I'm curious where you got this from?. The Plane and Pilot magazine for example states in one of their articles regarding the demonstrated crosswind component that 'The demonstration is performed by a test pilot who's not supposed to use exceptional skill or alertness'. The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association suggests in an airplane buyers guide that a test flight should be conducted before buying an airplane 'To ensure that that particular plane flies the way it should – that it performs near the book specs and is rigged correctly'. I also found similar statements on other websites. The Air Safety Institute recommends the “50-50 method” in computing takeoff and landing distance.

• Beechcraft Bonanza F33a Poh Pdf Printer Problems

Whatever the book says the test pilot could do over the 50′ obstacle—add 50 percent to that. Thank you, very interesting. Book +40% is roughly what I'm seeing with our bird. I am actually currently planning for book +50% to have a bit of an additional safety margin. #251176 - 06/17/15 06:24 PM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance? Platinum Pilot Registered: 07/16/10 Posts: 3574 Loc: Bastrop, TX. POHs from before the late 70s were written with a lot of pressure from the marketing department.

In the GA heydays, there was a lot of back and forth competition between Cessna and Piper especially. In a similar vein, Consumer Reports won't accept a car for testing supplied by the manufacturer because they don't want one that's been 'tuned' to perform better than stock average. They purchase their cars from dealers like anyone else. I'm sure POHs written in the last 20 years are a lot more accurate than in the past, but there was always a healthy skepticism of POHs 40 years ago. Although earlier manufacturers' performance figures were vague or optimistic to the point of fiction, we have come a long way. The problem is that most of us didn't go to test pilot school, and there aren't any tables of correction coefficients for nicked propellers, bug-splattered wings, sloppy airspeed control, or increased ground rolls from low tire pressures. Nor, because of variability, can we apply any corrective increments based on a ratio of an engine's time in service to its TBO - or increased takeoff distance based on runway gradient.

No, there's no concordance in Section Five of these bibles, and there's still very much room for improvement in the presentation of these data. Let's face it: In a free-market economy, good news sells. The best way that someone with an aircraft to promote can achieve sales success is by hiring a test pilot to derive performance data using a new, perfectly trimmed airplane with a spanking new engine - and by using every trick in the book. Did I really intend to use the word trick? As Barry Schiff describes in The Proficient Pilot, Volume 2, a published range for an early Piper Cherokee 180 presumed that the airplane was first teleported to cruise altitude, flown until the tanks were bone dry, and then adroitly flown at best glide to the destination. I flight test airplanes for a living and will tell you that the performance numbers that we write for POH's reflect what we get with extremely skilled pilots under perfect conditions. There is no other way to do it.

You don't write the performance numbers to accommodate a 15hr student solo pilot you write them for what the plane is capable of with really good pilots and really good conditions because that's what makes numbers good and that's what sells planes. (Why buy a 182 to do what I can do with a 172) A majority of the parameters that we take get calculated out to 2 or 3 decimal places if not a few more.

We've flown factory planes that have been conservative in their performance numbers and we've flown some that have been liberal too. We've done performance STC's that came out worse than book numbers only because the book numbers were incorrect to begin with. Sucks for the STC guys who want to sell an improvement. But we've also done it the other way around too. The age of plane will affect it's performance quite a bit.

Worn out engines, loose sloppy flight controls, ignition systems not producing as much power, faded paint, and the list goes on. When we do what we call drag testing to measure fuel burn and efficiency the whole plane gets a wax and polish job that'll make Barrett Jackson cars look like a 5yr old making mud pies washed it. The entire flight control system gets re-rigged to exact specs. I'm not talking the spec'd range is between 5 and 15 I'm talking it gets rigged to 10 period and parts get replaced until it gets to 10. The weather is monitored for absolute perfect stable conditions.

Weight and balance is dead on and we know exactly where it is. The plane gets weighed before and after each flight regardless if it's a 10 min flight or a 5hr flight. If you think it doesn't affect it I can introduce you to a whole lot of engineers that will argue that point with the data in hand to prove otherwise.

OEM's spend a whole lot of millions of dollars to get the best numbers they can. Do you know exactly how much your plane weighs, how much fuel you have on board, what the temps are, what the winds are, how stable the air is?? Not trying to bust your chops just saying that POH numbers are NOT figured based on what the average pilot can do with a 50yr old plane. They are based on what the best pilots in the world can do with a new plane under precisely known conditions.

Did you do a normal roll onto the runway and slowly advance the throttle take off or a short field take off like the POH numbers are based off of? Probably the best advice is this because after all is said and done safety is what matters. Lets consider flying safety. 1) Is your engine healthy enough to meet the specs for flight and properly documented and signed off.

Compression in the 60's for Lycoming does not mean a rebuild only awareness and understanding if there are any mechanical issues. IF not keep flying in the 60's. Granted yours is a Conti. 2) Can you fly in your opinion your normal airfields with what you feel is a safety margin for take off and landing If both 1 and 2 are yes then you have a plane you can fly.

If you disagree with either then you will have to open your wallet. My engine was replaced not because I was flying with compression of 64 and 68 in two of the cylinders, but because I found a crack in one cylinder and the previous owner flew with exhaust loose and burned off the mounts on 3 of the 4 cylinders.

My engine also had 7000+ hrs was the original engine and had been O/H 3 times previously. #251198 - 06/18/15 04:42 AM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance? Bronze Pilot Registered: 08/22/14 Posts: 694 Loc: blue marble citizen. My 172 turns 50+ years old and it does the POH numbers since I knew. Yes, I know quite well what the weight is and sometimes we guessed from performance and taxied to the scale afterwards for confirmation (we have a large kettle scale on the farm strip and we customized it to be able to roll onto it). What still puzzles me is the static rpm being only 2200 for a 52 pitch prop.

I still suspect the engine in question is not going full throttle by some reason. Edited by Flubber4.0 ( 06/18/15 04:46 AM). I'll go back to when I first started flying and Continentals outnumbered Lycoming about 5 to 1.

My buddy had a 1200 foot grass strip so everything had to be on the money on takeoff. Many Continental's only turned 2200 to 2250 so sometimes we switched and swapped props, and found that a prop that was just maybe 3/8 of an inch shorter would make 75 to 100 RPM difference. But we also found out that even with the same pitch, two props would produce different performance. I don't know if anybody has looked at the air box to see if the flapper is closing and condition of the seal.that will also make a difference if it is pulling in warm air. Conflicting opinions, like the ones in this thread, are exactly the reason why I am so concerned about our plane’s performance. I don’t want to chase ghosts, but if there is something wrong with it, I want to know about it and not be surprised be a possibly catastrophic failure, resulting from a problem which could be fixed. The engine runs very smoothly, the fuel consumptions is within a reasonable range and it start super easy.

Without the deviations of the take off performance from the owner’s manual it would have therefore never occurred to me that there might be something wrong with it. Next, I’ll have it weighed, because the latest w&b is based on calculations. It has also been a veeery long time, since the plane was weighed the last time. We will also check the mag-timing, all the links to the carburetor and replace the air filter. I guess, we’ll learn that the plane is 50 lbs. Heavier than what we thought, but otherwise come up empty handed.

@Flyboy712: Interesting. While I can see the a freshly polished plane or a pilot who is really light on the controls can positively affect the climb rate or the speed, I fail to see the amount of variations at the ground roll. And certainly not by the 30 – 40%, we were discussing. Take off performance also has a direct impact on the safety. I still find it hard to believe that, even in the 50s and 60s, Cessna would run the risk that families die in fireballs, because the numbers are so far off that even a safety margins of 10 – 20% in the pilot’s calculations would not cover the inaccuracies? How should a pilot, who takes his family in his shiny new 1966 Cessna 172 from San Francisco to an airstrip in the mountains know whether a runway is suitable or not, if not by the owner’s manual?

In this case, it would indeed be better to publish nothing at all instead of entirely unrealistic numbers. The owner’s manual suggests that for a short field take-off the flaps should be up, breaks applied and then the throttle advanced to full power. Once the engine reached max.

Static rpm, the breaks have to be released, the elevator be held in a neutral position and the plane then rotated at 60 mph. This means, by my understanding, that if the gross weight is 2,000 lbs, the density altitude is 2,500 ft., the temperature is at a standard 50°F, 0 wind and the plane is well maintained (yes, I also adjusted the tire pressure) it should reach 60 mph after 755 ft. This is however not nearly the case.

I also don’t see how the pilot could significantly influence this. There is actually not much more to do other than to hold the yoke still and to wait until 60. It pretty much comes down to horsepower, density altitude and weight. And, of course, whether the numbers in the manual are crap or not. Weight and density altitude can be precisely measured.

Engine performance and the numbers in the manual are therefore the two remaining unknowns. @Joeman434: The airbox is something I already looked. I actually found something to be wrong with it, it was however not what I was hoping for: Cold air was fine, the flap would however not completely close if carb heat was applied. I really hope to find some squawks and to bring the plane’s performance back to the book numbers, once we fixed them.

I am not too optimistic, though. I would still be interested to see some 0-60 mph measurements or take-off videos which allow the measurement of the ground roll, and a description of the conditions (weight, density altitude) #251227 - 06/18/15 10:51 AM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance?

Gold Pilot Registered: 03/15/11 Posts: 1564 Loc: Florida,USA. I will add one more thing.Back when I was restoring L-19s (a very slow aircraft) we found that the position of the cams at the rear bolt made a slight difference in the cruise speed if the trailing edges were raised. On a high HP aircraft like the Bird Dog you most likely would not see the small takeoff performance loss but in a 145hp C-172 you would. Also you can improve short field capability by 'drooping' the ailerons slightly but it does result in a loss of cruise speed. I believe the Stinson L-5 has a trim wheel which will droop the ailerons to improve short field performance. You may want to check the rigging just to see what you have.

#251232 - 06/18/15 11:34 AM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance? Club Sponsor Gold Pilot Registered: 08/15/10 Posts: 2303 Loc: Brookshire, Texas, USA. Many years ago I used to rent a 150 that had an issue with it's main gear that caused it to increase the take off roll - I don't remember if the brakes were dragging or if it was an misalignment of the mains, but it was bad enough that I could barely tow the plane on level ground by hand. I do remember you could land short without ever needing to get on the brakes and it took quite a bit of power to get it to roll from a stop. I'm not insinuating this is your problem, but it might be worth investigating that your gear is in proper working order as there could be an accumulation of things that all add up to your performance concerns! The college I taught at had a Beech Sierra that had suffered a catastrophic engine failure and vibration so bad the motor mount and firewall had started to pull away from the airframe.

It was dead-sticked into a plowed field, recovered, rebuilt with a new engine, and flown for many years afterwards. However, if anyone thought it would do anything like book figures for cruise or TO performance afterwards, they were in for a rude surprise. I once took off 5000' behind the school's well worn C172 to follow it down to Austin for some avionics work, and it took me 30 miles to catch the 172 at 25 squared. It climbed like a pig in summer, and in fact scared me a bit departing the old Houston Andrau airport one summer afternoon. That runway was 5000' asphalt, and the trees still got really big at the south end before I cleared them. 'Published' numbers for a Sierra are 140 kt cruise and 1600' to clear a 50' obstacle. This one.might.

do 125kts on a good day. Oliver I agree with you. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there can be a lot of little things that can add up to a big thing. I'm not necessarily saying your plane is fine and perfectly OK.

Obviously it's not or we all wouldn't be chit chatting about it. Get the engine checked out thoroughly as I suspect this is probably where a majority of your difference is coming from. Static RPM is on the low side and compressions are on the low side although according to something I read a while back (sorry no reference) when continental was doing their calibrated orfice thing they found that engine performance didn't start degrading significantly until the compression tests were in the 40's to low 50's? Again probably not that big of a deal but coupled with 3 or 4 other things that may be affecting performance it might add up. There are variations in compression testers.

Why I don't know they should all be calibrated but I've seen one mechanic test with one and another test with a different one and get different numbers. Static rpm is low so the engine is only making 100hp +- basically what you got is a fat 150 trying to get off the ground.

Get the engine looked over by a good mechanic. Check for intake and exhaust leaks or blockages, check carb heat travel, throttle travel, spark plugs, magnetos, get the mechanic to use a different compression tester figure out where it's leaking. If I was to bet I'd have to say old tired engine. But it doesn't hurt to rule out the easy inexpensive stuff first you never know maybe a rat built a nest in the intake pipe or an exhaust baffle collapsed blocking up the muffler? Or maybe you got a pig. Every airplane flies a bit different some more than others.

I flew helicopters in the military and it seemed like every where I was stationed there was one bird that had significantly different numbers than what the book and the rest of them had for basically no reason at all. Edited by Flyboy712 ( 06/18/15 03:17 PM) #251841 - 06/24/15 06:38 AM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance? Club Sponsor Diamond Pilot Registered: 06/24/10 Posts: 7724 Loc: Slidell La.

Oliver, I have always been leery of POH numbers. My experience with the Conti-powered 172 is that they are ground-lovers compared to any Lycoming powered versions. I can sit and watch the difference in take-off performance of the various models right from my hangar. If you spend the 50k on the 180 hp you will be happy with the performance but I would gag at the cost/return of that choice! Many here have pointed out that there could be several details that are slightly off-spec that could be holding the airplane back, including brakes/gear alignment, etc. I agree with this and I'd look at the carb box cold/hot air valve also. What I wouldn't do in your shoes is jump into an overhaul of the O-300 without a lot more evidence it.needs.

overhaul. Spending that money will not give you much in the way of performance, if any at all. In the end you may need to sell this a/c and buy a Lyc 160hp, or better, aircraft that is capable of meeting your goals. For what it's worth, our low-time E2D was converted from 150 to 160 and the result is remarkably better climb(close to 200fpm), shorter ground run and lower fuel burn(approx.4 gph.really!) Keep us posted! Edited by Shuswap ( 06/24/15 11:05 AM). Nothing new here, really.

The throttle reaches its stop, the carb heat closes completely. Our two local A&Ps say the engine is fine and runs as good as it gets.

Static rpm is just barely above 2200 rpm (digitally measured), despite of the slightly more towards climb pitched prop. I also made a brief static run with the airfilter removed, no change in rpm was however noticeable. I went with a inspection camera into both exhausts, they seem to be OK. I ordered a Rite System ignition tester, to check the timing of the magnetos, but haven't tried it yet. One of our A&P however briefly tested it and said that the timing is OK.

I therefore do not expect much more than a confirmation of his findings or maybe a minor deviation. We will also have the plane weighed, as I suspect that it is a little bit heavier than calculated, but don't believe that this will be more than 50 lbs. Gear and brakes are something I have yet to check, I however don't have much hope in this, as she seem to be fairly easy to pull with the towbar. I think that the deviation is caused by the engine not making full power, because of the low static rpm and the weak climb performance. Assuming the weight and balance calculation is correct, we took off yesterday at around 1950 lbs., a field elevation of 700 ft.

And an outside temperature of 77°. We however climbed with only 400 ft. / min, even though we flew exactly by the numbers for best climb performance, as stated in the POH. According to the POH, this climb rate would be correct for max gross (2300 lbs) and a density altitude of 5000 ft! We however should have seen a climb rate of around 700 ft.

The POH also mentions a static rpm range with the standard prop of 2230 - 2330 rpm and with the climb prop of 2320 - 2420 rpm. Our propeller is pitched exactly between these two, I would therefore expect static rpm from 2275 - 2370, while we only achieve 2230 rpm, maybe even a bit less. The timing of the magnetos is the only thing left to be (double-)checked, I however doubt that they are the cause for the deviation, even if it would turn out that they are a little bit off. I really don't know what to do. Accept that the O-300 simply does not even make the static rpm, which are mentioned in the POH, sell it and get something stronger?

Have the engine, the magnetos and the carb overhauled, against the advice of our A&Ps, even though I also don't believe that there is anything mechanically wrong with the engine itself? Frankly, I am completely frustrated and actually already started looking for another plane. When I test flew the plane, everything felt normal, I also remembered the performance to be a lot better, from when I flew the same model a few years ago. I only realized how weak the performance is, when we took off for the first time from our relatively short runway. Our 172 would be just the perfect plane for us, if it would at least roughly make the POH numbers.

With the performance we are actually seeing, I would not take of at max gross from our runway, what is however quite important to us, as we regularly want to take a guest or camping gear with us. This is certainly a lesson learnt - the next time we buy a plane, we will check the static rpm and also compare the real world performance with the numbers in the POH, instead of just paying attention to how it handles. Edited by Oliver ( 06/25/15 11:03 PM) #252131 - 06/26/15 06:36 AM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance? Club Sponsor Diamond Pilot Registered: 06/24/10 Posts: 7724 Loc: Slidell La. I don't think I would spend the $$ to do mags and carb.

My thoughts are the engine is doing the best it can. Torque is the answer to rpm. IF you don't have enough torque you can't twist the prop fast enough. Low torque is from engine design, stroke, cylinders, compression.

If your compression leak down, and overall engine condition is in spec then the only option for that engine is to raise compression or increase cubic inches. This means different pistons are bigger cylinders. This may not even be available or possible for the 140 Conti. You might consider investigation into these items. IF you find no acceptable options then your choices are to upgrade to bigger engine or different plane.

I went from 150 that had better results than you see with the 140, to a 160+ engine. My climb is about 700 FPM at 2000 DA and 95 Temps. There were times in the 150 that I would get off the ground and have to level off and almost step climb to get altitude. I would expect the 140 to be a little weaker than the 150.

The Conti will always be weaker, given comparable engine condition. I have quite a few hrs behind both and while they cruise fairly close in speed, the climb and take-off performance is quite different. BTW, I doubt you would ever see 700fpm in the conditions you described with a Conti. However.it does sound a little weak, even compared to those I've flown. I suspect the prop wasn't re-pitched enough to make a real-world difference. If you can afford it, go with the 180hp, or at least the 160hp, skip over the 150hp (unless you increase it to 160), not enough difference with the shorter field you operate from. Weight is the enemy and can only be overcome by extra hp/thrust.

Oliver, I understand your frustration. The O-300 is a good engine but many are getting tired and just won't make factory performance numbers. If you had the engine overhauled with new cylinders, new cam and crank back to original specs it would be stronger by maybe 10% and 150 rpm on takeoff. However the cost would be significant. It does not sound like this is the right aircraft for you and you might be happier with and old straight tail C-182. As the old saying goes 'you are whipping a dead horse' and I don't think the old girl will be able to do what you need her to do. Watch this takeoff, this is a strong O-300 it was 85 degrees, 3800 ft paved runway at sea level.

My niece who weighs 120 lbs and her 200 lb instructor. The plane was climbing at about 500 fpm. At the end of the 3800 ft runway they were maybe 500 to 600 ft AGL Edited by Pilot110 ( 06/28/15 06:33 AM) #252433 - 06/28/15 08:43 AM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance?

Bronze Pilot Registered: 12/16/12 Posts: 666 Loc: Minnesota. Here is our airplane and the numbers taken yesterday morning. I had to wait until early today to measure @ KMIC. 1965 172F with continental 0-300. 100 hours SMOH. We never saw the need to actually check but curiosity got the best of me.

All numbers are from a rolling start as close as practical to the beginning of the runway (about 3ft) winds calm on all T/O. Distance measurements are taken with a wheel that you walk behind. Prop is a McCauley cruse prop overhauled and installed in 1970. No yellow tag available just a logbook entry. Tire pressure 29 nose, 24 left main and 25 right main. (Compressor plug smoked when firing it up) Static RPM full throttle = 2345.

Engine just warmed up. First T/O density altitude 1347, 1883 total LBS, 1110 ft ground roll, climbed @ 500 FPM 80 miles an hour Engine had.97 of an hour flying time, with 10 minute shut down.

Second T/O density altitude 2383. 1839 LBS, ground roll 1420, climb 500 FPM @ 80 MPH Engine had about 1.75 of hour total flying,.45 since last startup and 20 minute shut down. Third T/O after full fuel. Density Alt = 2681, 1960 LBS, ground roll 1576, climb @ 400 FPM @ 80 I guessed our T/O last year to OSH. I remember being past the tower before rotating @ Max gross. The morning was 5k overcast, 70F with winds about 8 MPH.

Guessing T/O off roll @ 1654 ft. The T/O roll was letting the airplane fly itself off the ground. No pulling back the yoke at 60 MPH to get airborne. I will also be watching how much engine temp affects T/O roll and climb. In general air cooled engines are less efficient as they get hot.

These numbers are what I think is an average pilot on an average day with an average 0-300 in an average Skyhawk. I don't know if the numbers are average but I do know they are our numbers. #252455 - 06/28/15 01:59 PM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance? Safety Pilot Registered: 03/18/15 Posts: 42 Loc: Novi, MI, USA. Pilot 110 + 3hawks: Interesting, the climb performance seems to be on the same level which we are seeing. 3hawks: Your static rpm actually suggests that your prop might be pitched lower than standard, unless this is a typo.

The ground roll appears even longer than ours, but then again you did not measure at which distance you were at 60 mph, the plane might have been on the ground quite a bit longer than necessary. #252498 - 06/29/15 03:04 AM Re: Cessna 172 with O-300 - real world take off performance? Bronze Pilot Registered: 08/22/14 Posts: 694 Loc: blue marble citizen.

With another family member having just started his PPL we've decided that we want to purchase a family airplane. I was hoping someone here would be kind enough to give us some direction as to what aircraft, what to look out for when buying, and general hidden costs and other factors. Our requirements:. Holds up to 4 people nicely. Something faster than your standard C172/PA-28. Not too expensive to insure. Price around €100,000, give or take.

Instrument certified. Also, what sort of cost and work can you expect if you want to import an aircraft from the other side of the pond? And possibly keeping it on the N-reg.

All our previous experience have been on Archer III's. Some general tips would be much appreciated!:). Hi Bumps, Thought this would have had some responses by now, but here goes. I've not been private owner myself, but have been in a syndicate (and involved in the running) and helped source/manage a few aircraft for people I've taught to fly. By saying you want instrument certification, you are putting yourself into a CofA, EASA regulated (probably), factory-built aircraft.

Are you sure you need this? What types of flights do you think you will be doing and where? Do you have, or are you planning to get an IR or IMCr?

If you can stay VFR, then that opens the door to LAA permit types, which are much cheaper to run. But if you want 4 decent sized adults and fuel, with IMC capability then they're not for you.

How about one of the fixed-gear PA-32s, they have a degree of commonality with the Archers you're used to. Fixed U/C rather than retractable to keep insurance and maintenance costs under control. Being a six-seater, you can actually put 4 people in it, with reasonable fuel and some baggage. Cessna 182s are quite nice, bigger, faster and more payload than a 172, personally I like the Commander 114B or 115. There's also TB20s, but there's a better person than me to tell you about those, and the lowdown on ownership. The N-reg situation is looking like it's going to become tricky once EASA take over, have a search for previous threads on that particular subject. If you get something on a G-reg, be very careful where you get the maintenance done, since EASA part M came in, it's got stupidly and pointlessly expensive and unscrupulous CAMOs/MOs can have you over a bit of a barrel if you're not careful.

I'm sure they're not all just hiding behind the reg's and ripping customers off, but some are:. Mrmum covered much of it. Mooney if you want speed. Can be a bit cramped with four perhaps. A C210, or even a P210 is not out of your price range.

Nice, fast long leg cruiser. Any of the bigger Pipers. A first generation Cirrus maybe. Definitely a Beechcraft Bonanza - you don't get much more of a competent single than that. Huge range with the tip tanks, huge load capacity and very fast. I would suggest going for a 6-place, that way you can load up with 4 and still have enough fuel to go more than around the field. But with the avgas prices as they are in Europe, if you want to finance a plane I think the small Tecnam P2006T twin is a great buy that makes a lot of sense financially as it can run on mogas (with ethanol!).

I did the calculations, and if you chuck in that amount you mentioned as a down and got a 5% loan on the rest, that airplane will be cheaper to run than a paid off avgas burning spam can at about 100-150hrs a year. I kid you not. Avgas, overhaul and maintenance combined on old airframes will eat you alive. The afore mentioned types are good choices, though I'm weary of the 1960's and 70's Pipers these days.

I have first hand experience with parts shortages, and resulting permanently grounded aircraft. A Piper tech rep in Florida said the following to me, in respect of a Seneca I: 'Sir, that's a 40 year old plane, and we Piper have not seen it for 40 years. We really don't want it in the air any more.' If that reflects Piper policy with respect to their legacy aircraft, I would not consider buying one.

Too much risk you might need a part, and not be able to get it. I have just declared a 1967 Arrow with really minor corrosion to be beyond economical repair, due to the large effort to change out, and poor availability of, major structural parts.

You really can't go far wrong with a C 182, if it fits your budget. Don't overlook the fixed gear 180HP C 177 Cardinal, or the Grumman Tiger. Both will carry 4 adults, have a respectable cruise speed, and are reasonable to maintain. Thanks for the suggestions any replies guys:D mrmum We're absolutely sure we want an Instrument certified plane. With me (the son) intending to go professional and my father is also likely to want an Instrument rating in the future.

We'll have a look in to PA-32's but Pilot DAR:s post scares me a bit. Although I quoted 4 passengers usual load will be 2 or 3. I probably should have mentioned this in the first post, but we would prefer a low wing although we have not totally ruled out the C182 yet. And we'll have a look in to the Commanders. TB20 looks interesting though, will try to do some more research on it. Adam Again, should have mentioned this in the first post, but we'd prefer a low wing.

Will have a look into your options though. I personally briefly considered a Cirrus but thought they would simply be too expensive without looking any further in to it.

Will do now though. As for a twin I think it's a bit out of our skill level at the moment. Not to mention neither one of us currently have a ME rating.

Pilot DAR Thanks for the information regarding the Pipers, will definitively keep that in mind. Another question, does having a retractable U/C add to the insurance much? One thing that has not yet been looked at is the Robin DR400, the DR400-180 will lift the same payload as a PA-28-180 but will do it 10-15 kt faster and from a runway 2/3 as long. The DR400-500 has a 200hp engine and is a little wider so may be more what you are looking for. I do have a Cirrus and a DR400-180 in the sheds under maintenance at the moment both these aircraft will be avalble for sale in the new year, I think the Cirrus will be just within your budget and the DR400 would fit well within the budget but as always you will have to come to some arrangement with the owners on the final price.

Another vote for the Robin DR400. If you go for the 180hp it will lift 4 + bags + full fuel and you do not have the complexity of vp prop or retracts. It is also a very good instrument platform once you have got used to the ergonomics, which are different from Mr P & C.

Constant-speed propeller and rectractable gear isn't complex at all - unless all your planned flying is bashing circuits. The only difference between fixed and VP prop is that you have to pull back three levers if cruising at lower altitude and you have to push forward three levers instead of two for the go-around - and that's pretty much it.

As far as gear goes, I prefer Piper's straight forward system, which works (for extension-only of cours) even without the hydraulic fluid, while Cessna's.:yuk: I fail to see how on one side Robin DR400 doesn't like to be outside (due to beign fabric covered and has a wooden construction) and on the other hand, some of you suggest it's a good instrument platform? Sure, for IFR in VMC, but I wouldn't fly one through a rain shower or in heavy turbulence.

Not to mention the French excellent ideas about steering, braking & stuff. Personally, I'd look into SR20 or perhaps even DA40D. The latter won't do four-up with full fuel, but the fuel will be very cheap (compared to Avgas) and you can get it more or less anywhere (Avtur). FlyingStone The person asking the question said “With another family member having just started his PPL” So VP props and retracts will add complexity – not too many trainers with these. Also adds complicity and cost at maintenance and the insurance for a low hour PPL is likely to be more. The DR400 is also capable of keeping up with any similar aircraft with retracts on the same power.

With regards to the instrument capability – I owned one for 4 years and did about 250 hours in it of which around 60 were in cloud My current machine has an electric / computer controlled CS prop which is easy to use but complex to fully understand. 2-3 people on board and you want something that is economical to run and has a decent speed, Mooneys should absolutely be taken into the equation. With your budget, you have a lot of choices for very well equipped Mooneys of the 'modern' variety, that is 201 or later. They all will carry 4 over short to medium and 2-3 over fairly long ranges at 160 kts @ 8-9 GPH starting with the 200 hp 'J' model or the turbo charged 'K' and their later brothers up the scale. The Mooney Ovation being probably the best range single airplane in current production (if Mooney were to restart production at all that is). However, as a stable IR plattform with a decent performance (160 - 180 kts for the J-s and K's, the 'K' going higher if you are prepared to fly high level) and with an absolutely manageable budget. I'm seeing a whole range of Mooneys for sale right now in Europe in your price range, practically all IFR and some with excellent hours and equipment.

Anyone with PA28 experience will be able to take the Mooney places after a good training. N-Reg needs investigation on your part, if you want to risk it.

First of all, you will need both current EASA and FAA licenses and IR's if you want to fly an N-reg in the future in Europe. I set out myself a few years back and brought home a 1965 M20C, which has been exceptionally economical to run, doing 140-150 kts @ 7-9 GPH.

I can however fully support if you say you want an IFR certified plane from the outset. Upgrading is V E R Y expensive and often enough not economically reasonable, especcially under EASA, where everything has to be certified and re-certified which means £££££££££ to the tell me not.

A simple Autopilot upgrade with, say, an Aspen will set you likely back more than the original price of the aircraft!! Rather buy a bit more expensive and IFR certified plus above your 'minimum' requirement to get something which lasts you longer and costs you less. Any questions, feel free to pm. Best regards AN2 driver. Quote:- fail to see how on one side Robin DR400 doesn't like to be outside (due to beign fabric covered and has a wooden construction) and on the other hand, some of you suggest it's a good instrument platform? Sure, for IFR in VMC, but I wouldn't fly one through a rain shower or in heavy turbulence. Not to mention the French excellent ideas about steering, braking & stuff.

Having been a Robin DR400 owner for about twenty years I should have to tell Flyingstone that he seems to be somewhat wide of the mark as far as robins go, the aircraft is quite happy flying in any weather that you would fly any of the other types that thve been quoted above. As for flying in heavy tubulance, I would not recomend it in any light aircraft but I got into some very heavy turbulance in my DR400 just North of Kalamata, I had to as ATC to clear a leval 1000ft above and below because the turbulance was so violent. After landing an inspection of the airframe found no damage. The aircraft is a first class IF platform, I used it one year to commute to Lille for work and I am quite happy to fly it down to 200ft on an ILS but more important is that the aircraft will maintain a stedy RoD on a NP approach so that you can avoid the less safe dive & drive method of vertical profile managment. Saying woodern aircraft dont like being outside is not altogether true but they do like to BE STORED in a dry well ventelated hangar, it is being kept in a damp enviroment that is harmfull to woodern structures but that will result in trouble with metal aircraft as well.

As for the quoted 'French ideas about steeing,braking & stuff' I have no idea what flying stone is talking about as all the aircraft made after about 1980 have toe brakes and the steering is via the rudder pedals just like a Piper or Cessna. I cant help thinking that someone in the flying club bar is having a good laugh at flyingstones expence as it is quite clear that he cant have had much to do with any Robin built after about 1980!

As for the quoted 'French idear about steeing,braking & stuff' I have no idea what flying stone is talking about as all the aircraft made after about 1980 have toe brakes and the steering is via the rudder pedals just like a Piper or Cessna. I too have no idea what flyingstone is about. Steering in a DR400 is via the rudder pedals just like Piper and Cessna. It may feel a little more spongy but as taxi time is only a very minor part of flying, who cares? Aircraft are ungainly on the ground, deal with it. (And since the wings of a DR400 are a lot shorter than a C172 or PA28, you can get into tighter spaces anyway.) As far as braking is concerned, the only difference is that in a C172 or PA28 you engage the parking brake by pulling out a handle.

It's this pulling action, which you perform with your hands, which pressurizes the hydraulic brake system, after which you lock the handle. In a DR400, you apply pressure with the toe brakes, and then lock in this pressure by pulling out the parking brake knob. There is something to say for both systems (legs are stronger than arms, so using your legs to apply the pressure makes more sense) but the main disadvantage of the DR400 way is that people who do not understand the system sometimes pull out the parking brake knob without putting pressure on the toe brakes. Thus locking in zero pressure, which obviously doesn't do anything. But I can hardly think that's a good reason to slag off the DR400.

It's just one of the odds and ends that you learn about in a good checkout, or by reading the POH. Hi there, BUMPS - welcome to Pprune! If you want to seat 4 adults, bags and sufficient fuel to go somewhere at 140kts + with IFR capability, say 3 hours away with IFR reserves, the chances are that you actually need a 5 or six seater. Four adults at 800lbs, 100lbs luggage, 3hrs plus 1hrs reserve at 60lph (a typical larger lycoming/continental burn) is 240 litres or 360lbs, so a total load of 1,260lbs.

The principal contenders are PA32, PA24, Cessna 182, 206 or 210, Socata, TB20 or Cirrus SR22. You could all squeeze into an Archer or an Arrow or even a Dakota or Robin, and maybe burn a little less fuel (hence a slightly lighter load) but the fact is that if want to travel a reasonable distance at over 140kts in some comfort, the list is a pretty short one.

Having run an Archer, and Arrow and both a Cherokee Six and Saratoga, there are reasons as to why I now fly a Saratoga. FWIW, the retractable gear made no difference to my premiums - the principle drivers are hull value and seat numbers. Be warned that some insurers are looking quite unkindly at the Cirrus right now. I don't know why. If you want any 1st hand experience as to the ownership of any of these, drop me a PM.

So you're saying that you're landing with the prop somewhat coarse and the mixture somewhat leaned? Propeller would be on its fine pitch stop and the mixture should be leaned for taxi anyway (even more than you would have for descent). In case of go-around, you push all three levers forward.

Where's the problem? I have very little experience on DR400, to be honest. I've just said I wouldn't do IMC in a wooden aircraft - it's just a personal decision. The DR400 I flew wasn't equipped with toe brakes, so I made an assumption none are - my mistake.

Robin also has problems with aft CG (within limits): if you put the nosewheel on the ground too softly on landing, it won't 'lock' and you're unable to steer until you apply the brakes quite heavily, which produces enough weight on the nosewheel and the steering is then enabled. The most popular full four seater is the Cessna 182 Skylane and for around €100k it should be possible to purchase one of the later non glass 182S models with a fuel injected engine.

These offer decent payload, comfortable cabin, reasonable cruising speed and range, good short field performance off grass and most importantly good spares support. Others have mentioned buying a Mooney, Robin, Rockwell, Grumman or Piper but all of these aircraft manufacturers have had well documented problems with parts supply, possibly no longer in business and many of the aircraft are only supported through the efforts of owner groups. Many of the models mentioned have an odd combination of engines and propellers that are often unique to that aircraft.

One touch on a prop blade and you could find that spare blades are no longer available. Need a camshaft or a non standard cylinder for an odd ball engine then you could find that once again they are hard to locate even in the USA.

Some of the aircraft such as the Mooney have limited prop or gear door clearance, the Cirrus have small wheels and thus restrict the grass fields from which you can operate. With a typical full load check the take off performance on a hot summers day off a grass field and also the C of G with a typical load not just for take off but for the landings as well as many can prove to be out of limits at the end of a flight as the C of G moves aft with fuel burn. Pilots and passengers gradually weigh more and carry more goodies all of which need to be taken into account when judging the size of cabin, baggage area and number of cabin doors. There is a wealth of information available on the web and you can download Consumer reports on individual aircraft or as a group of aircraft.

Hopes this helps. I understand that, at present, the useful load of a 2006 is 790lbs, with no fuel. There may well be an increase in MAUW in the pipeline, which would make this a good deal more interesting, but at the moment 700nm+4 adults+luggage+fuel will not fit into a 2006. True, but neither will they in a 182.

In fact, almost no 4-place aircraft can fit 4 people and any fuel, that's why a 6-place makes more sense if you regularly have to fly 4 people. If it's just once in a blue moon, then I don't think it's worth it. What's great about the 2006T is that it runs on Rotax and Mogas. I know there's still a lot of resistence towards Rotax, but hey, it's happy on ethanol-filled Mogas, has a 2000hr TBO, cost half the price to overhaul and is crazy frugal on fuel - that's good enough for me. Stick one of these in the back of your car and fill up at the gas station: Fuel Transfer Tanks & Aluminum Steel Combo Tanks, Diesel Fuel Tank 4Truck-Accessories (Who wants to be loved by an oil company? Thansk for all the replies!:D I'll be looking in to many of your suggestions as soon as I find the time.

Here are my thoughts at the moment. P2006T - None of us are multi-engine certified at the moment, I can get my done fairly quick, but the other pilot is just getting his PPL and a twin might be a bit advanced to start with. Also, I think it's a bit out of our price range. DR400 - Haven't looked much in to it yet, but it sounds like a good options from many of you here. Cirrus - I would love to own a cirrus and will look in to that as well. Only problem is I've heard a lot of negativity about their doors. DA-40 - One of you suggested the DA-40 might be an option.

A guy at the local flying club also suggested it. Any more thoughts? C182 - I'll look in to it as well. Problem is, I don't like high-wing aircraft.

Maybe I'll get used to it. TB20 - Haven't had a chance to do much reading on it, but I found a massive owner write-up of it online and will read through that when I have the time.

Flyingstone you really have been fed some rubbish. Quote:- The Robin has problems with C of G (aft limits) Another bit of flying club folk lore, the Robin has no aft C og G issues apart from the fact that if you place all of the very good payload at the back it will go out of limits.just like all the other light aircraft I have flown. At MTOW with full fuel if you have a long range tank under the baggage bay you can drive the aircraft out of the aft limit (just) if you mismanage the fuel but you have four and a half hours flying to manage to do that. The problems that you encountered with the nose gear centering not disengaging were due to the incorrect servicing of the landing gear shock struts, the early maintenance manuals were a poor translation into English so there was some excuse but the later editions are crystal clear so all problems in this area should have gone away about ten years ago. The thing that I just cant get my head around is why you wont fly a wooden aircraft IMC? Even the early jets such as the Vampire were made of wood and they traveled at speeds & altitudes far above what a light aircaft can do so what is the problem with wood? DA40: Nice flying aeroplane.

Very comfy cabin, and can be spec'd to VFR, traditional IFR or glass cockpit. I have experience with the 1.7 Thielert which has caused us, and a lot of others, a lot of grief. The 2.0 engine is a lot better, apparently, but is downrated to 135 HP (same as the 1.7) to save rewriting/recertifying the POH. Later models use the 155 HP 2.0s engine or the Austro. I would get one of those, since 135 HP is really underpowered. It cruises just fine thanks to the slick airframe, but short field and climb performance leaves a lot to be desired. Long wings and a castoring nosewheel makes it a handful to handle on the ground though.

Some people get used to that quickly and maneuver the DA40 in the tightest spaces, others struggle. Jet-A means that fuel costs are more than halved compared to 100LL, but you will have other costs. The replacement of the gearbox damper in the Thielert is one of them (although I think Austro uses a different system which lasts longer).

Oh, and it's again a four seater so it really doesn't seat four adults with a reasonable amount of baggage and fuel. Been flying a 2007 DA40-180 XLS for just over 3 years (300 hours), G1000, IFR equipped. Lovely to fly; comfortable, well-powered with the 180hp engine, good range, great vis., (great safety record for the DA40) Some figures (actually recorded from the G1000 on a datacard): - two-up, half tanks: 140KTAS @ 3,000ft, 8.0 gph - MTOW, 133KTAS @ 10,000ft, 8.3 gph No problems with the Lycoming engine and lots of maintenance organisations are familiar with it, of course. Can take 4 people + light baggage if at least two people are light and tanks not full (flew to Berlin, 4-up + light bags, with one fuel stop on the way). If you get one definitely get the GFC700 autopilot - if you are doing real IFR this makes such a difference flying approaches.

Downside is the long wings - do need to watch taxying and makes hangarage expensive. Other thing: a DA40-180 with G1000 + GFC700 will be well over £100k. I'd look seriously at a Bonanza A36 for what you describe. Nothing beats them for interior comfort, space and all round ability. You could be looking at an early 90's model with a bit of hard bargaining. A real 4 person IFR tourer with the ability to lift 6 if needed, or loads of baggage space if not.

First class build quality. Looks timeless, will age gracefully and there are loads of enthusiastic owners about who'll be on hand with helpful advice. The American Bonanza Society is a particularly good starting point. Above all else it's a buyers market. Take your time and enjoy the search!

The Beech is probably the best built aircraft in its class but the running costs are large, if you are running a Beech as a business tool doing 200 hours + per year then I think that you could make a case for it because the quality construction would start to give a return in reliability. The Rockwell commander is a bit sub beech, but the construction is not as good, the 112 is underpowered but the 114 has got things very well balanced and like the Beech is very nice to fly. The big problem is keeping the six cylindr engine fed with £2/Ltr AVGAS. You could not slide a cigarette paper between the R114 and TB20 in terms of performance and running costs, but in a very personal opinion I think the R114 is nicer to fly.just! It is a case of paying your money and taking your choice but in terms of cost I would prefer to give away a little in terms of speed and save some money by going for the top end of the Robin market, they may give a little away in terms of speed but the cost savings of an aircraft that will operate out of farm strips that the others will not look at gives the advantage of cheap hangarage and the chance of getting into a small strip near the intended destination, a fact that may well negate the higher speed of other aircraft.

There is a lot of misinformed prejudice against Robin aircraft, Flyingstone is a typical example of the people who have been fed a lot of half truth and misunderstanding and repeat it as truth, all I would say is go fly the Robin with someone who has done a few long trips in one and I think you might find it is the aircraft for your mission. The last thing I would say is if you put two engines on a Bonanza it is called a Barron and this truly puts it in a class of its own. True, but neither will they in a 182. In fact, almost no 4-place aircraft can fit 4 people and any fuel, that's why a 6-place makes more sense if you regularly have to fly 4 people.

If it's just once in a blue moon, then I don't think it's worth it. Bumps The last C 182 I flew (3100 GTOW) could carry 810 lbs in the cabin and full fuel (7 hours). I tell everyone who asks your question to get a 1970 or later C 182. It is comfortable, usefully fast, one of the nicest aircraft to fly on instrument, has good spares support because so many were made, easy to insure (insurance for a high performance retract like a Bonanza, may not be available at any price) and easy to resell if you want to move up. Have a friend who has a share in a Comanche and loves it.

Worth looking into if you want a low wing, as with 260HP they're pretty fast and will carry as much weight as a C182, and are probably cheaper than a Bonanza. See Piper PA-24 Comanche pilot report (No way a Pa 24 will out haul a C 182 and the aircraft went out of production in 1972 when the aftermath of a hurricane flooded the factory and destroyed all the production tooling required to manufacture the major airframe components. This makes parts support a major issue. As for the pilot report.well I would treat any report on an aircraft provided by the guy selling it with healthy skepticism. I could be wrong but I'm not sure that the P2006T is actually certified for flying in IMC.

When owning an aircraft I honestly believe that simplicity is important, the less fancy stuff you have, the less you have that can go wrong (expensively) so you should be less likely to have fewer nasty £££ surprises. So consider very carefully the benefits of each of the fancy bits and how much you're likely to miss them if the plane you own doesn't have it. Taking all things into account, I'd always opt for the 182, it lifts a heck of a lot of weight, it goes around the place at around 130kts which is plenty quick enough in the UK (Inverness to Oxfordshire in under 3 hours), it's easy to fly and it will fly in and out of pretty much any strip you care to put your wheels on. I'm not convinced most of the others are anywhere near as capable, but again as with everything I could be wrong:). You'll definitely get one within your budget with a good interior and good avionics and it's still fairly easy to fly for a low hours PPL. I hear what you're saying about high wing but you should try very hard to look beyond that. It does everything you could want to do with a private aircraft very well indeed you will rarely find yourself being in a situation where you can't go to a certain place.

Bonanza, lovely, capable, fast, thirsty. TB20, very comfortable, very fast, holds a lot, goes a distance, however parts for Socata aircraft can be quite hard to get and very expensive so if you plump for one of these guys, buy newer:) It does eat runway from what I understand (relative to the 182). Retractable gears are great but they are just another thing to go wrong when the annual comes around.

Commanches are lovely, but isn't it just a powerful archer? Little bit cramped for longer flights. Same with mooneys, it's a 2+ imo rather than a comfy 4 seat but wow do they shift. Watch for the turbo charger as well, they can shock cool if you're not sensible with them. Cherokee Six (6xt) is a nice plane, bigger than Commanches and archers I'm not sure I love the Oleo main gear, they have a habit of sucking dirt in to the seal and losing pressure which can be a pest to have fixed as you need to go somewhere with pressurised Nitrogen to have it pumped up again. Saratoga, same as cherokee 6 with a little more comfort and a disappearing gear, very nice but I wonder if a Cessna 210 wouldn't be more practical given it's capability. Most improtantly, try a few you're interested in, pay for the flight.

Owning is much more expensive than you think so you need to make sure it's the right decision and the only way to do that is to decide for your self, opinions being like arrsouls an all:). TB20, very comfortable, very fast, holds a lot, goes a distance, however parts for Socata aircraft can be quite hard to get and very expensive Parts are easy to get in virtually all cases. Some of the prices have been creeping up lately; that's true.

But all airframe parts are very expensive. I recently had the vertical stabiliser replaced (hangar damage) and it was 4k euros, which suprised me as I was expecting something like 5k-10k. Some Socata prices are very high e.g. The metric-thread oil hose at some £400, but you change it at overhaul only (if it is Teflon which it should be anyway).

So it varies. The parts kit for the Annual comes to 360 euros (I have just bought the stuff) and that includes the nose gear gas struts which are a precautionary replacement every year. A while ago I wrote up this (on the TB20.

Rather long but should help somebody looking at one. So if you plump for one of these guys, buy newer That is excellent advice for all planes:) Make sure your budget has a decent reserve in it for 'suprises' but otherwise buy the best you can afford. You will get it back in reduced hassle, reduced downtime, much reduced airframe parts cost, etc. It does eat runway from what I understand (relative to the 182). Compared to a 182, of course.

Very little (that is practical for going places) will beat a 182 on short field performance. A friend of mine has a special 182 with canards (N-reg, obviously) which gets airborne in something like 100m. A TB20 has very good runway performance (for its class, at about 400-500m tarmac minimum. It does a lot more MPG than a C182. Say 140kt TAS at FL100 on 9.5USG/hr. Retractable gears are great but they are just another thing to go wrong when the annual comes around.Relatively that must be true.

If you have a 2nd altimeter, you could say the same for that:) But retractable gear gives you 20% more MPG (yeah, I know Cirrus salesmen will dispute that but they would say that (The Socata implementation must be one of the most robust and reliable systems in GA. That said, I prefer hard runways, because grass just covers the whole plane with crud, and the crud doesn't care if it has retractable gear or not:). But again as with everything I could be wrong Respectfully, I think you are Dan. The 182 is a great machine, and it could be ideal for the original poster. But it's no streamlined fuel efficient rocket. I certainly dispute that it's more frugal than a Bonanza. I think they're burn is similiar, and take into account the 35-40 kts difference in TAS then the mpg will look better on the Bonnie.

I also personally feel for an IFR tourer 130kts is too slow. I agree with Peter. Buy the absolute best you can get and you'll reap the rewards in time. Also don't be scared by retractable gear/wobbly props etc etc.

It's progress and that's a good thing! I do not understand people who advocate it for long distance touring.

Fly a retractable machine with the gear up and down and see the difference it makes. Then imagine flying 500nm with it down. This is one of the many downsides of the Cirrus in my opinion. The others being a complete lack of feel/flying experience, lack of stalling performance and the £10k bill every 10 years to repack the 'chute they had to put in to overcome the latter.

Dan is correct, fly as many as you can, read the POH and ask questions here, either by PM or live. Speak to your intended maintenance people about issues and listen to them. I heard a funny story a few weeks back at our local 145 about a chap asking advice on 172's. The head honcho engineer told him what to avoid. Lo and behold the guy ignored him, had a cheap one ferried over and was subsequently faced with a massive bill for an engine and corrosion rectification.

I'll bang my Bonanza drum on my way out! Everyone compares aircraft in this class to a Bonnie. Cut out the comparisons and buy the best!!

It is twice the airplane an ancient commanche is, with better support and more importantly they are still in production. Those barn dors are lovely too! And I don't own one sadly so have no vested interest.

Yes, I know its due to the Euro bureaucracyIt's actually due primarily to you being a very competent engineer. If you were in Europe and operated an aircraft which is not on an ICAO cert of airworthiness, and you don't attach any value to your time, you could do the same as you are doing now. If you were in Europe and operated an N-reg aircraft and were an A&P/IA, and you don't attach any value to your time, you could do the same too. The 'problem' is that not everybody likes to get their hands dirty, and most could not do the work competently even if they wanted to. Those need to buy carefully, and buying something say 10 years or less old avoids the inevitable airframe maintenance stuff on which chickens come home to roost sooner or later. Airframe parts are especially expensive, on the scale of things. I keep having to say Bonanaza over and over in my head, it sounds like a lovely word:) Bonanaza:D Didn't mean to say it was better, the 182 just seemed to suit the needs of the OP:).

Beechcraft Bonanza F33a Poh Pdf Printer Problems

130kts is slow, but for someone with relatively low hours it's positively bullet quick, they also sell quite well which is another thing to consider, resale of any aircraft is worth keeping in mind:) imo 500m Tarmac is quite a lot of runway, that would equate to 700m grass and that, at least for me, would be quite limiting:). So the best option seems to be to get as new of an aircraft as possible. This leaves us with three options, Cirrus, DA-40, or 182 about 10 years old. The cirrus seems to be a very nice airplane in terms of touring and IFR capability, although someone mentioned the running costs might be a bit high. At the moment, the 182 seems to be the best option being a very common machine and with a proven record. We'll have to look in to the DA-40 a bit more but we're certainly interested. Thanks for all the replies and opinions, if you have any further suggestions or can provide some details in terms of running costs for the above airplanes I'd appreciate it.

I'm not following the state of the CEAPR (or whatever it's called) Robin factory all that closely, as they seem to be going through an endless bust/alive cycle, but my club bought two DR400-135CDIs (with the 1.7 Thielert) new from the factory about three years ago. My guess is that it should not be too hard to buy a DR400-155CDI (with the 2.0s Thielert) new today (or a -160 or -180 for that matter). In your list, I think it's definitely an airplane you should consider as well. Although, in line with the DA40, it has four seats but it's not a true four-seater which will haul four adults plus baggage plus fuel.

To haul four adults, plus baggage plus fuel will nearly always require a six-seater. Finally got round to uploading GA comparison sheet to Google docs. I've no idea where this sheet came from, I just came across it on my PC one day and have made some additions to it myself - so don't shoot the messenger! I expect that anyone who's owned or flown anything on this list will come along and say, I've flown further, higher, faster doing more MPG than on the list but it at least gives a comparison. What is interesting is that the MPG for most GA types is very similar, including Mooney lovers who always rave on about how they go higher, faster, more economically than anyone else! I've gone through the same process as the OP and narrowed the choice down to an A36 (with tip tanks - although I don't have any data on it to add on the enclosed sheet) and an G2-SR22. Big advantages of the SR22 are CAPS, glass incl, GPWS, TCAS, weather but obviously not the same useful load as the A36 and more likely to depreciate faster.

Having said that, the Cirrus avionics suite is pretty much standard whereas to get an A36 with tip tanks, boots, equivalent avionics, its going to be a long search and will end up with something 10 yrs+ older. What is interesting is that the MPG for most GA types is very similar, including Mooney lovers who always rave on about how they go higher, faster, more economically than anyone else!To a first order approximation, the MPG of a plane depends on the cockpit volume. So you take your pick. If you want to take up classy birds, it will cost more. But hey how old are you?

You must know that already:):) The old Lycos are actually more efficient (SFC) than any current petrol car engine - in cruise, correctly leaned. And since thrust (maybe I should not have mentioned the birds) comes only from burning fuel. There is no free lunch. Obviously a modern airframe design helps a bit, but they are rare because 3D curves are hard to fabricate out of sheet metal without spending lots of money on press tooling.

In piston GA, almost nobody does press tooling so it is composites only. The SR22 is a slicker airframe but they waste a lot in the fixed gear. For an idea of how much they waste, look at the retractable Lancairs. I've gone through the same process as the OP and narrowed the choice down to an A36 (with tip tanks - although I don't have any data on it to add on the enclosed sheet) and an G2-SR22. Big advantages of the SR22 are CAPS, glass incl, GPWS, TCAS, weather but obviously not the same useful load as the A36 and more likely to depreciate faster. Cirruses depreciate pretty rapidly.

And, going by what I hear, I would avoid the Avidyne-cockpit ones. GPWS is great to have and could seriously save your life one day. Very few GA CFITs we know about would have happened with even a Garmin 496. TCAS is more of an emotional protection, IMHO.

TB20s go from £40k (for an old dog) upwards to £140k+ (2002 TB20GT). Currently there are very few GTs on the market, but they do appear fairly regularly, and there are usually some in the USA (and worth paying the ferry cost).

But many pilots do not want to admit publicly they are selling up, so posting a message in the socata.org user group should produce some offers. Commanches are lovely, but isn't it just a powerful archer?

Little bit cramped for longer flights. Same with mooneys, it's a 2+ imo rather than a comfy 4 seat but wow do they shift. Watch for the turbo charger as well, they can shock cool if you're not sensible with them.

Simply not true. The Comanche is a widebody compared to an Archer, and ours is a 'longbody' too with six seats. Granted the rear seats have limited legroom and double as luggage compartment, but there is ample room in the cockpit for 4 adults plus luggage. The last Comanche was built in 1972. But there is an active user society with supporting technical expertise, and its own sources for parts insofar as Piper does not stock them. Availability of parts was never a problem for us.

Well-maintained Comanches keep their value in an active secondhand market. The Comanche is not a 'powerful Archer'.

It is a completely different breed of aircraftof which production was discontinued after the flood of '72 simply because the chunkier Cherokees and Arrows (and later the Warrior) were a lot cheaper to build and had a bigger market. Advantages of the Comanche: - great flying characteristics. huge envelope giving many loading and range options. spacious cabin with enough width to have an aisle!

- very long range. Without tip tanks, still better range than most.

fast cruise. very economical to fly (e.g., 165ktTAS /FL100 /50% /38 litres) - very good IFR platform.

good short field takeoff and landing ability. active user society network. best 'cost-seat-passenger-mile' performance of all, including modern types. Disadvantages: - uh, I can't think of any. Or it must be that as with any type of good aerodynamic design, it may require some additional training. One aircraft I have not heard mentioned is the C177 Cardinal, which has a good range and hauling capacity and is relatively cheap to maintain. @, nice picture!

Can i put in a word for a modern in production aircraft. I flown most of the types mentioned, and been involved with more than a few groups and commercial schools from a business perspective. Aircraft out of production are often poorly supported. Sourcing parts eventually becomes more difficult and more costly. Aircraft generally seem to have a golden life of around 7 years - from new to 7 years old on the whole they are trouble free and the costs predictable.

All of this leads up to a vote for an sr22, albeit it may stretch your budget. The reality is they are a modern production aircraft well supported by both the factory and their uk dealer network.

It is strange the extent to which the sr22 is plagued with ill informed press almost always from people who have never ever flown a 22. Bottom line is they are a capable tourer with a roomy comfortable cabin. They really are not difficult to fly, the avionics works well with very few problems, the engine is tried and tested and they are a very known quantity in terms of their operating costs and depreciation curve.

I am not saying they are the best thing since sliced bread, but if they fit your budget, you want few maintenance problems, predictable depreciation, a quick and comfortable tourer i genuinely believe there is nothing better. After 20 years flying if i had to fly only one single for the rest of my time and didnt need to worry about the cost it would be a sr22. Always love the F33.

It has a somewhat shorter fuselage than the A36, but only four seats which makes for great leg room in the second row. Very comfy to sleep on those long cruise sectors. Helped a friend buy one in top maintained form last year for 80k€ in northern germany.

Only had pretty old avionics in there though so he installed around 15 to 20k of new glass stuff and got a state of the art IFR platform now. Yes, it eats quite a bit of fuel, but considering its build quality, speed and load capacity it is still quite good.

Pilot DER wrote: The afore mentioned types are good choices, though I'm weary of the 1960's and 70's Pipers these days. I have first hand experience with parts shortages, and resulting permanently grounded aircraft. A Piper tech rep in Florida said the following to me, in respect of a Seneca I: 'Sir, that's a 40 year old plane, and we Piper have not seen it for 40 years. We really don't want it in the air any more.' If that reflects Piper policy with respect to their legacy aircraft, I would not consider buying one. Too much risk you might need a part, and not be able to get it.

I have just declared a 1967 Arrow with really minor corrosion to be beyond economical repair, due to the large effort to change out, and poor availability of, major structural parts. From within Piper we were told that they will start to produce parts for their old legacyaircraft. We were told that they will make the tools and what ever it takes.

I guess that the economy caused a change of heart. I own a Comanche and think that this is one of the best aircraft out there. I own a Comanche for many years, never had a problem with parts, any parts. Indeed, some are hard to find but you will find them. Even more, there are many STC/PMA to support the aircraft and now Piper starts to re-produce. As for load, my gross is 3200lbs, empty 1911lbs, useful 1289lbs. Full fuel is 90gl.

Consumption is 12gl/h @ 140kts indicated at 2500'. We took off 4 people (not slim), full fuel and luggage for a smart weekend and still were within limits. Commanches are lovely, but isn't it just a powerful archer? Little bit cramped for longer flights Don’t believe anything you hear in the club, too many experts, not lots of knowledge. RV10 and IFR.NO PROBLEM. You have something wrong over there?:confused: Time to fix your CAA We have 550 hrs on this wonderful machine, it carries a good load, fast and LOP where we run it, trues around 160 knots on about 40-41 LPH. Equipped with dual power circuits, redundant EFIS system, GNS530W, integrated AP, ADSB, and integrated stormscope she is a perfect SE IFR platform.

If you can't do this where you live I really feel for you:sad.