2nd airplane

Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
what would I want for a puddle-jumper.

Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
C-140 might be a lot of fun.


-----------------------------------------
Kindest regards,
James A. (Jim) Carter, ANS #8215
Rogers, Arkansas

Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we
play for keeps.
- Ernest K. Gann

On Aug 26, 7:56 pm, "Jim Carter" wrote:
Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
what would I want for a puddle-jumper.

Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
C-140 might be a lot of fun.

I'm in the same situation. My primary plane is a Mooney, with known-
ice-and turbo that's about as all-weather at GA gets. For a secondary
plane I was originally looking at an Aeronca Champ but realized that
some champs go for $30K and the rest are junk (i.e. need wings
rebuilt, etc, most do not feel the spar AD requirements but somehow
gets signed off every year). I'm also thinkihng C-140. I learned to
fly in a C-140 and my boys are just a few years away from being old
enough to solo and I thought a C-140 would be an easy plane for them
to solo in.

-Robert

On Aug 26, 10:56 pm, "Jim Carter" wrote:
Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
what would I want for a puddle-jumper.

Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
C-140 might be a lot of fun.

For me it would be an Ercoupe. My flying club has Mooneys, 172's,
etc, and quite a few members own planes like Aeroncas or Swifts, etc.,
for fun flying, using club planes for more serious aviation. It's a
good compromise.

Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we
play for keeps.
- Ernest K. Gann

While it's true that quote came from Ernest's book, he didn't say it.
The airline captain who was training him said it after the "matches
under the nose" incident.

On Aug 27, 11:00 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
I'm also thinking C-140. I learned to
fly in a C-140 and my boys are just a few years away from being old
enough to solo and I thought a C-140 would be an easy plane for them


Rumor has it that the Cessna 140 is just about to have an STC finally
approved that limits the max gross weight to 1320 lbs for legal
operation in the light sport category, and gets around the "unless
previously certificated at a higher gross weight" issue for the C-140.
This STC was shot down earlier, but the scuttlebutt I just heard this
past weekend says that the feds finally caved in and reversed their
original stance and now the STC will be allowed to go forth. I hope
this is true, as the 140 is a very nice aircraft and should be allowed
as an LSA. I have 2 hours logged in one back during my tailwheel
training days and it was a pleasure to fly.

Jim Carter wrote:
Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
what would I want for a puddle-jumper.

Personally, I'm partial to aircraft with the 3rd wheel on the right end
of the airframe so an O-1 Birddog comes to mind, but even a C-120 or
C-140 might be a lot of fun.


-----------------------------------------
Kindest regards,
James A. (Jim) Carter, ANS #8215
Rogers, Arkansas

Anyone can do the job when things are going right. In this business we
play for keeps.
- Ernest K. Gann



Well, I think my "next airplane" will be a quicksilver on floats. Of
course I will have to learn how to fly a plane on floats, but it is the
exact opposite of the Navion. It's completely open, slow and a good
putz around the lake plane.

Margy

On Aug 27, 10:22 am, wrote:
On Aug 27, 11:00 am, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

I'm also thinking C-140. I learned to
fly in a C-140 and my boys are just a few years away from being old
enough to solo and I thought a C-140 would be an easy plane for them

Rumor has it that the Cessna 140 is just about to have an STC finally
approved that limits the max gross weight to 1320 lbs for legal
operation in the light sport category, and gets around the "unless
previously certificated at a higher gross weight" issue for the C-140.
This STC was shot down earlier, but the scuttlebutt I just heard this
past weekend says that the feds finally caved in and reversed their
original stance and now the STC will be allowed to go forth. I hope
this is true, as the 140 is a very nice aircraft and should be allowed
as an LSA. I have 2 hours logged in one back during my tailwheel
training days and it was a pleasure to fly.

I'm 220lbs so I'm thinking the STC isn't going to be an option.
However, I don't see how the LSA would benefit me anyway since I'm
only 35. If I bought a C-140 with the STC would I be able to remove it
so I could fit 2 people in it without being over gross?

Off the cuff 2nd plane criteria:

- Cheap to operate (0-320 or smaller), especially if my 'main' bird
had an 0-540 up front. Big engines are great for covering distance in
a hurry, but I've had many pilots look at my little 140 and lament "I
miss owning those little birds... I used to fly so much more than I do
now, but its just so much more expensive..."
- Get in and out of places my main bird cant. Self explanatory.
- Does stuff my main bird can't. Aerobatic... open cockpit, just
something different.

I guess that would be the main thing for me... My biggest fear owning
multiple planes would be having missions where both planes would be
equally suited for the task, because thats where I feel the redundency/
waste would be. If I'm going to go to the trouble and expense of
having two ships, I want to be able to cover the broadest expanse of
aviation experiences possible with those two birds.

All IMHO

(BTW, I'd suggest a Citabria, but I don't know the ins and outs of
maintaining them or Champs).

"Jim Carter" writes:

Based on a posting by newps, I started thinking about what the perfect
2nd airplane should be assuming the 1st aircraft was purchased for
longer all-weather cross-countries. In other words, if the first
aircraft was a Navion, or Bonanza, or even a Sierra or Arrow (newer
aircraft excluded because we want to be able to afford a 2nd bird) then
what would I want for a puddle-jumper.


I know what Ron would say.... A Fly Baby!
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

EridanMan wrote:
Off the cuff 2nd plane criteria:

- Cheap to operate (0-320 or smaller), especially if my 'main' bird
had an 0-540 up front. Big engines are great for covering distance in
a hurry, but I've had many pilots look at my little 140 and lament "I
miss owning those little birds... I used to fly so much more than I do
now, but its just so much more expensive..."



But not necessarily because of the engine. My Bo runs at 45% power at 8
gph and gets 150 mph indicated with the 520. Around the local area,
which is probably 75% of my flying I'm burning about 35% less gas than
the 182 I used to have(8 vs 12.5 gph).

Newps wrote:


: EridanMan wrote:
: Off the cuff 2nd plane criteria:
:
: - Cheap to operate (0-320 or smaller), especially if my 'main' bird
: had an 0-540 up front. Big engines are great for covering distance in
: a hurry, but I've had many pilots look at my little 140 and lament "I
: miss owning those little birds... I used to fly so much more than I do
: now, but its just so much more expensive..."



: But not necessarily because of the engine. My Bo runs at 45% power at 8
: gph and gets 150 mph indicated with the 520. Around the local area,
: which is probably 75% of my flying I'm burning about 35% less gas than
: the 182 I used to have(8 vs 12.5 gph).

Well-said. Just because something has the horsepower doesn't mean you need to use it. NOR does
it inherently mean that you're going to lose much speed. The drag of the airframe determines how fast
you go. The amount of horsepower you're using determines how much fuel you burn. As I've said in
previous posts about this, compare the numbers for different engines on the same airframe (e.g. PA28 or
PA24). In a PA-28 for instance, you can go from 10 gph to 7.5 gph and only lose 5-10 mph. With
something like a 182 I'm sure it's even more.

-Cory




--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************