Peter wrote:
The C400 sales are too small.
Cessna switched to TKS anyway.
tinfoilhat wrote:
I get a hint that the big boys here think that low time pilots like me should not be thinking about purchasing anything bigger than a 172.
I don’t think that’s true. However, you might have trouble fitting an SR22 into your budget. You could go for an SR20, Commander 114/ 115, TB20 GT. But you would probably have to give up TKS. And that opens up options. The issue is that all planes, more or less, in this category will do what you want (you mentioned mountains and water, but we’re still talking SEPs, unless you’re willing to consider a twin; only a Cirrus can offer something extra). It’s hard to recommend something. Cirrus is an easy choice for me, because they are plentiful, typically decently equipped and there is a market for them, not that hard to get rid of. I like Commanders, but I would probably have to tear out avionics and redo it to be happy, which is a big investment you won’t really get back at sale. I know you wrote that you’ll leave avionics for another day, but it really is an important question, at least for me. Especially in your situation – I would want to avoid spending money on avionics. For the reason I already mentioned. I would want to get what I’ll be happy with for the three years. At least the basics – glass or traditional instruments. One GPS or two. And there are the little things, preferences like whether you mind the single door arrangement on a PA-28 (or Mooneys, etc.). Another question is how you fit inside and how the ergonomics work out for you.
Maybe I’m just unnecessarily complicating it for you with my way of thinking about it, my preferences. Without high requirements on equipment I would focus on finding something in a really good condition, well maintained, a good deal. The make and model wouldn’t be that much important.
tinfoilhat if you are going to be flying southern France to the UK on a regular basis your passengers will thank you if there is a reasonably spacious cabin, and the flight doesn’t take much more than three hours – if you throw in some regular non tarmac airfields, the 172 is not going to cut it, unless you are happy making a fuel stop and planning seven hours plus.
I would suggest 99% of posters take the GA in EuroGA seriously, so hopefully no value judgments on whether a Cirrus or a Bonanza is too much airplane. Jason indicates a good estimate of ten hours to get comfortable with the handling of a heavy single. Then working towards an IMC or an IR makes sense, but not essential if you agree if you have time to spare, travel by air.
Michael wrote:
tinfoilhat wrote:
At present I spend about 5 hours angsting over each hour of flight. That limits my flying time to about 10 hours per month. I am hoping that as I gain experience I will angst less and fly more.
Care to develop this part ? What is causing so much anxiety ?
I don’t think you should be anxious over my angsting. I trained in the UK where it is all class G with very small neat zones of controlled space around the airfields and I finished my PPL with the ability to fly in to an airfield solo in the afternoon that I had flown into with my FI in the morning. I assume you have flown to Cannes but for those that have not it is surrounded by the sea, the Alps 
and a whole plethora of restricted and prohibited military space. You’d be anxious about stumbling into French military airspace right now!
But the charts only give half the story as the zones are all varied by notam and everything is overlaid by Nice or Provence class D. Since I have been out here I have flown in class G for 30 seconds (the easterly approach to Aix below 4500) .
So I plot my route, read the notams, plot another route, fly the approach to the new field on my sim, talk to an FI who says “you don’t want to do that, you should just follow the VFR routes”, learn what a VFR route is, re-plot, try to work out the best format for a printout of the PLOG from Skydemon, sit in the plane and learn how the GPS works (I never used a GPS during my PPL). Go through security clearance because I am new here, go through it again because it’s France, go through it again because everything has got jittery in this last week. Sound familiar? I reckon that’s easily 5 hours per flight right now. But as I said, I am sure it will get easier.
I found the radio out here pretty daunting at first but it’s actually quite relaxed once you get the hang of it. My FI for the differences training calls me “Say-Again Sam” which I think is a bit harsh, but it is only recently that I had an instructor who refused to step in when I get lost on a read back, so I use “say again” to buy extra time. So now I don’t angst about the radio, only flying into mountains and getting shot.
tinfoilhat wrote:
So now I don’t angst about the radio, only flying into mountains and getting shot.
I have flown extensively in that area and really enjoy it !
Really it’s not any where near as bad as you make it out, you just need to get accustomed.
ps: which flight school are you using (pm pls)
“VFR routes”? Gosh that is even more backward than the school(s) I went to, and that is really saying some 
Speaking of avionics, I have been flying around Europe with 1990s stuff very happily, VFR and IFR. There is no need to blow 5 figures on avionics, and the stuff in any plane made in the last 15 years or so will be fine.
@tinfoilhat, I think you are a little harsh on Mooney_Driver. He meant well. And some of the things he wrote are a direct consequence of what you wrote and the way you portrayed yourself, so please give him a break.
tinfoilhat wrote:
I don’t think you should be anxious over my angsting.
Well, I did get a little anxious about that myself but now that you, tinfoilhat, explained it, I can certainly relate to it. I suppose this “anxiety” will diminish as you get better acquainted with the area (I get the impression you just moved down there from the UK). Having an application like AirNavPro on a tablet is also a great help and should make you more confident.
And to tell the truth, I also get somewhat anxious when I look at the VFR chart for the Provence/Côte d’Azur area, even after 20 years of flying. It is bad enough on a day with nice weather, but when you throw in poor visibility and locally low clouds or wind (mistral) into the equation, it is below my comfort zone. This is one of the best reasons to get some kind of IR, like the EIR. It is also the best way to comfortably fly long distances, especially to the south-east of where you are.
In terms of airplanes, I have very fond memories of a turbo-normalised Beech Bonanza I flew all over the west coast of the US. That is one of the rare airplanes that you can load up with 4 people, a little luggage and quite a bit of fuel. It might be difficult to fit bikes in there because of the luggage door, but there are foldable bikes you can buy that I am confident would fit. The turbo would allow you to climb high with a decent climb rate and cruise performance, although the climb speeds I observed in the one I flew were around 600 fpm – but it could be maintained way up there. Mooney_Driver posted a link to a V35 the other day, and it looks quite nice. It is a rugged airplane with robust landing gear and very solid feel to it. Very forgiving. Although it is turbo, it is normalised and very easy to manage.
Hey Tinfoilhatman, I’m not for a moment suggesting you don’t need any particular aircraft. You could well be a better pilot than I’ll ever be, and just the man for a private F104, such is the nature of the internet.
The point I was trying to make is that anti iced singles are rare beasts and if you consider TKS a “must have” you have a limited market in which to shop.
All I was saying was do a bit of “try before you buy” as it depends how far you want to take GA as a mode of transport rather than recreation. The former sometimes implies “must go”, the latter “go if I want to”.
I would split the thread into VFR and IFR but there are too many intermixed posts now.
The OP wanted VFR, AFAICT, so not much point in giving advice on deicing systems.
Neil wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that anti iced singles are rare beasts and if you consider TKS a “must have” you have a limited market in which to shop.
Sorry Neil, I wasn’t referring to you when I said “start your own effing threads” . Your comment was exactly the type of discussion I want to have. I was complaining about those who were discussing hatwaxing on jets or some such. It’s over my head guys. Take it somewhere else
Peter wrote:
The OP wanted VFR, AFAICT, so not much point in giving advice on deicing systems
No, I am a VFR pilot who would like to do his IR over the next couple of years. I have never flown in ice so a discussion on the pros and cons of the type of de-icing system I might find useful would be very interesting to me. And maybe, as Neil says, at this stage I should avoid de-icing systems completely.
tinfoilhat wrote:
I have never flown in ice so a discussion on the pros and cons of the type of de-icing system I might find useful would be very interesting to me. And maybe, as Neil says, at this stage I should avoid de-icing systems completely.
And nor should you be flying in known icing. None of us should. There are very few singles and twins for that matter that are FIKI compliant, and even then, I would read this..http://www.optair.com/archives/6861.
So, I would get myself a nice, solid, four seat tourer, to build your experience on. Nothing too dramatic or complex, because this ‘game’, is all about experience, and learning, very often by mistake.
