What plane to buy? any recommendations

Suggest fixed gear, fixed prop and 180 HP Lycoming American built - this reduces the list to PA28-180, C177 and AA5 Tiger. Then try and get the best engine (say overhaul in last 6 years and mid time)/airways kit(at least mode S, 430W, DME-HSI nice) - cosmetics secondary, and a good pre-buy by an expert.

You want an aircraft that is cheap to maintain and where you are spending the money on actually flying. The American spam cans have the advantage of reasonable longevity and good parts availability - and even the most esoteric of engineers can spanner a PA28.

The US Navy has been doing basic training on T-34 turboprops as long as I can remember (personally), and is now replacing them with the Pilatus Beech thingie, still a turboprop. I remember chatting with an old room mate who went through that program and he said the T-34 TP was a simple aircraft to fly. I know a couple of guys who had the choice of learning on the last T-28s instead, complete with 1200 HP radial... and that's what they chose :-)

The Italians use SF260s for initial pilot training and I've watched them doing their first landings - its quite entertaining.

Right now, as Mooney Driver says, the market is very soft for 'going places' aircraft and i think it does put the first time buyer in a bit of a spot. Should he buy something focused on going places that burns a lot of fuel per hour, or something that burns less fuel per hour and is better for diddling around for fun? They are the not much different in initial price. For aircraft number two I settled somewhere in the middle with 2 seats and O-320. I could do a bit of both and also do the occasional roll etc. That's why the similar RV kit builts are so popular now - they do it all for two people.

I do agree with mh 100% that stick and rudder skills are better maintained (regardless of experience) in an old, low powered tailwheel aircraft. One of things I've found find curious about flying so far for me (and I stress the personal aspect) is that higher performance are not more enjoyable to fly, with the notable exception of a Pitts S-2C I got some passenger stick time in - that was really exciting. The Lancair IV i've flown in similarly from time to time does little for me emotionally, although getting nice places faster would be really great. I'm a motorcyclist by nature - and Fluela pass on a slow bike is more fun than the Autobahn at warp speed getting there and back.

Sadly, Nate (a.k.a. the OP) did not specify his idea of "going places", as this can mean complete different things to different people. And depending on the answer, the C172 can indeed be a great tourer and can be a good going-places-aeroplane, as can be the slower Pipers, Moranes, Robins, etc. It just takes longer, but that must not be a disadvantage, if travelling is your real objective, rather than "getting somewhere" for the purpose of "being somewhere".

True, VFR only would limit your travelling possibilities due to its greater dependency on the weather, but on the other hand sitting above clouds for a couple of hours isn't the flying experience, everyone is looking for. Not that any of those "modes" of air travel is better than the other, it is definitely different and has to be considered in order to chose the right branch of aircraft types.

There is an other aspect, that has not been mentioned. All the big engined planes - be it a Commander, a TB20, a Cirrus, a C210 or anything similar - take quite a mouthful of AVGAS per hour, no matter if flown in a straight line, or in circles. So if Nate wants to be able to do some after-work relaxation flying around his home base, it can get quite expensive. Nearly everyone, I know of, who has stepped up to their Cirrusses, Senecas, Bonanzas, Mooneys or Commanders, stopped doing so. They just don't fly to the next airport for a cup of coffee and a small talk, because it gets too expensive (noisy planes invoke high landing fees and fuel flow is high with high priced fuels - especially for practising traffic circuits...). Those pilots do take their car to drive to the nearby airports for a coffee.

MoGas capable Robins, Moranes, Cessnas, Pipers, etc. are much cheaper to operate and their fixed gears and props are much cheaper to maintain. So the beginner PPL pilot would be able to obtain more experience with less money. And you still can travel through whole Europe, just not England to Egypt in one day. But here again, Nate has to ask himself, for how long a leg he wants to fly without the possibility to stretch his legs (or for his travel party to do so).

An other possibility, of course, is to buy into a group with a serious travel machine and into a second group with one of the small singe / twin seat aircraft, the British are so famous for. (i.e. Tipsy Nippers, D9s, Turbulents, Luscombes, AirCampers, and those other little fun planes). Depends on Nates size, though. This way you can obtain cheap flying experience (nothing teaches stick and rudder capabilities more than those old taildraggers) and the after work relaxing flight, and still have a great touring possibility.

As the discussion goes for the useful load, I doubt that any 737 can be filled to the structural limit with payload and be fully fuled up. This is because it would be waste in range, when it's not filled with payload. And this is true for any airplane. If you can fill it up to the structural limit and still fill the tanks, the tanks are much to small. (http://128.173.204.63/courses/cee4674/fig2a204.gif)

Cheers, MH

Hodja,

very valid points. I was however arguing on the budget the initial poster gave so a twin or TBM is pretty much out anyhow :)

There are more and more schools which do training in Cirrus or larger planes ab initio. There is nothing wrong with that, actually I think it is perfectly ok to do this and to stop teaching 1940ties techniques where 2013 is needed. We need a proper mix of the two, that is excellent basic flying skills augmented by 21st century navigation and aircraft management skills. Hence, there is nothing wrong with moving on to a Cirrus or so called complex airplane after PPL, just the opposite.

I did my PPL on a Cessna 150. The next plane I flew was the Seneca II and III for my CPL/IR. Nothing in between. It worked, why shouldn't it, took longer than normal but it did work. Now I fly a Mooney which is in between the two. Could I have gone to the Mooney directly? Yes, absolutely and that is what one school does here. Basic aircraft for PPL, then the Mooney as a stepping stone to the Cirrus.

My point is: Today's market is rock bottom. Right now, there are two Mooney C's with good equipment and times on planecheck alone for 30k € which means they can probably be gotten for less. There are several Piper Arrows, from II to IV, starting at 20k €, Cesssna 210s start at 50k and there is even a pretty pristine Twin for about 40k. In this environment, it would be outright foolish for someone to buy a PA28-140 who wants to travel! That is what I mean with buy what you need. Because you can today.

I was originally looking at a Cherokee 140 simply as my personal local transport but I flew it several times and after the Senecas and so on knew I would be bored by it in no time. The Mooney is the ideal solution for me as it is the perfect balance between cost and performance. For someone who needs to transport a full family, a C210 will be better, but they are all there for your taking.

So apart from old man's tales there is nothing which will need to keep you on old trainers unless that is what you want. But this is not what the person who started this thread is looking for.

Best regards Urs

In terms of actual aircraft handling the bigger aircraft are no more difficult than a 2 seat piston single. It gets difficult when things go wrong, which is where the systems knowledge comes in.

In my rather limited experience the pinnacle of "difficulty" comes at about a C421. They have all the problems of marginal performance on one engine, plus the technical complexity of a pressurised multi engined aircraft, but without all the modern systems or the reliability.

Once you get to Turbine stuff reliability and systems improve and by the time you get to TBM or light jets it's getting much better.

I think Peter nails it when he talks about planning the flight. The faster you go the more important energy management becomes and that seems to catch a lot of inexperienced people out.

I would very much agree, that you should always aim for your "final" aircraft when buying your own. Which of course means being clear on what kind of flying you really intend to do, realistically.

I agree 100%, but in this case the OP (original poster) said he wants to go places.

A lot of pilots asking that sort of question are indeed vague. They are not even sure if they want to do aerobatics or just normal flying around.

But if you have a focus (like I had when I started my PPL - I wanted to learn to fly to see Europe) then aiming for something actually usable is a good thing because it cuts out a lot of conversion training and time and money wasted.

New pilots are sometimes initially intimidated towards anything more powerful than the C172 or PA28 they've trained on.

I would suspect a lot of that will be the reluctance of instructors to get involved - and that's if you can even find one who knows the type.

Could a low hour PPL step right into a Baron?

There are schools in the Far East which train ab initio PPL in TB20s. I don't think that's legally possible today in Europe - not in the UK, anyway.

I don't think a Baron or a DA42 etc is particularly difficult. The DA42 is a very docile plane to fly; similar to the TB20. The biggest jump is aircraft systems. There is a significant % of PPL customers who are simply unable to understand even simple aircraft systems.

In the PPL training world you have a problem in that you can't tell them to leave; you have to take them for more and more lessons, and I have known 100+ hour PPL students.

I just don't see anyone stepping out of the flight school's C172 & into the left seat of a TBM. (though I'm sure it's been done somewhere)

It may not be possible legally but a very bright person could do it. I have heard of air forces which have abandoned piston training and who start on turboprops, having found the piston bit a waste of time. But obviously they have the pick of the customers, which is not the case in civilian training.

I have flown in a TBM850 and I think "we" are heavily conditioned by the PPL training machine into believing that you have to start at the bottom. The TBM is in most ways simpler to fly and "manage" than a TB20, and it has the equipment and performance to make it a lot safer in real weather.

The biggest increment with say a TB20 (or a TBM) over say a Cessna 150 is that with the C150 you just fly at the usual cruise speed (100kt or so) the whole time, and when you want to land somewhere you just slow down a bit (not much slowing down is needed) and land. Whereas in a TB20 you have a different mindset and are likely to be flying at say 5000ft and if you arrive at the destination at 5000ft and still doing 150kt you will like like a complete idiot, doing loads of orbits, trying to lose height and at the same time get the speed down to 130kt to lower the gear (which isn't really possible). So you start planning for the arrival say 30-40nm out. That is simply not taught in the PPL. Once you get your head around the need to think ahead, a TB20 is same as a TBM; the actual parameters are just a bit different.

Most people buy their first plane with totally false pretexts. Peter is the only guy I know who actually did the calcs and ended up with a plane which will last him for most of his career.

That's an interesting point. I would very much agree, that you should always aim for your "final" aircraft when buying your own. Which of course means being clear on what kind of flying you really intend to do, realistically. There's little point in going through a lot of step-up aircraft with all the hassle of buying & selling when you could just as well train in the aircraft that you intend to fly.

New pilots are sometimes initially intimidated towards anything more powerful than the C172 or PA28 they've trained on. But confidence quickly grows with a slightly larger aircraft. For instance, I think it's perfectly fine for a newly minted PPL going straight into a SR22, perhaps flying with a CSIP for the next 50 hrs to get solid.

However, I'm just not sure it's entirely feasible in all cases. Could a low hour PPL step right into a Baron?

Even a fairly docile DA42 would be a mouthful for a newly minted PPL. Insurance alone would probably mandate at least 300-400 hrs & IR, and that's a lot of inflight training with a flight instructor before being let solo.

When you get into PA46T & TBM territory it gets even more improbable. I just don't see anyone stepping out of the flight school's C172 & into the left seat of a TBM. (though I'm sure it's been done somewhere)

Incidentally, having recently been through the aircraft ownership process myself, after spending 100s of hours looking at numbers, anecdotes, options etc, I think the whole thing really boiled down to 3 issues (by priority):

1. Budget (always stay within your comfort zone)

2. Mission capabilities (range, seats/payload, flexibility, wx capability)

3. Pick a plane you love to fly (don't just buy on numbers alone)

Björn,

I know those and I'll spare you the nasty details of the last time they got used.

Peter,

The toilet issue has to be addressed if you want to go anywhere. It is simply not acceptable to be forced to land if somebody needs a pee, and you can never guarantee it won't happen - even on the shortest flight.

Well, yes, we have a bottle. But that is not what THAT lady wanted, she basically wanted a full fledged toilet, installed as in the airliners. Means basically a cabin class plane.

Silvaire,

My wife and I have an average weight of 136 lbs (62 Kg) - when you're a pilot and motorcyclist it pays to select a spouse that is half your size. The final nail in the coffin for my many decades of single life was to see her pack in a single bag the size of a small back pack, and show up for dinner looking elegant every night!

You are lucky! I never got the hang of motorcycles... was a lousy cyclist even as a kid. 4 wheels is for me... I do admit it was also a vote of confidence in my wife when I bought the Mooney, as they are not known for their lavish cabins, particularly the C model. But we manage. Last time to BG we were at MTOW... the 2 of us, my flight bag and her baggage. At least she has got admirable packing skills. I don't think that at any time in the history of the M20C has so much baggage volume found it's way to the destination in this airplane.

This might be maybe the most recent survey in that for Europe, figures I have seen for the US say that the 170 lb (77 kg) calculation figure per adult there is way outdated.

My wife and I have an average weight of 136 lbs (62 Kg) - when you're a pilot and motorcyclist it pays to select a spouse that is half your size. The final nail in the coffin for my many decades of single life was to see her pack in a single bag the size of a small back pack, and show up for dinner looking elegant every night!