Recommended GA Aircraft

[Louie]

Would like to call upon the experienced and wise heads on the forum regarding their opinion of what type of GA aircraft they would buy given they had up to $150k to spend, the obvious normal maintenance costs were affordable, VFR, to be used for touring, will be hangared, passenger carrying capacity is not a priority and open to all types.

 

 

[facthunter]

A really good C-180. Versatile practical. You have to be a good tailwheel operator. Get one that is produced as a seaplane. option. Nev

 

 

[ben87r]

150 would buy you a nice C210 if 60LPH is ok?

 

 

[Louie]

A really good C-180. Versatile practical. You have to be a good tailwheel operator. Get one that is produced as a seaplane. option. Nev

Thanks Nev. Was hoping you'd chip in with an opinion.

Could you expand on the rationale for the seaplane option?

 

 

[rgmwa]

A well-built RV-9.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[facthunter]

It is stronger Has extra reinforcement in the fuselage, and corrosion proofed at assembly. Nev

 

 

[Louie]

It is stronger Has extra reinforcement in the fuselage, and corrosion proofed at assembly. Nev

Ok thanks!

 

 

[68volksy]

Archer 3 would be my choice. You're smack in Bonanza and Cirrus territory also though. I think Mooney would be too much of a bitumen baby for some of those outback strips if you're touring.

 

 

[kaz3g]

There is a truly magnificent C180 for sale at the moment for around $135 from memory. It won prizes at AAAA flyins and has very low hours.

 

If I had the money it would be mine.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Keenaviator]

You won't get a decent cirrus in that price range

There're only 20k aren't they? :)

 

 

[Downunder]

There're only 20k aren't they? :)

That's AFTER the chute landing!!!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A really good Archer 3, just 3 or 4 years old

 

 

[Ultralights]

anything Cessna Post SIDS, but a real plane, i would go for the RV9, or even RV14. or RV10

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The RV9 is not suited to well built gentlemen like me. With the seat fully back it has the same problem as the new Hilton hotel, there is no ballroom. I was trying to fit two joysticks onto one spot, if you see what I mean.

 

 

[rgmwa]

The RV9 is not suited to well built gentlemen like me. With the seat fully back it has the same problem as the new Hilton hotel, there is no ballroom. I was trying to fit two joysticks onto one spot, if you see what I mean.

An RV-14 would be the go then if you only need two seats, except that you'd have to build one first. There's only one flying so far and that's Van's prototype. Otherwise, there's the RV-10, although you wouldn't be likely to get one for $150k. However, there's also a modification you can do to an RV-9 to give you more seatroom: http://www.antisplataero.com/Almost_a_RV14_Seat_Mod.html

 

rgmwa

 

 

[IanR]

There is a truly magnificent C180 for sale at the moment for around $135 from memory. It won prizes at AAAA flyins and has very low hours.If I had the money it would be mine.

 

Kaz

Its a lovely thing that one - but with any Cessna at the moment you would need to check SIDs status as that "could" be expensive

 

 

[IanR]

An RV-14 would be the go then if you only need two seats, except that you'd have to build one first. There's only one flying so far and that's Van's prototype. Otherwise, there's the RV-10, although you wouldn't be likely to get one for $150k. However, there's also a modification you can do to an RV-9 to give you more seatroom: http://www.antisplataero.com/Almost_a_RV14_Seat_Mod.htmlrgmwa

I love the look of the RV14 - has great payload and still good speed

 

 

[IanR]

150 would buy you a nice C210 if 60LPH is ok?

210 is a lovely aircraft to fly but with the retractable gear is more expensive to own than a fixed gear - both insurance and maint. And $150K is at the low end

 

 

[poteroo]

Would like to call upon the experienced and wise heads on the forum regarding their opinion of what type of GA aircraft they would buy given they had up to $150k to spend, the obvious normal maintenance costs were affordable, VFR, to be used for touring, will be hangared, passenger carrying capacity is not a priority and open to all types.

The word compromise is foremost in my suggestions:

 

High Wing is always going to be easier for access with older pilots and passengers. Think OH&S. It's also cooler to load and operate in hot wx - of which Aus has plenty. Sure, the Piper Archer II will give you more speed, and often better avionics, for the same 180HP as a 180HP C172 but you have to scramble up the wing to access. No problem with just 2 of you who are young, fit and familiar with it - but a big ask for grandad.

 

Retractable Gear is higher cost in maintenance, requires more pilot skills, smaller tyres and offers less strip surface options. Insurance also an issue - yes, gear ups still happen, and not just with beginners.

 

2 seats, 4 seats, or 6 seats? - you can buy a 6 seater for under $150k, (PA-32-300, or old C206), but you're looking at an aircraft no faster than a C182 or PA28-235 but with higher fuel burn. For the money - buy a 4 seater and you can always remove the rear seats to make a very large cabin space for gear, or even to sleep in. (In the 12 years,and 2400hrs, that I owned a C170, the rear seats sat in the hangar).

 

Tailwheel or nosewheel is a decision you can make if you have the t/w flying skills already. If you are older,(50+) - then learning to safely operate t/w's, in all conditions, is a major challenge. You can be taught - but it takes a lot more than just a basic t/w endo to safely operate a C180. Anyway, passengers never feel comfortable in t/w types because of the deck angle.

 

Speed is less important than efficient pilot skills, but 120 kts should be a minimum. Any more than 150 kts and you'll probably never become as efficient as you'll necessarily become in a slower a/c.

 

STOL capability shouldn't be your major decision point. If you intend to operate in the rough stuff - get a C180/185 - (but accept other 'penalties'). If you want to use the driveway - get a Cub or a Savannah!

 

Maintenance availability and ability is a consideration. Pick something which is more Falcon or Commodore - an orphan might appeal - but it will be more costly.

 

Experimental category aircraft are debatable choices. There are more low than high wing, often less robust u/c, often less available load. Insurability varies.

 

Fuel efficiency is something to think about, but you better accept that you'll be looking at a fuel burn of min 30 LPH of avgas @ $2.30 odd per L with any engine of 180 HP. Sure, you can get really efficient aircraft like some RV's - but then other factors outweigh the fuel savings. (eg, my RV9A has a fuel injected + electronic ignition 180HP Superior engine which will give me 140KTAS @ 27LPH using ROP settings - 23LPH LOP. ). Yes, a C182 or 180 has a voracious appetite for fuel (45-50LPH) and you have to offset that against the load, speed, and paddock capabilities of these aircraft.

 

Fuel injected or carby is sometimes a decision point. FI is more efficient, and more accurate to lean. You need to really learn how to efficiently operate your FI engine,(and hot start it in front of a crowd of critical pilots!).

 

And after all the theory............... drum roll.............. for my $150k, I'd go for a C182 Q or R model which has been stripped and repainted in the last 10 years, new perspex, has had the old Cessna avionics replaced, and has an engine and prop with better than half life remaining. Easy to fly, big uplift capability, good on rougher strips/paddocks, long range, 120-135 KTAS.................and I'd just grit my teeth at the bowser and spend more of the kids inheritance!

 

 

happy days,

 

 

[Louie]

The word compromise is foremost in my suggestions:High Wing is always going to be easier for access with older pilots and passengers. Think OH&S. It's also cooler to load and operate in hot wx - of which Aus has plenty. Sure, the Piper Archer II will give you more speed, and often better avionics, for the same 180HP as a 180HP C172 but you have to scramble up the wing to access. No problem with just 2 of you who are young, fit and familiar with it - but a big ask for grandad.

 

Retractable Gear is higher cost in maintenance, requires more pilot skills, smaller tyres and offers less strip surface options. Insurance also an issue - yes, gear ups still happen, and not just with beginners.

 

2 seats, 4 seats, or 6 seats? - you can buy a 6 seater for under $150k, (PA-32-300, or old C206), but you're looking at an aircraft no faster than a C182 or PA28-235 but with higher fuel burn. For the money - buy a 4 seater and you can always remove the rear seats to make a very large cabin space for gear, or even to sleep in. (In the 12 years,and 2400hrs, that I owned a C170, the rear seats sat in the hangar).

 

Tailwheel or nosewheel is a decision you can make if you have the t/w flying skills already. If you are older,(50+) - then learning to safely operate t/w's, in all conditions, is a major challenge. You can be taught - but it takes a lot more than just a basic t/w endo to safely operate a C180. Anyway, passengers never feel comfortable in t/w types because of the deck angle.

 

Speed is less important than efficient pilot skills, but 120 kts should be a minimum. Any more than 150 kts and you'll probably never become as efficient as you'll necessarily become in a slower a/c.

 

STOL capability shouldn't be your major decision point. If you intend to operate in the rough stuff - get a C180/185 - (but accept other 'penalties'). If you want to use the driveway - get a Cub or a Savannah!

 

Maintenance availability and ability is a consideration. Pick something which is more Falcon or Commodore - an orphan might appeal - but it will be more costly.

 

Experimental category aircraft are debatable choices. There are more low than high wing, often less robust u/c, often less available load. Insurability varies.

 

Fuel efficiency is something to think about, but you better accept that you'll be looking at a fuel burn of min 30 LPH of avgas @ $2.30 odd per L with any engine of 180 HP. Sure, you can get really efficient aircraft like some RV's - but then other factors outweigh the fuel savings. (eg, my RV9A has a fuel injected + electronic ignition 180HP Superior engine which will give me 140KTAS @ 27LPH using ROP settings - 23LPH LOP. ). Yes, a C182 or 180 has a voracious appetite for fuel (45-50LPH) and you have to offset that against the load, speed, and paddock capabilities of these aircraft.

 

Fuel injected or carby is sometimes a decision point. FI is more efficient, and more accurate to lean. You need to really learn how to efficiently operate your FI engine,(and hot start it in front of a crowd of critical pilots!).

 

And after all the theory............... drum roll.............. for my $150k, I'd go for a C182 Q or R model which has been stripped and repainted in the last 10 years, new perspex, has had the old Cessna avionics replaced, and has an engine and prop with better than half life remaining. Easy to fly, big uplift capability, good on rougher strips/paddocks, long range, 120-135 KTAS.................and I'd just grit my teeth at the bowser and spend more of the kids inheritance!

 

 

happy days,

Thanks for the logical and comprehensive analysis and comments. Much appreciated!

 

 

[flyhi]

That's AFTER the chute landing!!!

Costs 20k to repack the chute after 10 years and that's before you even use it.

 

 

[ben87r]

I've always liked the 177RG and reckon when I can but that would have my interest. 140 on 40LPH sounds good enough for me.

 

What's your thoughts nev?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Its a lovely thing that one - but with any Cessna at the moment you would need to check SIDs status as that "could" be expensive

Sad but true...

 

There is also an absolutely magnificent Auster for sale with an 0-360 in it. Ground up restoration for about half the price of the C 180.

 

Some very nice photos of yours in the Rag&Tube this month, Ian!

 

Kaz

 

 

[Eric McCandless]

Would like to call upon the experienced and wise heads on the forum regarding their opinion of what type of GA aircraft they would buy given they had up to $150k to spend, the obvious normal maintenance costs were affordable, VFR, to be used for touring, will be hangared, passenger carrying capacity is not a priority and open to all types.

Put the $150,000 in a term deposit / mortgage / suitable investment and with the interest hire any GA aircraft that suits your purpose or takes your fancy at the time and you will be streets ahead. Eric

 

 

[kaz3g]

Put the $150,000 in a term deposit / mortgage / suitable investment and with the interest hire any GA aircraft that suits your purpose or takes your fancy at the time and you will be streets ahead. Eric

That will give you about 50-70 hours per year in someone else's aircraft when it is available and not being flown to whatever standard by whoever else pays the hire fee.

 

I like having my own, knowing it well, knowing it is well maintained and having it available whenever I want it.

 

Kaz