Deal or no deal?

[gotyacovered]

Here is a new thread for us...

Share the planes you run across for sale...

Here is the one i can't stop thinking about as of late... I love the interior.

1973 A185F

[pigture perfect]

That's a good looking plane without many miles.

[gotyacovered]

Yes, I am in love.

[GusMcRae]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1977/Cessna/U206G/1643120.html

[gotyacovered]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1977/Cessna/U206G/1643120.html

Is that Apollo GPS certified for IFR ops?

[gotyacovered]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1977/Cessna/U206G/1643120.html

Here you go Gus... Lots of bang for buck... Garmin WAAS and TKS!!!

34 Fox Fox

[GusMcRae]

Here you go Gus... Lots of bang for buck... Garmin WAAS and TKS!!!

34 Fox Fox

Deal! 

[GusMcRae]

Here is a new thread for us...

Share the planes you run across for sale...

Here is the one i can't stop thinking about as of late... I love the interior.

1973 A185F

Have you gotten drunk enough to call and find out what they are asking?  I'm guessing 200k plus a child or 2 .   

[gotyacovered]

Have you gotten drunk enough to call and find out what they are asking?  I'm guessing 200k plus a child or 2 .   

No, since I am years away from 6 seats/upgrade I'm not even going to asl!

[GusMcRae]

Here is a new thread for us...

Share the planes you run across for sale...

Here is the one i can't stop thinking about as of late... I love the interior.

1973 A185F

If you're going to fantacize about it,,,, might as well have the cargo door mod installed. 
Pretty rare bird.  Should be a name for it,,,, like "Elinor" in Gone in Sixty Seconds.....

From what I have read, if they even have the back seat in there, you might as well take it out,,, it's for small kids at best. 

[GusMcRae]

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/BELLANCA-17-30A-SUPER-VIKING/1975-BELLANCA-17-30A-SUPER-VIKING/1248203.htm

A guy could sure get in a Bellanca Super Viking Cheap, and have a fast bird.   Faster than a lot of twins, sports car look and feel. 
Several others that seem ridiculously affordable on here as well...   

[Pistol Pete]

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/BELLANCA-17-30A-SUPER-VIKING/1975-BELLANCA-17-30A-SUPER-VIKING/1248203.htm

A guy could sure get in a Bellanca Super Viking Cheap, and have a fast bird.   Faster than a lot of twins, sports car look and feel. 
Several others that seem ridiculously affordable on here as well...   

That's pretty cheap for 2 430's, a GTX-327, a 300 HP Continental with 650 smoh, plus other parts. Looks like it could be parted out for the asking price.

[gotyacovered]

ok... in a thread on here, somewhere gus and i have been discussing 206's; both of us are interested in owning one someday. i told him i would look at myself as an example for the insurance cost going to 6 seats.

here are the results:

34 year old (male)
250 hours
PPL-ASEL
no instrument
no tailwheel time

Cessna 182L
liability limits $1000000/$100000 (initially they wont sell $1,000,000 smooth on 6 seats)
Hull Value=$100k
annual premium - $897

Cessna 206
Hull Value=$100k
liability limits $1000000/$100000 (initially they wont sell $1,000,000 smooth on 6 seats)
annual premium - $2500
annual premium with instrument rating - $1500

he said if i were to fly t as much as my 182 he would get pretty close to $1200 after first year with instrument rating of course

Cessna 185
Hull Value=$100k
liability limits $1000000/$100000 (initially they wont sell $1,000,000 smooth on 6 seats)
annual premium - $3200
Annual premium with instrument rating and sufficient tail wheel time <$2000

dad gave me some loving fatherly advice--said i didnt want a C185... first time i had a 30kt cross wind and touched down 5 kts too fast i would ground loop it and kill my ego

[Brownstreak]

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/BELLANCA-17-30A-SUPER-VIKING/1975-BELLANCA-17-30A-SUPER-VIKING/1248203.htm

A guy could sure get in a Bellanca Super Viking Cheap, and have a fast bird.   Faster than a lot of twins, sports car look and feel. 
Several others that seem ridiculously affordable on here as well...   

I've always loved those.  Fast, plenty of room and relatively cheap. The wood and fabric wings scare me though. I would imagine it would be hard to find someone competent to do that kind of work these days.

[RNC]

There's always the corvette shop .

[gotyacovered]

I've always loved those.  Fast, plenty of room and relatively cheap. The wood and fabric wings scare me though. I would imagine it would be hard to find someone competent to do that kind of work these days.

It's not the wood or the fabric, it's the glue that scares me

[GusMcRae]

I've always loved those.  Fast, plenty of room and relatively cheap. The wood and fabric wings scare me though. I would imagine it would be hard to find someone competent to do that kind of work these days.

I have said the exact same thing to my CFI who has way over 40K hrs of flight time, who promptly said, " that plane (Viking I was considering before I got then182) will be here long after you and I are gone".

Citabria, Cub, lots of those planes are wood and fiber, but I still say the same thing. I would be afraid to ever leave them outside.  I hangar my planes at home but they stay outside when I fly somewhere else for overnight trips. 

Gotya, thanks for the ins info.  Eye opening stuff.  sounds like i need to rack up the hours and get inst ticket before trading up to a retract or 6 place. 

[RNC]

My grandfather used to say the same thing about wooden planes, that they'll outlive us all.

Wood is inherently beneficial in such an environment in some ways, the grain orientation gives it strength on edge and ends far greater than any lightweight metal can have.  Think about it, you can't break a board edge to edge nor can you compress it end to end.  Flex a bit?  Sure, but not break.  Only the face will break.

The enemy of wood is more sun than water.  You can treat wood with boric acid and make it very resistant to rot and other parasites, and one boric acid treatment is good for decades, the wood cells drink it and it just stays there, killing anything dumb enough to eat it.  And with the wood being covered by the fabric there is no sun exposure, so...

Only downside is I wouldn't really describe a Viking cabin as roomy, more like an inch or so narrower than a 172.

[GusMcRae]

My grandfather used to say the same thing about wooden planes, that they'll outlive us all.

Wood is inherently beneficial in such an environment in some ways, the grain orientation gives it strength on edge and ends far greater than any lightweight metal can have.  Think about it, you can't break a board edge to edge nor can you compress it end to end.  Flex a bit?  Sure, but not break.  Only the face will break.

The enemy of wood is more sun than water.  You can treat wood with boric acid and make it very resistant to rot and other parasites, and one boric acid treatment is good for decades, the wood cells drink it and it just stays there, killing anything dumb enough to eat it.  And with the wood being covered by the fabric there is no sun exposure, so...

CFI also described the need to "re-skin" about like having to re-paint.  A good skin will last about as long or longer than a new paint job on a metal plane.  He also said that a wood and fiber plane that has been just re-painted over an old paint job will add a butt-load of weight and it will not fly nearly as good.  Think about how many gallons of paint it would take, times the weight per gallon......  useful load just got eaten up.  There was a Citabria around here for sale a while back that he suspected that was the deal, b/c it just did not fly like the Citabria I got some taildragger time in. 

[GusMcRae]

Only downside is I wouldn't really describe a Viking cabin as roomy, more like an inch or so narrower than a 172.

I have not flown in a Viking, but did sit in one.  To me, none of the low wing planes have nearly the room as a high wing Cessna (172, 182, 210, 206),,, but the Viking fits around you pretty nice.  I'm sure the Bo's, Toga's, Lance's, do as well.  Not to knock the Piper 140s, 180s, Mooney's,,,  but to me, they just don't.  They just seem like you "wear" them.   But the low wing planes do have more eye appeal.  Sexier.   

[Hankweb]

Well....if we're wishing!

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1989/Beechcraft/A36+Turbo+Normalized/1630961.html

[GusMcRae]

Well....if we're wishing!

Wow, what a panel! 

[gotyacovered]

Well....if we're wishing!

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1989/Beechcraft/A36+Turbo+Normalized/1630961.html

i am going to say that is a good deal, but i am basing that off the fact i have not heard of 3 of those garmin products--assume they are pretty new, hot prop, freash engine, man... that is a traveling rig right there. if it had that GFC-700 autopilot it would be like buying the new Columbia/Corvallis.

[gotyacovered]

speaking of "deal or no deal"....

i know the gentleman who just bought this airplane... it hasnt been delivered just yet, but he flew it last week, it screams.

he is selling his 2007 182 on it... he said to his knowledge he has (had) the only de-iced 182 in the country... its also has synthetic vision. he noted that the 182 handled the ice like a champ.

[Hankweb]

i am going to say that is a good deal, but i am basing that off the fact i have not heard of 3 of those garmin products--assume they are pretty new, hot prop, freash engine, man... that is a traveling rig right there. if it had that GFC-700 autopilot it would be like buying the new Columbia/Corvallis.

Friend of mine in Arizona went out and flew this one.
12,500...192ktas 16.9gph lean of peak
18,000...198-201 ktas 16.8-17gph lean of peak

Payload (all times with IFR reserve or more... some with  one hour + reserve...for instance full mains and tips is 6hrs 20 min to dry)  )
632 full mains and tips (5  plus hours)
812 mains only (3 1/2 hrs plus)
872 to the slots (3 hours)
992 to the tabs (2 hrs 20 min)

[RNC]

Disregarding the fuel usage, which per mile is probably comparable to slower airplanes, the lack of payload is the kicker in looking at a lot of these newer planes, to me.

Sorry I just can't ever see trading my slow, old airplane with a 1200+ pound useful load (800 minus full fuel), for something that only carries two or three people with no bags on full fuel.

iirc that Cessna/Columbia 400 has a full fuel payload of about 400 pounds.  Good for convincing your wife or yourself to go on a diet?

[GusMcRae]

Disregarding the fuel usage, which per mile is probably comparable to slower airplanes, the lack of payload is the kicker in looking at a lot of these newer planes, to me.

Sorry I just can't ever see trading my slow, old airplane with a 1200+ pound useful load (800 minus full fuel), for something that only carries two or three people with no bags on full fuel.

iirc that Cessna/Columbia 400 has a full fuel payload of about 400 pounds.  Good for convincing your wife or yourself to go on a diet?

This!

[gotyacovered]

Disregarding the fuel usage, which per mile is probably comparable to slower airplanes, the lack of payload is the kicker in looking at a lot of these newer planes, to me.

Sorry I just can't ever see trading my slow, old airplane with a 1200+ pound useful load (800 minus full fuel), for something that only carries two or three people with no bags on full fuel.

iirc that Cessna/Columbia 400 has a full fuel payload of about 400 pounds.  Good for convincing your wife or yourself to go on a diet?

first of all let me say that i totally agree, i'll take my 182 (or a 206) over the fast/efficient planes any day, i NEED (not want) the useful...

BUT....

one thing you have to realize is that your comparing your useful with full fuel at ~70 gallons and their useful with full fuel at ~108 gallons. so when compared gallon for gallon its not quite as bad as it appears. i have this argument with my cousin all the time about his pa28-180... our useful is about the same with full fuel--i only have him by 100-120lbs but when i remind him my full fuel is 84 gallons he gets quiet.

my buddy that just bought the corvalis ttx is going to get over 200kts cruise at better efficiency and at least 30kts more speed than either of us... its the same ole rule... you can get two of the three, but not all three.

as a side note: if i was like him (single, no kids, with a few budget concerns, travels for work in his plane) i am dumping the useful load too, i totally get it. this upgrade gets him, in 300nm from A-->B ~45min faster and on less fuel.

[GusMcRae]

I get that too, and if a guy (or a couple, or a family or whatever the case may be) will plan far enough in advance, he can ship his luggage, golf clubs, skis, etc... to and from his destination for a reasonable cost. 

In a more favorable financial situation, I wish I could have a hangar of about 3-5 planes for different specific flying needs.

I have thought about starting a new thread titled something like "what's in your dream hangar",,,, without getting too crazy,,, maybe a $500,000 limit for 3 different planes,,, something like that.     

[gotyacovered]

I get that too, and if a guy (or a couple, or a family or whatever the case may be) will plan far enough in advance, he can ship his luggage, golf clubs, skis, etc... to and from his destination for a reasonable cost. 

In a more favorable financial situation, I wish I could have a hangar of about 3-5 planes for different specific flying needs.

I have thought about starting a new thread titled something like "what's in your dream hangar",,,, without getting too crazy,,, maybe a $500,000 limit for 3 different planes,,, something like that.     

sounds like a good thread...

[gotyacovered]

1997 MOONEY M20R OVATION

i say no deal at $164k. no GNS-W. it does have low hours and looks great...

[RNC]

first of all let me say that i totally agree, i'll take my 182 (or a 206) over the fast/efficient planes any day, i NEED (not want) the useful...

BUT....

one thing you have to realize is that your comparing your useful with full fuel at ~70 gallons and their useful with full fuel at ~108 gallons. so when compared gallon for gallon its not quite as bad as it appears. i have this argument with my cousin all the time about his pa28-180... our useful is about the same with full fuel--i only have him by 100-120lbs but when i remind him my full fuel is 84 gallons he gets quiet.

my buddy that just bought the corvalis ttx is going to get over 200kts cruise at better efficiency and at least 30kts more speed than either of us... its the same ole rule... you can get two of the three, but not all three.

as a side note: if i was like him (single, no kids, with a few budget concerns, travels for work in his plane) i am dumping the useful load too, i totally get it. this upgrade gets him, in 300nm from A-->B ~45min faster and on less fuel.

Yeah, I was gonna bet that either his kids were grown and it was just him and wife, or he was single and just him and a girlfriend.

1997 MOONEY M20R OVATION

i say no deal at $164k. no GNS-W. it does have low hours and looks great...

I dunno, it would be cheap enough to put a 430 in, and has a nice autopilot.  What's the book value on such a plane? 

[gotyacovered]

Yeah, I was gonna bet that either his kids were grown and it was just him and wife, or he was single and just him and a girlfriend.

I dunno, it would be cheap enough to put a 430 in, and has a nice autopilot.  What's the book value on such a plane? 

you nailed it... wild and free!!!

not sure... book values, from what i have been seeing are some figuretive number floating around out there in never-never land. they are worth what you can sell them for... given the time i run a vRef today and see...

[Hankweb]

Disregarding the fuel usage, which per mile is probably comparable to slower airplanes, the lack of payload is the kicker in looking at a lot of these newer planes, to me.

Sorry I just can't ever see trading my slow, old airplane with a 1200+ pound useful load (800 minus full fuel), for something that only carries two or three people with no bags on full fuel.

iirc that Cessna/Columbia 400 has a full fuel payload of about 400 pounds.  Good for convincing your wife or yourself to go on a diet?

Sorry for the mix up with a C182 instead of a Dakota but the below examples still work for comparision purposes...and according to gotya they are actually about 8 knots generous on the 182 speed and a half gallon or so generous on the fuel burn.

I hear you, and have around 350+ hours in various Cessna fixed gears before going retract so completely understand. I'm guessing that you're citing the 632 lb figure when you're talking about "something that only carries two or three people with no bags on full fuel". Remember though that's with mains full AND tip tanks full...so 108 gallons vs what I'm guessing is the 65 gallons (roughly the 400lbs of fuel you mentioned) in the 182 you're talking about.
  For a closer comparison the figure with full mains only is probably a little better. That figure for the turbonormalized Bonanza is 812 lb payload...you can put 812 pounds of people and stuff in the plane with the main tanks topped off and tip tanks empty...versus the 800 lbs you mentioned for your 182. The Bonanza carries 12 pounds more while flying roughly 50 knots faster with both having full main tanks. My current regularly aspirated A36 actually has a full fuel payload of 960 lbs.
A couple of comparisons. Using 12gph for the 182 and 138 knots (about what I was getting years ago in a 182...your actual likely different) and 17gph and 192 knots for the turbonormalized Bonanza above (actuals from recent flight at an altitude of 12,500).
A 689 mile trip for 2 couples (2 200lb men and 2 125lb women) to Taos in the Bonanza takes 3.6 hours, or 61 gallons of fuel leaving a 50 minute reserve, carrying 162 lbs of luggage. The same couple in the 182 will travel 5 hours, or 60 gallons of fuel leaving a 25 minute reserve (so add a fuel stop), carrying 150 lbs of luggage.
This same couple on a trip to Destin (390 miles) in the 182 uses 33 gallons over a 2 hour and 45 minute period. The Bonanza takes 2 hours and 10 minutes using 37 gallons. Both planes, if they want, can take off 20 gallons of fuel for this trip (and still have a 1 hour reserve) giving the 182 920 lbs of reduced fuel payload and the Bonanza 932 lbs. meaning the couple can take 270 pounds of stuff in the 182 or 282 pounds in the A36...or in the Bonanza's case a fifth passenger with weight to spare for luggage...or possibly even a sixth passenger as long as they all fit within 932 lbs.
The two things that continue to draw me back toward the turbonormalized Bonanza over and over are the combination of speed and weight carrying (similar or even greater than many 182's in most configurations) at a reasonable fuel burn (lean of peak) at an altitude not requiring oxygen (although it's available in this plane and I'd strongly consider using it as a pilot over a long trip at this altitude)...or You can climb up to 18,000+ for weather, winds, turbulence etc or just to peak out over that elusive 200 ktas mark!

[gotyacovered]

I hear you, and have around 350+ hours in various Cessna fixed gears before going retract so completely understand. I'm guessing that you're citing the 632 lb figure when you're talking about "something that only carries two or three people with no bags on full fuel". Remember though that's with mains full AND tip tanks full...so 108 gallons vs what I'm guessing is the 65 gallons (roughly the 400lbs of fuel you mentioned) in the 182 you're talking about.
  For a closer comparison the figure with full mains only is probably a little better. That figure for the turbonormalized Bonanza is 812 lb payload...you can put 812 pounds of people and stuff in the plane with the main tanks topped off and tip tanks empty...versus the 800 lbs you mentioned for your 182. The Bonanza carries 12 pounds more while flying roughly 50 knots faster with both having full main tanks. My current regularly aspirated A36 actually has a full fuel payload of 960 lbs.
A couple of comparisons. Using 12gph for the 182 and 138 knots (about what I was getting years ago in a 182...your actual likely different) and 17gph and 192 knots for the turbonormalized Bonanza above (actuals from recent flight at an altitude of 12,500).
A 689 mile trip for 2 couples (2 200lb men and 2 125lb women) to Taos in the Bonanza takes 3.6 hours, or 61 gallons of fuel leaving a 50 minute reserve, carrying 162 lbs of luggage. The same couple in the 182 will travel 5 hours, or 60 gallons of fuel leaving a 25 minute reserve (so add a fuel stop), carrying 150 lbs of luggage.
This same couple on a trip to Destin (390 miles) in the 182 uses 33 gallons over a 2 hour and 45 minute period. The Bonanza takes 2 hours and 10 minutes using 37 gallons. Both planes, if they want, can take off 20 gallons of fuel for this trip (and still have a 1 hour reserve) giving the 182 920 lbs of full fuel payload and the Bonanza 932 lbs. meaning the couple can take 270 pounds of stuff in the 182 or 282 pounds in the A36...or in the Bonanza's case a fifth passenger with weight to spare for luggage...or possibly even a sixth passenger as long as they all fit within 932 lbs.
The two things that continue to draw me back toward the turbonormalized Bonanza over and over are the combination of speed and weight carrying (similar or even greater than many 182's in most configurations) at a reasonable fuel burn (lean of peak) at an altitude not requiring oxygen (although it's available in this plane and I'd strongly consider using it as a pilot over a long trip at this altitude)...or You can climb up to 18,000+ for weather, winds, turbulence etc or just to peak out over that elusive 200 ktas mark!

for the record RNC flies a dakota... pipers version of a 182... my zero fuel weight C182 Skylane (the best way to compare, IMHO) is 1672lbs or a useful of 1198lbs (1176lbs with full oil).

as an example.... wnb below... i can get 500lbs in front and back pax, 474lbs of fuel, and 40lbs luggage be within limits (at take off) with wnb considered.

you gave the (or mine anyways) 182 a little too much credit on fuel burn and speed... both speeds and fuel burns you gave are attainable, just not at the same time i have had 12gph a couple times, but to be fair... i get 12.5 exactly/every time less the 10,000ft and 130kts (at 12.5gph and under 10k)...

and i totally agree on the Bo.... and as you may not have seen yet the A36TC made my dream hangar...

[RNC]

I hear you, and have around 350+ hours in various Cessna fixed gears before going retract so completely understand. I'm guessing that you're citing the 632 lb figure when you're talking about "something that only carries two or three people with no bags on full fuel". Remember though that's with mains full AND tip tanks full...so 108 gallons vs what I'm guessing is the 65 gallons (roughly the 400lbs of fuel you mentioned) in the 182 you're talking about.
  For a closer comparison the figure with full mains only is probably a little better. That figure for the turbonormalized Bonanza is 812 lb payload...you can put 812 pounds of people and stuff in the plane with the main tanks topped off and tip tanks empty...versus the 800 lbs you mentioned for your 182. The Bonanza carries 12 pounds more while flying roughly 50 knots faster with both having full main tanks. My current regularly aspirated A36 actually has a full fuel payload of 960 lbs.
A couple of comparisons. Using 12gph for the 182 and 138 knots (about what I was getting years ago in a 182...your actual likely different) and 17gph and 192 knots for the turbonormalized Bonanza above (actuals from recent flight at an altitude of 12,500).
A 689 mile trip for 2 couples (2 200lb men and 2 125lb women) to Taos in the Bonanza takes 3.6 hours, or 61 gallons of fuel leaving a 50 minute reserve, carrying 162 lbs of luggage. The same couple in the 182 will travel 5 hours, or 60 gallons of fuel leaving a 25 minute reserve (so add a fuel stop), carrying 150 lbs of luggage.
This same couple on a trip to Destin (390 miles) in the 182 uses 33 gallons over a 2 hour and 45 minute period. The Bonanza takes 2 hours and 10 minutes using 37 gallons. Both planes, if they want, can take off 20 gallons of fuel for this trip (and still have a 1 hour reserve) giving the 182 920 lbs of full fuel payload and the Bonanza 932 lbs. meaning the couple can take 270 pounds of stuff in the 182 or 282 pounds in the A36...or in the Bonanza's case a fifth passenger with weight to spare for luggage...or possibly even a sixth passenger as long as they all fit within 932 lbs.
The two things that continue to draw me back toward the turbonormalized Bonanza over and over are the combination of speed and weight carrying (similar or even greater than many 182's in most configurations) at a reasonable fuel burn (lean of peak) at an altitude not requiring oxygen (although it's available in this plane and I'd strongly consider using it as a pilot over a long trip at this altitude)...or You can climb up to 18,000+ for weather, winds, turbulence etc or just to peak out over that elusive 200 ktas mark!

I actually have a Piper Dakota, not a 182, but they're similar enough w and b wise.

My fuel capacity is 72, which burns at about 11.8 gph at 65% higher than 8000 or about 14 gph at 6500 running 75%.

I don't dispute that the fuel burn is similar with speed considered, I was referring more to the trend of payloads getting smaller particularly in carbon aircraft that should be saving weight anyway.  It seems that manufacturers think the only selling point is speed, when, in my opinion, the same speed coupled with increased payload (and therefore simpler fuel management and loading capability) would sell like hotcakes.

[Hankweb]

for the record RNC flies a dakota... pipers version of a 182... my zero fuel weight C182 Skylane (the best way to compare, IMHO) is 1672lbs or a useful of 1198lbs (1176lbs with full oil).

as an example.... wnb below... i can get 500lbs in front and back pax, 474lbs of fuel, and 40lbs luggage be within limits (at take off) with wnb considered.

you gave the (or mine anyways) 182 a little too much credit on fuel burn and speed... both speeds and fuel burns you gave are attainable, just not at the same time i have had 12gph a couple times, but to be fair... i get 12.5 exactly/every time less the 10,000ft and 130kts (at 12.5gph and under 10k)...

and i totally agree on the Bo.... and as you may not have seen yet the A36TC made my dream hangar...

Oops! Sorry about that RNC...added a note to my OP above.

[RNC]

Yeah, see reply above yours.  The only plane that comes to mind that I have seen or flown that gained payload with newer models versus older models is the 172.  Iirc the 70s models had a useful load around 750 and the later fuel injected models were up around 900.

Every other persistently produced model from the 70s to today that I've looked at specs on has simply had new niceties subtracted from the former payload.  And new carbon fiber airplanes seem to follow the same trend...235 knots with fixed gear?  Sure.  Over 1400 useful load?  Not a chance.  For that you have to buy a 70s model 206 or Cherokee 6.

[Hankweb]

I actually have a Piper Dakota, not a 182, but they're similar enough w and b wise.

My fuel capacity is 72, which burns at about 11.8 gph at 65% higher than 8000 or about 14 gph at 6500 running 75%.

I don't dispute that the fuel burn is similar with speed considered, I was referring more to the trend of payloads getting smaller particularly in carbon aircraft that should be saving weight anyway.  It seems that manufacturers think the only selling point is speed, when, in my opinion, the same speed coupled with increased payload (and therefore simpler fuel management and loading capability) would sell like hotcakes.

I agree completely. That's why I've never understood the attractiveness of the earlier Cirrus. But I guess they finally made it an actual 4 seater with the latest 200lb increase.
Lots of planes out there that a seat or two or maybe even three aren't good for anything except for holding a snack bag and charts!

[gotyacovered]

I agree completely. That's why I've never understood the attractiveness of the earlier Cirrus. But I guess they finally made it an actual 4 seater with the latest 200lb increase.
Lots of planes out there that a seat or two or maybe even three aren't good for anything except for holding a snack bag and charts!

i get the cirrus fast/efficient deal. its not for me, either, but i completely get it. cirrus sold 258 sr-20/22's last year. there is a market for them, not for me, hank, rnc, gus, etc but there are people out there that can get from A-->B faster, more efficient, attractive safety options, and not to mention the awesome interior/avionics. there is a man in my area here who just bought a brand new sr-22gtx. he pays a pilot to fly it a couple times a week to different locations for work... he traded in a very nice/capable/new turbo arrow on it and he claims it was a no brainer when looking at all the factors, not just weight/speed. i have never met the owner, but know the pilot, FTR.

to look at it from a different angle... look how many PA28-180's there are out there... A BUNCH. they have very similar payload numbers... think my cousins 180 has a fuel capacity that is half (or less) of what a cirrus fuel capacity is, only fill a cirrus up halfway the useful is very similar.

also... i made the mistake of showing my wife one... at KLIT the other day, she has no problem shipping all of our stuff to our destination, just b/c of how pretty they are, oh and they have AC!!!

[Pistol Pete]

i get the cirrus fast/efficient deal. its not for me, either, but i completely get it. cirrus sold 258 sr-20/22's last year. there is a market for them, not for me, hank, rnc, gus, etc but there are people out there that can get from A-->B faster, more efficient, attractive safety options, and not to mention the awesome interior/avionics. there is a man in my area here who just bought a brand new sr-22gtx. he pays a pilot to fly it a couple times a week to different locations for work... he traded in a very nice/capable/new turbo arrow on it and he claims it was a no brainer when looking at all the factors, not just weight/speed. i have never met the owner, but know the pilot, FTR.

to look at it from a different angle... look how many PA28-180's there are out there... A BUNCH. they have very similar payload numbers... think my cousins 180 has a fuel capacity that is half (or less) of what a cirrus fuel capacity is, only fill a cirrus up halfway the useful is very similar.

also... i made the mistake of showing my wife one... at KLIT the other day, she has no problem shipping all of our stuff to our destination, just b/c of how pretty they are, oh and they have AC!!!

I sat in a Cirrus for the first time, last week... it was extremely nice inside, felt very comfortable, and the side yoke really opens things up in front of you. Seats felt like a racecar.

[gotyacovered]

I sat in a Cirrus for the first time, last week... it was extremely nice inside, felt very comfortable, and the side yoke really opens things up in front of you. Seats felt like a racecar.

Race car feel with Lexus comfort...

[gotyacovered]

1989 Piper Super Cub  PA-18-150

[Pistol Pete]

1989 Piper Super Cub  PA-18-150

That's the second bad link you've posted....

[gotyacovered]

That's the second bad link you've posted....

sorry about that... fat fingered it on my phone i guess...

fixed the super cub link in both places... cant find the other one...

speaking of "deal or no deal"....

i know the gentleman who just bought this airplane... it hasnt been delivered just yet, but he flew it last week, it screams.

he is selling his 2007 182 on it... he said to his knowledge he has (had) the only de-iced 182 in the country... its also has synthetic vision. he noted that the 182 handled the ice like a champ.

if you are talking about the 'this airplane' linking to the Corvallis--it was removed b/c it sold... if not point out the broken one and ill fix it...

sorry about that fellas, i know that is annoying

[Pistol Pete]

sorry about that... fat fingered it on my phone i guess...

fixed the super cub link in both places... cant find the other one...

if you are talking about the 'this airplane' linking to the Corvallis--it was removed b/c it sold... if not point out the broken one and ill fix it...

sorry about that fellas, i know that is annoying

Yes, the other one was the Corvallis... cool

It doesn't bother me, just letting you know.

[gotyacovered]

Yes, the other one was the Corvallis... cool

It doesn't bother me, just letting you know.

glad you did, please let me know if there are any... with my mod status i can fix them all

[GusMcRae]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1649191.html

Here's what I would do with this one,,,, jew them down from the original asking price,,, of course,,,,  keep flying until I started to see engine trouble,,,, i.e. using oil, low compressions, etc,,,  then pull the IO-360 out replace with a Lycoming IO-390. 

I really like the looks of a Cardinal, especially the RG.

[gotyacovered]

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/1649191.html

Here's what I would do with this one,,,, jew them down from the original asking price,,, of course,,,,  keep flying until I started to see engine trouble,,,, i.e. using oil, low compressions, etc,,,  then pull the IO-360 out replace with a Lycoming IO-390. 

I really like the looks of a Cardinal, especially the RG.

thats a good one there gus. that is the type of plane you could buy, fix up (engine and a few small panel upgrades) and possibly make money.

[gotyacovered]

DEAL