User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/12/2016 5:39:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I definitely found the 210 to be heavier on the controls than a 182. And a 182 more than a 172. And a 172 more than a 152. But it's a good heaviness. It always makes it feel like a more solid aircraft. I always felt like a 210 was a near ideal IFR platform. As Morne said, it's not an issue. A little pattern work and you're used to it. That's what has me looking at Cessnas. Is the familiarness to them and similar handling characteristics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2016 10:56:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's good to know. I am not sure how long it will take me to get to 500 hours. I guess I am still caught up on RG being a Mx night mare. The 210 numbers sure do look very impressive though. Above everything else, safety is my priority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
wow thanks for the detailed advice. I have plenty time to buy and there are so many choices out there. 
I am still trying to decide if I want to mess with retractable landing gear or not. I did some flight planning and on a normal trip I would only save 10 minutes going 150kts vs 135kts. On my longest trip I would save a 1/2 to 45 minutes, That's still not bad because that long trip would be broken up into two 2 hour legs. Insurance rates being lower is also a plus. Does a 210 handle similarly to a 172/182? I heard they are nose heavy. First, ignore that "nose-heavy" crap all the low-horsepower pilots spew at you. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life! People told me the same thing about the 182 - that the 6 cylinder engine made it "nose-heavy" and that made landings harder. An hour of pattern work later it was a non-issue. See, airplanes come with this fancy thing called an "elevator trim wheel" that counteracts any "nose-heaviness" it might have (within allowable CG, naturally). If you must, you can keep a 5-gallon water bladder or a case of oil in the baggage compartment for when you fly solo. When I flew to California I knew I'd be traversing a lot of desert so I opted for the water. YMMV. That extra 15 knots means little if you disregard winds. But what about those days where you're bucking 40-knot headwinds? Especially in the winter flying westbound. Now it is a difference of 90-knots ground speed versus 105 knots ground speed, that's a noticeable difference. As to insurance rates - those numbers drop fast as you accrue your first 500 hours (I'm over that number now). When I first got my bird insurance was expensive but it is not as big deal today. The biggest driver after hours is hull value (so buying a cheaper plane equals cheaper insurance) and number of seats (so even though some 210s can seat 6 you would save dollars to keep only 4 seats in it at least until you've built up plenty of time). I'd encourage you to find a controller.com ad for a fixed gear 182 you like and a 210 you like then email both of those links to your aviation insurance agent and ask for quotes. Then divide the price for each airplane by the quote to get a "plane price per insurance dollar" ratio - you might be surprised how similar those numbers are. Where insurance gets stupid is for multi-engines. I've had that quoted...after I stopped vomiting I was just about cured of my desire to own a twin. that's good to know. I am not sure how long it will take me to get to 500 hours. I guess I am still caught up on RG being a Mx night mare. The 210 numbers sure do look very impressive though. Above everything else, safety is my priority. The gear swing only adds a couple hours to each annual. The "D" variant 210 and later had the revised gear mechanism rather than the original Rube Goldberg device that became infamous for failure. So long as your pre-buy mechanic pays attention to that point you should avoid a lemon. Also, the gear doors account for a decent chunk of gear failures to extend. A lot of 210 and 337 owners just remove them which only penalizes you about a knot of TAS but saves you weight from pulling out the associated hydraulics. I see a 210 with the main gear door removal STC as being a plus in value for that reason. Also, if you find a retract bird that has an optional belly cargo pod you're now insured against a prop strike in a gear failure event. Let the belly pod get scraped up while your prop spins freely above the asphalt! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2016 11:07:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The gear swing only adds a couple hours to each annual. The "D" variant 210 and later had the revised gear mechanism rather than the original Rube Goldberg device that became infamous for failure. So long as your pre-buy mechanic pays attention to that point you should avoid a lemon. Also, the gear doors account for a decent chunk of gear failures to extend. A lot of 210 and 337 owners just remove them which only penalizes you about a knot of TAS but saves you weight from pulling out the associated hydraulics. I see a 210 with the main gear door removal STC as being a plus in value for that reason. Also, if you find a retract bird that has an optional belly cargo pod you're now insured against a prop strike in a gear failure event. Let the belly pod get scraped up while your prop spins freely above the asphalt! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
wow thanks for the detailed advice. I have plenty time to buy and there are so many choices out there.
I am still trying to decide if I want to mess with retractable landing gear or not. I did some flight planning and on a normal trip I would only save 10 minutes going 150kts vs 135kts. On my longest trip I would save a 1/2 to 45 minutes, That's still not bad because that long trip would be broken up into two 2 hour legs. Insurance rates being lower is also a plus. Does a 210 handle similarly to a 172/182? I heard they are nose heavy. First, ignore that "nose-heavy" crap all the low-horsepower pilots spew at you. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life! People told me the same thing about the 182 - that the 6 cylinder engine made it "nose-heavy" and that made landings harder. An hour of pattern work later it was a non-issue. See, airplanes come with this fancy thing called an "elevator trim wheel" that counteracts any "nose-heaviness" it might have (within allowable CG, naturally). If you must, you can keep a 5-gallon water bladder or a case of oil in the baggage compartment for when you fly solo. When I flew to California I knew I'd be traversing a lot of desert so I opted for the water. YMMV. That extra 15 knots means little if you disregard winds. But what about those days where you're bucking 40-knot headwinds? Especially in the winter flying westbound. Now it is a difference of 90-knots ground speed versus 105 knots ground speed, that's a noticeable difference. As to insurance rates - those numbers drop fast as you accrue your first 500 hours (I'm over that number now). When I first got my bird insurance was expensive but it is not as big deal today. The biggest driver after hours is hull value (so buying a cheaper plane equals cheaper insurance) and number of seats (so even though some 210s can seat 6 you would save dollars to keep only 4 seats in it at least until you've built up plenty of time). I'd encourage you to find a controller.com ad for a fixed gear 182 you like and a 210 you like then email both of those links to your aviation insurance agent and ask for quotes. Then divide the price for each airplane by the quote to get a "plane price per insurance dollar" ratio - you might be surprised how similar those numbers are. Where insurance gets stupid is for multi-engines. I've had that quoted...after I stopped vomiting I was just about cured of my desire to own a twin. that's good to know. I am not sure how long it will take me to get to 500 hours. I guess I am still caught up on RG being a Mx night mare. The 210 numbers sure do look very impressive though. Above everything else, safety is my priority. The gear swing only adds a couple hours to each annual. The "D" variant 210 and later had the revised gear mechanism rather than the original Rube Goldberg device that became infamous for failure. So long as your pre-buy mechanic pays attention to that point you should avoid a lemon. Also, the gear doors account for a decent chunk of gear failures to extend. A lot of 210 and 337 owners just remove them which only penalizes you about a knot of TAS but saves you weight from pulling out the associated hydraulics. I see a 210 with the main gear door removal STC as being a plus in value for that reason. Also, if you find a retract bird that has an optional belly cargo pod you're now insured against a prop strike in a gear failure event. Let the belly pod get scraped up while your prop spins freely above the asphalt! My dad used to own a 337 with a belly pod. It was kind of nice for more baggage space though you rarely needed it. But, man, did it ever slow that plane down. It took about 10 knts off the cruise speed. We finally had it removed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 12:06:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The gear swing only adds a couple hours to each annual. The "D" variant 210 and later had the revised gear mechanism rather than the original Rube Goldberg device that became infamous for failure. So long as your pre-buy mechanic pays attention to that point you should avoid a lemon. Also, the gear doors account for a decent chunk of gear failures to extend. A lot of 210 and 337 owners just remove them which only penalizes you about a knot of TAS but saves you weight from pulling out the associated hydraulics. I see a 210 with the main gear door removal STC as being a plus in value for that reason. Also, if you find a retract bird that has an optional belly cargo pod you're now insured against a prop strike in a gear failure event. Let the belly pod get scraped up while your prop spins freely above the asphalt! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
wow thanks for the detailed advice. I have plenty time to buy and there are so many choices out there.
I am still trying to decide if I want to mess with retractable landing gear or not. I did some flight planning and on a normal trip I would only save 10 minutes going 150kts vs 135kts. On my longest trip I would save a 1/2 to 45 minutes, That's still not bad because that long trip would be broken up into two 2 hour legs. Insurance rates being lower is also a plus. Does a 210 handle similarly to a 172/182? I heard they are nose heavy. First, ignore that "nose-heavy" crap all the low-horsepower pilots spew at you. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life! People told me the same thing about the 182 - that the 6 cylinder engine made it "nose-heavy" and that made landings harder. An hour of pattern work later it was a non-issue. See, airplanes come with this fancy thing called an "elevator trim wheel" that counteracts any "nose-heaviness" it might have (within allowable CG, naturally). If you must, you can keep a 5-gallon water bladder or a case of oil in the baggage compartment for when you fly solo. When I flew to California I knew I'd be traversing a lot of desert so I opted for the water. YMMV. That extra 15 knots means little if you disregard winds. But what about those days where you're bucking 40-knot headwinds? Especially in the winter flying westbound. Now it is a difference of 90-knots ground speed versus 105 knots ground speed, that's a noticeable difference. As to insurance rates - those numbers drop fast as you accrue your first 500 hours (I'm over that number now). When I first got my bird insurance was expensive but it is not as big deal today. The biggest driver after hours is hull value (so buying a cheaper plane equals cheaper insurance) and number of seats (so even though some 210s can seat 6 you would save dollars to keep only 4 seats in it at least until you've built up plenty of time). I'd encourage you to find a controller.com ad for a fixed gear 182 you like and a 210 you like then email both of those links to your aviation insurance agent and ask for quotes. Then divide the price for each airplane by the quote to get a "plane price per insurance dollar" ratio - you might be surprised how similar those numbers are. Where insurance gets stupid is for multi-engines. I've had that quoted...after I stopped vomiting I was just about cured of my desire to own a twin. that's good to know. I am not sure how long it will take me to get to 500 hours. I guess I am still caught up on RG being a Mx night mare. The 210 numbers sure do look very impressive though. Above everything else, safety is my priority. The gear swing only adds a couple hours to each annual. The "D" variant 210 and later had the revised gear mechanism rather than the original Rube Goldberg device that became infamous for failure. So long as your pre-buy mechanic pays attention to that point you should avoid a lemon. Also, the gear doors account for a decent chunk of gear failures to extend. A lot of 210 and 337 owners just remove them which only penalizes you about a knot of TAS but saves you weight from pulling out the associated hydraulics. I see a 210 with the main gear door removal STC as being a plus in value for that reason. Also, if you find a retract bird that has an optional belly cargo pod you're now insured against a prop strike in a gear failure event. Let the belly pod get scraped up while your prop spins freely above the asphalt! well that makes a lot of sense to remove the gear doors if they cause trouble. I also Assume I could start hoarding gear parts for the 210 in case there is an issue?
I really have a bad habit of that with my boats and truck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 12:48:28 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: well that makes a lot of sense to remove the gear doors if they cause trouble. I also Assume I could start hoarding gear parts for the 210 in case there is an issue? I really have a bad habit of that with my boats and truck. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: wow thanks for the detailed advice. I have plenty time to buy and there are so many choices out there. I am still trying to decide if I want to mess with retractable landing gear or not. I did some flight planning and on a normal trip I would only save 10 minutes going 150kts vs 135kts. On my longest trip I would save a 1/2 to 45 minutes, That's still not bad because that long trip would be broken up into two 2 hour legs. Insurance rates being lower is also a plus. Does a 210 handle similarly to a 172/182? I heard they are nose heavy. First, ignore that "nose-heavy" crap all the low-horsepower pilots spew at you. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life! People told me the same thing about the 182 - that the 6 cylinder engine made it "nose-heavy" and that made landings harder. An hour of pattern work later it was a non-issue. See, airplanes come with this fancy thing called an "elevator trim wheel" that counteracts any "nose-heaviness" it might have (within allowable CG, naturally). If you must, you can keep a 5-gallon water bladder or a case of oil in the baggage compartment for when you fly solo. When I flew to California I knew I'd be traversing a lot of desert so I opted for the water. YMMV. That extra 15 knots means little if you disregard winds. But what about those days where you're bucking 40-knot headwinds? Especially in the winter flying westbound. Now it is a difference of 90-knots ground speed versus 105 knots ground speed, that's a noticeable difference. As to insurance rates - those numbers drop fast as you accrue your first 500 hours (I'm over that number now). When I first got my bird insurance was expensive but it is not as big deal today. The biggest driver after hours is hull value (so buying a cheaper plane equals cheaper insurance) and number of seats (so even though some 210s can seat 6 you would save dollars to keep only 4 seats in it at least until you've built up plenty of time). I'd encourage you to find a controller.com ad for a fixed gear 182 you like and a 210 you like then email both of those links to your aviation insurance agent and ask for quotes. Then divide the price for each airplane by the quote to get a "plane price per insurance dollar" ratio - you might be surprised how similar those numbers are. Where insurance gets stupid is for multi-engines. I've had that quoted...after I stopped vomiting I was just about cured of my desire to own a twin. that's good to know. I am not sure how long it will take me to get to 500 hours. I guess I am still caught up on RG being a Mx night mare. The 210 numbers sure do look very impressive though. Above everything else, safety is my priority. The gear swing only adds a couple hours to each annual. The "D" variant 210 and later had the revised gear mechanism rather than the original Rube Goldberg device that became infamous for failure. So long as your pre-buy mechanic pays attention to that point you should avoid a lemon. Also, the gear doors account for a decent chunk of gear failures to extend. A lot of 210 and 337 owners just remove them which only penalizes you about a knot of TAS but saves you weight from pulling out the associated hydraulics. I see a 210 with the main gear door removal STC as being a plus in value for that reason. Also, if you find a retract bird that has an optional belly cargo pod you're now insured against a prop strike in a gear failure event. Let the belly pod get scraped up while your prop spins freely above the asphalt! well that makes a lot of sense to remove the gear doors if they cause trouble. I also Assume I could start hoarding gear parts for the 210 in case there is an issue? I really have a bad habit of that with my boats and truck. The ones for the 210 is a little more available and reasonable, but I haven't had to source one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 1:56:57 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last pivot arm actuator I had to change (this was a 172RG) was $7500 for a used one. And that was YEARS ago. The ones for the 210 is a little more available and reasonable, but I haven't had to source one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[qote]Quoted: Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
wow thanks for the detailed advice. I have plenty time to buy and there are so many choices out there.
I am still trying to decide if I want to mess with retractable landing gear or not. I did some flight planning and on a normal trip I would only save 10 minutes going 150kts vs 135kts. On my longest trip I would save a 1/2 to 45 minutes, That's still not bad because that long trip would be broken up into two 2 hour legs. Insurance rates being lower is also a plus. Does a 210 handle similarly to a 172/182? I heard they are nose heavy. First, ignore that "nose-heavy" crap all the low-horsepower pilots spew at you. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life! People told me the same thing about the 182 - that the 6 cylinder engine made it "nose-heavy" and that made landings harder. An hour of pattern work later it was a non-issue. See, airplanes come with this fancy thing called an "elevator trim wheel" that counteracts any "nose-heaviness" it might have (within allowable CG, naturally). If you must, you can keep a 5-gallon water bladder or a case of oil in the baggage compartment for when you fly solo. When I flew to California I knew I'd be traversing a lot of desert so I opted for the water. YMMV. That extra 15 knots means little if you disregard winds. But what about those days where you're bucking 40-knot headwinds? Especially in the winter flying westbound. Now it is a difference of 90-knots ground speed versus 105 knots ground speed, that's a noticeable difference. As to insurance rates - those numbers drop fast as you accrue your first 500 hours (I'm over that number now). When I first got my bird insurance was expensive but it is not as big deal today. The biggest driver after hours is hull value (so buying a cheaper plane equals cheaper insurance) and number of seats (so even though some 210s can seat 6 you would save dollars to keep only 4 seats in it at least until you've built up plenty of time). I'd encourage you to find a controller.com ad for a fixed gear 182 you like and a 210 you like then email both of those links to your aviation insurance agent and ask for quotes. Then divide the price for each airplane by the quote to get a "plane price per insurance dollar" ratio - you might be surprised how similar those numbers are. Where insurance gets stupid is for multi-engines. I've had that quoted...after I stopped vomiting I was just about cured of my desire to own a twin. that's good to know. I am not sure how long it will take me to get to 500 hours. I guess I am still caught up on RG being a Mx night mare. The 210 numbers sure do look very impressive though. Above everything else, safety is my priority.[/quoe] The gear swing only adds a couple hours to each annual. The "D" variant 210 and later had the revised gear mechanism rather than the original Rube Goldberg device that became infamous for failure. So long as your pre-buy mechanic pays attention to that point you should avoid a lemon. Also, the gear doors account for a decent chunk of gear failures to extend. A lot of 210 and 337 owners just remove them which only penalizes you about a knot of TAS but saves you weight from pulling out the associated hydraulics. I see a 210 with the main gear door removal STC as being a plus in value for that reason. Also, if you find a retract bird that has an optional belly cargo pod you're now insured against a prop strike in a gear failure event. Let the belly pod get scraped up while your prop spins freely above the asphalt! well that makes a lot of sense to remove the gear doors if they cause trouble. I also Assume I could start hoarding gear parts for the 210 in case there is an issue?
I really have a bad habit of that with my boats and truck. The ones for the 210 is a little more available and reasonable, but I haven't had to source one. damn, three of those? That's the thing that bothers me about RG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 2:42:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Most retractable gear aircraft don't have problems approaching anything like those of the single engine RG Cessnas. It's a wonky system that needs to be maintained with knowledge and finesse. There's a few maintenance shops around the nation known for their skill in maintaining those gear systems and we always made a point of doing the pre-purchase inspection and every other annual inspection at one of those facilities just to stay out of trouble. But when the powerpack in those planes goes bad then the emergency gear extension method commonly doesn't work either. Then you get to do a landing in an aircraft where the gear is neither up nor down and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 3:06:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most retractable gear aircraft don't have problems approaching anything like those of the single engine RG Cessnas. It's a wonky system that needs to be maintained with knowledge and finesse. There's a few maintenance shops around the nation known for their skill in maintaining those gear systems and we always made a point of doing the pre-purchase inspection and every other annual inspection at one of those facilities just to stay out of trouble. But when the powerpack in those planes goes bad then the emergency gear extension method commonly doesn't work either. Then you get to do a landing in an aircraft where the gear is neither up nor down and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. So that means the 172RG/182RG and 210 all have that same system? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 5:12:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So that means the 172RG/182RG and 210 all have that same system? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most retractable gear aircraft don't have problems approaching anything like those of the single engine RG Cessnas. It's a wonky system that needs to be maintained with knowledge and finesse. There's a few maintenance shops around the nation known for their skill in maintaining those gear systems and we always made a point of doing the pre-purchase inspection and every other annual inspection at one of those facilities just to stay out of trouble. But when the powerpack in those planes goes bad then the emergency gear extension method commonly doesn't work either. Then you get to do a landing in an aircraft where the gear is neither up nor down and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. So that means the 172RG/182RG and 210 all have that same system? I'm certainly not an expert on it but I sure thought they were. At least in theory of operation anyway. Basically it's a electrically driven by a hydraulic power pack and hydraulically actuated. I got my CFI a long time ago in a Cutlass RG and the first pressurized aircraft my family ever owned was a Cessna P210. As far as I can recall the systems were the same with similar concerns. I want to say that some older 210s used an engine driven hydraulic pump instead of the electric power pack. We owned a 337 after the 210 and it had an engine driven hydraulic pump for each engine providing some redundancy. But the manual gear extension method on the single engine RGs is mostly used in the event of an electrical failure. For that it's no problem. But if you develop a hydraulic leak then you're screwed as there's no way to get the gear down and locked. The gear extends into the relative wind under hydraulic pressure. If there's no hydraulic fluid on the system then your doing a "gear dangling" landing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 5:34:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm certainly not an expert on it but I sure thought they were. At least in theory of operation anyway. Basically it's a electrically driven by a hydraulic power pack and hydraulically actuated. I got my CFI a long time ago in a Cutlass RG and the first pressurized aircraft my family ever owned was a Cessna P210. As far as I can recall the systems were the same with similar concerns. I want to say that some older 210s used an engine driven hydraulic pump instead of the electric power pack. We owned a 337 after the 210 and it had an engine driven hydraulic pump for each engine providing some redundancy. But the manual gear extension method on the single engine RGs is mostly used in the event of an electrical failure. For that it's no problem. But if you develop a hydraulic leak then you're screwed as there's no way to get the gear down and locked. The gear extends into the relative wind under hydraulic pressure. If there's no hydraulic fluid on the system then your doing a "gear dangling" landing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most retractable gear aircraft don't have problems approaching anything like those of the single engine RG Cessnas. It's a wonky system that needs to be maintained with knowledge and finesse. There's a few maintenance shops around the nation known for their skill in maintaining those gear systems and we always made a point of doing the pre-purchase inspection and every other annual inspection at one of those facilities just to stay out of trouble. But when the powerpack in those planes goes bad then the emergency gear extension method commonly doesn't work either. Then you get to do a landing in an aircraft where the gear is neither up nor down and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. So that means the 172RG/182RG and 210 all have that same system? I'm certainly not an expert on it but I sure thought they were. At least in theory of operation anyway. Basically it's a electrically driven by a hydraulic power pack and hydraulically actuated. I got my CFI a long time ago in a Cutlass RG and the first pressurized aircraft my family ever owned was a Cessna P210. As far as I can recall the systems were the same with similar concerns. I want to say that some older 210s used an engine driven hydraulic pump instead of the electric power pack. We owned a 337 after the 210 and it had an engine driven hydraulic pump for each engine providing some redundancy. But the manual gear extension method on the single engine RGs is mostly used in the event of an electrical failure. For that it's no problem. But if you develop a hydraulic leak then you're screwed as there's no way to get the gear down and locked. The gear extends into the relative wind under hydraulic pressure. If there's no hydraulic fluid on the system then your doing a "gear dangling" landing. That's sort of the stuff I would want to avoid, unless it's bullet proof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 8:27:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's sort of the stuff I would want to avoid, unless it's bullet proof. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most retractable gear aircraft don't have problems approaching anything like those of the single engine RG Cessnas. It's a wonky system that needs to be maintained with knowledge and finesse. There's a few maintenance shops around the nation known for their skill in maintaining those gear systems and we always made a point of doing the pre-purchase inspection and every other annual inspection at one of those facilities just to stay out of trouble. But when the powerpack in those planes goes bad then the emergency gear extension method commonly doesn't work either. Then you get to do a landing in an aircraft where the gear is neither up nor down and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. So that means the 172RG/182RG and 210 all have that same system? I'm certainly not an expert on it but I sure thought they were. At least in theory of operation anyway. Basically it's a electrically driven by a hydraulic power pack and hydraulically actuated. I got my CFI a long time ago in a Cutlass RG and the first pressurized aircraft my family ever owned was a Cessna P210. As far as I can recall the systems were the same with similar concerns. I want to say that some older 210s used an engine driven hydraulic pump instead of the electric power pack. We owned a 337 after the 210 and it had an engine driven hydraulic pump for each engine providing some redundancy. But the manual gear extension method on the single engine RGs is mostly used in the event of an electrical failure. For that it's no problem. But if you develop a hydraulic leak then you're screwed as there's no way to get the gear down and locked. The gear extends into the relative wind under hydraulic pressure. If there's no hydraulic fluid on the system then your doing a "gear dangling" landing. That's sort of the stuff I would want to avoid, unless it's bullet proof. If you seriously want a single-engine Cessna retract, you seriously need to be in touch with the Cessna Pilot's Association. That bunch knows every-damn-thing there is to know about Cessna's of all stripes and is a source well worth exploiting. I pestered John Frank damn near to death when I had part ownership of a 1971 C182- he was a wealth of information that saved my plane partner and I 10X the cost of membership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 9:23:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you seriously want a single-engine Cessna retract, you seriously need to be in touch with the Cessna Pilot's Association. That bunch knows every-damn-thing there is to know about Cessna's of all stripes and is a source well worth exploiting. I pestered John Frank damn near to death when I had part ownership of a 1971 C182- he was a wealth of information that saved my plane partner and I 10X the cost of membership. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most retractable gear aircraft don't have problems approaching anything like those of the single engine RG Cessnas. It's a wonky system that needs to be maintained with knowledge and finesse. There's a few maintenance shops around the nation known for their skill in maintaining those gear systems and we always made a point of doing the pre-purchase inspection and every other annual inspection at one of those facilities just to stay out of trouble. But when the powerpack in those planes goes bad then the emergency gear extension method commonly doesn't work either. Then you get to do a landing in an aircraft where the gear is neither up nor down and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it. So that means the 172RG/182RG and 210 all have that same system? I'm certainly not an expert on it but I sure thought they were. At least in theory of operation anyway. Basically it's a electrically driven by a hydraulic power pack and hydraulically actuated. I got my CFI a long time ago in a Cutlass RG and the first pressurized aircraft my family ever owned was a Cessna P210. As far as I can recall the systems were the same with similar concerns. I want to say that some older 210s used an engine driven hydraulic pump instead of the electric power pack. We owned a 337 after the 210 and it had an engine driven hydraulic pump for each engine providing some redundancy. But the manual gear extension method on the single engine RGs is mostly used in the event of an electrical failure. For that it's no problem. But if you develop a hydraulic leak then you're screwed as there's no way to get the gear down and locked. The gear extends into the relative wind under hydraulic pressure. If there's no hydraulic fluid on the system then your doing a "gear dangling" landing. That's sort of the stuff I would want to avoid, unless it's bullet proof. If you seriously want a single-engine Cessna retract, you seriously need to be in touch with the Cessna Pilot's Association. That bunch knows every-damn-thing there is to know about Cessna's of all stripes and is a source well worth exploiting. I pestered John Frank damn near to death when I had part ownership of a 1971 C182- he was a wealth of information that saved my plane partner and I 10X the cost of membership. This is wonderful advice. They really do know everything. We had a 310 that had a wing tank (aux tank) that kept pressurizing for some mysterious reason. You'd take the fuel cap off and beautiful blue 100LL would geyser out 12 inches high out of the fill port. Nobody had ever seen this problem before but a couple of guys at CPA helped us figure out what was going on. If I recall correctly, it involved knowledge of a fuel vent line that wasn't even in the maintenance diagrams. But somebody there helped us figure out that ours had a tiny leak in it that allowed fuel from the elevated tip tank to push it's way into the wing tank. We ended up writing a detailed article on the issue replete with pictures and CPA published it in their magazine. Those guys are geniuses (genii?). I want to add that the single engine Cessna gear can be an excellent system and highly dependable if it's properly maintained. But proper maintenance on that gear system cannot be neglected and not every A&P knows what they're doing with them. As I said before, there are certain shops around the nation known for their mastery of those systems. Guess where we got that info from... CPA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 9:53:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Now I have to ask this question, wouldn't a 205/206 do what I needed it to do and not have to deal with RG?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 10:38:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now I have to ask this question, wouldn't a 205/206 do what I needed it to do and not have to deal with RG? I don't really know what you need of an airplane but if a 206 can't do it then you need to seriously alter your needs. I've never actually seen a 205 before let alone for sale. 206s are common but I'm curious... have you priced them? They don't come cheap. I have lots of time in 207s and even a dog of a 207 commands a high price. Eta: I'll be damned. There's a 205 for sale now. And it's ugly as sin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2016 11:28:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't really know what you need of an airplane but if a 206 can't do it then you need to seriously alter your needs. I've never actually seen a 205 before let alone for sale. 206s are common but I'm curious... have you priced them? They don't come cheap. I have lots of time in 207s and even a dog of a 207 commands a high price. Eta: I'll be damned. There's a 205 for sale now. And it's ugly as sin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Now I have to ask this question, wouldn't a 205/206 do what I needed it to do and not have to deal with RG? I don't really know what you need of an airplane but if a 206 can't do it then you need to seriously alter your needs. I've never actually seen a 205 before let alone for sale. 206s are common but I'm curious... have you priced them? They don't come cheap. I have lots of time in 207s and even a dog of a 207 commands a high price. Eta: I'll be damned. There's a 205 for sale now. And it's ugly as sin. Haha, that's what I thought when I saw the 205s also. I really don't need that much useful load though. I'm just looking for 150kts 4 seats and under 75k. And not having a uber complicated gear system. That's what got me looking at Comanches, the Cherokee 6/300 also fits the bill and my goal is to own a Saratoga one day but a Cherokee is too Much plane for a noob. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 5:26:47 AM EDT
[#16]
No offense, but I think all of these are too much for a brand new student pilot. I would really think about getting something simple like a 172, PA-28 or similar and get your PPL and instrument rating and then upgrade. Honestly, I wish I had bought and old tail dragger for my PPl. I'd would have been a better pilot for it. It's possible to learn in a Commanche but it is unwise. Many older pilots gave me the same advice and I'm glad I listened.
An analogy would be learning to drive in new Corvette Z06 with the traction control off. Although, I think you're far more likely to die in that Commanche (at first). Learn. Make some mistakes. Build time cheaply. Upgrade. My $0.02. Good luck to you. It's an amazing and fun experience! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 5:29:36 AM EDT
[#17]
I doubt an insurance company would insure you in a 206. If they do, it will be crazy expensive. Why? Because they have actuaries that predict the odds of badness. Think about that for a while before you buy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 12:30:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No offense, but I think all of these are too much for a brand new student pilot. I would really think about getting something simple like a 172, PA-28 or similar and get your PPL and instrument rating and then upgrade. Honestly, I wish I had bought and old tail dragger for my PPl. I'd would have been a better pilot for it. It's possible to learn in a Commanche but it is unwise. Many older pilots gave me the same advice and I'm glad I listened. An analogy would be learning to drive in new Corvette Z06 with the traction control off. Although, I think you're far more likely to die in that Commanche (at first). Learn. Make some mistakes. Build time cheaply. Upgrade. My $0.02. Good luck to you. It's an amazing and fun experience! no offense taken at all, the corvette analogy what I am trying to avoid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 12:30:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt an insurance company would insure you in a 206. If they do, it will be crazy expensive. Why? Because they have actuaries that predict the odds of badness. Think about that for a while before you buy. that too, I don't want to throw money away paying insanely high insurance rates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 1:02:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that too, I don't want to throw money away paying insanely high insurance rates. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I doubt an insurance company would insure you in a 206. If they do, it will be crazy expensive. Why? Because they have actuaries that predict the odds of badness. Think about that for a while before you buy. that too, I don't want to throw money away paying insanely high insurance rates. You're gonna pay high rates until you get an instrument rating or cross the 250 hours PIC threshold, maybe both depending on type. When I was in your position, I rented for a good while to build some time and experiment with different models before I settled on one. I ended up buying a partnership in a Cessna 182 and later on, a Piper Aztec. Having an instrument rating and 350+ hours when I bought into the 182 saved me $800/year and significantly more when I added Commercial SE/ME ratings. I sold both partnerships and am back in the rental game, but I'm casually looking too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 1:32:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're gonna pay high rates until you get an instrument rating or cross the 250 hours PIC threshold, maybe both depending on type. When I was in your position, I rented for a good while to build some time and experiment with different models before I settled on one. I ended up buying a partnership in a Cessna 182 and later on, a Piper Aztec. Having an instrument rating and 350+ hours when I bought into the 182 saved me $800/year and significantly more when I added Commercial SE/ME ratings. I sold both partnerships and am back in the rental game, but I'm casually looking too... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt an insurance company would insure you in a 206. If they do, it will be crazy expensive. Why? Because they have actuaries that predict the odds of badness. Think about that for a while before you buy. that too, I don't want to throw money away paying insanely high insurance rates. You're gonna pay high rates until you get an instrument rating or cross the 250 hours PIC threshold, maybe both depending on type. When I was in your position, I rented for a good while to build some time and experiment with different models before I settled on one. I ended up buying a partnership in a Cessna 182 and later on, a Piper Aztec. Having an instrument rating and 350+ hours when I bought into the 182 saved me $800/year and significantly more when I added Commercial SE/ME ratings. I sold both partnerships and am back in the rental game, but I'm casually looking too... What you did, is probably the best thing for me to do also. I have no idea what plane I want and really need some hours before I go about flying around the Gulf Coast. I don't know if the fractional ownership thing would work for me unless the person took better care of their stuff than I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 5:15:49 PM EDT
[#22]
I have been looking at a few Cherokee 235's and they seem tempting. I don't see too many with auto pilot or a wing leveler, unless I am missing it.
I still don't get it. mint 235 is 50k average 182 FG is 70k
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2016 8:45:08 PM EDT
[#23]
I had a 235 for several years. It was a good solid plane. It could easily haul 4 real sized Americans and bags. Benign flying characteristics. The stall was a non event, no tendency to drop a wing. Stable in winds. Easy to land, probably easier than a 172. I found it a bit easier to fly than a 182. You can bend the firewall of a 182 if you land poorly and put too much weight on the nose. I know several guys that did his. The only bad quality is it drops like a brick if you lose power.
As for the price, I really think it's a brand thing. They are good planes. The maintenance is pretty cheap except you have a constant speed prop. Parts are plentiful and cheap.. The only real negative I found is it has a high fuel burn for its cruise speed of about 14 gph at 135k. You should really try to get an autopilot and a decent GPS. These are common as many people use a 235 as a hauler. It's still a lot of plane but IMHO it's probably the easiest to learn in of the high performance planes I saw discussed here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2016 4:34:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had a 235 for several years. It was a good solid plane. It could easily haul 4 real sized Americans and bags. Benign flying characteristics. The stall was a non event, no tendency to drop a wing. Stable in winds. Easy to land, probably easier than a 172. I found it a bit easier to fly than a 182. You can bend the firewall of a 182 if you land poorly and put too much weight on the nose. I know several guys that did his. The only bad quality is it drops like a brick if you lose power. As for the price, I really think it's a brand thing. They are good planes. The maintenance is pretty cheap except you have a constant speed prop. Parts are plentiful and cheap.. The only real negative I found is it has a high fuel burn for its cruise speed of about 14 gph at 135k. You should really try to get an autopilot and a decent GPS. These are common as many people use a 235 as a hauler. It's still a lot of plane but IMHO it's probably the easiest to learn in of the high performance planes I saw discussed here. that's good to know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2016 4:35:07 PM EDT
[#25]
As luck would have it, my CFI has a Comanche in his hangar. I was looking at it and it seemed like a really cool plane up close. I am still curious as to how an adult is going to fit in the back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2016 8:08:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As luck would have it, my CFI has a Comanche in his hangar. I was looking at it and it seemed like a really cool plane up close. I am still curious as to how an adult is going to fit in the back. Hop in and try it out. Just don't be deceived by the front seats being rolled all the way back. It's real tight in back if they are. I've had 4 adults in ours a number of times. Once you're in and in it for a long haul people tend to get creative in how they get comfortable. A couple of small pillows sometimes helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2016 8:58:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hop in and try it out. Just don't be deceived by the front seats being rolled all the way back. It's real tight in back if they are. I've had 4 adults in ours a number of times. Once you're in and in it for a long haul people tend to get creative in how they get comfortable. A couple of small pillows sometimes helps. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As luck would have it, my CFI has a Comanche in his hangar. I was looking at it and it seemed like a really cool plane up close. I am still curious as to how an adult is going to fit in the back. Hop in and try it out. Just don't be deceived by the front seats being rolled all the way back. It's real tight in back if they are. I've had 4 adults in ours a number of times. Once you're in and in it for a long haul people tend to get creative in how they get comfortable. A couple of small pillows sometimes helps. It's for a guy he knows. I'll see if he can ask the owner if I can sit in it next time I'm there. You are probably right, I bet the seats were all the way back. That would make sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2016 11:42:55 AM EDT
[#28]
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2016 5:19:53 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2016 7:45:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aren't mooneys a tight fit? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2016 8:20:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. I'm 6' tall and I've been in the front and the back of a few different Mooneys, I never found them awfully cramped, at least no more than any other GA airplane. IMO an early M20 (IO360, manual gear) is about as much of a traveling airplane as you can get without really being willing to start throwing money everywhere and to everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2016 9:03:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. I have the opposite problem, 29" inseam but the torso of a 6'4" man. Total height 6'. My shoulders are wide as hell and that's what gets me in trouble. For example, my head pretty much hits the top of the new vettes and my hips are snug between the console and door |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2016 10:10:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm 6' tall and I've been in the front and the back of a few different Mooneys, I never found them awfully cramped, at least no more than any other GA airplane. IMO an early M20 (IO360, manual gear) is about as much of a traveling airplane as you can get without really being willing to start throwing money everywhere and to everyone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. I'm 6' tall and I've been in the front and the back of a few different Mooneys, I never found them awfully cramped, at least no more than any other GA airplane. IMO an early M20 (IO360, manual gear) is about as much of a traveling airplane as you can get without really being willing to start throwing money everywhere and to everyone. I was staying away from mooneys because of service in my area, but I really have not looked that hard for shops either. Originally I was I love with mooneys and I think I talked myself out of them but damn there is a few M20s for sale and they are all less than pipers and cessnas and the M20s are faster with Better RG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 12:37:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was staying away from mooneys because of service in my area, but I really have not looked that hard for shops either. Originally I was I love with mooneys and I think I talked myself out of them but damn there is a few M20s for sale and they are all less than pipers and cessnas and the M20s are faster with Better RG. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. I'm 6' tall and I've been in the front and the back of a few different Mooneys, I never found them awfully cramped, at least no more than any other GA airplane. IMO an early M20 (IO360, manual gear) is about as much of a traveling airplane as you can get without really being willing to start throwing money everywhere and to everyone. I was staying away from mooneys because of service in my area, but I really have not looked that hard for shops either. Originally I was I love with mooneys and I think I talked myself out of them but damn there is a few M20s for sale and they are all less than pipers and cessnas and the M20s are faster with Better RG. I understand you are a big guy. If so a Mooney is most certainly not for you. Cockpit is way smaller than the 172. Mooney makes a great plane but they get the speed by streamlining the plane. It's fast for the horses but when I evaluated one I felt like I was in a little go kart. I'm 6'0" and trim and still felt like a sardine in that cockpit. The people who have them absolutely love them. But for a big dude it would be a squeeze. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 9:04:21 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand you are a big guy. If so a Mooney is most certainly not for you. Cockpit is way smaller than the 172. Mooney makes a great plane but they get the speed by streamlining the plane. It's fast for the horses but when I evaluated one I felt like I was in a little go kart. I'm 6'0" and trim and still felt like a sardine in that cockpit. The people who have them absolutely love them. But for a big dude it would be a squeeze. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[quoe]Quoted: Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney.[/qote] Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. I'm 6' tall and I've been in the front and the back of a few different Mooneys, I never found them awfully cramped, at least no more than any other GA airplane. IMO an early M20 (IO360, manual gear) is about as much of a traveling airplane as you can get without really being willing to start throwing money everywhere and to everyone. I was staying away from mooneys because of service in my area, but I really have not looked that hard for shops either. Originally I was I love with mooneys and I think I talked myself out of them but damn there is a few M20s for sale and they are all less than pipers and cessnas and the M20s are faster with Better RG. I understand you are a big guy. If so a Mooney is most certainly not for you. Cockpit is way smaller than the 172. Mooney makes a great plane but they get the speed by streamlining the plane. It's fast for the horses but when I evaluated one I felt like I was in a little go kart. I'm 6'0" and trim and still felt like a sardine in that cockpit. The people who have them absolutely love them. But for a big dude it would be a squeeze. yep that's not going to work for me at all. The 172 cockpit is about the smallest I would consider. I am glad you told me that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 9:30:53 AM EDT
[#36]
It looks like a Dakota would fit my bill. Albeit more money, oh well save some more.
plenty useful load, cruise in the low 140's. fixed gear and ok room in the cabin and only two tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 12:52:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It looks like a Dakota would fit my bill. Albeit more money, oh well save some more.
plenty useful load, cruise in the low 140's. fixed gear and ok room in the cabin and only two tanks. If you want to get an idea of what a plane will really do just google it's model POH and download it. Then run some practice weight and balance calculations. Here's an article you might want to review comparing the Dakota to a 182. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:32:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Keep in mind the cost of ownership drastically changes with the larger 6 cylinder engine and variable pitch (constant speed) prop.
A 172 is a great first plane to own. It's very cheap to operate and maintain. Speed isn't the best but when you are building time and experience slower speed isn't a bad thing. There are plenty of 172s out there with good IFR setups. One other good thing about the 172 is that it may be the most sought after plane in GA making it very easy to sell later on. From where you live it would easily take you, the wife and some bags to the beach in Florida. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:57:21 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you want to get an idea of what a plane will really do just google it's model POH and download it. Then run some practice weight and balance calculations. Here's an article you might want to review comparing the Dakota to a 182. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It looks like a Dakota would fit my bill. Albeit more money, oh well save some more.
plenty useful load, cruise in the low 140's. fixed gear and ok room in the cabin and only two tanks. If you want to get an idea of what a plane will really do just google it's model POH and download it. Then run some practice weight and balance calculations. Here's an article you might want to review comparing the Dakota to a 182. Thanks for that article, seems like they did make 182s that will be in the 140 kt range. It seems to be a six of one half dozen of the other type thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 9:15:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep in mind the cost of ownership drastically changes with the larger 6 cylinder engine and variable pitch (constant speed) prop. A 172 is a great first plane to own. It's very cheap to operate and maintain. Speed isn't the best but when you are building time and experience slower speed isn't a bad thing. There are plenty of 172s out there with good IFR setups. One other good thing about the 172 is that it may be the most sought after plane in GA making it very easy to sell later on. From where you live it would easily take you, the wife and some bags to the beach in Florida. That's a thought. The kiddo is only 3 and he won't be too heavy for a 172 anytime soon. My only concern would be trying to make it to Orlando from here, but that still would be a hell of a lot faster than by car. Last time we went by car it was 13 hours 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 11:45:03 PM EDT
[#41]
I finally got home so I could do some calcs and it seems like @ 115kts I would be able to get to KISM from here in 5 hours.
That's not bad, better than 12 for sure. Hell, wheels up at 7am and make it to Florida for 2ish PST to the resort for lunch. That ain't half bad. You don't loose a whole day by driving. It also appears I can buy a 172 made in the 70's (M models) for less money than I spent on my FX35 when I bought it. I was talking to my CFI who also owns the FBO and hangar rental is like $250 a month. not bad I was paying that for two mini storages in town 
I was also impressed that he would pull it out for you and fill it up if you called ahead of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 8:58:24 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I finally got home so I could do some calcs and it seems like @ 115kts I would be able to get to KISM from here in 5 hours. That's not bad, better than 12 for sure. Hell, wheels up at 7am and make it to Florida for 2ish PST to the resort for lunch. That ain't half bad. You don't loose a whole day by driving. It also appears I can buy a 172 made in the 70's (M models) for less money than I spent on my FX35 when I bought it. I was talking to my CFI who also owns the FBO and hangar rental is like $250 a month. not bad I was paying that for two mini storages in town I was also impressed that he would pull it out for you and fill it up if you called ahead of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 10:21:46 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've done some long cross countries in a 172. It was.....ok. and this was an SP, so much nicer. With your flight training you will get to do a few of em, so you will see. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I finally got home so I could do some calcs and it seems like @ 115kts I would be able to get to KISM from here in 5 hours. That's not bad, better than 12 for sure. Hell, wheels up at 7am and make it to Florida for 2ish PST to the resort for lunch. That ain't half bad. You don't loose a whole day by driving. It also appears I can buy a 172 made in the 70's (M models) for less money than I spent on my FX35 when I bought it. I was talking to my CFI who also owns the FBO and hangar rental is like $250 a month. not bad I was paying that for two mini storages in town
I was also impressed that he would pull it out for you and fill it up if you called ahead of time. cool, yeah I looked at the specs on the SP it's newer that's for sure. and a little faster. nice plane. What's the longest you spent on that plane? When I said 5 hours, I meant total, I would plan on stopping about midpoint to refuel, stretch legs and bathroom break. I am really looking forward to the XC training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 10:27:30 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. 32" here, over 6ft tall, 200lbs and I've got plenty of stops in my Mooney on the seat before it's back. On long trips I slide the seat all the way back for a little aft CG and I can stretch my legs out completely. Getting in and out is one of those things you figure out. I've also flown in the back seat of an M20J and find that I have adequate legroom. Also, if you fly in the right seat of a Mooney, you have less leg room than you do in the left. The most fatiguing thing I notice on long trips is boredom, and I'd rather be bored for four hours than 6-8 hours (or 14-16 hours of driving). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 10:39:49 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
32" here, over 6ft tall, 200lbs and I've got plenty of stops in my Mooney on the seat before it's back. On long trips I slide the seat all the way back for a little aft CG and I can stretch my legs out completely. Getting in and out is one of those things you figure out. I've also flown in the back seat of an M20J and find that I have adequate legroom. Also, if you fly in the right seat of a Mooney, you have less leg room than you do in the left. The most fatiguing thing I notice on long trips is boredom, and I'd rather be bored for four hours than 6-8 hours (or 14-16 hours of driving). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If I were going to own a 40-50 year old retract, I don't think I would pick anything other than a johnson bar Mooney. Aren't mooneys a tight fit? I've only ever sat in one...but yeah. Not for big dudes, especially if you have longer legs (34" inseam here). Looking just at the numbers Mooneys are AWESOME birds! Just not for us. 32" here, over 6ft tall, 200lbs and I've got plenty of stops in my Mooney on the seat before it's back. On long trips I slide the seat all the way back for a little aft CG and I can stretch my legs out completely. Getting in and out is one of those things you figure out. I've also flown in the back seat of an M20J and find that I have adequate legroom. Also, if you fly in the right seat of a Mooney, you have less leg room than you do in the left. The most fatiguing thing I notice on long trips is boredom, and I'd rather be bored for four hours than 6-8 hours (or 14-16 hours of driving). I guess I should track one down and sit in it and really see how tight it is. Those dang mooneys sure are fast though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 11:31:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: cool, yeah I looked at the specs on the SP it's newer that's for sure. and a little faster. nice plane. What's the longest you spent on that plane? When I said 5 hours, I meant total, I would plan on stopping about midpoint to refuel, stretch legs and bathroom break. I am really looking forward to the XC training. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I finally got home so I could do some calcs and it seems like @ 115kts I would be able to get to KISM from here in 5 hours. That's not bad, better than 12 for sure. Hell, wheels up at 7am and make it to Florida for 2ish PST to the resort for lunch. That ain't half bad. You don't loose a whole day by driving. It also appears I can buy a 172 made in the 70's (M models) for less money than I spent on my FX35 when I bought it. I was talking to my CFI who also owns the FBO and hangar rental is like $250 a month. not bad I was paying that for two mini storages in town I was also impressed that he would pull it out for you and fill it up if you called ahead of time. cool, yeah I looked at the specs on the SP it's newer that's for sure. and a little faster. nice plane. What's the longest you spent on that plane? When I said 5 hours, I meant total, I would plan on stopping about midpoint to refuel, stretch legs and bathroom break. I am really looking forward to the XC training. Broke it up to approx. 3-4 hour legs, longest was alround 5. 5 hours in a 172 is a good haul. Biggest gripe is the 4 cylinder, shake and bake! Still a blast  Most of my time building was in a 152, with another guy. Was much younger then, and we were to stupid to know any better. Although 2 guys, full tanks on a hot summer morning made taking off a bit of an experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 11:34:59 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it was a 2200 mile XC, so a big one
Broke it up to approx. 3-4 hour legs, longest was alround 5. 5 hours in a 172 is a good haul. Biggest gripe is the 4 cylinder, shake and bake! Still a blast
Most of my time building was in a 152, with another guy. Was much younger then, and we were to stupid to know any better. Although 2 guys, full tanks on a hot summer morning made taking off a bit of an experience. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I finally got home so I could do some calcs and it seems like @ 115kts I would be able to get to KISM from here in 5 hours. That's not bad, better than 12 for sure. Hell, wheels up at 7am and make it to Florida for 2ish PST to the resort for lunch. That ain't half bad. You don't loose a whole day by driving. It also appears I can buy a 172 made in the 70's (M models) for less money than I spent on my FX35 when I bought it. I was talking to my CFI who also owns the FBO and hangar rental is like $250 a month. not bad I was paying that for two mini storages in town
I was also impressed that he would pull it out for you and fill it up if you called ahead of time. cool, yeah I looked at the specs on the SP it's newer that's for sure. and a little faster. nice plane. What's the longest you spent on that plane? When I said 5 hours, I meant total, I would plan on stopping about midpoint to refuel, stretch legs and bathroom break. I am really looking forward to the XC training.
Broke it up to approx. 3-4 hour legs, longest was alround 5. 5 hours in a 172 is a good haul. Biggest gripe is the 4 cylinder, shake and bake! Still a blast
Most of my time building was in a 152, with another guy. Was much younger then, and we were to stupid to know any better. Although 2 guys, full tanks on a hot summer morning made taking off a bit of an experience.  that's some traveling.
I couldn't imagine a 152, aren't they way smaller than a 172? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 11:38:14 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess I should track one down and sit in it and really see how tight it is. Those dang mooneys sure are fast though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 32" here, over 6ft tall, 200lbs and I've got plenty of stops in my Mooney on the seat before it's back. On long trips I slide the seat all the way back for a little aft CG and I can stretch my legs out completely. Getting in and out is one of those things you figure out. I've also flown in the back seat of an M20J and find that I have adequate legroom. Also, if you fly in the right seat of a Mooney, you have less leg room than you do in the left. The most fatiguing thing I notice on long trips is boredom, and I'd rather be bored for four hours than 6-8 hours (or 14-16 hours of driving). I guess I should track one down and sit in it and really see how tight it is. Those dang mooneys sure are fast though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 11:39:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are tight, but they sure do move. It really is a "high performance" aircraft. Good luck on insurance Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
32" here, over 6ft tall, 200lbs and I've got plenty of stops in my Mooney on the seat before it's back. On long trips I slide the seat all the way back for a little aft CG and I can stretch my legs out completely. Getting in and out is one of those things you figure out. I've also flown in the back seat of an M20J and find that I have adequate legroom. Also, if you fly in the right seat of a Mooney, you have less leg room than you do in the left. The most fatiguing thing I notice on long trips is boredom, and I'd rather be bored for four hours than 6-8 hours (or 14-16 hours of driving). I guess I should track one down and sit in it and really see how tight it is. Those dang mooneys sure are fast though. yeah that's going to suck on a Mooney.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 11:41:17 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: that's some traveling.I couldn't imagine a 152, aren't they way smaller than a 172? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I finally got home so I could do some calcs and it seems like @ 115kts I would be able to get to KISM from here in 5 hours. That's not bad, better than 12 for sure. Hell, wheels up at 7am and make it to Florida for 2ish PST to the resort for lunch. That ain't half bad. You don't loose a whole day by driving. It also appears I can buy a 172 made in the 70's (M models) for less money than I spent on my FX35 when I bought it. I was talking to my CFI who also owns the FBO and hangar rental is like $250 a month. not bad I was paying that for two mini storages in town I was also impressed that he would pull it out for you and fill it up if you called ahead of time. cool, yeah I looked at the specs on the SP it's newer that's for sure. and a little faster. nice plane. What's the longest you spent on that plane? When I said 5 hours, I meant total, I would plan on stopping about midpoint to refuel, stretch legs and bathroom break. I am really looking forward to the XC training. Broke it up to approx. 3-4 hour legs, longest was alround 5. 5 hours in a 172 is a good haul. Biggest gripe is the 4 cylinder, shake and bake! Still a blast Most of my time building was in a 152, with another guy. Was much younger then, and we were to stupid to know any better. Although 2 guys, full tanks on a hot summer morning made taking off a bit of an experience. that's some traveling.I couldn't imagine a 152, aren't they way smaller than a 172? think of the 172, but put the seats on the floor and remove the back seat. Oh push the seats together because thats all the wider it is. i've had cars pass me flying a 152, and they weren't on the interstate. 40kts ground speed, but going back we broke 160 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
