Purchasing a S/E touring aircraft, type?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go the Cessna route be sure you're up to date on the SIDS programme as it could cost you quite a bit of dosh.
I'm guessing 'fully signed off SIDS compliant' will become a major selling point on any 100 series. (and even more likely for 200 series)
Here's a vid of 100 series SIDS
YouTube
Last edited by Clearedtoreenter; 27th Oct 2012 at 20:20.
Lets review:
Piper - no SIDS
Beechcraft - no SIDS
Mooney - no SIDS
Socata - no SIDS
Rockwell. Commander etc - no SIDS
Is it really about ageing aircraft & safety or about bolierplate butt covering? More likely it will hasten many aircraft models slide to oblivion. SIDS is only required for commercial operation, not private. What the Cessna SIDS programme is really doing is making many models too hard for commercial operations, thus reducing the available market size and value of the aircraft.
The Cessna SIDS programme is even a bit haphazard. C310's require it, its sister the C303 does not. Cessna have a SIDS programme for the C441 but the FAA has not endorsed it and its not mandatory in the US.
Most private aircraft (without training history) have less than 5,000 hours, which is about 1/4 or less of their design life. Some information from Cessna infers a 30,000 hour design life for C210.
For low time private aircraft, its still all about maintenance history, incident history, paint & interior condition and your own assessment of how well its been cared for.
Piper - no SIDS
Beechcraft - no SIDS
Mooney - no SIDS
Socata - no SIDS
Rockwell. Commander etc - no SIDS
Is it really about ageing aircraft & safety or about bolierplate butt covering? More likely it will hasten many aircraft models slide to oblivion. SIDS is only required for commercial operation, not private. What the Cessna SIDS programme is really doing is making many models too hard for commercial operations, thus reducing the available market size and value of the aircraft.
The Cessna SIDS programme is even a bit haphazard. C310's require it, its sister the C303 does not. Cessna have a SIDS programme for the C441 but the FAA has not endorsed it and its not mandatory in the US.
Most private aircraft (without training history) have less than 5,000 hours, which is about 1/4 or less of their design life. Some information from Cessna infers a 30,000 hour design life for C210.
For low time private aircraft, its still all about maintenance history, incident history, paint & interior condition and your own assessment of how well its been cared for.
The fact that the reviewed aircraft dont have a SIDS program does not mean that they are not quietly corroding away, and if it comes to that, the fact that the airframe TTIS is low also does not affect corrosion.
Hi DP,
I would go with the high wing type, 182 or whatever, as you then get to fly in the shade, which can be a reasonable consideration when flying around AUS.
Plus, the 182 type has a reasonable range, fuel capacity, load etc.
And, if it rains, you can stand under the wing, or camp under it in the sun....
We don't have any 'high strips' here, really, but we do have plenty of 'hot' ones, so the 182 type will get you off most strips comfortably.
And most Cessnas have a reasonable re-sale value.....for when you are finished with it.
Good Luck, and let us know on this site how you're travelling....you might even share a beer or two along the way....
Cheers
I would go with the high wing type, 182 or whatever, as you then get to fly in the shade, which can be a reasonable consideration when flying around AUS.
Plus, the 182 type has a reasonable range, fuel capacity, load etc.
And, if it rains, you can stand under the wing, or camp under it in the sun....
We don't have any 'high strips' here, really, but we do have plenty of 'hot' ones, so the 182 type will get you off most strips comfortably.
And most Cessnas have a reasonable re-sale value.....for when you are finished with it.
Good Luck, and let us know on this site how you're travelling....you might even share a beer or two along the way....
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 28th Oct 2012 at 03:30.
If you're after a genuine four seater, the 182RG is probably top of the pile. With a light load they'll run along at around 160ktas and with a load, 155ktas.
After serial number R18200583 they came with the bigger integral fuel tanks (88usg as opposed to the 75usg rubber bladders) and the Vno went from 147kias to 160kias, quite a handy increase.
In mid 1980 Cessna changed the latching mechanism on the cabin doors. These close a lot easier and seal up better than the older ones. Well worth the effort to get the later machine.
With all the seats full and bags in the back you can just about, but not quite fill the tanks. The R182 will carry a big load in a big cabin, reasonably fast over a long distance. I reckon it's the best four seat retractable out there.
Negatives? If it's the original O-540, a rude and crude induction system prone to icing under the right conditions (more so than some other aircraft out there). A relatively high fuel burn at around 54l/hr at max cruise. The aircraft also comes equipped with smaller main wheels and tyres than the stock standard 182. It's not a rough paddock aeroplane.
Another thing to consider is that when the engine is due, you have the option of installing a 260HP IO-540 under an STC from Alamo Aviation.
The only problem with all of this is that good, low time 182RG's are getting very, very hard to get hold of. Best of luck.
Someone mentioned a Mooney? They have their fan base, but they're a nasty, fly blown little aeroplane. No room, an ergonomically poor cockpit for the pilot, the ailerons feel like they're stuck in cement and when you stick one on in a strong crosswind, the bounce from wheel to wheel with little damping on those rubber donuts that they use for suspension/landing gear. And when you do go away, you'll have to leave your weekend fluzy standing on the apron with a bemused look on his/her face. They don't carry alot on full tanks.
Go the RG.
After serial number R18200583 they came with the bigger integral fuel tanks (88usg as opposed to the 75usg rubber bladders) and the Vno went from 147kias to 160kias, quite a handy increase.
In mid 1980 Cessna changed the latching mechanism on the cabin doors. These close a lot easier and seal up better than the older ones. Well worth the effort to get the later machine.
With all the seats full and bags in the back you can just about, but not quite fill the tanks. The R182 will carry a big load in a big cabin, reasonably fast over a long distance. I reckon it's the best four seat retractable out there.
Negatives? If it's the original O-540, a rude and crude induction system prone to icing under the right conditions (more so than some other aircraft out there). A relatively high fuel burn at around 54l/hr at max cruise. The aircraft also comes equipped with smaller main wheels and tyres than the stock standard 182. It's not a rough paddock aeroplane.
Another thing to consider is that when the engine is due, you have the option of installing a 260HP IO-540 under an STC from Alamo Aviation.
The only problem with all of this is that good, low time 182RG's are getting very, very hard to get hold of. Best of luck.
Someone mentioned a Mooney? They have their fan base, but they're a nasty, fly blown little aeroplane. No room, an ergonomically poor cockpit for the pilot, the ailerons feel like they're stuck in cement and when you stick one on in a strong crosswind, the bounce from wheel to wheel with little damping on those rubber donuts that they use for suspension/landing gear. And when you do go away, you'll have to leave your weekend fluzy standing on the apron with a bemused look on his/her face. They don't carry alot on full tanks.
Go the RG.
182 is good but if the money will stretch just a little further, 210 is the go.
Last edited by gassed budgie; 28th Oct 2012 at 07:37.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the reviewed aircraft dont have a SIDS program does not mean that they are not quietly corroding away, and if it comes to that, the fact that the airframe TTIS is low also does not affect corrosion.
Don't you talk like that about my '1942' Tiger Moth or my GENUINE 1950 'Chippy' - BOTH still working and BOTH in the 'Charter' Category.....
Shame on you 'Cleared'.... shame shame shame....
(G'Day Derryn..just in case...)
Cheers
Shame on you 'Cleared'.... shame shame shame....
(G'Day Derryn..just in case...)
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 29th Oct 2012 at 14:57.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
182 is good but if the money will stretch just a little further, 210 is the go.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grab a Lancair for 130K and spend the other 20K on airline tickets for group travel. Seriously...enjoyed Bo's, 210's and Lance/Saratoga/306. Space, access and loading are great in the Piper. 306 feels sloppy with the square wing. 210's can dance off wet and rough strips, but get cramped after 3 hours. Bonanzas are solid and the seats are comfortable from full to almost empty tanks. If I regularly flew with 4 people, on hefty cruises, I'd opt for the Bonanza. If I lived on a farm and had to transport a load of kids around with the occasional bit of farm machinery, then I'd go with a Lance or Saratoga. Avoid the T tail Lance if you fly off grass strips. Its short field TO performance sucks.
Last edited by Lodown; 31st Oct 2012 at 03:22.
Thread Starter
What about a YAK-18T? There are a few on the market at the moment and they fit what Im looking for. A quick look at the CASA register reveals that all the YAK-18Ts are in the "EXPERIMENTAL" category, can anyone tell me why and what operational conditions are imposed on them as a result? Assume they can't be used for commercial ops, however as a private touring aircraft are there any limitations apart from the depth of my pockets??????
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go the Cessna route be sure you're up to date on the SIDS programme as it could cost you quite a bit of dosh.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 27/09
Another single well worth a look at is the PA24-250/260.
So far as room goes it would fit between the Lance and Bonanza. For all round performance, speed/range/payload/fuel burn I think they are pretty hard to beat. The range is quite prodigous with tip tanks installed.
I would say the PA24 is a bit faster than the Lance and bit slower than the Bonanza, however on a long trip the PA24 will do it in one hop whereas very often the Bonanza will need a drink. From memory I think you can expect around 160 TAS at around 6000'.
Sure they're a bit older than the Lance but there's still good support from more than one source, plus they also use the old faithful 540. The systems are simple and easy to maintain.
The 260C is a very sharp looking aircraft even for its age. If you really want a dragster get a 400, they go fast, but with the Black Knob pulled well back they give fuel burns the same as for the 250/260 versions.
However if you like the idea of a rear door then the Lance is an excellent aircraft.
So far as room goes it would fit between the Lance and Bonanza. For all round performance, speed/range/payload/fuel burn I think they are pretty hard to beat. The range is quite prodigous with tip tanks installed.
I would say the PA24 is a bit faster than the Lance and bit slower than the Bonanza, however on a long trip the PA24 will do it in one hop whereas very often the Bonanza will need a drink. From memory I think you can expect around 160 TAS at around 6000'.
Sure they're a bit older than the Lance but there's still good support from more than one source, plus they also use the old faithful 540. The systems are simple and easy to maintain.
The 260C is a very sharp looking aircraft even for its age. If you really want a dragster get a 400, they go fast, but with the Black Knob pulled well back they give fuel burns the same as for the 250/260 versions.
However if you like the idea of a rear door then the Lance is an excellent aircraft.
Sounds like the OP has his heart set on a 182, but just to add to the above . . . The Comanche 260B/C has at least 100+lb more useful load; is 15kts faster (than an O-470 R182RG); will TRULY carry four adults with full fuel and luggage (or four adults and two kids/five adults with the optional sixth rear seat and a slight fuel penalty); is built for country strips; has good shoulder and leg room front and back; is no less a PIA to load with the small rear door; flies beautifully; and looks sexier than any Cessna . . .
Best of all, $150,000 would buy you probably the best PA-24 260C in Australia. (Not particularly this one, but you get the idea.)
Having only flown O-470 182RGs, I can't comment on the IO-540 models, but I have enough hours in PA-24s to know which I prefer. The Cessna is a high wing and easier to land - a bit more forgiving at low speeds - but they're the only real advantages I see. Being a fairly robust design and with the IO540, the Comanche should be a bit cheaper to maintain, though a little thirstier than the O-470. They have a fairly loyal following (if you haven't already noticed!).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ducky,
Where are you?
I know of a good…I mean really good Beech that could take a half share for the right person. And right location. NYC is not it either.
PM me if you wish.
Where are you?
I know of a good…I mean really good Beech that could take a half share for the right person. And right location. NYC is not it either.
PM me if you wish.
Thread Starter
Jab,
Not interested in a share arrangement, I want full control!! Can anyone answer my questions in relation to the YAK, there are currently a few on the market that interest me. I have an idea what I'm getting myself into as I was once an engineer, although not licenced. Second option is a Bonanza with tip tanks. Prepared to spend up to 130k,
Not interested in a share arrangement, I want full control!! Can anyone answer my questions in relation to the YAK, there are currently a few on the market that interest me. I have an idea what I'm getting myself into as I was once an engineer, although not licenced. Second option is a Bonanza with tip tanks. Prepared to spend up to 130k,