Buying first family airplane.

[Bumps]

G'day all!

With another family member having just started his PPL we've decided that we want to purchase a family airplane. I was hoping someone here would be kind enough to give us some direction as to what aircraft, what to look out for when buying, and general hidden costs and other factors.

Our requirements:

* Holds up to 4 people nicely.
* Something faster than your standard C172/PA-28.
* Not too expensive to insure.
* Price around €100,000, give or take.
* Instrument certified.

Also, what sort of cost and work can you expect if you want to import an aircraft from the other side of the pond? And possibly keeping it on the N-reg.

All our previous experience have been on Archer III's.

Some general tips would be much appreciated!

[mrmum]

Hi Bumps,

Thought this would have had some responses by now, but here goes. I've not been private owner myself, but have been in a syndicate (and involved in the running) and helped source/manage a few aircraft for people I've taught to fly.

By saying you want instrument certification, you are putting yourself into a CofA, EASA regulated (probably), factory-built aircraft. Are you sure you need this? What types of flights do you think you will be doing and where? Do you have, or are you planning to get an IR or IMCr? If you can stay VFR, then that opens the door to LAA permit types, which are much cheaper to run. But if you want 4 decent sized adults and fuel, with IMC capability then they're not for you.

How about one of the fixed-gear PA-32s, they have a degree of commonality with the Archers you're used to. Fixed U/C rather than retractable to keep insurance and maintenance costs under control. Being a six-seater, you can actually put 4 people in it, with reasonable fuel and some baggage.

Cessna 182s are quite nice, bigger, faster and more payload than a 172, personally I like the Commander 114B or 115.

There's also TB20s, but there's a better person than me to tell you about those, and the lowdown on ownership.

The N-reg situation is looking like it's going to become tricky once EASA take over, have a search for previous threads on that particular subject.
If you get something on a G-reg, be very careful where you get the maintenance done, since EASA part M came in, it's got stupidly and pointlessly expensive and unscrupulous CAMOs/MOs can have you over a bit of a barrel if you're not careful. I'm sure they're not all just hiding behind the reg's and ripping customers off, but some are

[AdamFrisch]

Mrmum covered much of it.

Mooney if you want speed. Can be a bit cramped with four perhaps. A C210, or even a P210 is not out of your price range. Nice, fast long leg cruiser. Any of the bigger Pipers. A first generation Cirrus maybe. Definitely a Beechcraft Bonanza - you don't get much more of a competent single than that. Huge range with the tip tanks, huge load capacity and very fast.

I would suggest going for a 6-place, that way you can load up with 4 and still have enough fuel to go more than around the field.

But with the avgas prices as they are in Europe, if you want to finance a plane I think the small Tecnam P2006T twin is a great buy that makes a lot of sense financially as it can run on mogas (with ethanol!). I did the calculations, and if you chuck in that amount you mentioned as a down and got a 5% loan on the rest, that airplane will be cheaper to run than a paid off avgas burning spam can at about 100-150hrs a year. I kid you not. Avgas, overhaul and maintenance combined on old airframes will eat you alive.

[Pilot DAR]

The afore mentioned types are good choices, though I'm weary of the 1960's and 70's Pipers these days. I have first hand experience with parts shortages, and resulting permanently grounded aircraft. A Piper tech rep in Florida said the following to me, in respect of a Seneca I:

"Sir, that's a 40 year old plane, and we [Piper] have not seen it for 40 years. We really don't want it in the air any more."

If that reflects Piper policy with respect to their legacy aircraft, I would not consider buying one. Too much risk you might need a part, and not be able to get it. I have just declared a 1967 Arrow with really minor corrosion to be beyond economical repair, due to the large effort to change out, and poor availability of, major structural parts.

You really can't go far wrong with a C 182, if it fits your budget. Don't overlook the fixed gear 180HP C 177 Cardinal, or the Grumman Tiger. Both will carry 4 adults, have a respectable cruise speed, and are reasonable to maintain.

[Bumps]

Thanks for the suggestions any replies guys

mrmum

We're absolutely sure we want an Instrument certified plane. With me (the son) intending to go professional and my father is also likely to want an Instrument rating in the future.

We'll have a look in to PA-32's but Pilot DAR:s post scares me a bit. Although I quoted 4 passengers usual load will be 2 or 3.

I probably should have mentioned this in the first post, but we would prefer a low wing although we have not totally ruled out the C182 yet. And we'll have a look in to the Commanders.

TB20 looks interesting though, will try to do some more research on it.

Adam

Again, should have mentioned this in the first post, but we'd prefer a low wing. Will have a look into your options though.

I personally briefly considered a Cirrus but thought they would simply be too expensive without looking any further in to it. Will do now though.

As for a twin I think it's a bit out of our skill level at the moment. Not to mention neither one of us currently have a ME rating.

Pilot DAR

Thanks for the information regarding the Pipers, will definitively keep that in mind.

Another question, does having a retractable U/C add to the insurance much?

[A and C]

One thing that has not yet been looked at is the Robin DR400, the DR400-180 will lift the same payload as a PA-28-180 but will do it 10-15 kt faster and from a runway 2/3 as long. The DR400-500 has a 200hp engine and is a little wider so may be more what you are looking for.

I do have a Cirrus and a DR400-180 in the sheds under maintenance at the moment both these aircraft will be avalble for sale in the new year, I think the Cirrus will be just within your budget and the DR400 would fit well within the budget but as always you will have to come to some arrangement with the owners on the final price.

[Piper.Classique]

Do you have hangarage? This will make a big difference to your options. The Robins are brilliant aircraft but they don't take kindly to being kept outside. You might also consider acheap two seater on a permit as yours, and hiring for the trips where you need the four seats and instrument capacity.

[Rod1]

Another vote for the Robin DR400. If you go for the 180hp it will lift 4 + bags + full fuel and you do not have the complexity of vp prop or retracts. It is also a very good instrument platform once you have got used to the ergonomics, which are different from Mr P & C.

Rod1

[FlyingStone]

Originally Posted by Rod1

Another vote for the Robin DR400. If you go for the 180hp it will lift 4 + bags + full fuel and you do not have the complexity of vp prop or retracts. It is also a very good instrument platform once you have got used to the ergonomics, which are different from Mr P & C.

Constant-speed propeller and rectractable gear isn't complex at all - unless all your planned flying is bashing circuits. The only difference between fixed and VP prop is that you have to pull back three levers if cruising at lower altitude and you have to push forward three levers instead of two for the go-around - and that's pretty much it. As far as gear goes, I prefer Piper's straight forward system, which works (for extension-only of cours) even without the hydraulic fluid, while Cessna's .....

I fail to see how on one side Robin DR400 doesn't like to be outside (due to beign fabric covered and has a wooden construction) and on the other hand, some of you suggest it's a good instrument platform? Sure, for IFR in VMC, but I wouldn't fly one through a rain shower or in heavy turbulence. Not to mention the French excellent ideas about steering, braking & stuff.

Personally, I'd look into SR20 or perhaps even DA40D. The latter won't do four-up with full fuel, but the fuel will be very cheap (compared to Avgas) and you can get it more or less anywhere (Avtur).

[Rod1]

FlyingStone

The person asking the question said “With another family member having just started his PPL” So VP props and retracts will add complexity – not too many trainers with these. Also adds complicity and cost at maintenance and the insurance for a low hour PPL is likely to be more. The DR400 is also capable of keeping up with any similar aircraft with retracts on the same power.

With regards to the instrument capability – I owned one for 4 years and did about 250 hours in it of which around 60 were in cloud…

My current machine has an electric / computer controlled CS prop which is easy to use but complex to fully understand.

Rod1

[Barcli]

RV10
RV10
RV10
RV10

[Katamarino]

The only difference between fixed and VP prop is that you have to ... push forward three levers instead of two for the go-around - and that's pretty much it.

So you're saying that you're landing with the prop somewhat coarse and the mixture somewhat leaned?

[AN2 Driver]

2-3 people on board and you want something that is economical to run and has a decent speed, Mooneys should absolutely be taken into the equation.

With your budget, you have a lot of choices for very well equipped Mooneys of the "modern" variety, that is 201 or later. They all will carry 4 over short to medium and 2-3 over fairly long ranges at 160 kts @ 8-9 GPH starting with the 200 hp "J" model or the turbo charged "K" and their later brothers up the scale.

The Mooney Ovation being probably the best range single airplane in current production (if Mooney were to restart production at all that is). However, as a stable IR plattform with a decent performance (160 - 180 kts for the J-s and K's, the "K" going higher if you are prepared to fly high level) and with an absolutely manageable budget.

I'm seeing a whole range of Mooneys for sale right now in Europe in your price range, practically all IFR and some with excellent hours and equipment. Anyone with PA28 experience will be able to take the Mooney places after a good training.

N-Reg needs investigation on your part, if you want to risk it. First of all, you will need both current EASA and FAA licenses and IR's if you want to fly an N-reg in the future in Europe.

I set out myself a few years back and brought home a 1965 M20C, which has been exceptionally economical to run, doing 140-150 kts @ 7-9 GPH.

I can however fully support if you say you want an IFR certified plane from the outset. Upgrading is V E R Y expensive and often enough not economically reasonable, especcially under EASA, where everything has to be certified and re-certified which means £££££££££ to the tell me not. A simple Autopilot upgrade with, say, an Aspen will set you likely back more than the original price of the aircraft!! Rather buy a bit more expensive and IFR certified plus above your "minimum" requirement to get something which lasts you longer and costs you less.

Any questions, feel free to pm.

Best regards
AN2 driver.

[Cough]

Barcli...

RV-10 and IFR. Please enlighten us?

[Barcli]

sorry - missed the IFR requirement bit.....

[A and C]

Flying stone

Quote:- fail to see how on one side Robin DR400 doesn't like to be outside (due to beign fabric covered and has a wooden construction) and on the other hand, some of you suggest it's a good instrument platform? Sure, for IFR in VMC, but I wouldn't fly one through a rain shower or in heavy turbulence. Not to mention the French excellent ideas about steering, braking & stuff.

Having been a Robin DR400 owner for about twenty years I should have to tell Flyingstone that he seems to be somewhat wide of the mark as far as robins go, the aircraft is quite happy flying in any weather that you would fly any of the other types that thve been quoted above. As for flying in heavy tubulance, I would not recomend it in any light aircraft but I got into some very heavy turbulance in my DR400 just North of Kalamata, I had to as ATC to clear a leval 1000ft above and below because the turbulance was so violent. After landing an inspection of the airframe found no damage.

The aircraft is a first class IF platform, I used it one year to commute to Lille for work and I am quite happy to fly it down to 200ft on an ILS but more important is that the aircraft will maintain a stedy RoD on a NP approach so that you can avoid the less safe dive & drive method of vertical profile managment.

Saying woodern aircraft dont like being outside is not altogether true but they do like to BE STORED in a dry well ventelated hangar, it is being kept in a damp enviroment that is harmfull to woodern structures but that will result in trouble with metal aircraft as well.

As for the quoted "French ideas about steeing ,braking & stuff" I have no idea what flying stone is talking about as all the aircraft made after about 1980 have toe brakes and the steering is via the rudder pedals just like a Piper or Cessna.

I cant help thinking that someone in the flying club bar is having a good laugh at flyingstones expence as it is quite clear that he cant have had much to do with any Robin built after about 1980!

[BackPacker]

As for the quoted "French idear about steeing ,braking & stuff" I have no idea what flying stone is talking about as all the aircraft made after about 1980 have toe brakes and the steering is via the rudder pedals just like a Piper or Cessna.

I too have no idea what flyingstone is about.

Steering in a DR400 is via the rudder pedals just like Piper and Cessna. It may feel a little more spongy but as taxi time is only a very minor part of flying, who cares? Aircraft are ungainly on the ground, deal with it. (And since the wings of a DR400 are a lot shorter than a C172 or PA28, you can get into tighter spaces anyway.)

As far as braking is concerned, the only difference is that in a C172 or PA28 you engage the parking brake by pulling out a handle. It's this pulling action, which you perform with your hands, which pressurizes the hydraulic brake system, after which you lock the handle. In a DR400, you apply pressure with the toe brakes, and then lock in this pressure by pulling out the parking brake knob. There is something to say for both systems (legs are stronger than arms, so using your legs to apply the pressure makes more sense) but the main disadvantage of the DR400 way is that people who do not understand the system sometimes pull out the parking brake knob without putting pressure on the toe brakes. Thus locking in zero pressure, which obviously doesn't do anything. But I can hardly think that's a good reason to slag off the DR400. It's just one of the odds and ends that you learn about in a good checkout, or by reading the POH.

[wsmempson]

Hi there, BUMPS - welcome to Pprune!

If you want to seat 4 adults, bags and sufficient fuel to go somewhere at 140kts + with IFR capability, say 3 hours away with IFR reserves, the chances are that you actually need a 5 or six seater.

Four adults at 800lbs, 100lbs luggage, 3hrs plus 1hrs reserve at 60lph (a typical larger lycoming/continental burn) is 240 litres or 360lbs, so a total load of 1,260lbs.

The principal contenders are PA32, PA24, Cessna 182, 206 or 210, Socata, TB20 or Cirrus SR22.

You could all squeeze into an Archer or an Arrow or even a Dakota or Robin, and maybe burn a little less fuel (hence a slightly lighter load) but the fact is that if want to travel a reasonable distance at over 140kts in some comfort, the list is a pretty short one.

Having run an Archer, and Arrow and both a Cherokee Six and Saratoga, there are reasons as to why I now fly a Saratoga. FWIW, the retractable gear made no difference to my premiums - the principle drivers are hull value and seat numbers. Be warned that some insurers are looking quite unkindly at the Cirrus right now. I don't know why.

If you want any 1st hand experience as to the ownership of any of these, drop me a PM.

[Aero Mad]

I second the idea of the Tecnam P2006T - a good aircraft by all accounts, and you get the reliability of a twin almost with the costs of a single. MTOW of 1180kg so you can take four people and a lot of luggage with enough fuel to fly 700 miles.

[wsmempson]

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.