Best Plane for New Pilot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Plane for New Pilot
Hi guys,
I am looking into purchasing my first single piston plane. I have done a lot of research but am wanting input from others who may know types of planes that are good for new pilots or ones to stay away from.
I would mainly be using the aircraft to commute about 140 miles to work, but would also be using it for pleasure with my wife on occasion.
I want what everyone wants, great gph burn rates, low maintenance costs, and low overall ownership in a solid plane. A unicorn would be cool too
A few things I would like to see in the plane, but nothing is set in stone:
120-150 knot cruise speed (I would pay more for faster)
5gph burn rates (or comparable based on a higher speed)
50k-150k "ish." I would spend higher if needed on a newer aircraft with newer avionics.
I have looked into three different routes to go when purchasing a plane:
1. Purchase an older certified aircraft like the one I am building hours on (Piper Warrior or Cessna 172)
I believe the pro's would be an aircraft that most mechanics can easily work on, lower purchase price, and possible IFR certification I could utilize to obtain my instrument rating at a future time. At this time all of my flying would be VFR, but I would like to punch through low hanging clouds in the future (nothing intense like flying through storms).
Con's seem to be older aircraft may have more issues and have older avionics. Also, burn rates and speed seem to be lower than other options.
2. Going with a newer homebuilt or building an aircraft myself (like a Vans RV-9)
Pros for this route would include the plane would be newer, have glass panels, have the possiblity of IFR, and would be faster then the production aircraft.
Con's would be it may have more problems due to the build. Not sure about maintenance for these aircraft or insurance costs.
3. Purchase a LSA (Like a Flight Design, Renegade Falcon LS, Vans RV-12)
Pro's seem to be inexpensive to operate and maintain, most are newer with glass panel avionics.
Con's seem to be no IFR ever, slower aircraft (although Renegade claims it can cruise at 120 knots at altitude), most use a Rotax engine which not all mechanics are familiar with yet, and they are light so any cross wind landings will be difficult.
Let me know your thoughts or experiences with any of this. I am new to the field so any information on my pro's and con's that are incorrect or you can add to I would appreciate it.
I am looking into purchasing my first single piston plane. I have done a lot of research but am wanting input from others who may know types of planes that are good for new pilots or ones to stay away from.
I would mainly be using the aircraft to commute about 140 miles to work, but would also be using it for pleasure with my wife on occasion.
I want what everyone wants, great gph burn rates, low maintenance costs, and low overall ownership in a solid plane. A unicorn would be cool too
A few things I would like to see in the plane, but nothing is set in stone:
120-150 knot cruise speed (I would pay more for faster)
5gph burn rates (or comparable based on a higher speed)
50k-150k "ish." I would spend higher if needed on a newer aircraft with newer avionics.
I have looked into three different routes to go when purchasing a plane:
1. Purchase an older certified aircraft like the one I am building hours on (Piper Warrior or Cessna 172)
I believe the pro's would be an aircraft that most mechanics can easily work on, lower purchase price, and possible IFR certification I could utilize to obtain my instrument rating at a future time. At this time all of my flying would be VFR, but I would like to punch through low hanging clouds in the future (nothing intense like flying through storms).
Con's seem to be older aircraft may have more issues and have older avionics. Also, burn rates and speed seem to be lower than other options.
2. Going with a newer homebuilt or building an aircraft myself (like a Vans RV-9)
Pros for this route would include the plane would be newer, have glass panels, have the possiblity of IFR, and would be faster then the production aircraft.
Con's would be it may have more problems due to the build. Not sure about maintenance for these aircraft or insurance costs.
3. Purchase a LSA (Like a Flight Design, Renegade Falcon LS, Vans RV-12)
Pro's seem to be inexpensive to operate and maintain, most are newer with glass panel avionics.
Con's seem to be no IFR ever, slower aircraft (although Renegade claims it can cruise at 120 knots at altitude), most use a Rotax engine which not all mechanics are familiar with yet, and they are light so any cross wind landings will be difficult.
Let me know your thoughts or experiences with any of this. I am new to the field so any information on my pro's and con's that are incorrect or you can add to I would appreciate it.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This list reads a bit unsettled. May I suggest to let sediment thoughts before taking action?
At this stage just one remark, "speed and Cessna 172 are not used in one sentence" ;-) ... 120-150 cruise is far out of reach, unless Reims Rocket RG.
At this stage just one remark, "speed and Cessna 172 are not used in one sentence" ;-) ... 120-150 cruise is far out of reach, unless Reims Rocket RG.
Grumman Tiger:
Fast(er than others...)
IFR possible
Maintenance and insurance helped by fixed gear.
Some of them had a pseudo WWII RAF paint scheme.
You can crack the canopy in flight, though it's noisy.
Much of this depends on your skills and your budget.
(Five gallons per hour is unlikely in anything that otherwise fits your wish list.)
Terry
PS I really enjoyed my hours in a Tiger - including a number of eight-hour, one stop cross countries.
Fast(er than others...)
IFR possible
Maintenance and insurance helped by fixed gear.
Some of them had a pseudo WWII RAF paint scheme.
You can crack the canopy in flight, though it's noisy.
Much of this depends on your skills and your budget.
(Five gallons per hour is unlikely in anything that otherwise fits your wish list.)
Terry
PS I really enjoyed my hours in a Tiger - including a number of eight-hour, one stop cross countries.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For new pilots, I would suggest starting out learning to master a conventional gear aircraft.
J3 Cub or similar. Accumulate 200 hrs in it, minimum.
J3 Cub or similar. Accumulate 200 hrs in it, minimum.
Last edited by wanabee777; 7th Jan 2016 at 11:39.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also suggest the Grumman Tiger a lovely aircraft fixed pitch fixed undercarriage, great handling and views from cockpit and can be flown IMC when you are rated.
It also gives you four seats and much faster than the PA28 with similar power
You should get just under 130KTS
You can buy the older variety or find a newer one when they were remanufactured.
The problem with all the home builds are that they are great for Hobby flying but you mentioned getting to work?
Once you are instrument proficient your mission reliability will pick up if you can fly in poorer weather IMC. You can do that in the Tiger but NOT in homebuilts so for your predicted mission profile forget homebuilts
The RV9 is a delight and I believe manufactured and certificated for IFR flight but be cautious as many great handling aircraft can be a challenge in IMC especially for an inexperienced IFR pilot.
You need stability
Pace
It also gives you four seats and much faster than the PA28 with similar power
You should get just under 130KTS
You can buy the older variety or find a newer one when they were remanufactured.
The problem with all the home builds are that they are great for Hobby flying but you mentioned getting to work?
Once you are instrument proficient your mission reliability will pick up if you can fly in poorer weather IMC. You can do that in the Tiger but NOT in homebuilts so for your predicted mission profile forget homebuilts
The RV9 is a delight and I believe manufactured and certificated for IFR flight but be cautious as many great handling aircraft can be a challenge in IMC especially for an inexperienced IFR pilot.
You need stability
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 7th Jan 2016 at 11:44.
I still think that budget and licences are rather significant.
Pace - the OP is in California - they don't have many clouds there, but also the local rules do permit IFR in homebuilts, so something like an RV might well suit well (in the UK, yes, I'd have a Tiger - actually I have a similar profile of flying to that and a Cheetah.)
G
Pace - the OP is in California - they don't have many clouds there, but also the local rules do permit IFR in homebuilts, so something like an RV might well suit well (in the UK, yes, I'd have a Tiger - actually I have a similar profile of flying to that and a Cheetah.)
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoops G never saw the location of the OP Yes the FAA are far more tolerant on flying homebuilts IFR
Never understood the one rule for one in the UK of allowing gliders in clouds but not really well equipped homebuilts
Pace
Never understood the one rule for one in the UK of allowing gliders in clouds but not really well equipped homebuilts
Pace
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider the Cessna 182.
More stable than the 172, a tad faster, better short field performance and carries more load - a good all round choice. Also a nice IFR machine when fitted with the right avionics.
Still in production so excellent parts availability and service is available just about anywhere in the world.
Naturally this all comes at the expense of fuel consumption, there aint no such thing as a free lunch but it is not excessive. Another consideration is easy access, some of us get a bit rusty around the joints as we age so low wing types where you have to climb over the wing to get in can be a PITA.
More stable than the 172, a tad faster, better short field performance and carries more load - a good all round choice. Also a nice IFR machine when fitted with the right avionics.
Still in production so excellent parts availability and service is available just about anywhere in the world.
Naturally this all comes at the expense of fuel consumption, there aint no such thing as a free lunch but it is not excessive. Another consideration is easy access, some of us get a bit rusty around the joints as we age so low wing types where you have to climb over the wing to get in can be a PITA.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoops G never saw the location of the OP Yes the FAA are far more tolerant on flying homebuilts IFR
Never understood the one rule for one in the UK of allowing gliders in clouds but not really well equipped homebuilts
Pace
Never understood the one rule for one in the UK of allowing gliders in clouds but not really well equipped homebuilts
Pace
Certainly the RV is the one I would go for, just make sure you have someone that knows them checks out what you are going to buy, they can be as well built as a manufactured aircraft and sometimes even better, though there are also some "dogs" out there (and some Cessnas etc that have been poorly looked after). Maintenance costs will usually be a lot lower as you do not need to go for certified parts.
I can't help seeing some discrepancy between "new pilot" and "120-150 kts cruise". The faster the plane, the less forgiving it will be of the errors that any beginner pilot has to make. I would recommend O/P begins by renting, to get the feel of his commuting operations, and to experience in what plane it can be done comfortably (no good to arrive at work exhausted from the stress of flying! Even worse to come home burdened by the stress of flying added on top of the stress of a hard day's work!)
Besides, I wonder about the impact of weather: out of +/- 240 working days per annum, how many would allow VFR flying at more or less fixed hours - out to work in the morning, back home in late afternoon ? I cannot help questioning the realism of this commuting idea - but I have not the slightest picture of flying a light plane in Southern California - at least, according to one song, it should never rain there, that ought to help.
Besides, I wonder about the impact of weather: out of +/- 240 working days per annum, how many would allow VFR flying at more or less fixed hours - out to work in the morning, back home in late afternoon ? I cannot help questioning the realism of this commuting idea - but I have not the slightest picture of flying a light plane in Southern California - at least, according to one song, it should never rain there, that ought to help.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 7th Jan 2016 at 18:01.
You're being pretty optimistic about using a plane to commute to work. You don't say exactly where you aware but the Bay Area seems more likely than Alturas. You will need IFR for an early arrival/departure 100 days a year. And there will be days (like yesterday) where it's just out of the question.
If you really want to be able to count on using a plane, you need known ice (FIKI). That is available on the Cirrus and a couple of other equally expensive planes. Even then ice can kill you.
5 gph is REALLY low - you can get this on an LSA but it won't have a lot of the other things you want.
I went through a similar decision process as you 15 years ago, and ended up with a TR182 - which is a wonderful aircraft and a great IFR plane. BUT... it burns 14-15 gph, and it still isn't FIKI, which means there are days when you can't fly it, even IFR.
Send me a PM if you want to chat further (I fly out of Palo Alto).
If you really want to be able to count on using a plane, you need known ice (FIKI). That is available on the Cirrus and a couple of other equally expensive planes. Even then ice can kill you.
5 gph is REALLY low - you can get this on an LSA but it won't have a lot of the other things you want.
I went through a similar decision process as you 15 years ago, and ended up with a TR182 - which is a wonderful aircraft and a great IFR plane. BUT... it burns 14-15 gph, and it still isn't FIKI, which means there are days when you can't fly it, even IFR.
Send me a PM if you want to chat further (I fly out of Palo Alto).
Zenair 701. All things to all men. Not fast but good enough for the envisaged commute. 3.5 galls mogas per hour at 80kts. Very forgiving for the low hours. Fly it with your eyes closed - I do most of the time. All metal. Land anywhere.
Forget spamcans and tupperware.
Forget spamcans and tupperware.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all of the information so far. Here are a few answers to questions asked:
I would probably be looking for a less complex airplane (i.e. fixed gear, prop, etc.) because I am new to flying. I actually have not even received my PPL yet, but expect to by the beginning of summer (unless el nino wipes us out). I would then pursue further certifications.
I live in the central valley of California, so I would probably have more flying days than in other places. I know I won't be able to commute to work everyday, in fact it has been rather stormy lately (finally). But I have a Prius I usually drive and have a second car I would park at the second airport to drive the 5 miles more to work. Flying to work would not be a necessity as I would drive on days not suitable for flying, it would just be more fun.
Budget I had stated as about 50k-150k for the plane itself, depending on plane condition, age, avionics, etc. I could go higher if needed to but I would like to stay in that range because flying isn't the only thing I want to do! I am running numbers in my excel sheet for maintenance, fuel, hangar, insurance, annuals, overhauls, fuel, oil, etc. for each aircraft. I do not want to get into an airplane over my experience level flying or comfort level financially.
The Grumman looks like a great possibility, I am going to start a new page on my excel for that as well as the 182. Thank you for the advice. I think the Zenair 701 may be a bit too slow, as other LSA type aircraft has a higher cruise speed, but thank you for the suggestion.
I know that I can't have everything on my list, which is why I asked for a unicorn as well! Just trying to make my list of planes that would fit my mission. That way, after I get my PPL, I can start renting the acceptable models with a CFI who knows the plane and seeing which one I prefer. I would then rent to build time in the model I like before purchasing, if possible.
What about a Diamond DA20? Does anyone have experience with this aircraft? I have read it would meet most of my wants except the IFR capability, but it can be difficult to steer on the ground due to the front caster wheel.
One last thing, what do people think of the timeline? Am I out of my mind for thinking I can build my time and buy an airplane by the end of summer?
"You are either spending time to save money or spending money to save time"
I would probably be looking for a less complex airplane (i.e. fixed gear, prop, etc.) because I am new to flying. I actually have not even received my PPL yet, but expect to by the beginning of summer (unless el nino wipes us out). I would then pursue further certifications.
I live in the central valley of California, so I would probably have more flying days than in other places. I know I won't be able to commute to work everyday, in fact it has been rather stormy lately (finally). But I have a Prius I usually drive and have a second car I would park at the second airport to drive the 5 miles more to work. Flying to work would not be a necessity as I would drive on days not suitable for flying, it would just be more fun.
Budget I had stated as about 50k-150k for the plane itself, depending on plane condition, age, avionics, etc. I could go higher if needed to but I would like to stay in that range because flying isn't the only thing I want to do! I am running numbers in my excel sheet for maintenance, fuel, hangar, insurance, annuals, overhauls, fuel, oil, etc. for each aircraft. I do not want to get into an airplane over my experience level flying or comfort level financially.
The Grumman looks like a great possibility, I am going to start a new page on my excel for that as well as the 182. Thank you for the advice. I think the Zenair 701 may be a bit too slow, as other LSA type aircraft has a higher cruise speed, but thank you for the suggestion.
I know that I can't have everything on my list, which is why I asked for a unicorn as well! Just trying to make my list of planes that would fit my mission. That way, after I get my PPL, I can start renting the acceptable models with a CFI who knows the plane and seeing which one I prefer. I would then rent to build time in the model I like before purchasing, if possible.
What about a Diamond DA20? Does anyone have experience with this aircraft? I have read it would meet most of my wants except the IFR capability, but it can be difficult to steer on the ground due to the front caster wheel.
One last thing, what do people think of the timeline? Am I out of my mind for thinking I can build my time and buy an airplane by the end of summer?
"You are either spending time to save money or spending money to save time"
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonn, I'm going to suggest you stick with a factory airplane for your first, unless you have some very good, close friends who can help you manage and maintain a homebuilt. If you're the do-it-yourself type with lots of experience with engines, structures, etc, then a homebuilt might work, but it will be a lot easier to find correct parts and mechanics knowledgeable about a factory plane.
There's going to be a lot to learn just managing and maintaining a Cessna or Piper, but you can always pay someone to do much of it. Example, annual inspection time comes, I order the parts and filters and batteries I know I'll need. You can't just call Aircraft Spruce and say "I need plugs, oil, air and vacuum filters for an RV-9. They won't have any idea, depends on how it was built, what engine was installed, etc.
For your "mission" as you have described it, I'd suggest a Piper Archer. Find one with up-to-date radios, nav gear, and working autopilot. Reasonable cruise speed, and power to get you over the California mountains in NICE weather. I wouldn't fool with the mountains in bad weather in any plane we're discussing. I myself own a C172, but the Archer is a bit nicer instrument platform IMHO. I did a lot of instrument instructing in Cherokee 180s and Archers, and they are just a little heavier and aren't as bothered by light turbulence. MAKE SURE you get a good pre-buy inspection by an independent mechanic who has nothing to do with the seller!
The C182 is also a good instrument platform, and is easier to get in-out of, rather than everyone having to enter/exit a single door over the wing. But it's more complex with a controllable-pitch prop and more than double your target fuel burn.
Cessna's and Pipers are going to be easiest to find parts and service for. Grummans are fine, as is the Beech Sundowner, but not nearly as common or easy to find airframe parts for.
After you've earned the instrument ticket, accumulated around 400 hours, and been through 3-4 annual inspections and maintenance surprises with your first airplane, then you can start thinking about sexier, faster, more efficient, etc. and easily peddle or trade your Cessna or Piper.
There's going to be a lot to learn just managing and maintaining a Cessna or Piper, but you can always pay someone to do much of it. Example, annual inspection time comes, I order the parts and filters and batteries I know I'll need. You can't just call Aircraft Spruce and say "I need plugs, oil, air and vacuum filters for an RV-9. They won't have any idea, depends on how it was built, what engine was installed, etc.
For your "mission" as you have described it, I'd suggest a Piper Archer. Find one with up-to-date radios, nav gear, and working autopilot. Reasonable cruise speed, and power to get you over the California mountains in NICE weather. I wouldn't fool with the mountains in bad weather in any plane we're discussing. I myself own a C172, but the Archer is a bit nicer instrument platform IMHO. I did a lot of instrument instructing in Cherokee 180s and Archers, and they are just a little heavier and aren't as bothered by light turbulence. MAKE SURE you get a good pre-buy inspection by an independent mechanic who has nothing to do with the seller!
The C182 is also a good instrument platform, and is easier to get in-out of, rather than everyone having to enter/exit a single door over the wing. But it's more complex with a controllable-pitch prop and more than double your target fuel burn.
Cessna's and Pipers are going to be easiest to find parts and service for. Grummans are fine, as is the Beech Sundowner, but not nearly as common or easy to find airframe parts for.
After you've earned the instrument ticket, accumulated around 400 hours, and been through 3-4 annual inspections and maintenance surprises with your first airplane, then you can start thinking about sexier, faster, more efficient, etc. and easily peddle or trade your Cessna or Piper.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 180hp Cessna 177fg fixed gear is also a good choice, very good support club in the US. Flyers better than a 182 or Piper, big doors and no wing struts. Only Cessna with a stabilator as per Piper similar to Archer or Arrow in performance but a little better. The RG is 200hp goes a bit faster but usable load similar to FG and 182, it takes more fuel to go the same distance in 182.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a Diamond DA20? Does anyone have experience with this aircraft? I have read it would meet most of my wants except the IFR capability, but it can be difficult to steer on the ground due to the front caster wheel.
One last thing, what do people think of the timeline? Am I out of my mind for thinking I can build my time and buy an airplane by the end of summer?
One last thing, what do people think of the timeline? Am I out of my mind for thinking I can build my time and buy an airplane by the end of summer?
With any aircraft you intend to cover distance in you also have to consider headwinds with 25KTS on the nose you are still looking at over 100KTS ground speed with the Tiger while the Piper will be down in 80KTS
The Diamonds are great aircraft although more expensive
on those hot days in California you can slide the canopy back nine inches in the Tiger to get more air or infact do the same in the air
A good friend bought a share in a Rockwell Commander before even starting his flying lessons so as long as you are committed to aviation and know thats what you want it doesn't matter when if you have the cash that you buy one
Pace
Never flown a DA20, but the DA40 is a very nice aircraft - one I'd be looking at closely if I was in the market to buy. Only drawback is it isn't turbocharged but that's not an issue for your mission though it could be for some others. (Turbo is VERY nice to have for crossing the Sierra Nevada or visiting Colorado - maybe essential - but not needed or useful for getting from the Central Valley to the Bay Area assuming that's your mission).
Cessna is better than Piper for the simple reason that there are a lot more of them. For some odd reason the ratio is much more pro-Piper in Europe. Also I've heard horror stories for parts for Piper lately.
The Grumman is no doubt a nice plane to fly - if you fit. I'm 6' and the one time I was a passenger in one, I had to fly it anyway because otherwise my knees were always in the way!
Cessna is better than Piper for the simple reason that there are a lot more of them. For some odd reason the ratio is much more pro-Piper in Europe. Also I've heard horror stories for parts for Piper lately.
The Grumman is no doubt a nice plane to fly - if you fit. I'm 6' and the one time I was a passenger in one, I had to fly it anyway because otherwise my knees were always in the way!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about a Diamond DA20? Does anyone have experience with this aircraft? I have read it would meet most of my wants except the IFR capability, but it can be difficult to steer on the ground due to the front caster wheel.