Resource for choosing a plane?

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:28:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Pathfinder/Dakota/Turbo Dakota may give you the most bang for your buck
while filling most if not all of your requirements. $100,000 will give
you
several to pick from.

My thoughts exactly.

It's not *quite* 150 knots, (more like 140, in our Pathfinder), but it's a
true 4-place plane (1400 pound useful load) that can be landed on grass
comfortably.

The PA28-235 is a great plane, but is this true in Colorado Springs?
In the summer?

My Cherokee 180 serves as a wonderful 2-place in the Midwest, but when
I visited Boulder in the summer, takeoff and climbout were less than
spectacular, and I was 200lbs under gross.

Thus why I also suggested the Turbo Dakota. It really depends on the
mission or what percentage of his missions would be 4 place/full fuel out of
CS.

Everything is a trade off and priorities need to be addressed. The $100,000
price limit would also limit the number of well equipped Turbo Dakotas
available but if my missions were mostly at heavy takeoff weights I would
definitely put my priorities in the Turbo column over the "well equipped"
column.

Once you get the engine/airframe you want, everything else is simply money.
Make it what you want after it meets your performance requirements. A glass
cockpit will never decrease your takeoff distance or increase your climb
rate.

YMMV.
Jim

("Douglas Paterson" wrote)
Thoughts:
It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that! That brings me
back to my original request, for a means to make direct comparisons
between the various choices out there--I'm having trouble determining what
& how I need to make trade-offs without that sort of tool....


Navion?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex/an29.htm
http://www.warbirdalley.com/l17.htm

It'll lift almost as much as a Dakota and you'll have 'almost' a warbird -
if you choose to paint it as such. g

http://www.navionskies.com/Photos/Navions-Tour%20026.jpg

http://www.navionskies.com/Photos/Navions-Tour%20027.jpg

http://www.navionskies.com/Photos/Navions-Tour%20004.jpg


Montblack

Just buy whatever you really want. It's going to put you in the
poorhouse anyway.

Ya can't go wrong with a Citabria, Dcathlon, or a T-6....

You might check some of the 'Buying an Airplane' books at your local
bookstore. 'Buying and owning your own airplane' by Ellis and 'Airplane
Ownership' by Wanttaja have some useful info.

--
Best Regards,
Mike
http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel
"Douglas Paterson" wrote in message
...
So, I've decided to go for my first airplane. As I get started looking
for "the" airplane, I'm hoping I can find some help here in narrowing my
choices. The more I look, the more overwhelmed I get. I'm starting to
think that finding & buying the damn thing will be anticlimactic--deciding
*what* to buy is the hard part!!

What I'd really like to find is some sort of direct comparison tool--like
you find in an auto magazine, say--such as a table with columns listing
features, with added commentary on each model's pros and cons. From
reading this group, I've found a couple of browsing tools, but nothing
that really hits the mark. Suggestions? Ideally, I'd really like an
online database that I can play with different parameters and see
different results....

While I've got your eye, I may as well solicit direct advice, too. All
the opinions I've formed so far are written in Jell-O, so please poke
holes in any misconceptions you may spot.

Me:
~4,200 hours: mostly in heavies (various C-135 models); a few hundred in
USAF trainers (T-37/T-38); and about 150 in GA SEL airplanes (Cessnas,
Pipers, and Grummans). PP/SEL, CP/MEL, Instrument, & ATP tickets. My
only GA complex time is the ~4.5 in the Seneca I took my ATP in.

What I've eliminated:
- Twin: in my budget range, twins seem to double (or more) operating
expense for little if any performance gain--redundancy seems to be the
real value-added for entry-level twins. Not that I'm knocking redundancy,
but this prospect will be a wallet-strain as it is.
- Experimentals/Homebuilts/Warbirds: I don't have the fortitude to deal
with the idiosyncrasies of non-certificated. First time out calls for
baby steps.
- Turbines/Floats/Fabric wings/anything else "weird": baby steps again.
- Combine all of the above: I've eliminated everything that's NOT a
certificated, piston, SEL w/ metal hull/wings.

Assumptions/Considerations:
- I will be starting to fly soon w/ a local club that has Cessnas (fixed
and c/s prop models) and Arrows--in addition to currency (I haven't flown
GA for 8+ years, and my last heavy flight was February [now in staff job
]), I plan to use that time to get comfortable in a small airplane
again, comfortable with a c/s prop, etc.
- I'm less concerned about acquisition cost than recurring
costs--especially if I can find a circumstance where spending a bit more
up-front buys a plane requiring less outlay for maintenance, insurance,
whatever. I've set a ceiling of $100K, but that's only a notional number
at this point. All things being equal, cheaper is better, of course....
- I've had mixed information on just "how much" extra maintenance (read:
$$$) is required on a retract vs fixed gear, and/or c/s vs fixed prop.
What about turbo-charging? I really need to learn in this area....
- I have no idea what my insurance situation will be; I've been assuming
that any time-in-type requirements won't be too restrictive given my
experience, and that I'll be able to get that time w/ an instructor easily
enough.
- I live in Colorado Springs. Airport elevations here run between
~6,000' and ~7,000', and I'm told 10,000'+ density altitude is commonplace
in the summer. Do I need turbo-charging?
- I want a "real" four-seater, whether that means a heavy-lifting
four-seat or a six-seat. I'm also pretty broad across the shoulders, and
not small in any dimension (6'0", 250#), so comfort is a consideration.
- I want reasonable speed--150 knots-ish seems about right, more is
better....
- I prefer low-wing, but that's a marginal distinction for me. I do
wonder if I'll ever get the urge to land on grass/gravel/etc, in which
case I assume I'd want the high-wing w/ fixed gear, yes?

Thoughts:
It sounds like I want a Mooney for speed & fuel economy, a Dakota for
lifting, and Bonanza for size--or something like that! That brings me
back to my original request, for a means to make direct comparisons
between the various choices out there--I'm having trouble determining what
& how I need to make trade-offs without that sort of tool....

Thanks for any help!

--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring,
"Twilight Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate
change to contact me)

For what its worth, I just became a first time aircraft owner a few
months ago. In my case I did decide to go with something "weird" vs
sticking with a more common aircraft. I started out with the same
philosophy you have, and ultimately decided that since I have good
access to a local rental fleet with C172c, a G-1000 C182, and a C206;
that I couldn't justify the cost of buying something I could rent.
Since 75% of my flying over the past 5 years has been for recreation
vs. 25% for travel, in the end the recreational side won out and I
purchased a trainer warbird. So far its been a great decision.

There are quite a few of the "weirder" planes available for the same
price as a 182, 206, or Cherokee Six; so acqusition cost isn't a
differentiating factor. Also, the Experimental Exhibition registration
on some of the warbirds isn't hard to figure out or comply with even
for a first time owner.

In the end, go with whatever plane you will get the most enjoyment out
of. It will never pay back financially vs. renting or joining a club,
but it is still great to own the plane and have the flexibility to fly
it whenever you want.

Good luck shopping...
Eric
1959 Pilatus P-3
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html

Montblack wrote:

Navion?

Book cruise of 138 knots. Might do better re-engined. Margy?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Thus why I also suggested the Turbo Dakota.

Personally, I'd stay away from that particular model.

It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.

Here is a telling excerpt from the "Buyer's Guide" on the Cherokee 235/236
owners group website:

"In the opinion of most, the only model to stay away from is the Turbo
Dakota
(PA28-201T). There were only 89 built in 1979 and they were plagued with
engine problems from the Continental TSIO-360. One member felt that
although the Turbo Dakota is much-maligned, due to its reportedly unreliable
engine, under certain circumstances it may be worth a look (i.e. you really
need to fly high). He met one Turbo Dakota driver who claimed that with
proper engine management, he had experienced no trouble at all."

That's what I call "damned with faint praise."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:



Personally, I'd stay away from that particular model.

It's common to think that the Turbo Dakota used a turbo-charged version of
the six-cylinder O-540 that is standard in all other PA28-235/236s.
Unfortunately, Piper opted to use the Continental TSIO-360 -- a
four-cylinder engine -- and it has been much maligned as being an engine
that is "pushed too hard" and thus doesn't last long.
/snip/

Well, Jay,

For one thing, the TCM IO/TSIO-360 is a *six* cylinder powerplant, that
puts out the same 200 horses that Lycoming's *four* cylinder IO-360
does. So, no, "overworking" is not an issue. Secondly, although the
turbo's original iteration included a fixed wastegate and no
intercooler, subsequent mods have made these improvements available,
with the benefit of much better durability.

I believe the Turbo Dakota would be a *very* viable choice, given the
OP's stated requirements, especially in regards to density altitude of
the airports he plans to operate out of.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

Eric,
A bit off-topic from the original post: did I read that right on your
webpage that the P-3 has a Max speed that's twice the cruise speed (270 kts
135 kts)? Are there different criteria for these speeds in Europe?

Marco Leon

wrote in message
oups.com...
For what its worth, I just became a first time aircraft owner a few
months ago. In my case I did decide to go with something "weird" vs
sticking with a more common aircraft. I started out with the same
philosophy you have, and ultimately decided that since I have good
access to a local rental fleet with C172c, a G-1000 C182, and a C206;
that I couldn't justify the cost of buying something I could rent.
Since 75% of my flying over the past 5 years has been for recreation
vs. 25% for travel, in the end the recreational side won out and I
purchased a trainer warbird. So far its been a great decision.

There are quite a few of the "weirder" planes available for the same
price as a 182, 206, or Cherokee Six; so acqusition cost isn't a
differentiating factor. Also, the Experimental Exhibition registration
on some of the warbirds isn't hard to figure out or comply with even
for a first time owner.

In the end, go with whatever plane you will get the most enjoyment out
of. It will never pay back financially vs. renting or joining a club,
but it is still great to own the plane and have the flexibility to fly
it whenever you want.

Good luck shopping...
Eric
1959 Pilatus P-3
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/P3A848.html