First plane

I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

fred wrote:
I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

Well, there is this:

http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5-180compare.html

One little problem is that even within a given model the numbers
can vary, i.e. a C172 with 145 HP, 160 HP, and 180 HP.

Oh, and don't forget climb performance if you are in a hot/high region.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Flying your own airplane CAN be cheaper than renting, but only if you fly
quite a bit -- at least 150, and more likely 200, hrs per year. Very few
private pilots have the need for that much transportation. If you will be
flying a more typical 50-75 hrs/yr, if cost is a factor and you don't like
renting (and who does?) then the best options for you are joining a club or
co-owning an airplane with one or more partners.

What kind of plane? As a new pilot, you are probably looking at a basic 4
place fixed gear, fixed pitch prop model. If you feel you need more
performance than the ubiquitous Cessna 172 the next step up is something
like a Piper Cherokee 180/Archer. Of course, the newer 172s also have 180
hp engines like the Archer and have comparable performance.

Here is a link to a site that provides performance specs for a number of
popular models:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/cont...ecs/index.html

-Elliott Drucker

Well, there is this:

http://www.grumman.net/cgrcc/aa5-180compare.html

Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
times.

For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.

These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

fred wrote:
: I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
: People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
: look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
: renting.

It can be. If you are handy and find a mechanic who'll let you do a lot of your own maintenance, that helps.
Having a partner or two definately helps.

: If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
: joint ownerships/partnerships),
: I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
: Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

If you need a plane that can actually *haul* four real adults on a trip with luggage and enough fuel to go 500
miles, you're talking about a pretty high-performance single. If you're looking at something with 4 seats that can
occasionally haul 4 people short distantances without luggage, then you options are much more varied.

: I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
: with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
: performance aircraft.
: High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
: Cost could be an issue.

The airframe determines the speed you go. The engine power determines how much it will haul. If you want to go
much faster than a 172, you'll pretty much need to go retract or burn a LOT more fuel.

: What I seek is a table laying out performance and
: payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

: So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

A Cherokee 140 and a Cessna 150.

: Thanks in advance.

-Cory

--

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

wrote in message
...
fred wrote:

: So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

A Cherokee 140 and a Cessna 150.

Evidently you haven't priced/checked those cars lately :~)

wrote in message
...
fred wrote:

: So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

A Cherokee 140 and a Cessna 150.

Evidently you haven't priced/checked those cars lately :~)

Lots of good info can be found at http://www.pilotfriend.com.

More than just airplane info, all kinds of things, from jokes to weather.

To see the info on planes click on the general aviation aircraft
database link.

KC

fred wrote:
I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

Jay Honeck wrote:



Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
times.

For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.

These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.

Same thing happens with Bonanzas. They started out with 185 HP and
ended with 300 HP, fixed pitch to constant speed. Interior went from
four to six seats. Different size ruddervators and different angle of
the vee. Speed went from a 175 mph cruise to over a 200 mph
cruise(mine...he, he).

Newps wrote:


Jay Honeck wrote:



Nice chart, but the information for the Cherokee 235 line is
inaccurate. To bunch that many 235 variations together from 1964 to
1977 into one performance category is wrong -- the plane changed
dramatically during that 13 year span, even changing names several
times.

For example, a pre-1973 PA28-235 has a smaller interior, fuselage fuel
capacity, and empennage size. The chart also shows 235s having a
fixed-pitch prop, which is wrong for anything after (I think) 1970.
The '74 Pathfinder that we own is a far different plane than a 1964 or
even '72 Cherokee 235, in ways that directly impact (or should impact)
the purchasing decision of any potential buyer.

These are not subtle differences. If you're looking for a true 4-place
plane, a post '73 Cherokee 235 is hard to beat. A pre-'73 Cherokee 235
is not suitable for hauling back-seat passengers, IMHO, and should be
avoided if you're really going to be hauling four adults.

Same thing happens with Bonanzas. They started out with 185 HP and
ended with 300 HP, fixed pitch to constant speed. Interior went from
four to six seats. Different size ruddervators and different angle of
the vee. Speed went from a 175 mph cruise to over a 200 mph
cruise(mine...he, he).

Yeah, that's the problem with trying to do any sort of generic comparison.

The characteristics of just about every airplane that has been in
production for more than a few years has changed over the years and
the latest model can be vastly different than the first model.

Even older airplanes are this way, e.g. the Tri-Pacer started out at
135 HP and ended up with 160 HP when production ended.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.