Buying first family airplane.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Katamarino
So you're saying that you're landing with the prop somewhat coarse and the mixture somewhat leaned?
I have very little experience on DR400, to be honest. I've just said I wouldn't do IMC in a wooden aircraft - it's just a personal decision. The DR400 I flew wasn't equipped with toe brakes, so I made an assumption none are - my mistake. Robin also has problems with aft CG (within limits): if you put the nosewheel on the ground too softly on landing, it won't "lock" and you're unable to steer until you apply the brakes quite heavily, which produces enough weight on the nosewheel and the steering is then enabled.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most popular full four seater is the Cessna 182 Skylane and for around €100k it should be possible to purchase one of the later non glass 182S models with a fuel injected engine. These offer decent payload, comfortable cabin, reasonable cruising speed and range, good short field performance off grass and most importantly good spares support.
Others have mentioned buying a Mooney, Robin, Rockwell, Grumman or Piper but all of these aircraft manufacturers have had well documented problems with parts supply, possibly no longer in business and many of the aircraft are only supported through the efforts of owner groups.
Many of the models mentioned have an odd combination of engines and propellers that are often unique to that aircraft. One touch on a prop blade and you could find that spare blades are no longer available. Need a camshaft or a non standard cylinder for an odd ball engine then you could find that once again they are hard to locate even in the USA.
Some of the aircraft such as the Mooney have limited prop or gear door clearance, the Cirrus have small wheels and thus restrict the grass fields from which you can operate.
With a typical full load check the take off performance on a hot summers day off a grass field and also the C of G with a typical load not just for take off but for the landings as well as many can prove to be out of limits at the end of a flight as the C of G moves aft with fuel burn. Pilots and passengers gradually weigh more and carry more goodies all of which need to be taken into account when judging the size of cabin, baggage area and number of cabin doors.
There is a wealth of information available on the web and you can download Consumer reports on individual aircraft or as a group of aircraft.
Hopes this helps.
Others have mentioned buying a Mooney, Robin, Rockwell, Grumman or Piper but all of these aircraft manufacturers have had well documented problems with parts supply, possibly no longer in business and many of the aircraft are only supported through the efforts of owner groups.
Many of the models mentioned have an odd combination of engines and propellers that are often unique to that aircraft. One touch on a prop blade and you could find that spare blades are no longer available. Need a camshaft or a non standard cylinder for an odd ball engine then you could find that once again they are hard to locate even in the USA.
Some of the aircraft such as the Mooney have limited prop or gear door clearance, the Cirrus have small wheels and thus restrict the grass fields from which you can operate.
With a typical full load check the take off performance on a hot summers day off a grass field and also the C of G with a typical load not just for take off but for the landings as well as many can prove to be out of limits at the end of a flight as the C of G moves aft with fuel burn. Pilots and passengers gradually weigh more and carry more goodies all of which need to be taken into account when judging the size of cabin, baggage area and number of cabin doors.
There is a wealth of information available on the web and you can download Consumer reports on individual aircraft or as a group of aircraft.
Hopes this helps.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that, at present, the useful load of a 2006 is 790lbs, with no fuel.
There may well be an increase in MAUW in the pipeline, which would make this a good deal more interesting, but at the moment 700nm+4 adults+luggage+fuel will not fit into a 2006.
There may well be an increase in MAUW in the pipeline, which would make this a good deal more interesting, but at the moment 700nm+4 adults+luggage+fuel will not fit into a 2006.
What's great about the 2006T is that it runs on Rotax and Mogas. I know there's still a lot of resistence towards Rotax, but hey, it's happy on ethanol-filled Mogas, has a 2000hr TBO, cost half the price to overhaul and is crazy frugal on fuel - that's good enough for me. Stick one of these in the back of your car and fill up at the gas station:
Fuel Transfer Tanks & Aluminum Steel Combo Tanks, Diesel Fuel Tank | 4Truck-Accessories
Who wants to be loved by an oil company? S**ew them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near water
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thansk for all the replies! 
I'll be looking in to many of your suggestions as soon as I find the time.
Here are my thoughts at the moment.
P2006T - None of us are multi-engine certified at the moment, I can get my done fairly quick, but the other pilot is just getting his PPL and a twin might be a bit advanced to start with. Also, I think it's a bit out of our price range.
DR400 - Haven't looked much in to it yet, but it sounds like a good options from many of you here.
Cirrus - I would love to own a cirrus and will look in to that as well. Only problem is I've heard a lot of negativity about their doors.
DA-40 - One of you suggested the DA-40 might be an option. A guy at the local flying club also suggested it. Any more thoughts?
C182 - I'll look in to it as well. Problem is, I don't like high-wing aircraft. Maybe I'll get used to it.
TB20 - Haven't had a chance to do much reading on it, but I found a massive owner write-up of it online and will read through that when I have the time.
I'll be looking in to many of your suggestions as soon as I find the time.
Here are my thoughts at the moment.
P2006T - None of us are multi-engine certified at the moment, I can get my done fairly quick, but the other pilot is just getting his PPL and a twin might be a bit advanced to start with. Also, I think it's a bit out of our price range.
DR400 - Haven't looked much in to it yet, but it sounds like a good options from many of you here.
Cirrus - I would love to own a cirrus and will look in to that as well. Only problem is I've heard a lot of negativity about their doors.
DA-40 - One of you suggested the DA-40 might be an option. A guy at the local flying club also suggested it. Any more thoughts?
C182 - I'll look in to it as well. Problem is, I don't like high-wing aircraft. Maybe I'll get used to it.
TB20 - Haven't had a chance to do much reading on it, but I found a massive owner write-up of it online and will read through that when I have the time.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Robin is a lovely plane. Good visibility, easy to fly, good cruise speed, slow approach speeds (who needs brakes?) but more importantly, excellent field performance. There are also some available with C/S prop and they have to be the bee's knees. But as A & C said, they really should be hangared.
PM
PM
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear !
Flyingstone you really have been fed some rubbish.
Quote:- The Robin has problems with C of G (aft limits)
Another bit of flying club folk lore , the Robin has no aft C og G issues apart from the fact that if you place all of the very good payload at the back it will go out of limits...........just like all the other light aircraft I have flown.
At MTOW with full fuel if you have a long range tank under the baggage bay you can drive the aircraft out of the aft limit (just) if you mismanage the fuel but you have four and a half hours flying to manage to do that.
The problems that you encountered with the nose gear centering not disengaging were due to the incorrect servicing of the landing gear shock struts, the early maintenance manuals were a poor translation into English so there was some excuse but the later editions are crystal clear so all problems in this area should have gone away about ten years ago.
The thing that I just cant get my head around is why you wont fly a wooden aircraft IMC ? even the early jets such as the Vampire were made of wood and they traveled at speeds & altitudes far above what a light aircaft can do so what is the problem with wood?
Quote:- The Robin has problems with C of G (aft limits)
Another bit of flying club folk lore , the Robin has no aft C og G issues apart from the fact that if you place all of the very good payload at the back it will go out of limits...........just like all the other light aircraft I have flown.
At MTOW with full fuel if you have a long range tank under the baggage bay you can drive the aircraft out of the aft limit (just) if you mismanage the fuel but you have four and a half hours flying to manage to do that.
The problems that you encountered with the nose gear centering not disengaging were due to the incorrect servicing of the landing gear shock struts, the early maintenance manuals were a poor translation into English so there was some excuse but the later editions are crystal clear so all problems in this area should have gone away about ten years ago.
The thing that I just cant get my head around is why you wont fly a wooden aircraft IMC ? even the early jets such as the Vampire were made of wood and they traveled at speeds & altitudes far above what a light aircaft can do so what is the problem with wood?
Last edited by A and C; 6th Dec 2011 at 07:36.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA40: Nice flying aeroplane. Very comfy cabin, and can be spec'd to VFR, traditional IFR or glass cockpit. I have experience with the 1.7 Thielert which has caused us, and a lot of others, a lot of grief. The 2.0 engine is a lot better, apparently, but is downrated to 135 HP (same as the 1.7) to save rewriting/recertifying the POH. Later models use the 155 HP 2.0s engine or the Austro. I would get one of those, since 135 HP is really underpowered. It cruises just fine thanks to the slick airframe, but short field and climb performance leaves a lot to be desired.
Long wings and a castoring nosewheel makes it a handful to handle on the ground though. Some people get used to that quickly and maneuver the DA40 in the tightest spaces, others struggle.
Jet-A means that fuel costs are more than halved compared to 100LL, but you will have other costs. The replacement of the gearbox damper in the Thielert is one of them (although I think Austro uses a different system which lasts longer).
Oh, and it's again a four seater so it really doesn't seat four adults with a reasonable amount of baggage and fuel.
Long wings and a castoring nosewheel makes it a handful to handle on the ground though. Some people get used to that quickly and maneuver the DA40 in the tightest spaces, others struggle.
Jet-A means that fuel costs are more than halved compared to 100LL, but you will have other costs. The replacement of the gearbox damper in the Thielert is one of them (although I think Austro uses a different system which lasts longer).
Oh, and it's again a four seater so it really doesn't seat four adults with a reasonable amount of baggage and fuel.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA40-180
Been flying a 2007 DA40-180 XLS for just over 3 years (300 hours), G1000, IFR equipped.
Lovely to fly; comfortable, well-powered with the 180hp engine, good range, great vis., (great safety record for the DA40)
Some figures (actually recorded from the G1000 on a datacard):
- two-up, half tanks: 140KTAS @ 3,000ft, 8.0 gph
- MTOW, 133KTAS @ 10,000ft, 8.3 gph
No problems with the Lycoming engine and lots of maintenance organisations are familiar with it, of course.
Can take 4 people + light baggage if at least two people are light and tanks not full (flew to Berlin, 4-up + light bags, with one fuel stop on the way).
If you get one definitely get the GFC700 autopilot - if you are doing real IFR this makes such a difference flying approaches.
Downside is the long wings - do need to watch taxying and makes hangarage expensive.
Other thing: a DA40-180 with G1000 + GFC700 will be well over £100k.
Lovely to fly; comfortable, well-powered with the 180hp engine, good range, great vis., (great safety record for the DA40)
Some figures (actually recorded from the G1000 on a datacard):
- two-up, half tanks: 140KTAS @ 3,000ft, 8.0 gph
- MTOW, 133KTAS @ 10,000ft, 8.3 gph
No problems with the Lycoming engine and lots of maintenance organisations are familiar with it, of course.
Can take 4 people + light baggage if at least two people are light and tanks not full (flew to Berlin, 4-up + light bags, with one fuel stop on the way).
If you get one definitely get the GFC700 autopilot - if you are doing real IFR this makes such a difference flying approaches.
Downside is the long wings - do need to watch taxying and makes hangarage expensive.
Other thing: a DA40-180 with G1000 + GFC700 will be well over £100k.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO (and experience) - if you want 4 people AND luggage to go any distance, then as an earlier poster said you really need a 6 seater - I co-owned & flew a PA-32 Cherokee6 for many years - superb aircraft for endurance and ease of flying - BUT - 1 litre per minute !!!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a useful spreadsheet I could attach which (although not perfect) gives a decent comparison between various GA types. Only thing is, i can't see how to attach it!!
Can anyone help?
Can anyone help?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd look seriously at a Bonanza A36 for what you describe. Nothing beats them for interior comfort, space and all round ability. you could be looking at an early 90's model with a bit of hard bargaining. A real 4 person IFR tourer with the ability to lift 6 if needed, or loads of baggage space if not. First class build quality. Looks timeless, will age gracefully and there are loads of enthusiastic owners about who'll be on hand with helpful advice. The American Bonanza Society is a particularly good starting point.
Above all else it's a buyers market. Take your time and enjoy the search!
Above all else it's a buyers market. Take your time and enjoy the search!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonanza & commander
The Beech is probably the best built aircraft in its class but the running costs are large, if you are running a Beech as a business tool doing 200 hours + per year then I think that you could make a case for it because the quality construction would start to give a return in reliability.
The Rockwell commander is a bit sub beech, but the construction is not as good, the 112 is underpowered but the 114 has got things very well balanced and like the Beech is very nice to fly.
The big problem is keeping the six cylindr engine fed with £2/Ltr AVGAS.
You could not slide a cigarette paper between the R114 and TB20 in terms of performance and running costs, but in a very personal opinion I think the R114 is nicer to fly..........just!
It is a case of paying your money and taking your choice but in terms of cost I would prefer to give away a little in terms of speed and save some money by going for the top end of the Robin market, they may give a little away in terms of speed but the cost savings of an aircraft that will operate out of farm strips that the others will not look at gives the advantage of cheap hangarage and the chance of getting into a small strip near the intended destination, a fact that may well negate the higher speed of other aircraft.
There is a lot of misinformed prejudice against Robin aircraft, Flyingstone is a typical example of the people who have been fed a lot of half truth and misunderstanding and repeat it as truth, all I would say is go fly the Robin with someone who has done a few long trips in one and I think you might find it is the aircraft for your mission.
The last thing I would say is if you put two engines on a Bonanza it is called a Barron and this truly puts it in a class of its own.
The Rockwell commander is a bit sub beech, but the construction is not as good, the 112 is underpowered but the 114 has got things very well balanced and like the Beech is very nice to fly.
The big problem is keeping the six cylindr engine fed with £2/Ltr AVGAS.
You could not slide a cigarette paper between the R114 and TB20 in terms of performance and running costs, but in a very personal opinion I think the R114 is nicer to fly..........just!
It is a case of paying your money and taking your choice but in terms of cost I would prefer to give away a little in terms of speed and save some money by going for the top end of the Robin market, they may give a little away in terms of speed but the cost savings of an aircraft that will operate out of farm strips that the others will not look at gives the advantage of cheap hangarage and the chance of getting into a small strip near the intended destination, a fact that may well negate the higher speed of other aircraft.
There is a lot of misinformed prejudice against Robin aircraft, Flyingstone is a typical example of the people who have been fed a lot of half truth and misunderstanding and repeat it as truth, all I would say is go fly the Robin with someone who has done a few long trips in one and I think you might find it is the aircraft for your mission.
The last thing I would say is if you put two engines on a Bonanza it is called a Barron and this truly puts it in a class of its own.
The last C 182 I flew (3100 GTOW) could carry 810 lbs in the cabin and full fuel (7 hours). I tell everyone who asks your question to get a 1970 or later C 182. It is comfortable, usefully fast, one of the nicest aircraft to fly on instrument, has good spares support because so many were made, easy to insure (insurance for a high performance retract like a Bonanza, may not be available at any price) and easy to resell if you want to move up.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA-24 Comanche
Have a friend who has a share in a Comanche and loves it. Worth looking into if you want a low wing, as with 260HP they're pretty fast and will carry as much weight as a C182, and are probably cheaper than a Bonanza.
See Piper PA-24 Comanche pilot report
See Piper PA-24 Comanche pilot report
Have a friend who has a share in a Comanche and loves it. Worth looking into if you want a low wing, as with 260HP they're pretty fast and will carry as much weight as a C182, and are probably cheaper than a Bonanza.
See Piper PA-24 Comanche pilot report
See Piper PA-24 Comanche pilot report
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could be wrong but I'm not sure that the P2006T is actually certified for flying in IMC.
When owning an aircraft I honestly believe that simplicity is important, the less fancy stuff you have, the less you have that can go wrong (expensively) so you should be less likely to have fewer nasty £££ surprises.
So consider very carefully the benefits of each of the fancy bits and how much you're likely to miss them if the plane you own doesn't have it.
Taking all things into account, I'd always opt for the 182, it lifts a heck of a lot of weight, it goes around the place at around 130kts which is plenty quick enough in the UK (Inverness to Oxfordshire in under 3 hours), it's easy to fly and it will fly in and out of pretty much any strip you care to put your wheels on. I'm not convinced most of the others are anywhere near as capable, but again as with everything I could be wrong
.
You'll definitely get one within your budget with a good interior and good avionics and it's still fairly easy to fly for a low hours PPL. I hear what you're saying about high wing but you should try very hard to look beyond that. It does everything you could want to do with a private aircraft very well indeed you will rarely find yourself being in a situation where you can't go to a certain place.
Bonanza, lovely, capable, fast, thirsty.
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 so if you plump for one of these guys, buy newer It does eat runway from what I understand (relative to the 182). Retractable gears are great but they are just another thing to go wrong when the annual comes around.
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.
Cherokee Six (6xt) is a nice plane, bigger than Commanches and archers I'm not sure I love the Oleo main gear, they have a habit of sucking dirt in to the seal and losing pressure which can be a pest to have fixed as you need to go somewhere with pressurised Nitrogen to have it pumped up again.
Saratoga, same as cherokee 6 with a little more comfort and a disappearing gear, very nice but I wonder if a Cessna 210 wouldn't be more practical given it's capability.
Most improtantly, try a few you're interested in, pay for the flight. Owning is much more expensive than you think so you need to make sure it's the right decision and the only way to do that is to decide for your self, opinions being like arrsouls an all
When owning an aircraft I honestly believe that simplicity is important, the less fancy stuff you have, the less you have that can go wrong (expensively) so you should be less likely to have fewer nasty £££ surprises.
So consider very carefully the benefits of each of the fancy bits and how much you're likely to miss them if the plane you own doesn't have it.
Taking all things into account, I'd always opt for the 182, it lifts a heck of a lot of weight, it goes around the place at around 130kts which is plenty quick enough in the UK (Inverness to Oxfordshire in under 3 hours), it's easy to fly and it will fly in and out of pretty much any strip you care to put your wheels on. I'm not convinced most of the others are anywhere near as capable, but again as with everything I could be wrong
.You'll definitely get one within your budget with a good interior and good avionics and it's still fairly easy to fly for a low hours PPL. I hear what you're saying about high wing but you should try very hard to look beyond that. It does everything you could want to do with a private aircraft very well indeed you will rarely find yourself being in a situation where you can't go to a certain place.
Bonanza, lovely, capable, fast, thirsty.
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 so if you plump for one of these guys, buy newer
It does eat runway from what I understand (relative to the 182). Retractable gears are great but they are just another thing to go wrong when the annual comes around.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.
Cherokee Six (6xt) is a nice plane, bigger than Commanches and archers I'm not sure I love the Oleo main gear, they have a habit of sucking dirt in to the seal and losing pressure which can be a pest to have fixed as you need to go somewhere with pressurised Nitrogen to have it pumped up again.
Saratoga, same as cherokee 6 with a little more comfort and a disappearing gear, very nice but I wonder if a Cessna 210 wouldn't be more practical given it's capability.
Most improtantly, try a few you're interested in, pay for the flight. Owning is much more expensive than you think so you need to make sure it's the right decision and the only way to do that is to decide for your self, opinions being like arrsouls an all