tinfoilhat wrote:
It seemed pretty straightforward, am I missing something?
Not all boxes are the same. Learning to operate new avionics is a big part of the transition. Also making sure you know how things are connected, failure modes, etc.
I have avoided it because I worry that extra training is a way of avoiding grasping the nettle and actually going flying solo. Do you think it’s worth making the time investment in glass training now?
Well, I don’t think it’s a good idea to figure this stuff in the air as you go. It’s better to go through the manuals and play a bit with a simulator on the ground, as you should – it constitutes familiarization. And you actually need a differences training for glass cockpits (SEP(land) with EFIS or some such is the official name).
PS: Just to clarify, by a simulator I mean a program you can download that simulates user interface of a particular GPS, etc. Not an aeroplane simulator, a flight training device.
My experience is different, the NDBs in all approaches i know work fine and the distance is always right. I have heard this before but could never find an NDB for which that was true, Maybe that’s different in the UK, i do not know that.
An NDB does not give you a distance reading, so it’s OK to use as a GPS waypoint.
Sorry, of course i meant the DME station, not the NDB.
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 ?
tinfoilhat wrote:
Maybe I should say that I don’t want to blow the budget on a shagged out version of a capable plane. I worry that’s what I might be getting into if I bought an old SR22
Shagged out? I don’t think there are many SR22’s which are, nor many others of that age. At the same time, you can get a maintenance nightmare built in 2012 and one which doesn’t give you trouble built in 1960. It strongly depends on the former owner, on what maintenance he has done and how much care has he taken.
tinfoilhat wrote:
about EUR25k. Does that sound about right?
To fly 100 hours in a newer kind of plane? No. That is too tight. A plane like that you’d have to calculate about 300 Euros per hour all up, plus reserves for unexpected things.
With a budget of 200k I would spend half to 75% of this on the airplane and use the rest for flying and reserves on top of your yearly budget.
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. Let’s be optimistic and say 150 hours pa.
That sounds quite a few alarm bells with me. Why? You are a checked out pilot, low experience ok, but still, what exactly do you worry about? And no, this will not get better unless you adress the issues first. You also said that you like flight training, maybe because you are not flying alone then? In any event, before investing any money, let alone not your own, into an airplane, this should be addressed.
tinfoilhat wrote:
I have spent my entire life deferring gratification
This triggers even more alarm bells. Yes I know about this kind of thing, my gratification is parked at Zürich airport. But it does sound kind of desparate and panicked for now-double now and that does not work very well in aviation. I’ve been looking for over 3 years within my budget and ended up buying something I would not have dreamt of owning, because I took the time to see. I urge you to do the same, take careful consideration rather than rushing into a gratification you think you need to have now.
tinfoilhat wrote:
This is a great looking plane but it doesn’t look like the kind of thing I associate with grass strips. I reckon it could carry 4 people and 4 bikes though. I must read up on the Bonanza
A Beech has probably the much better gear for grass strips then a Cirrus. The Beech landing gear is legendary for strenght and forgiveness on uneven surfaces.
4 people and 4 bikes. That brings up another question. What kind of payload do you need? That can be a paramount issue on these planes. I would not think a SR22 is a 4 people 4 bikes airplane, nor are most other 4 seaters. To regularly carry this kind of load you realistically need either a Cessna 210 or maybe a 182 or a Piper Saratoga. How often will you want to do that? Do you actually have people to fly with yet or are you just assuming they will once you turn up in a shiny new plane? In which case, you might be in for a rude surprise.
tinfoilhat wrote:
I want to travel between the UK and south of France as well as local flights
-Given where I live it is likely that much of my flying will be over water.
-I want to have the option for grass strips
-I need space for 2 POB and 2 road bikes (wheels out obviously)
-I live near the Alps
Um, sorry, you got me utterly confused now. You want to fly between the UK and S-France, but you live near the alps? You want 2 POB or 4 as you said later? You live near the alps and will fly a lot over water? I really don’t get a profile here.
tinfoilhat wrote:
-I don’t want something with a likelyhood of maintenance issues.i.e. nothing too old
Any plane will have maintenance issues at some point. Age is secondary to how it has been taken care of. Any airplane you buy will need to go through a thorough inspection to make reasonably sure you will not be buying a maintenance disaster, yet you can despite this get a unexpected engine revision or whatever. Another reason I say you should be more careful with your budget.
From what you have written so far, I don’t have any base to make any reasonable recommendation other than to do what you should be doing with any project. Get a proper concept, then try to slash that concept with a sledge hammer to see if it stands. If not, something is wrong. And with what you are saying here, quite a lot of it is.
Me, personally, if I had 200k to buy a travel airplane, I would aim for a 100k purchase and use the rest to fly. You can get very capable and well preserved airplanes for this kind of money.
Just as one example, this is a plane I know the owner of and which is in really good condition for 100k. This is a guy who keeps his airplane in a totally pristine condition, has upgraded it very recently to a high standard with after market turbo and updated avionics. It will deliver 190 kts at FL130 and has the range easily to do your UK-SFrance thing.
I am NOT suggesting you buy this, as you seem to crave newer airframes, all I want to tell you is to keep your mind slightly more open.
And to think even further out of the box:
Piper Seminole Turbo with De Ice
This is an airplane which will carry you quite safely over the over water legs you seem to sweat in a single, will cross the alps pretty nicely on the turbo engines it has and it is de-iced even if it is not approved for known icing, but at least you have some means to deal with ice if you fly into it inadvertedly. And I would think you can get it for 100k or not much above. Yes, it would be more expensive to fly, but it will deliver a solid performance and payload. However, it is not necessarily a plane for a 100 hr PPL, but if you like training, you might as well take your flying to a different level. I can’t afford this one but I have been looking at it for a while. If I wanted a traveller which is de-iced and still is more economical than a fuel guzzler like the Seneca, this would be one variant. Again, I am not at all saying this is what you should buy, but simply get you the idea to look outside the box.
Yes, you can buy a 200k airplane and probably be happy with it, but you will struggle with 25 k to keep it happy. You can buy something which might even not require a loan to buy and be less stressed out financially and easily afford to fly it. There are dozens of TB20GT, PA28, Mooneys and other airplanes for HALF your budget which will in terms of performance do the same or better, but which will not stretch your budget to over breaking.
tinfoilhat wrote:
-This is not a case of “buying your last plane first”. If all goes well I will change the plane in a couple of years, so it only needs to be appropriate to my current skill level
Again this shows me that you are totally unaware of the marketplace. There is no such plane which can be sold easily these days, any sale will take a couple of months if not years. If you are willing to take a financial beating every time you upgrade, then you can do this kind of stuff, but if not, and if you need a loan then that suggest you can’t even start to think that way, then again, I hear alarm bells. Lots of them.
Sorry for being so blunt. Those who know me here do also know I am the last person to discourage people from buying airplanes, on the opposite. But I have seen enough half baked projects which got people into trouble and finally got them to quit aviation in frustration because they bought wrong, over their head and over their financial means.
tinfoilhat wrote:
So you think I should buy a collection of planes? That’s the spirit
Either that or partake in a group / club that operates a small aircraft or have someone nearby that rents out an aircraft for low hourly costs :-)
tinfoilhat wrote:
So what would appeal to you? The SR22 is the first plane I thought of, but I am keen to look at options.
The SR22 has one single point of sale: the parachute. If you don’t value the parachute as much as some of the Cirrus flyers do, there are plenty options of 200+ hp aircraft to go touring. I personally would have a look at Turbo Super Vikings, because they deliver a lot of aircraft for not much money. Or maybe a C195 or something. The budget would allow for some nice avionics and the fix of one or the other maintenance squawk. Possible that there would be something left for a nice sunday evening cruiser, something like a Jodel D11, Champ, Auster or for some gentleman aerobatics a BO208, RF5, Citabria, Tipsy Nipper. Maybe a Pitts.
If you like to carry stuff, the C182/C210 would be the classic “SUV” with good access to either side. I can imagine that it will be sporty to fiddle two bikes into a Mooney.
This is not a case of “buying your last plane first”. If all goes well I will change the plane in a couple of years, so it only needs to be appropriate to my current skill level
-I enjoy flight training (does that make me weird?) so I am happy to upgrade my skills if necessary. I have been warned off a Cirrus by a Cirrus pilot who told me they were too slippery for a new PPL
The real issue is how do you assess your “current skill level”.
I went from a C152/PA28 straight to the TB20 so I know a bit about this.
The main difference is that – to put it somewhat simply – a C152 is flown at 100kt all the time (or at some fixed RPM) and if you want to land, you close the throttle and land. Whereas a 150kt plane needs to be flown what they call “by the numbers” so you set up say 23" 2300 RPM 11 USG/hr and that gives you say 140kt (economy cruise). For climbs you would use different settings. For higher altitude stuff e.g. FL100-FL200 you might use a constant-EGT climb – here. Now… some people – especially the “IT type” which is often found in GA – find this easy, while others find it hard, and some find their eyes just glaze over and they can’t even work out how to set up a G1000 beyond the most basic stuff. Yes, many people do fly a G1000 plane on the backup instruments, especially on the rental scene! Many people who use Skydemon don’t understand it, beyond looking at the moving map. I have flown with the whole spectrum.
Also the higher speed means you need to plan ahead. That is really the biggest thing. It’s easy but it is a whole new mindset, not taught at the PPL level. One of the changes is that you won’t be flying at 1500-2000ft like so many are trained to fly at. You will fly a lot higher. And if you are at say 5000ft then you cannot just decide to land when you have just 3 miles to run – because you will never get down. You have to start planning tens of miles ahead. Sometimes much longer.
So I would ask you about your background, your education, etc.
Otherwise, 150kt is nothing to speak of. It’s just a figure on the ASI, or the GPS ground speed. Often, especially e.g. northern France, you will sit there, over endless fields, occassionally seeing some boilerplate little village, wishing for 500kt 
If you are a reasonable pilot, with the mental agility to get your head around the aircraft systems, no modern certified plane will be a problem for you. I have flown the SR22, the DA42, the TB20 (almost 2000hrs) and they all fly fine. A good techy person could go straight from a C152 to a TBM.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
tinfoilhat wrote:
-This is not a case of “buying your last plane first”. If all goes well I will change the plane in a couple of years, so it only needs to be appropriate to my current skill level
Again this shows me that you are totally unaware of the marketplace. There is no such plane which can be sold easily these days, any sale will take a couple of months if not years. If you are willing to take a financial beating every time you upgrade, then you can do this kind of stuff, but if not, and if you need a loan then that suggest you can’t even start to think that way, then again, I hear alarm bells. Lots of them.
Sorry for being so blunt. Those who know me here do also know I am the last person to discourage people from buying airplanes, on the opposite. But I have seen enough half baked projects which got people into trouble and finally got them to quit aviation in frustration because they bought wrong, over their head and over their financial means
Although I agree that the GA market is fairly illiquid, there is a very strong demand for 182Ts right now since the failure by Cessna to get the Jet-A version certified. Not saying that will be the case in 2-3 years, but highlighting that there are pockets within GA where you can sell quickly if you wanted to. I’ve had mine 5 mins and had an unsolicited offer to buy mine off me already.
Bq. tinfoilhat wrote:
JWL wrote:
wanted an SR22 but ended up with a C182T
Do you get plane envy when you park next to an SR22 or are you glad you took your option. At present I am leaning towards a newer C182 rather than an older SR22
Absolutely not. I’ve never been a huge Cessna fan looks wise, but I’ve actually grown to love the 182, maybe because of the colour scheme I have. Weirdly I was parked at Booker yesterday and someone went out to take photos of her. Then 10 mins later 2 PPL students went out and looked round her / looked through the window. Then later when I landed on my 2nd sortie, ATC even said over the radio “that’s a lovey looking machine”. I did not expect any of that ‘just’ flying a Cessna 182. I actually think some of the older SR22’s are starting to look dated compared to the G5s (which are very sexy!)
there are pockets within GA where you can sell quickly if you wanted to
That actually applies to anything of good quality. Like houses… if there are 50 identical houses next to each other, and none have a nice view, yours could take for ever to sell. Nice planes sell fast – at the right price. The problem is that many sellers are emotionally attached to their plane
Experience may vary, but conversion to a heavy single ideally should be over several hours. The benign Cessna 182 has a history of potential damaged firewalls due to heavy nose wheel first landings (AOPA US has a good discussion of the safety history and a well thought out aircraft general knowledge and performance questionnaire for the 182). So understanding handling under different loads, configurations and crosswinds would be a good investment.
The PFL or performance glide approach and landing also takes training in a heavy complex single. Arguably this training in the CPL elevates the CPL to more than a vanity licence.
Understanding performance calculations goes with flying by the numbers. John Eckalbar’s Flying the Beech Bonanza is a good investment for anybody operating a heavy piston single.
Agree with M_Driver, the Bonanza undercarriage is notoriously overbuilt (also used in the Baron), and they have better than average prop clearance.
