meridian?

Did you consider a 15 to 20 yr old Cessna Caravan or Cessna Grand Caravan?

It truly is a "do anything" and "go anywhere" kind of aeroplane.

[172driver]

Did you consider a 15 to 20 yr old Cessna Caravan or Cessna Grand Caravan?

It truly is a "do anything" and "go anywhere" kind of aeroplane.

Very, very true, but the OP wants to recoup some money through leaseback or rental. Unless he strikes a deal with someone who does FEDEX feeder flying, this isn't going to work. And even if such a deal could be done, the a/c then wouldn't be available for multi-day pleasure trips as it would be plying the night skies every night of the year.

[BackPacker]

The DA40, by the way, is used by a number of European schools for ab-initio PPL training. I don't think that's the case for an SR22.

So if you want to recoup some money through a leaseback or something, the DA40 is probably a better choice. On the other hand, if you would make an SR22 available for private hire to pilots with a PPL and some experience, there would probably be a lot of interest too.

[AdamFrisch]

Part of my social experiment - a C182?

[172driver]

Not sure how popular the DA40 is in the US (cannot recall seeing many, at least not in SoCal).
OTOH there is an increasing number of Cirruses (or should that be Cirri ;) ?) for hire, so the pilot population checked out in a Cirrus is definitely on the up.

[B2N2]

My 2 cents; go for a lightly used DA-42.
These are currently anywhere between 280K and 400K for an airframe with maybe a couple of hundred hours.
Your choice of engines, either the 1.7 or the 2.0 Thielert.
If anything I'd stick with the 2.0L Thielert since the gearbox/clutch has just been upgraded to 600hrs.
A lot of people had to sell their toys in the last couple of years and now is the time to scoop them up.
DIAMOND Piston Twin Aircraft, Used DIAMOND Piston Twin Aircraft, DIAMOND Piston Twin Aircraft For Sale At Controller.com - Page 1 (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&setype=1&catid=9&Manu=DIAMOND)

[englishal]

The DA40 in the US is a different kettle of fish. You can buy a DA40XL with powerflow exhaust which will cruise at 150 KTAS. I rent one regularly in Socal and it is wonderful to fly (especially with synthetic vision).

BUT I prefer to take the DA42 when flying in the SW USA. Firstly the turbulence can kick you around a bit in the desert in the summer and the DA42 is easier to fly and nicer to fly in those regions. If you get one with the 2.0 litre thierlet engines you are looking at a cruise of about 165KTAS which is ok, considering you are only burning 12 USG of fuel per hour (I know there is not meant to be any difference between the 1.7 and 2.0 engines but there appears to be a performance increase IMHE).

Plus the 42 has two engines. This I consider essential these days, last time I flew a DA40 down the Colorado river to Calexico, sitting over the desert 11,000 below, 100 miles from any civilization with just half a bottle of Gatorade and 41 degree C rocks below, I did feel a bit vulnerable.

If I could afford a DA42 I'd have one. It is a joy to fly, very comfortable, and I also like the stick.

[Aphrican]

The DA 42 does seem to offer great performance for the money. Assuming 165 kts, 12 gph and $5 / gal for JET-A, the fuel costs about 36c per mile.

My assumptions for a C172 are 115 kts, 9 gph and $6 / gal for 100LL giving a fuel cost of 47c per mile.

Of course, this gets more than eaten up by the costs of maintaining a second engine.

As I read somewhere recently, flying a twin means that you are twice as likely to experience an engine failure than in a single but only 1/4 as likely to experience a total loss of power.

I am not sure to how to assess the relative risk of a single with a chute, a few bottles of water etc and a twin with all of the problems around Vmc for a low hours pilot flying over the desert and mountains.

The next step for me is to try to get a MEL this spring and then fly all of the options before making up my mind.

[172driver]

Again, it comes down to how important the rental/leaseback aspect is to you. You'll probably find a lot more renters for a single than a twin. WRT flying over desert - I've done this quite extensively (not only in the US) and always carry survival kit, i.e. water (lots of it), food, signal mirror and the usual other survival stuff. So far never needed it, hope it stays that way!

[172driver]

Part of my social experiment - a C182?

Social experiment? Enlighten us, Adam!

[AdamFrisch]

Social experiment? Enlighten us, Adam!

Ha. From another thread:

I have a social theory in regards to aircraft ownership, and it's firmly tongue in cheek, but with a dollop of truth, me thinks:

Many young private pilots become pilots because they want to impress and be cool (I've certainly met more of those than any other category amongst the younger hopefuls) and I probably - although I'd never admit it - might have belonged to that category myself when I got started.;) You will find that most PPL candidates are normally in the "nerdy" category and presumably might not have had the same pull as the school jock or rock kid in a band with the ladies, so this is in their minds a good way to even the field a bit, firmly ignoring the fact that 99% of the women I've met are;

a) not impressed, and
b) don't want to ride in the damn thing anyway.

One is much more likely to impress another nerdy bloke by mentioning it than ever getting some female admiration out of it. That's my experience, at least. Not that I ever mention it, of course.:E

Part of this desire to be a ravishing pilot takes the form of being seen as flying in an aircraft that resembles the big iron as much as possible, for maximum admiration. A bit like attaching a Halfords wing to a Corsa, or putting fake carbon fibre weave tape to your wooden Allegro dashboard or building a kit car replica of a Lamborghini. And since most of the big iron is low wing, this is what people like and emulate. Cirrus owes it's entire sale to this very sentiment. They also associate high wing with their days slogging around the circuit in that dog of a 172.

Further evidence - whenever someone comes along this forum asking for what aircraft is best to buy for a given mission bla bla, the answer pretty much always ends up being a C182. Notice the huge resistance to those answers from most of the people that ask that question. Why? Because it doesn't look like a cool, slick airplane. In fact, it looks like a damn C172!

I will now endeavour to start a petition and campaign to stop the racism against high wings! They're airplanes, too!;):}

[Aphrican]

@AdamFrisch

Very clever and there is a lot of truth in what you say too.

The Skylane dates from about 1956 so it is a fairly well proven design. The engines have been around forever too. I was amazed the first time that I did cubic inches to cubic centimeters conversion on the 172's engine and realised just how little work the engine was actually doing.

[Aphrican]

@Gomrath

I saw your PM now. Thanks. I am new to this forum so I missed it when you sent it to me. I will get back to you on the contents later.

[172driver]

Adam, LOL :D

I think you hit it on the head, especially the low-wing bit.

Let me know where I can sign the petition !!!

:ok:

PS: I LOVE C182s !
PPS: the above probably gives away my age.....

[Aphrican]

@Silvaire1

The problem as I see it is that the GA industry in the US (which is the largest market in the world by a large margin) basically died in the mid 1980s and didn't slowly come back to life until the mid 1990s.

This was an era of massive technological and design advancement. GA benefitted in terms of avionics but there were very few advancements in GA airframes or engines from the "big three" US manufacturers from the mid 1970s onwards.

The attraction of Cirrus & Diamond is that they build GA aircraft using more modern technology and design.

I really enjoyed getting my PPL in a 4 year old 172 but it does feel a bit odd that it is not much different to the plane that my dad flew nearly 40 years ago.

I guess that I am a person who likes to see progress.

[NazgulAir]

@aphrican

What you call progress has not always been in the direction of aircraft performance.

Much progress has been made in the area of manufacturing cost control, but factory manufactured aircraft have not become more efficient. And liability insurance has killed almost all progress in the US light aircraft industry. This is why you are more likely to find modern concepts coming out of EU.
And now new fuels (that are less efficient), new rules, new safety equipment, etc. is complicating matters. Plus that the modern generation of composite aircraft yet has to prove its efficiency over time.

For real progress you have to look at the homebuilt market. But then you have the problem that those aircraft are not certified for IFR flight or carrying more than two people.

So if we like to fly IFR, we're stuck with proven designs. Not that I mind, because the proven design that I fly is very difficult to beat.

[Aphrican]

@NazgulAir

Perhaps a Mooney is what I should think about then. They seem to be the only US manufacturer who have tried to continually improve their products in a material way.

The progress made in the last 35 years since my dad's M20F (the plane that he got after his 172) is quite noticeable.

As I mentioned in my OP, one of the compromises is composite versus traditional materials (and fly by wire versus physical connections). I am old fashioned enough that I still prefer natural materials and physical connections. I know a few people who refuse to fly on Airbus products in general and the A380 in particular for this very reason.

As a matter of interest, what is the "proven design" that you fly?

[NazgulAir]

As a matter of interest, what is the "proven design" that you fly?

Piper PA-24 Comanche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-24_Comanche)

Ours is the latest model, a PA-24-260C.
See also here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/470849-buying-first-family-airplane.html#post6896537)

Have fun reading!

[Mark 1]

For real progress you have to look at the homebuilt market. But then you have the problem that those aircraft are not certified for IFR flight or carrying more than two people.


That's not the case. The OP stated that he wanted to fly in the SW USA. You can do that quite legitimately in an IFR 4-place homebuilt. RV10, Glasair, Velocity or Lancair may fit the bill. You can't rent them out to schools or individuals, but there is a significant advantage in being able to fit EFIS and autopilots on the experimental market and also the lower costs of maintenance, parts etc.

With homebuilts now encompassing $1m turboprops, it may be worth considering.