Best Plane for New Pilot

[jonn152]

Hi guys,

I am looking into purchasing my first single piston plane. I have done a lot of research but am wanting input from others who may know types of planes that are good for new pilots or ones to stay away from.

I would mainly be using the aircraft to commute about 140 miles to work, but would also be using it for pleasure with my wife on occasion.

I want what everyone wants, great gph burn rates, low maintenance costs, and low overall ownership in a solid plane. A unicorn would be cool too :ok:

A few things I would like to see in the plane, but nothing is set in stone:
120-150 knot cruise speed (I would pay more for faster)
5gph burn rates (or comparable based on a higher speed)
50k-150k "ish." I would spend higher if needed on a newer aircraft with newer avionics.

I have looked into three different routes to go when purchasing a plane:

1. Purchase an older certified aircraft like the one I am building hours on (Piper Warrior or Cessna 172)
I believe the pro's would be an aircraft that most mechanics can easily work on, lower purchase price, and possible IFR certification I could utilize to obtain my instrument rating at a future time. At this time all of my flying would be VFR, but I would like to punch through low hanging clouds in the future (nothing intense like flying through storms).
Con's seem to be older aircraft may have more issues and have older avionics. Also, burn rates and speed seem to be lower than other options.

2. Going with a newer homebuilt or building an aircraft myself (like a Vans RV-9)
Pros for this route would include the plane would be newer, have glass panels, have the possiblity of IFR, and would be faster then the production aircraft.
Con's would be it may have more problems due to the build. Not sure about maintenance for these aircraft or insurance costs.

3. Purchase a LSA (Like a Flight Design, Renegade Falcon LS, Vans RV-12)
Pro's seem to be inexpensive to operate and maintain, most are newer with glass panel avionics.
Con's seem to be no IFR ever, slower aircraft (although Renegade claims it can cruise at 120 knots at altitude), most use a Rotax engine which not all mechanics are familiar with yet, and they are light so any cross wind landings will be difficult.

Let me know your thoughts or experiences with any of this. I am new to the field so any information on my pro's and con's that are incorrect or you can add to I would appreciate it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What's your budget, and what licences do you have?

G

[ChickenHouse]

This list reads a bit unsettled. May I suggest to let sediment thoughts before taking action?

At this stage just one remark, "speed and Cessna 172 are not used in one sentence" ;-) ... 120-150 cruise is far out of reach, unless Reims Rocket RG.

[LTCTerry]

Grumman Tiger:

Fast(er than others...)

IFR possible

Maintenance and insurance helped by fixed gear.

Some of them had a pseudo WWII RAF paint scheme.

You can crack the canopy in flight, though it's noisy.

Much of this depends on your skills and your budget.

(Five gallons per hour is unlikely in anything that otherwise fits your wish list.)

Terry

PS I really enjoyed my hours in a Tiger - including a number of eight-hour, one stop cross countries.

[wanabee777]

For new pilots, I would suggest starting out learning to master a conventional gear aircraft.

J3 Cub or similar. Accumulate 200 hrs in it, minimum.

[Pace]

I would also suggest the Grumman Tiger a lovely aircraft fixed pitch fixed undercarriage, great handling and views from cockpit and can be flown IMC when you are rated.
It also gives you four seats and much faster than the PA28 with similar power

You should get just under 130KTS

You can buy the older variety or find a newer one when they were remanufactured.

The problem with all the home builds are that they are great for Hobby flying but you mentioned getting to work?
Once you are instrument proficient your mission reliability will pick up if you can fly in poorer weather IMC. You can do that in the Tiger but NOT in homebuilts so for your predicted mission profile forget homebuilts
The RV9 is a delight and I believe manufactured and certificated for IFR flight but be cautious as many great handling aircraft can be a challenge in IMC especially for an inexperienced IFR pilot.
You need stability

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

I still think that budget and licences are rather significant.

Pace - the OP is in California - they don't have many clouds there, but also the local rules do permit IFR in homebuilts, so something like an RV might well suit well (in the UK, yes, I'd have a Tiger - actually I have a similar profile of flying to that and a Cheetah.)

G

[Pace]

whoops G never saw the location of the OP Yes the FAA are far more tolerant on flying homebuilts IFR

Never understood the one rule for one in the UK of allowing gliders in clouds but not really well equipped homebuilts

Pace

[The Ancient Geek]

Consider the Cessna 182.

More stable than the 172, a tad faster, better short field performance and carries more load - a good all round choice. Also a nice IFR machine when fitted with the right avionics.
Still in production so excellent parts availability and service is available just about anywhere in the world.

Naturally this all comes at the expense of fuel consumption, there aint no such thing as a free lunch but it is not excessive. Another consideration is easy access, some of us get a bit rusty around the joints as we age so low wing types where you have to climb over the wing to get in can be a PITA.

[foxmoth]

whoops G never saw the location of the OP Yes the FAA are far more tolerant on flying homebuilts IFR

Never understood the one rule for one in the UK of allowing gliders in clouds but not really well equipped homebuilts

Pace

IFR for homebuilts is coming in the UK, maybe not as fast as some of us would like but not that far off fingers crossed.

Certainly the RV is the one I would go for, just make sure you have someone that knows them checks out what you are going to buy, they can be as well built as a manufactured aircraft and sometimes even better, though there are also some "dogs" out there (and some Cessnas etc that have been poorly looked after). Maintenance costs will usually be a lot lower as you do not need to go for certified parts.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I can't help seeing some discrepancy between "new pilot" and "120-150 kts cruise". The faster the plane, the less forgiving it will be of the errors that any beginner pilot has to make. I would recommend O/P begins by renting, to get the feel of his commuting operations, and to experience in what plane it can be done comfortably (no good to arrive at work exhausted from the stress of flying! Even worse to come home burdened by the stress of flying added on top of the stress of a hard day's work!)

Besides, I wonder about the impact of weather: out of +/- 240 working days per annum, how many would allow VFR flying at more or less fixed hours - out to work in the morning, back home in late afternoon ? I cannot help questioning the realism of this commuting idea - but I have not the slightest picture of flying a light plane in Southern California - at least, according to one song, it should never rain there, that ought to help.

[n5296s]

You're being pretty optimistic about using a plane to commute to work. You don't say exactly where you aware but the Bay Area seems more likely than Alturas. You will need IFR for an early arrival/departure 100 days a year. And there will be days (like yesterday) where it's just out of the question.

If you really want to be able to count on using a plane, you need known ice (FIKI). That is available on the Cirrus and a couple of other equally expensive planes. Even then ice can kill you.

5 gph is REALLY low - you can get this on an LSA but it won't have a lot of the other things you want.

I went through a similar decision process as you 15 years ago, and ended up with a TR182 - which is a wonderful aircraft and a great IFR plane. BUT... it burns 14-15 gph, and it still isn't FIKI, which means there are days when you can't fly it, even IFR.

Send me a PM if you want to chat further (I fly out of Palo Alto).

[Capt Kremmen]

Zenair 701. All things to all men. Not fast but good enough for the envisaged commute. 3.5 galls mogas per hour at 80kts. Very forgiving for the low hours. Fly it with your eyes closed - I do most of the time. All metal. Land anywhere.

Forget spamcans and tupperware.

[jonn152]

Thanks for all of the information so far. Here are a few answers to questions asked:

I would probably be looking for a less complex airplane (i.e. fixed gear, prop, etc.) because I am new to flying. I actually have not even received my PPL yet, but expect to by the beginning of summer (unless el nino wipes us out). I would then pursue further certifications.

I live in the central valley of California, so I would probably have more flying days than in other places. I know I won't be able to commute to work everyday, in fact it has been rather stormy lately (finally). But I have a Prius I usually drive and have a second car I would park at the second airport to drive the 5 miles more to work. Flying to work would not be a necessity as I would drive on days not suitable for flying, it would just be more fun.

Budget I had stated as about 50k-150k for the plane itself, depending on plane condition, age, avionics, etc. I could go higher if needed to but I would like to stay in that range because flying isn't the only thing I want to do! I am running numbers in my excel sheet for maintenance, fuel, hanger, insurance, annuals, overhauls, fuel, oil, etc. for each aircraft. I do not want to get into an airplane over my experience level flying or comfort level financially.

The Grumman looks like a great possibility, I am going to start a new page on my excel for that as well as the 182. Thank you for the advice. I think the Zenair 701 may be a bit too slow, as other LSA type aircraft has a higher cruise speed, but thank you for the suggestion.

I know that I can't have everything on my list, which is why I asked for a unicorn as well! Just trying to make my list of planes that would fit my mission. That way, after I get my PPL, I can start renting the acceptable models with a CFI who knows the plane and seeing which one I prefer. I would then rent to build time in the model I like before purchasing, if possible.

What about a Diamond DA20? Does anyone have experience with this aircraft? I have read it would meet most of my wants except the IFR capability, but it can be difficult to steer on the ground due to the front caster wheel.

One last thing, what do people think of the timeline? Am I out of my mind for thinking I can build my time and buy an airplane by the end of summer?

"You are either spending time to save money or spending money to save time"

[vector4fun]

Jonn, I'm going to suggest you stick with a factory airplane for your first, unless you have some very good, close friends who can help you manage and maintain a homebuilt. If you're the do-it-yourself type with lots of experience with engines, structures, etc, then a homebuilt might work, but it will be a lot easier to find correct parts and mechanics knowledgeable about a factory plane.

There's going to be a lot to learn just managing and maintaining a Cessna or Piper, but you can always pay someone to do much of it. Example, annual inspection time comes, I order the parts and filters and batteries I know I'll need. You can't just call Aircraft Spruce and say "I need plugs, oil, air and vacuum filters for an RV-9. They won't have any idea, depends on how it was built, what engine was installed, etc.

For your "mission" as you have described it, I'd suggest a Piper Archer. Find one with up-to-date radios, nav gear, and working autopilot. Reasonable cruise speed, and power to get you over the California mountains in NICE weather. I wouldn't fool with the mountains in bad weather in any plane we're discussing. I myself own a C172, but the Archer is a bit nicer instrument platform IMHO. I did a lot of instrument instructing in Cherokee 180s and Archers, and they are just a little heavier and aren't as bothered by light turbulence. MAKE SURE you get a good pre-buy inspection by an independent mechanic who has nothing to do with the seller!

The C182 is also a good instrument platform, and is easier to get in-out of, rather than everyone having to enter/exit a single door over the wing. But it's more complex with a controllable-pitch prop and more than double your target fuel burn.

Cessna's and Pipers are going to be easiest to find parts and service for. Grummans are fine, as is the Beech Sundowner, but not nearly as common or easy to find airframe parts for.

After you've earned the instrument ticket, accumulated around 400 hours, and been through 3-4 annual inspections and maintenance surprises with your first airplane, then you can start thinking about sexier, faster, more efficient, etc. and easily peddle or trade your Cessna or Piper.

[horizon flyer]

A 180hp Cessna 177fg fixed gear is also a good choice, very good support club in the US. Flyers better than a 182 or Piper, big doors and no wing struts. Only Cessna with a stabilator as per Piper similar to Archer or Arrow in performance but a little better. The RG is 200hp goes a bit faster but usable load similar to FG and 182, it takes more fuel to go the same distance in 182.

[Pace]

What about a Diamond DA20? Does anyone have experience with this aircraft? I have read it would meet most of my wants except the IFR capability, but it can be difficult to steer on the ground due to the front caster wheel.

One last thing, what do people think of the timeline? Am I out of my mind for thinking I can build my time and buy an airplane by the end of summer?

You will get a Tiger for the lower end of your budget while I agree on the PA28 I do find them lacking in character that the Tiger has and with the same engine the Tiger is nearly 20KTS faster
With any aircraft you intend to cover distance in you also have to consider headwinds with 25KTS on the nose you are still looking at over 100KTS ground speed with the Tiger while the Piper will be down in 80KTS
The Diamonds are great aircraft although more expensive

on those hot days in California you can slide the canopy back nine inches in the Tiger to get more air or infact do the same in the air

A good friend bought a share in a Rockwell Commander before even starting his flying lessons so as long as you are committed to aviation and know thats what you want it doesn't matter when if you have the cash that you buy one

Pace

[007helicopter]

150K assume dollars. Cirrus SR20 would be ideal.

[n5296s]

Never flown a DA20, but the DA40 is a very nice aircraft - one I'd be looking at closely if I was in the market to buy. Only drawback is it isn't turbocharged but that's not an issue for your mission though it could be for some others. (Turbo is VERY nice to have for crossing the Sierra Nevada or visiting Colorado - maybe essential - but not needed or useful for getting from the Central Valley to the Bay Area assuming that's your mission).

Cessna is better than Piper for the simple reason that there are a lot more of them. For some odd reason the ratio is much more pro-Piper in Europe. Also I've heard horror stories for parts for Piper lately.

The Grumman is no doubt a nice plane to fly - if you fit. I'm 6' and the one time I was a passenger in one, I had to fly it anyway because otherwise my knees were always in the way!

[Armchairflyer]

What about a Diamond DA20? Does anyone have experience with this aircraft? I have read it would meet most of my wants except the IFR capability, but it can be difficult to steer on the ground due to the front caster wheel.Several hours in DA/DV 20 (with Rotax engine). Never found taxiing an issue. "Reclined" seating position a matter of taste. Backward-opening canopy requires careful check before taking to the skies (and an additional safety catch after a few incidents and accidents). Another similar and newer two-seat aircraft is the Aquila from Germany, but I don't know about availability overseas. If a four-seater is interesting, too, the DA 40 is certainly an attractive option IMHO.

[Cannuck]

I have used AA1 and AA5B for business travel in North for thousands of hours. The Tiger (AA5B but NOT AG5B) fits your bill and does a fantastic job as a 2+2. There is an extremely good aftermarket and community in support, and you have one good shop nearby and a second not far away. Just for comparison: I have left one slot behind a 200HP Arrow on a two hour flight and landed destination well ahead. They are a LOT faster than P/C spam cans, and (from running light a/c maint business) much cheaper to maintain. Also with your budget can be modified to go even faster. AuCountry Aviation, Grumman Tigers and Cheetahs (http://www.aucountry.com) for reference.

I am not very familiar with the Da20 and 40, but they, too fit your budget and speed range. only the 20 with Continental will meet your speed and fuel consumption requirements, and can not see why you would not want to fly it IFR (especailly later model glass panel). An AA1 with 0-320 mod will come very close as well for a lot less $$$$.

[InfraBoy]

Completely agree with the above. I have a similar (UK) requirement to commute occasionally although formation and aeros and fondness dictated by Bulldog. But I have a number of hours in the Aquila doing local and long distance flights and can't recommend it high enough. However, if it is available in the USA (don't see why not it's German) it (to my knowledge) is only night VFR, not IFR. Has no heated pitot tube for example although I've flown instrument approaches in it (in VFR) and it's an exceptionally stable aircraft. Rotax with constant speed prop, cockpit is extremely ergonomically designed and the seats are perhaps the most comfortable I've flown on in my 25 years of flying.


AQUILA Aviation GmbH - Flugzeuge mit Leidenschaft - Aquila A 211 (http://www.aquila-aero.com/index.php?id=18&L=3)

[Pace]

The Aquila looks beautiful its a shame they cannot certify an IFR capable version

Its his first aircraft purchase and the Aquila looks great but what is the purchase price of one?
Just through interest no mention of a BRS? This was a major selling point on the Cirrus and always thought this would be the safety way forward for all new design aircraft especially quality aircraft like the Aquila

Pace

[mary meagher]

jon152, new to flying, but not short of moola. I lived in Berkely California a very long time ago. Never did any flying west of Oklahoma....but nobody on this thread has mentioned what I do remember about your weather in central California. It can be hot hot hot.

Having flown a fair bit in Florida, it is jolly nice to have a high wing aircraft, more shade. Some types you can fly with the windows or doors open, even better.
They fly banner planes down the beach with all the cowlings removed, and the pilots quite comfortable in their bathing costumes!

If you are trapped into a low wing aircraft with only a small vent opening, you can, at lower levels, get rather warm. Anybody here know of a small affordable aircraft with air conditioning? ....

Though it is much cooler the higher you fly, unless you have an instrument rating and a sealed aircraft, I believe access to above 18,000 is restricted in the US.... (in a glider, I did manage 20,300 in Scotland, in wave) though gain of height attempts over the mountains in a glider can be arranged in the US 24 hours in advance..... The chap who did the US height record, Robert Harris, went to 49,000. He got in a bit of trouble with the FAA because its not always possible to predict the right weather 24 hours in advance.....

[vector4fun]

Anybody here know of a small affordable aircraft with air conditioning? ....

Yes, some Archers have factory air conditioning. It's also available as an STC on C182S or C182T, but those would be more expensive aircraft generally.

[Capt Kremmen]

I'm fascinated by this fascination with speed. What for ? If you want to go fast, jump on a commercial.

GA is generally about the pleasure of flight. Going slowly means more time to see things and appreciate the beauty around you and put more time in your log book.

Get in a slow beastie with big tanks and have a look at what's going on.

[foxmoth]

I'm fascinated by this fascination with speed. What for ? If you want to go fast, jump on a commercial.

Depends on the circumstances, if I want to go commercial to fly for UH I need to drive 45 mins(if traffic allows), park, check in, wait for the flight, get through the airfield then a 1:20+ taxi ride, so probably 4 hours+ total, almost as long as driving it, plus the scheduled flight might not fit with when I want to go. Alternative is a 25 min drive to the RV, 15 mins to get the aircraft out and be ready for TO then a 1:15 flight to exactly where I want to be, so under two hours and I can get there at the right time with a reasonable start time, do this in a C172 or Pa28 and I will get there half an hour after I want or need to have an early start. As far as time in the log book goes I am just about to hit 20K hours so not a big consideration!

[Capt Kremmen]

Re 27. Despite all precautions, how does sudden onset bad weather figure in that ?

[foxmoth]

Re 27. Despite all precautions, how does sudden onset bad weather figure in that ?
If by "re 27" you mean my post - one reason I am looking forward to IFR clearance for LAA aircraft, I have an IR so then no problem, and if the weather is that bad at the far end then I will not be doing the flying that I went for and will not be setting off anyway!:bored:
As for the OP, well he has already said that he will be driving when flying is not realistic.

[Capt Kremmen]

Which brings me back to my original point about the value of commercial flights, now with the added impetus of poor weather !

I envy your IR. Not too many of them around at LAA level. I believe that you'll get your wish - LAA IFR approval.

[foxmoth]

I think once IFR for LAA is approved you will see more people getting the basic IR.
As for commercial, not really worth it in the UK unless you are traveling from the S of the U.K. up to Scotland or similar distance and I would think the same applies in the USA, by the time you have driven, parked, checked in, waited, flown, disembarked, then got a taxi to destination (which may be further from a commercial airport than a smaller regional one), you may as well have driven in the first place - probably more so in the USA where roads are less congested!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Capt Kremmen;

There's a surprising number of IR's at LAA level. I used to belong to a ten member Jodel syndicate and eight members held ATPL/IR.

An awful lot of us who fly big stuff for a living also fly LAA types, some to keep their hands in, some (like me) because we just love proper flying. I often fly my LAA type to work, leave it in a company hangar and head off at M.86 and FL nose bleed, or get into a company helicopter and spend my day running rich people to meetings.

I'd bet good money that a check on the LAA membership would reveal the most common job of the members as airline/commercial pilot. I've spent the last couple of days with our CAA Ops Inspector, much of the time in the evenings was spent talking about getting some engine parts for his LAA type, and arranging to visit a couple of fly-ins this year. One area we really agreed on was that flying when we want, rather than when the company says is much more fun.

Back to the thread. For the OP go AA5 series. I haven't flown one for a while, but have around 300 hours on them, and I love them. If I could get a good one, or a share in a good one I'd buy it and put up with all the certificated hassle that comes with it in EASA land. A friend has one which he has had for 20 years and would never part with, that is a good reccomendation. He regularly flies IFR when he needs to, but mostly enjoys VFR wandering.

SND

[Capt Kremmen]

Sir Niall,

Perhaps I don't move in the right circles ! Eight out of ten - that's an impressive percentage. The Dynamic - a slippery machine - parked on my right has three co-owners and I believe that they are ATP's. So perhaps there is something in your claim.

Difficult to give a satisfactory reply to the OP's question. Because he is new or, relatively so, he won't know in which particular direction he should go, hence his request for some helpful suggestions. All of us have our own individual 'take' on the subject.

I divide recreational GA into three broad groupings: Bimblers, Pooterers and Whizzbangs. Bimblers are the Sunday afternoon draggy microlites. Pooterers (that's me) are the Sunday afternoon less draggy STOL types and Whizzbangs are all the wannabe fighter pilot slippery steeds usually and derisively referred to as 'tupperware' by those who want them but can't afford them !

Whichever way the OP goes I hope it is the LAA way. That way lies piloting and ownership happiness. It took me far too long to find that out.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I could get a good one, or a share in a good one I'd buy it and put up with all the certificated hassle that comes with it in EASA land.

No help to the OP, but I know where a couple of shares in good ones are going in the (English) midlands.

G