A good first aircraft Piper, Cessna or other?

[pmccarthy]

The numbers are something like:

 

RAA aircraft buy new $150K sell $100K after five years and 250 hours, depreciation $200 per hour.

 

PA-28 buy $50K sell $50K after five years and 250 hours. Depreciation zero.

 

Of course you have to be careful/lucky buying old aircraft.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Fairs fair  - almost any new purchases will depreciate quite rapidly over the first few years and then start leveling out towards a fairly constant (flying condition ) bottom range.

 

You have compared new purchase (RAA) with pre loved (GA) - not a like with like observation - same argument can be made for a pre loved RAA.

 

 

[facthunter]

 An aeroplane is rarely an assett and is generally " Known" for eating up much more of your money than you anticipated in your wildest nightmares .. IF you have the work for one, and have done the  costings honestly, you might have a good situation, but mostly people own them because they are addicted to the idea of flying.  Better than sports bet or the POKIES or robbing the kids piggy bank for a drug supply . Nev

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Although Syndicates aren't that common in Aus, they are very common here and they generally work well. In the same vain that one hears horror stories of syndicates, one also hears horror stories of the wrong plane purchased. Of course, with your own plane, you get to use it when and where you want; assuming it is serviceable. But it will cost a lot more and for many, it will be sitting around for long periods doing nothing - something Lycs don't like doing.

 

I have been in two syndicates - both 8 people (that sort of seems the natural limit to me). The current syndicate is very active so some forward planning of when you want to fly and getting your booking in is the order of the day. The previous syndicate - a PA28 Warrior II, was much less active and one could often book the day of desired flying even in glorious sunshine (at the time, not so frequent occurences). I wish I hadn't sold that share.

 

As for which plane - I have a few hours in both PA28s and C172s and I think it depends on what you are after and how much you have to spend. There is plenty of good advice already, but one should add is either way, prepare to shell out for a decent pre-purchase inspection.. Even if there are abnormal issues, it won't mean don't buy, but it will at least give you some bargaining power as to price to take into account  abnormal maintenance items should there be any. That can save more than the pre-purchase.

 

Other than that, try before you buy - and do your research. There are plenty of schools/clubs that will hire you either (or both) and some others to boot. Buying them is hard enough - selling them is harder (unless you have a pristine, low hour example). So make sure you buy the one you prefer. I learned on PA28s (Warrior/Archer) as well as C15x and C172s... I like them both (but, then, I like both Holdens and Aussie Fords). In the C17x, I don't like the electric flaps, though and apparently if you don't park them on flat lad, the tanks cross feed and if there is enough fuel, the excess will sill out through the overflow. The low wing of the PA28 will give you nice ground effect - a bummer sometimes when you come in a little too fast as you float down the runway...

 

Either way, enjoy. It's greast fun and for getting around longer distances, no better way...

 

 

[IanR]

 IF you are serious about tripping about Australia get a good used C-180 and learn to land it. Some of them are built to seaplane standards of corrosion proofing and are stronger in some places also. Planes operated near the sea and left unhangared are very suspect long term. Most conventionally built planes can be repaired pretty successfully if damaged and if it's commercially worth doing. The hiwing Cessna's are one of the best for getting out of hot and high(er) places. Definitely one of the best flaps (fowler) in the game. Nev

 

Nice one Nev ! The C180 is one of my all time favourite touring aircraft. 

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks Ian. How are things going? Nev

 

 

[IanR]

Thanks Ian. How are things going? Nev

 

Still battling the big c but making progress. Hopefully get my medical back in a few months

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Ref: Syndicates

 

Jerry; Logick & common sense are on your side but in my experience purchasing an aircraft is rarely governed by such principals.

 

I own a RAA composite & have done for about 10 years now - I still can't believe I actually own an aircraft. A crazy dream come true. Economically unjustifiable but the buzzz is hard to beat.

 

A few observations on your comments above:

 

Leaving commercial decisions and IFR (potentially) capable aircraft aside - "getting around longer distances, no better way" - can't agree! If you gotta be there  - go commercial or drive.

 

"The low wing of the PA28 will give you nice ground effect - a bummer sometimes when you come in a little too fast as you float down the runway..."  If you want to develop the discipline to reduce the chance of "floating" take up gliding and or flying a low wing RAA (300 kg) type composite. I have found that these aircraft really do sharpen your landing skills. Must be on top of the air speed numbers and one little trick my commercially rated pilot son taught me is - dump/lift flap just on/befor touchdown - works wonders for short field  landings.

 

 

[facthunter]

 It would be close to impossible to predictably land a Commercial jet without the ground spoilers to stop it skipping and to get the weight on the wheels for effective  braking. Dumping flap works but if the gear lever is nearby don't mix the two. Coming in with a bit of power on  (shallower approach path) and closing the throttle fully is another way of planting it more positively and achieving your touchdown point more accurately. Nev

 

 

[Possum1]

Mrs Possum will also appreciate the smoother ride in the PA28, compared to those lighter jobs. And the ability to pack more than knickers and bra for a trip away.

 

True. She certainly does appreciate the smoother ride.

 

Also, as an ex-Melbourne girl, Mrs Possum knows that we have both got to pack for four seasons on any Melbourne trip. I often think I have the Michelin Man sitting beside me!

 

 

[skippydiesel]

 It would be close to impossible to predictably land a Commercial jet without the ground spoilers to stop it skipping and to get the weight on the wheels for effective  braking. Dumping flap works but if the gear lever is nearby don't mix the two. Coming in with a bit of power on  (shallower approach path) and closing the throttle fully is another way of planting it more positively and achieving your touchdown point more accurately. Nev

 

Never flown anything more than 200 hp and never with anything more sophisticated than a fowler flap, so take your word for all of that.

 

Interesting  (to me) my conversion GA to RAA  about 10 years ago now, required that I ,to some extent, unlearn the powerd approach that had been drilled in to me. RAA aircraft, having much less inertia than GA spam cans, sort of stop when everything goes quiet, (those few moments of trading speed for altitude as you bring your Cessna/Piper down to optimum glide, just dont happen quite the same way in RAA). In such light weight aircraft , it is important to master the relativly steep, glide/power off approach,  make it your routine  technique, as an engine failure in the circuit may leave you a tad embarrassed, if you not up to speed on landing without power. So I pretty well routinely raise/dump flap on touch down - makes for a nice positive (no float) landing and as you have said enables the brakes to be brought into play (if required) that much earlier.

 

 

[facthunter]

 The unpowered approach( RAA) is taught as preferred or maybe a bit more. The theory is you can glide there if the engine fails. Nonetheles if you wish to very accurately achieve your touchdown point or there's gusty winds using  power is an advantage giving you more control of the plane. An extra factor in the deal. It also makes the rudder and elevators have more effectiveness. Use whatever technique most suits your situation. Personally I think an idling motor is more likely to stall than one with some power on it and the idle check on taxi is used to confirm the engine does in fact idle reliably and at the correct revs. IF that's not the case you are meant to not operate the aircraft till it's rectified. Nev

 

 

[FlyAdventure]

Never flown anything more than 200 hp and never with anything more sophisticated than a fowler flap, so take your word for all of that.

 

Interesting  (to me) my conversion GA to RAA  about 10 years ago now, required that I ,to some extent, unlearn the powerd approach that had been drilled in to me. RAA aircraft, having much less inertia than GA spam cans, sort of stop when everything goes quiet, (those few moments of trading speed for altitude as you bring your Cessna/Piper down to optimum glide, just dont happen quite the same way in RAA). In such light weight aircraft , it is important to master the relativly steep, glide/power off approach,  make it your routine  technique, as an engine failure in the circuit may leave you a tad embarrassed, if you not up to speed on landing without power. So I pretty well routinely raise/dump flap on touch down - makes for a nice positive (no float) landing and as you have said enables the brakes to be brought into play (if required) that much earlier.

 

The school I have been with teaches basically from downwind leg after the threshold we do glide approaches. It is a great skill to have and I like the fact that in worst case it is something I have been practising with every landing. 

 

 

[ClintonB]

My 182 is usually a single seater, unless my no 1 little co pilot gets out of bed early enough, yes it burns fuel like a  10 litre Cadillac tank- but when I look out either side under those wings I still can’t believe I own it, I’m flying a couple of thousand feet up and loving it. If it brings you joy and you can share that experience sometimes with your family and friends it’s worth it. You only live once.

 

 

[poteroo]

IF you are serious about tripping about Australia get a good used C-180 and learn to land it. Some of them are built to seaplane standards of corrosion proofing and are stronger in some places also

 

The condition here is 'learn how to fly it'.  That's a big ask these days as there are fewer instructors about with Cessna t/w experience - real time, not a pretend endo in the circuit of a major airport.  Unless you can really handle the C180/185 in crosswinds, and short fields - you're heading for some scary arrivals.  Low timers beware!

 

The corrosion proofing was available in only the later models of C180 - I think from 1975 onwards for the last 4 years of production. As Nev says, these were usually for the seaplane market : they were distinguishable by the cross bar struts from the instrument panel up to the spar.

 

They are not cheap to run, and I tend to agree with some of the earlier posters about the PA-28 series. Cessna SIDS have really made inroads on the C172 numbers. Corrosion inspections are a must on any of the older GA types, regardless of make & model.

 

Own a 2 seater but rent a 4 seater = good advice.  In the 29 years that we owned a C170, C180, and C182 - we flew 95% of the time with the rear seats out and 2 up.  Your kids grow up, they find other more exciting things to do, and then they disallow the grandies from flying because the 'old man' doesn't look capable of flying safely!!  Be practical - be 'selfish'!

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

 An aeroplane goes in a straight line, which is rare when you are driving on the ground and you can cut your cruise speed back when running light and save on fuel. If you are heavy and into wind keep the speed up though. Some of your biggest costs are insurance and hangarage. Taylorcraft , Austers etc., you can make just about any part of them,and could be kept going literally forever but they are fabric which is not good in the sun.  IF you toss the gypsy and put in a Lyc  you certainly won't need weight in the tail. A "Sensible" medical is what the industry /hobby most needs. People who have heart attacks in mid life generally make old bones especially IF they look after themselves and don't undo the surgeons good work.  Food poisoning is probably an equal risk. . Nev

 

 

[NT5224]

Mrs Possum and I have owned a 1974 Piper Cherokee Cruiser(PA28 - 140) since 2007. We have just returned from a five day stay at Stanthorpe where climb performance and altitude capability are a must for a smooth and safe ride over the 4,500' peaks in the intersecting ranges of the MacPherson Range and the Great Dividing Range. This was a smooth flight today of 57 minutes to Archerfield at an average speed of 110 knots with a nice little 10 knot tailwind most of the way.

 

Our little Cherokee has the ability to cope with much worse weather than this by either climbing to an altitude above the mountain waves or maintaining an altitude if we are in them. Having said that, in this part of the world, a combination of low cloud and high winds are a no-go.

 

We also did a nice easy take-off and climb-out out of Stanthorpe's 3000' altitude runway with 2 POB, a ridiculous amount of luggage and 90 litres of fuel.

 

1. The proposed wingspar AD is by no means law yet and with US AOPA and Piper dead against it, it is unlikely to succeed in its present form or at all. The similar 1987 AD was cancelled after 6 months.

 

2. Costs. I think $2000 for an Annual is a bit hopeful. You are expecting that there will nothing to fix on a 45 year-old aircraft! Our annual this year was $5,000 which included 7 additional items including surface corrosion removed and a new throttle cable installed and we were happy with that. The best is around $3,500 and the worst was $17,000(wings removed and corrosion removed and both forward spars replaced!)

 

3. The 160 HP engine is a must. If your Cherokee does not have this conversion, do it properly(and legally) at your next overhaul with a RAM STC.

 

4. Met-co-aire wingtips or other Hoerner type scallopped wingtips which mimic the Warrior wingtips give very nice balanced aileron response, less drag and a slightly improved stall speed.

 

5. This is a two seater in reality with a huge amount of room for luggage on the rear seats and in the baggage area. The rear seats otherwise are for short joyflights with primary school-age children only.

 

6. We plan at 32 L/hour and get it with leaning. BEW for this aircraft is 630kg and MTOW is 975kg. Archerfield to Melbourne(Essendon) is 7.5 hours with one fuel stop at Dubbo.

 

7. Avoid the cheap 60s and early 70s Cherokees. They do not have a standard instrument panel. You will also have difficulty sourcing parts whereas 1974 onwards Cherokees have a strong parts commonality with Warriors and parts are much easier and cheaper to find.

 

8. Have some use for this plane other than joyflights with your friends. We have a rental property to maintain at one destination and a caravan by a runway to maintain at another and an annual trip to Melbourne to do because Mrs P is an ex-Melbourne girl.

 

9. Even though this is a cheap aircraft to run, relatively speaking, we can do this because our house is paid off and we both work and go halves in all the costs.

 

10. On long trips, I do miss not having a constant speed prop and an auto-pilot even though Mrs Possum is a great smooth weather autopilot!

 

Hope the above helps.

 

Good for Mrs Possum as Autopilot....! :)

 

 

[facthunter]

 The Cherokee is a plainer and simpler design then the Comanche which it replaced after a fire at the factory wiped out all the Jigs etc The earlier planes were exceptionally well made and corrosion proofed. Much more expensive to work on and a bit squeezy but have a rusted on following and many are still good with over 15K hours. It's a laminar flow wing  like a lot of advanced stuff was in those days and you can't bring it in hanging on the prop(s). I briefly had a twin. A few years VH LLV.  Wish I could have afforded it. Nev