Next step up from a pa28 140?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Last edited by wsmempson; 7th Mar 2007 at 22:20.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non turbo Arrow-Not enough performance for the extra money
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Warboys
Age: 55
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
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......
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
(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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
SF 260
Good ones out there for around $200K and it’s difficult to get more smiles per mile!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
