Mooney_Driver wrote:
The Pipers imho have the advantage that really every shop there is can maintain them
I think, in general it’s a good idea to have a chat with the shop that will maintain your airplane before buying one, especially if you are in an area where there may not be too many options, although given the OP’s location, LELL, this might not be such a big problem. Other than that I agree with @Mooney, there aren’t (m)any shops out there that cannot handle a PA28 or a C172.
Eagle20 wrote:
Wouldn’t a piper Warrior III with it’s O-320-D3G be a lot more economical than a Socata TB-9? I would think it’s cheaper to maintain.
The Pipers imho have the advantage that really every shop there is can maintain them, as opposed to the TB9 or even the Grummans, as they are the most common and therefore the airplane of that range which every mechanic knows inside out. Same goes for the C172’s.
If they are more economical to fly, possibly. The TB-9 is pretty slow and possible the Warrior is faster with a similar fuel flow. In terms of maintenance I’d say the Pipers most probably are cheaper to maintain, reason see above.
Wouldn’t a piper Warrior III with it’s O-320-D3G be a lot more economical than a Socata TB-9? I would think it’s cheaper to maintain.
Silvaire wrote:
The 1975 Travelers actually came from the factory with the Cheetah cowling and landing gear fairings, but with the pre-existing tail. They were a factory built half step between the two versions of the AA-5.
Interesting :). They did not dick around in those days.
I actually very much like the GA7 Cougar for a light twin. Missed on the chance to buy one because it was gone before I made up my mind… 1000 NM range on quite low consumption thanks to the O320 engines. One guy I knew at some stage bought one while actually looking for a Twin Comanche and AFAIK never looked back.
That someone would replace the cowl makes sense and should be possible.
The 1975 Travelers actually came from the factory with the Cheetah cowling and landing gear fairings, but with the pre-existing tail. They were a factory built half step between the two versions of the AA-5.
Silvaire wrote:
The original Traveler is somewhat less desirable to the market due to its less refined aerodynamics and lower speed, but is available for less money which is a good thing. I did notice the other day however that a ‘75 Traveler hangared near me has the LoPresti cowling without the Cheetah/Tiger tail, making it sort of a hybrid.
The Traveller also has much smaller tanks. That and the fact that it is quite a bit slower makes it less desirable indeed.
That someone would replace the cowl makes sense and should be possible.
doillq wrote:
I’m still trying to decide whether comfort is the main driver or should I go with the lower cost and better performance.
That depends on how much better “comfort” really is. You can only figure that out by sitting in or better flying both planes.
Certainly the Grummans are a darn good bet on bang for buck. The Tiger is one of the fastest (if not the fastest) single engine fixed prop/gear airplane around, the Cheetah is also pretty fast for their HP class. Hence they are pretty economical.
Peter wrote:
All GA planes are relatively underpowered
I guess you are only talking about the piston engine part of GA right?
I have many hours in Tigers and own a TB10. I had considered a Tiger, because it’s a great airplane that’s fast, simple, and fun to fly. Sort of the fighter jet of GA. It has extremely responsive handling and a canopy you can partially open in flight, which will definitely put a big smile on the pilot’s face. It’s one of my favorite GA airplanes for sure. The flipside of this is that it’s not a very comfortable place to spend several hours, especially as a passenger, and really needs an autopilot for cross-country trips.
The TB10 is a completely different beast. It’s roughly equivalent to a PA28-180 in performance in a significantly more modern airframe. It has IMHO the best ramp appeal of any GA aircraft and a very comfortable cabin even for passengers (provided you’re not too tall that is), that feels more like a car than a GA spam can. It’s extremely stable on the controls (they are pushrod-based). I have no issue at all spending many hours flying. And perhaps most importantly (for me), passengers are much more enthusiastic about getting into the airplane in the first place, because it looks nice and modern and inviting. Comparatively the Grumman is spartan and gives off more of an “I’m taking a risk” vibe to reluctant passengers.
I can only speak to the maintenance on the TB10, as I never owned a Tiger (it was a club airplane). I fully restored mine from a very rough state to like new condition, so I’ve purchased many parts and spent a lot of time and money on maintenance concerns getting it into its current condition. Everything firewall forward is pretty standard GA. Airframe parts availability is generally good, as Daher continues to support the airplane—although you may have to wait a bit for specialized parts (I had to wait a few months for door latch components for example). After restoration it’s been basically trouble-free with just routine stuff.
My mission was to tour Europe, largely under IFR, and almost always with passengers. While speed is helpful, a few extra knots doesn’t really make a big difference on the typical trip. I ended up going with the TB because it’s a cockpit I knew I and my passengers could spend many enjoyable hours. I’ve been very happy with my decision, and if I ever decide to step up it will be to a TB20.
All GA planes are relatively underpowered. Also most are uncomfortable, which passengers don’t really appreciate but passenger appreciation is key to long term GA enjoyment. And going places is another great thing. I would not have done most of the trips here in the legs shown; it would have taken much longer.
I’m still trying to decide whether comfort is the main driver or should I go with the lower cost and better performance. So far I’m inclined to go towards the latter, as I think it’s preferable to be able to maintain and fly the plane than have comfort – seeing that it would be my first owned plane.
Ultranomad wrote:
This is what a pre-purchase inspection is for, and I can help you with that.
I might get back to you regarding that.
