Light Duty Commuting Aircraft (??)

[Waldom]

Your requirements almost clearly state a 160 or 180 H.P. four-seat fixed gear.

Choices are :

Cessna 172

Piper Warrior
Piper Cherokee 180
Piper Archer

Beech Sundowner

Since your load requirements 90% of the time are one or two, full fuel can be used on almost all your flights with these aircraft and the "muscle" of the more powerful (and very thirsty) 182 or 235/Dakota seems unnecessary.

You're better off putting money in safety systems on more modestly powered aircraft, such as back-up electric attitude indicators, GPS/Nexrad and traffic alert, then spending that on more expensive aircraft that will only save you a half-hour (or less) on most flights.

Maintenance will be quite a bit more expensive on the thirstier birds TOO.

Of all, I'd say the Archer is probably best for your mission.

You can't legally fill the seats, take baggage, and fuel for a 400nm trip in any of these airplanes.

I have operated the above aircraft and frankly don't consider them to have quite enough performance for regular IFR. This is especially true with the range requirement. This was all east of the Mississippi. If you operate in a "hot and high" environment, that really knocks the lighter airplanes out of the mission.

 

[highnpressurize]

How about a Mooney M20C? I know it's a retract but it's stupid simple. Johnson bar operation means no electrical and or hydraulic failures. The flaps are also manual, although they are operated by a hydraulic hand pump, again very low mx. Even has a cool wing step that's retractable by hand crank that's good for at least .5 knots. It flies behind an O360, IMHO, doesn't get much more simple or reliable than that. It's good for an honest 140+ kts at about 9 gal/hour.

Sorry about going outside of your requirements with the retracts, but it's got all the virtues of the fixed gear single, with the performance of a Mooney and a price that's hard to resist. Great for a 400 mile commute if you ask me. And you did!

 

[TrafficInSight]

You can't legally fill the seats, take baggage, and fuel for a 400nm trip in any of these airplanes.

I have operated the above aircraft and frankly don't consider them to have quite enough performance for regular IFR. This is especially true with the range requirement. This was all east of the Mississippi. If you operate in a "hot and high" environment, that really knocks the lighter airplanes out of the mission.

Not to mention, controllers will hate you... I did my instrument rating in a warrior and I got the hairy eyeball all the time.

 

[eaglefly]

Not to mention, controllers will hate you... I did my instrument rating in a warrior and I got the hairy eyeball all the time.

I operate Archers and Warriors IFR all the time east of the Mississippi and have gotten no "hairy eyeballs" and no hassles from controllers. They're not the fastest, but they are quite capable. I wouldn't take a 182 up in weather I'd cancel flying a Warrior for.

Yes, you cannot fill all the seats and all the fuel. Most aircraft cannot and he wanted "light duty" commuter transportation and not necessarily high-performance singles. Said he'd rarely need more than two seats, so full tanks would be available on most all flights.

These aircraft MAY be the types best suited for his mission, not necessarily $125,000 Skylanes or $200,000 Cirruses. A well-cared for engine and newer avionics (and wiring) would be better IFR than a few extra horses and 15 or 20 knots.

 

[JPAustin]

I agree with the simple retract with an O360 or bigger. Just be sure to do return on investment analysis for old versus new (depending upon when you want the break-even point to occur down the line). In fact, pick a couple "dream" aircraft that are new, and use those as your baseline to compare used aircraft to. Then you could get a good comparison between age versus price versus cost of ownership.

 

[Waldom]

Eaglefly, I think that the Warrior and the Archer are both good airplanes that are certainly more economical to operate than a Cessna 182.

I was responding to the original poster whose request specified "four hundred nm range", "big, carbureted engine" and "four-place needed for baggage and contingencies".

My personal concern when operating IFR in the PA-28-161 and-181 is the limitation of a 100/110 KTAS airplane with 5.3/4.8 endurance. As you know, headwinds limit your range considerably when an alternate is required. I know my figures are conservative, but very little headwind makes a 400 nm trip impossible when fuel burn to fly to an alternate and arrive there with .75 hours of fuel aboard are considered.

Headwinds surely effect the 182, but a given headwind has less of an effect on an airplane with a 20 KTAS advantage.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The -235/Dakota has a better engine than the -182.

My dad bought one used, and flew it about 3000-3500 hours all over the place IFR.

You CAN put O2 in it and fly it up high and get a low fuel burn and higher speed.

You can put full fuel, 2 people, and as much baggage as you can stuff in it. Holds 85? gallons, so it is good for a long flight.

One of his best flights performance-wise: He flew from S. MI to Panama City, FL, up high in strong winds. Low fuel burn, and 4 hours flight time.

cliff
YIP

 

[Waldom]

Have to agree with you, ATPCLIFF: the Lycoming O-540 chuffing out only 235 HP is darn near bullet-proof. As Continentals go, the O-470 in the 182 is the most reliable, but.... the same Lycoming you speak of nearly always lasts beyond T.B.O. on a Piper Pawnee doing ag work.

 

[JPAustin]

Take the money you would've spent on the plane and buy an Aston-Martin with a really good jammer and GPS capability with speed-trap memory tied in a network with same model jammers. Seriously though, I saw this anti-radar/laser/beam device that had the GPS in it that was linked in a subscription based system that marked every known speed trap in real time. It was $1500, but pretty sweet.

 

[eaglefly]

Have to agree with you, ATPCLIFF: the Lycoming O-540 chuffing out only 235 HP is darn near bullet-proof. As Continentals go, the O-470 in the 182 is the most reliable, but.... the same Lycoming you speak of nearly always lasts beyond T.B.O. on a Piper Pawnee doing ag work.

My understanding is the Dakota's engine has a dual magneto and these should be avoided. A lot of cardinal pilots dump their O-360A1B6D's for the non-D engines for the redundancy of seperate mags.

Other then that the Dakota's a good (but thirsty) workhorse.