What I would not have done had I known upfront what it would be like is the old style EASA IR. That was an incredible amount of wasted time studying for a pointless exam.
100 percent. NEVER again! If i had no EASA IR I would have without any doubt have N-registered the Cirrus too.
@BeechBaby : Hey thanks for the warm warning…
I don’t know what a proper plane is in your mind, but in mine, yours would qualify
And if you’re able to fly it, heck ! i might also be able to…
The question then is would you purchase a six seater, with the mission to transport your young family around?
Yes, the only reason why I made a PPL. To travel with the family, what other reason for a PPL? To fly around the field and land 15 minutes later to drink a coffee, just boring for me.
Sorry PP, lost in translation I think. I re read your post, and I think you were inferring an IR capable plane, or a plane that could fulfil the mission. By Proper, I meant the full FIKI, Full G1000, full 25000 ft, oxygen equipped machines, that still fall out of the sky with monotonous regularity.
If you think about it, things that come with a TR, by default, should be safer, in IFR conditions, in that the pilot has undergone full TR training. But that would be another thread entirely 
I think almost nobody would do a PPL if they knew up front what they will be in for, and I mean that seriously.
If I knew before I started what I know now, I wouldn’t have done much, if anything, differently.
What I would not have done had I known upfront what it would be like is the old style EASA IR. That was an incredible amount of wasted time studying for a pointless exam.
Well, people keep saying that all the time but I don’t quite agree. I did the IR twice. Once in 1987 before JAA/EASA and then once again in 2013/4. I guess the pre-JAA/EASA IR TK was similar to the new “competence based” IR TK.
I feel that the really awful thing with the JAA/EASA IR TK was not the actual contents, but the requirement for 200 hours of instruction. That would have been a major obstacle if I actually had to take it. Since I was technically renewing a lapsed IR, it was up to the ATO to determine the amount of study I had to do and they determined (on my suggestion, of course), that I study all the stuff myself with 0 hour classroom time.
There were certainly things that I am unlikely to ever have any use for (like HF COM), on the other hand there were things that really ought to have been included in 1987 but weren’t. On the whole I feel that even the stuff that would not be immediately practically useful did improve my understanding of the air traffic system. Quality-wise, the written exam was not worse that the national Swedish exam I took in 1987.
Also, the Oxford ATPL books I read was way better than the crappy Swedish literature from 1987, but that’s not EASA’s doing of course.
(This does not mean that want the old IR requirements back — whatever makes it easier for a PPL to get an instrument rating is a good thing.)
@BB : no worries
To be fair I’m not exactly sure of which machine yet… I’d like to finish my IR first, which is taking me forever.
What I meant is indeed an IR capable machine, able enough to cross the alps and reasonably faster than a PA28-161
In my club we have a C182 and C182TR which would probably fit the bill but if I’m downing that kind of money in the drain then I’d prefer to have my own machine.
To give you an idea, I’m more thinking along the lines of M20 J or M20 252 or possibly Be 33 or 36 (but these tend to be more expensive, less equipped for the money and less fuel efficient). After reading Peter’s prose I was thinking of taking some time to write a mail asking his opinion on the matter actually…
My IRI swears by the turbo (ELLX being often close to OVC and in a cold area, turbo helps getting high fast) but now flies a Cheyenne, so…
In the “spamcan” market, I would much rather buy a 2-door aircraft over a 1-door one, if carrying more than one person regularly and especially if carrying a load of kids who can and tend to climb over everything they can climb over.
The whole “experience” is really transformed.
A controversial opinion, of course 
I know you do, and if my memory serves me well, that’s why you excluded Mooneys
Luckily I have a well behaved 4 yo who does not climb over anything (but may not appreciate the true benefit of canulas for O2
My interrogation was more regarding turbo or non-turbo wrt to weather at altitude or alps crossing
(i.e. certification ceiling of 18k ft for M20J with lowest IFR route at FL160 over the alps)
And to stay within subject, someone mentioned that from high density areas it was a no brainer on which i tend to agree, but from Luxembourg, almost any trip is a hassle (not a lot of things are direct unless you’re ready to fly ryanair and put in a 2h drive before and a 1h drive after the flight, which kinds of kill the benefit of low cost for me…)
