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
Next step up from a pa28 140?
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???
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???
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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..
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..
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
. 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.
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
. 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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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.
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"
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Between a Rock & A Hard Place
Age: 53
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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......
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......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by wsmempson; 5th Mar 2007 at 10:22.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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!
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!
