haha awesome

I had around 200-300 hours when I bought my Mooney. I had an instrument rating and 10 hours of retract time (so nothing, really). Insurance required 10 hours of dual and 5 hours of solo. First year insurance was $1700-1800. Last time I renewed my insurance, it was down to around $1100. I don't think it'd be all that bad. One thing I notice when people get into my airplane who have only flown primary trainers (e.g. 172)  is that they are all over the place with heading and altitude. They stay a little behind the airplane. After an hour or two most of that goes away. You do need to know how to fly, but it handles nicely.

those insurance rates aren't that bad.

That makes sense due to the increase airspeed.

I just don't want my wife to feel cramped in the plane.

Depends on whether you want her with you

You could always look at a Cessna 400 to do your initial training. Also, an MU2 is a cheap twin.

those are a little pricey

lol, yeah I would want her on vacation

don't be mean

Or ridiculous.

I'd skip the 172, just too damn slow, throw in a 20kts headwind and it will have short legs too.
I'd recommend a 182 as your first airplane. Thats what I did. Very capable aircraft.

Anything you wish the 182 did that it doesn't?

The speed is another aspect people don't think about in context of winds. A crosswind will slow you down coming and going. If you're going round-trip anywhere, the more winds, the longer the trip. Our word problems in elementary school had to do with trains, but planes are more fun and teach you more. If you have a 50kt tailwind in a 150kt airplane, it will take you 1 hour to cover 200 nm. Going the opposite direction, it will take you two hours, so three hours total to cover the same area (200 nautical miles, each way. 400 nm in three hours, so you average 133kts). If there were no wind, you would average 150kt (you spend more time going slower, so headwinds suck more than tailwinds help). If your airplane was 110kts, it would take you about an hour and a half to go the 200 nautical miles. and over three hours to get back. We had three piper cherokees crash here due to fuel exhaustion in the past couple of years. One was fatal. The slower your airplane, the more the winds affect your travel time. You'll figure out what you want eventually.

Were they trying to stretch the fuel or did they have a leak?

I get the whole concept of tailwinds and headwinds, so I can see how a 172 can turn into 85 kt's ground speed fairly quickly with unfavorable winds.

Maybe my idea of just renting until I build some hours and then buy a 150kt airplane makes some sense.

So tempting.

Huh... cool. You've actually managed to locate a living monument to out dated and antiquated instrumentation. That thing was hurting for updates 40 years ago.

You get what you pay for. That's gotta be the cheapest Comanche I've ever seen that wasn't still crashed in a cornfield.

Eta: comes with an air freshener though.

haha, that panel sucks so bad.

then there is the 250 vs 260 debate.

Either are good. Like you say...  debatable. Engine time and accident history come first in consideration. I prefer the fuel injected engine of the 260 but you'll probably find more 250s with tip tanks. For me, it's all about what improvements it's had. I want tip tanks as a must. I want an updated panel layout as a must. I'd prefer it to have a few decent radios. I'd prefer the single piece windshield and put a lot of value on an Eagle XP or LoPresti cowling. The stabilator counter balances are nice for pushing Vne up to where it belongs. 12 probe egt/cht engine monitoring with digital fuel flow is really nice in a long range aircraft like that. I don't care much about the interior or paint.

This is what makes up my mind more than 250/260.

I did see that there were a few speed mods that made a big difference on the Comanche.

Like you said, I wouldn't want an ancient dash lay out either.

I need to make me a list of things that are a must I suppose.

I've gone from South Dakota to Orlando in one day in a 172, you'll have no problem.

damn, that's impressive. How long that took?

apparently this guy knows a lot about Comanches

Comanche Gear

10.1 hours with stops in St. Louis and Anniston, Alabama.

That's one hell of a haul....awesome none the less.

See OP?  the guys on the other board are trying to tell you the same thing about the Mooney...

Lol, you noticed that too

It's like all roads point to an M20.

I'm so early in the game I'm change my mind a million times.

But I did figure either buy a 172 and build hours for 5 years or so then sell and move up
Or
Keep renting 172's while saving up and then just buy a cross country machine with all the fancy bells and whistles.
So like a 210, Mooney or a Comanche or something else like that

I know that if I rent for 5 Years or so, I should be able to buy something for more than 50-75k

Instead of renting long term (which is just a waste of money and a massive headache) I would look into small flying clubs or a large partnership.

You'll typically spend less and have far better availability with nicer aircraft vs the beat to hell rental fleet.  You'll also get a taste of what ownership is like, just padded a little.

I changed the emoji in my previous post, lol I had the wrong one up.

I need to look into that, I'm not sure if they have any at my local airport.

It also seems like there are a few M20Cs for Sale around 30k

You really need to get some real time flying so that you will know a little about avionics and what to look for in a plane.  I would not run but sprint away from a 30K Mooney or most any plane for that price.  30K will either buy you a POS/basketcase or a tiny plane with no useful load or speed (think Cessna 150 type planes).  30K would likely not cover a reman on an engine for most planes.  Most planes in that price range have 1970s avionics that barely work and run out engines.  Those avionics were great for the time but not so great for 2016.

Also, even if you can afford the insurance on a Mooney it won't really matter because the plane will kill you.  It's a true high performance machine and requires a seasoned pilot to make it safe to fly.  Nothing wrong with the plane, just way too much for a beginner.  Same goes for Cirrus and Bonanza.  They are very well known for killing lower time pilots with money to burn.  

I do agree that buying into a plane will save you tons and also provide you with a much better plane than the rentals.  You are unlikely to find a flying club but usually you can find a plane with owners looking for another partner.  Check bulletin boards around local FBOs.  You will frequently find someone looking for an extra partner in a plane hangered at that field.   I wish I would have bought sooner than I did.  It would have saved me 10s of thousands and I wouldn't have been stuck flying expensive pieces of shit.  

One problem with rentals is they are treated like a two dollar whore and the schools (or owners with them in leaseback) will usually do the bare minimum to keep them flying.  This means any non essential avionics usually gets an INOP sticker and shit breaks constantly.  I can't count how many times I had to skip a lesson because of something broken with the plane.  That's actually what really prompted me to finally buy my own.  

Keep flying as often as you can.  Get your medical straightened out.  By then you will have a better idea of the type of plane you need.

thanks for the post, it makes a lot of sense.

I'll have to ask around my CFI/FBO to see if anyone is looking. Maybe I can find someone who works offshore and has a set schedule so that scheduling is easy.

And for sure I don't want to fly more plane than I can handle. safety first always.

It would be nice If I could find someone with a 182RG, that other person would help offset the cost of keeping that gear functioning.

I also looked at the specs on a Turbo 182RG, it's almost 20kts faster. I bet that turbo makes it very costly to Mx.

Dude, I really hope you listen to the good advice here. I am really glad to see new pilots and go out of my way to encourage them. Having said that, other people and I have repeatedly pointed out to you we thought it was a bad idea to buy many of the planes you discussed but I'm not sure that sunk in fully. You can't absolutely kill yourself and others very fast by biting off more than you can chew in aviation. Burntcrispy and others gave you some sage advice. I pray you listen. Get some time in a trainer and get some time and have fun. Becoming a smoking hole in the ground with a 206 isn't a good time.

Don't worry, I plan on taking their advice because I really want to be around for a long time.

that's why I really think renting or finding a partner in a 172 while working my way to a few hundred hours before I buy a faster more complex plane is a good idea.

Is there a certain amount of hours in which people normally safely are able to transition into a complex aircraft?

This plane probably is a POS but I was wondering, it seems like picking this plane up for $25k and then factoring an overhaul right away would reduce the chance of getting a crap engine and having to spend the money either way. and god forbid that engine runs for another 300 hours.

looks like some old ass radios though. I guess I could just replace them of get a used 430 installed or a used kx155 or somthing like that.


172 for sale

or this 172 seems like it's turn key with a low time engine.

has some decent avionics as well.

172



I am just being curious as to what a decent deal is

I called around for insurance on a 172 around 45k purchase price and for a 40 hr PPL the quote was $1400 a year.

that's less per year than my truck values at like 16k

The first one scares me a little.  The engine was last overhauled in 1979 and while it only has 1600 hours, it may be time soon.  Lycoming's recommendation for the O320 is 2,000 hours or 10 years.  As time goes up, wear increases (obviously) but as time goes on without the time going up (IE it's sitting) that gives corrosion a chance to set in.  Let it sit for a while, Oil drains from the components and they are exposed to ambient humidity (including moisture getting into the oil.)  Then, you start it and it takes time for oil to get back to where it needs to be, also increasing wear. The last compression test I saw was in 2009, #4 was 57/80.  F*** that engine.  Also, radios belong in a museum or trash can, take your pick.  You'll constantly be dicking with them or doing an upgrade.

Field overhaul will cost $20,000.  Getting the radios to something that suck less will cost you at least several thousand (for used MX170s and no GPS) all the way up to $20,000 for something that doesn't suck (that's how much our club spent for a single GNS430W, a garmin SL30 Nav/Comm and 2 CDIs)  Add another $5,000 for an interior that doesn't look like a 70s porn studio that's been sitting in the sun for 40 years.  Oh, and that's one of the ones with the shitty flap switch.  No big deal, but I still hate those stupid things.   (If you aren't familiar with how they work, see here and here.)

The one good thing about this airplane is that it is low total time, but remember things can fall apart just as easily.  

The second one looks a little more promising.  Only 400 or so since major, although no date reference was given.  Radios are a little better, although narco isn't that great but if you wanted to update around the 430 it wouldn't kill you like you were starting from scratch.  No shots of the interior but the panel looks a little crappy, so I'd imagine the upholstery looks like a bag of smashed assholes.  Total time is good, average of about 140 hours a year so it probably hasn't been a trainer.  Still has the dumb flap switch.

Of course, all of this is just from some dumb guy on the internet looking like an ad.  I cannot stress how important a pre buy inspection by a third party maintenance provider is.

Thanks for the post. You guys know more than me.

I'm really trying to stay around 50k for a lycoming 172, which may be a pipe dream.

just a quick browse because i'm waiting on my slow ass work computer.



first plane, engine is worthless, just dump it.  the radio stack is old, but look at how nice all the gauges and instrumentation looks.  very white, no yellowing, and they all look like they work.  Also, the interior is original, but well cared for.  The cheap crappy cessna interiors usually get very brittle and you see cracked stuff everywhere.  A few things like like the door handle showed some wear but nothing major.  Just seems like this was stored well.  Plus low overall time.  And in utah, corrosion may be minimal.  Paint is meh, but not terrible, its 40 years old.  If i was local I'd look at it.  



Now I say the above keep in mind i'm talking about a 30k airplane, its no super find, but sometimes you have to look closer.  



second plane is stored outside, big turnoff for me.  See how crappy the plastic and gauge faces look?  bet the glass is crappy too

Skip the 172, get a 182. longer legs, better speed and payload. Great IFR platform.
Get your PP Then get going on Instrument ticket. Thank Me later.

Now we are getting into a complex aircraft area.

It was said earlier that I need to build some time before moving into something like that.

A fixed gear 182 isn't "complex" in the context of part 61 (needing a complex endorsement) although it is "high performance."  I doubt your insurance would be much higher in the 182, although they might specify a little more dual or some more time in type before going solo.  Back in the day, (1960s and 70s, and at least according to verbal history/anecdotes from my dad) 182s were far more common as rental aircraft available to the unwashed masses and there have been people to complete initial training and solo in 182s.  Plenty of people use the DA-40 as a primary trainer and it has a controllable pitch propeller.  

Now, let's look at this in the context of owning and maintaining the thing VS 172:

1.  Constant speed prop.  With a fixed pitched prop, you are in pretty good shape so long as you don't use it as a gravel crusher and keep some paint on it.  With a CS prop, you add in a bunch of seals, more control linkage, a governor, springs, etc.  One that runs well may not be an issue, but all it takes is an AD to crap on your day (look up "hartzell eddy current inspection for an example)
2.  Two more cylinders.  That's two more cylinders to overhaul when the need comes.  Or, two more cylinders to "top" overhaul.  Here, have a gander at the pricing:  http://www.coronaengines.com/Engine-Overhaul  The 172 of yesteryear is equipped with the Lycoming O-320 and the 182 of yesteryear is equipped with the Continental O-470.  70 more HP.  2 more cylinders. 3 more GPH.  $10,000 more to overhaul.  That's a decent used car.  2 boob jobs.  2 pallets of fine distilled spirits.  For two cylinders.  Oh, and you're also treated to a 1500 hour TBO.  Which means that your engine reserve just went up  by 25% per hour vs a 2,000 hour engine.  
3.  Bladders.  F*** bladders.  The 172 features a void in the wing in which an aluminum fuel tank sits.  Something going wrong with the tank is not likely to begin with, but if it does one only need remove the screws and yank the tank out.  Bladders dry rot and start to leak. They also sit unevenly on the bottom of the wing and can be a great place for contamination (water) to sit.  Just another thing to deal with.

For more info on bladders, have a look at this video.


Bottom line:  The 182 will cost a lot more money to keep around.

I actually like the first plane with the high time engine more. King kx 175Bs are solid, highly reliable radios. They're not fancy but they work. Narcos are trash. You can get a cheap upgrade for the 175Bs called the Mac1700 that turns it into a nice little unit with digital tuning, a flip/flop button, and frequency memories. The upgrade is either a simple slide in replacement for the whole radio or you can keep the old radios and just replace the faces with the 1700 units. The audio panel and transponder aren't fancy but I've owned a number of aircraft with those exact units and they just plain work. But that first one is a clean looking plane, inside and out, with a nice looking (albeit bare bones) panel. Yank the ADF and install a GPS there.
The way I'd handle it is to have the owner fly it to a reputable shop of your choosing (I like Tulsa) that'll do a pre-purchase inspection. If it passes inspection then go ahead and send the engine off for either a factory overhaul or a "name brand" overhaul and the shop can fix the airframe discrepancies while the prop and engine are out for work. Once it's all done and put back together then you and your CFI pick it up and fly a fresh plane out.

We like sending our aircraft to Tulsa for one stop shopping because it's a quick flight from our home field and everything we need is there. We use Powermaster for engine/props/airframe, and Sparks Aviation for avionics/airframe. There's nothing those two companies can't handle in a exemplary way and it's all on the same field.

Eta: this is a kx170/175 with a Mac1700 control face installed.

We had a C-310Q with a couple of these and it was a real nice setup. It's not a Garmin stack by any stretch but it's reliable, clear, and a helluva lot cheaper. It'd be great for a first plane.

Just saw that first 172 also has the Robertson STOL kit. COOL! And the wheel pants are in the hat box if you want to get a few extra knots of her. That's a 172 with a lot of potential.

OP, I'm happy to see you're on the right track.

If I were you, I'd look for value. Try to find an adequate trainer. Not perfect. Solid avionics.  Doesn't have to be fancy. GPS. Mid time engine that had been used regularly. Look for a good deal. Bargain.  These planes are somewhat of a commodity. Buy it. Do your private. After 100 hours or so and you will know what you want next. Sell and buy the next plane. If you buy something like that at a good price, you can sell it for about the same as you bought it. Your training and first hours will be much cheaper and most importantly, safer.

I wouldn't buy your ultimate plane now mostly for safety as we discussed. Also, nicer planes can be like can be like other luxury items. They tend to be illiquid if you want or need to sell them and other people will tend value them less than you do and certainly less than you invested in it especially if you start doing upgrades. I tend to look at things from a pragmatic financial standpoint first. Flying can be expensive (although it doesn't have to be too bad). The trainer can be a really smart money move. When you're ready for your next plane, you'll be in a much better position to be smart and ready to light a pile of cash on fire if that's what you decide.

I can see that. Another reason why the 172 seems more appealing.

thanks that's a lot of good info.

This is along my lines of thinking.

I think I would also want to make sure the 172 is going to be a good IFR trainer. Which I don't know what avionics I am going to need to accomplish that.

So I did some research about 172s and this is what I came up with so far.

I want a model 172I through 172M or 172P or newer (probably out of my price range)

That should give me a solid mechanical platform.

Now to find that with good gauges. A GPS isn't a must but would be nice but good radios are a must. Unless the plane was 10k less than a comparable with good radios, if so, I could slap a used 430 in there for that$$$