Buying first family airplane.

[peterh337]

TB20, very comfortable, very fast, holds a lot, goes a distance, however parts for Socata aircraft can be quite hard to get and very expensive

Parts are easy to get in virtually all cases.

Some of the prices have been creeping up lately; that's true. But all airframe parts are very expensive. I recently had the vertical stabiliser replaced (hangar damage) and it was 4k euros, which suprised me as I was expecting something like 5k-10k.

Some Socata prices are very high e.g. the metric-thread oil hose at some £400, but you change it at overhaul only (if it is Teflon which it should be anyway).

So it varies. The parts kit for the Annual comes to 360 euros (I have just bought the stuff) and that includes the nose gear gas struts which are a precautionary replacement every year.

A while ago I wrote up this on the TB20... rather long but should help somebody looking at one.

so if you plump for one of these guys, buy newer

That is excellent advice for all planes Make sure your budget has a decent reserve in it for "suprises" but otherwise buy the best you can afford. You will get it back in reduced hassle, reduced downtime, much reduced airframe parts cost, etc.

It does eat runway from what I understand (relative to the 182).

Compared to a 182, of course. Very little (that is practical for going places) will beat a 182 on short field performance. A friend of mine has a special 182 with canards (N-reg, obviously) which gets airborne in something like 100m.

A TB20 has very good runway performance for its class, at about 400-500m tarmac minimum.

It does a lot more MPG than a C182... say 140kt TAS at FL100 on 9.5USG/hr.

Retractable gears are great but they are just another thing to go wrong when the annual comes around.

Relatively that must be true. If you have a 2nd altimeter, you could say the same for that

But retractable gear gives you ~20% more MPG (yeah, I know Cirrus salesmen will dispute that but they would say that). The Socata implementation must be one of the most robust and reliable systems in GA. That said, I prefer hard runways, because grass just covers the whole plane with crud, and the crud doesn't care if it has retractable gear or not

[silverknapper]

but again as with everything I could be wrong

Respectfully, I think you are Dan.

The 182 is a great machine, and it could be ideal for the original poster. But it's no streamlined fuel efficient rocket. I certainly dispute that it's more frugal than a Bonanza. I think they're burn is similiar, and take into account the 35-40 kts difference in TAS then the mpg will look better on the Bonnie. I also personally feel for an IFR tourer 130kts is too slow.

I agree with Peter. Buy the absolute best you can get and you'll reap the rewards in time. Also don't be scared by retractable gear/wobbly props etc etc. It's progress and that's a good thing! I do not understand people who advocate it for long distance touring. Fly a retractable machine with the gear up and down and see the difference it makes. Then imagine flying 500nm with it down. This is one of the many downsides of the Cirrus in my opinion. The others being a complete lack of feel/flying experience, lack of stalling performance and the £10k bill every 10 years to repack the 'chute they had to put in to overcome the latter.

Dan is correct, fly as many as you can, read the POH and ask questions here, either by PM or live. Speak to your intended maintenance people about issues and listen to them. I heard a funny story a few weeks back at our local 145 about a chap asking advice on 172's. The head honcho engineer told him what to avoid. Lo and behold the guy ignored him, had a cheap one ferried over and was subsequently faced with a massive bill for an engine and corrosion rectification.

I'll bang my Bonanza drum on my way out! Everyone compares aircraft in this class to a Bonnie. Cut out the comparisons and buy the best!! It is twice the airplane an ancient commanche is, with better support and more importantly they are still in production. Those barn dors are lovely too! And I don't own one sadly so have no vested interest.

[peterh337]

Yes, I know its due to the Euro bureaucracy

It's actually due primarily to you being a very competent engineer.

If you were in Europe and operated an aircraft which is not on an ICAO cert of airworthiness, and you don't attach any value to your time, you could do the same as you are doing now.

If you were in Europe and operated an N-reg aircraft and were an A&P/IA, and you don't attach any value to your time, you could do the same too.

The "problem" is that not everybody likes to get their hands dirty, and most could not do the work competently even if they wanted to. Those need to buy carefully, and buying something say 10 years or less old avoids the inevitable airframe maintenance stuff on which chickens come home to roost sooner or later. Airframe parts are especially expensive, on the scale of things.

[Dan the weegie]

I keep having to say Bonanaza over and over in my head, it sounds like a lovely word Bonanaza

Didn't mean to say it was better, the 182 just seemed to suit the needs of the OP . 130kts is slow, but for someone with relatively low hours it's positively bullet quick, they also sell quite well which is another thing to consider, resale of any aircraft is worth keeping in mind

imo 500m Tarmac is quite a lot of runway, that would equate to 700m grass and that, at least for me, would be quite limiting .

[peterh337]

There are loads of A&P/IAs over here, Silvaire. I know one locally who is also an ATP/CFII, as well an EASA Part 66 (whatever that is) so can do absolutely everything short of returning a 747 to service

[jecuk]

I always fancied the Saratoga.

[Bumps]

Right.

So the best option seems to be to get as new of an aircraft as possible.

This leaves us with three options, Cirrus, DA-40, or 182 about 10 years old.

The cirrus seems to be a very nice airplane in terms of touring and IFR capability, although someone mentioned the running costs might be a bit high.

At the moment, the 182 seems to be the best option being a very common machine and with a proven record.

We'll have to look in to the DA-40 a bit more but we're certainly interested.

Thanks for all the replies and opinions, if you have any further suggestions or can provide some details in terms of running costs for the above airplanes I'd appreciate it.

[BackPacker]

I'm not following the state of the CEAPR (or whatever it's called) Robin factory all that closely, as they seem to be going through an endless bust/alive cycle, but my club bought two DR400-135CDIs (with the 1.7 Thielert) new from the factory about three years ago. My guess is that it should not be too hard to buy a DR400-155CDI (with the 2.0s Thielert) new today (or a -160 or -180 for that matter).

In your list, I think it's definitely an airplane you should consider as well. Although, in line with the DA40, it has four seats but it's not a true four-seater which will haul four adults plus baggage plus fuel. To haul four adults, plus baggage plus fuel will nearly always require a six-seater.

[VMC-on-top]

Finally got round to uploading GA comparison sheet to Google docs.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...Qb3lDcnc#gid=0

I've no idea where this sheet came from, I just came across it on my PC one day and have made some additions to it myself - so don't shoot the messenger!

I expect that anyone who's owned or flown anything on this list will come along and say, I've flown further, higher, faster doing more MPG than on the list but it at least gives a comparison. What is interesting is that the MPG for most GA types is very similar, including Mooney lovers who always rave on about how they go higher, faster, more economically than anyone else!

I've gone through the same process as the OP and narrowed the choice down to an A36 (with tip tanks - although I don't have any data on it to add on the enclosed sheet) and an G2-SR22. Big advantages of the SR22 are CAPS, glass incl, GPWS, TCAS, weather but obviously not the same useful load as the A36 and more likely to depreciate faster. Having said that, the Cirrus avionics suite is pretty much standard whereas to get an A36 with tip tanks, boots, equivalent avionics, its going to be a long search and will end up with something 10 yrs+ older.

[Bumps]

I was having trouble finding any late models DR400 for price comparison online and assumed they were few and far between. Any idea of what the running costs and purchase price is for a later model? If it's manageable, it's definitively not excluded. And in reality, we'll usually be no more than 2 or 3 people, but we'd like to have the capability of four persons.

[BackPacker]

Bumps, you may want to ask Cole Aviation, one of the UK dealers of Robin aircraft, for the latest status on manufacture, deliveries and prices.

http://www.coleaviation.co.uk

Furthermore, planecheck.com has 20 DR400s listed, from -100 to -180s. One of them is a 2011 demonstrator, with the 155 HP 2.0s Thielert. Definitely worth a close look.

[Dan the weegie]

One last tip, do not buy a diesel.

As for age, I don't agree entirely do not take the bonanza or the TB20 out of the question until you fly them! My suggestion is settle on what you want and then buy the best overall of which age is a consideration.

Go out and fly the planes Have a shot of each of them, contact owners and arrange sensible terms for a shot there will be one of most of the planes mentioned in your area.

[peterh337]

What is interesting is that the MPG for most GA types is very similar, including Mooney lovers who always rave on about how they go higher, faster, more economically than anyone else!

To a first order approximation, the MPG of a plane depends on the cockpit volume.

So you take your pick.

If you want to take up classy birds, it will cost more. But hey how old are you? You must know that already

The old Lycos are actually more efficient (SFC) than any current petrol car engine - in cruise, correctly leaned.

And since thrust (maybe I should not have mentioned the birds) comes only from burning fuel.... there is no free lunch.

Obviously a modern airframe design helps a bit, but they are rare because 3D curves are hard to fabricate out of sheet metal without spending lots of money on press tooling. In piston GA, almost nobody does press tooling so it is composites only. The SR22 is a slicker airframe but they waste a lot in the fixed gear. For an idea of how much they waste, look at the retractable Lancairs.

I've gone through the same process as the OP and narrowed the choice down to an A36 (with tip tanks - although I don't have any data on it to add on the enclosed sheet) and an G2-SR22. Big advantages of the SR22 are CAPS, glass incl, GPWS, TCAS, weather but obviously not the same useful load as the A36 and more likely to depreciate faster.

Cirruses depreciate pretty rapidly. And, going by what I hear, I would avoid the Avidyne-cockpit ones.

GPWS is great to have and could seriously save your life one day. Very few GA CFITs we know about would have happened with even a Garmin 496. TCAS is more of an emotional protection, IMHO.

TB20s go from £40k (for an old dog) upwards to £140k+ (2002 TB20GT). Currently there are very few GTs on the market, but they do appear fairly regularly, and there are usually some in the USA (and worth paying the ferry cost). But many pilots do not want to admit publicly they are selling up, so posting a message in the socata.org user group should produce some offers.

[Rory Dixon]

A detailed write-up of an owner's experience with a DA40 you may find here.

[NazgulAir]

Commanches are lovely, but isn't it just a powerful archer? Little bit cramped for longer flights. Same with mooneys, it's a 2+ imo rather than a comfy 4 seat but wow do they shift. Watch for the turbo charger as well, they can shock cool if you're not sensible with them.

Huh??!! Simply not true. The Comanche is a widebody compared to an Archer, and ours is a 'longbody' too with six seats. Granted the rear seats have limited legroom and double as luggage compartment, but there is ample room in the cockpit for 4 adults plus luggage.

The last Comanche was built in 1972. But there is an active user society with supporting technical expertise, and its own sources for parts insofar as Piper does not stock them. Availability of parts was never a problem for us. Well-maintained Comanches keep their value in an active secondhand market.

The Comanche is not a "powerful Archer". It is a completely different breed of aircraftof which production was discontinued after the flood of '72 simply because the chunkier Cherokees and Arrows (and later the Warrior) were a lot cheaper to build and had a bigger market.

Advantages of the Comanche:
- great flying characteristics.
- huge envelope giving many loading and range options.
- spacious cabin with enough width to have an aisle!
- very long range. Without tip tanks, still better range than most.
- fast cruise.
- very economical to fly (e.g., 165ktTAS /FL100 /50% /38 litres)
- very good IFR platform.
- good short field takeoff and landing ability.
- active user society network.
- best "cost-seat-passenger-mile" performance of all, including modern types.

Disadvantages:
- uh, I can't think of any. Or it must be that as with any type of good aerodynamic design, it may require some additional training.
One aircraft I have not heard mentioned is the C177 Cardinal, which has a good range and hauling capacity and is relatively cheap to maintain.

@Silvaire1, nice picture!

[IO550]

I have a 177RG. The RG is no issue. Was thoroughly overhauled about 6 years ago and never been a problem since. 4 adults 140kts 4 hours out of a grass strip quite doable.
Having said all that I have always lusted after an A36 for comfort and speed.

[AdamFrisch]

I just thought I'd share this nice shot of a Tecnam P2006T cruising along at sunset just above the clouds. No reason, just nice light and a nice (and cheap) aircraft. Want one bad.

Flight in the Tecnam P2006T from EVB to FMY - YouTube

[peterh337]

I thought it was about £250,000.

[wsmempson]

I thought it couldn't take four normal sized adults at 4 hrs fuel.

Otherwise it fits the brief perfectly.

[Fuji Abound]

Can i put in a word for a modern in production aircraft. I flown most of the types mentioned, and been involved with more than a few groups and commercial schools from a business perspective.

Aircraft out of production are often poorly supported. Sourcing parts eventually becomes more difficult and more costly. Aircraft generally seem to have a golden life of around 7 years - from new to 7 years old on the whole they are trouble free and the costs predictable.

All of this leads up to a vote for an sr22, albeit it may stretch your budget. The reality is they are a modern production aircraft well supported by both the factory and their uk dealer network. It is strange the extent to which the sr22 is plagued with ill informed press almost always from people who have never ever flown a 22. Bottom line is they are a capable tourer with a roomy comfortable cabin. They really are not difficult to fly, the avionics works well with very few problems, the engine is tried and tested and they are a very known quantity in terms of their operating costs and depreciation curve.

I am not saying they are the best thing since sliced bread, but if they fit your budget, you want few maintenance problems, predictable depreciation, a quick and comfortable tourer i genuinely believe there is nothing better. After 20 years flying if i had to fly only one single for the rest of my time and didnt need to worry about the cost it would be a sr22.