Next club purchase...

[Robert Barker]

Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40 as
our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?

[Dave S]

Robert Barker wrote:
That said, we were
> leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?
>

Without knowing your club members and their proclivities, I would impose
some fairly significant checkout requirements on the turbo plane, say 10
hrs in type or turbocharged complex planes, or a significant total time
amount (either/or or both) in order to keep the archer from being used
as a primary trainer or being inadvertently abused by those fresh out of
primary training.

For a N/A arrow, my club required 10 in type or 25 multi plus a 2 hr
checkout (could be inclusive of the type or multi hours), plus 100 TT.
As a 44 hr private pilot, I had a little ways to go before I could take
the plane..

The 10 hrs in type can be multipurpose, say, training towards commercial
or instrument. While you dont have to do instrument training in a
complex, I found that the Arrow was an excellent platform for doing just
such a thing..

When trimmed for 90 kts inbound on the ILS, when you intercepted the
Glideslope, dropping the gear tended to put you right on the correct
approach descent profile, with minimal trimming or fiddling with power.

Dave

[john smith]

In article >,
"Robert Barker" > wrote:

> Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40 as
> our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
> getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
> planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
> an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
> ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
> do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
> wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
> would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
> leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?

Cessna 182.
Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
Four full adults plus luggage.
I don't worry about the ability to fly long distances in a single leg, I
have reached the age where my bladder controls how long/far I fly.

[BT]

You cannot get the Complex Endorsement required of the Commercial PTS in the
C-182, unless you find a C-182 RG. Then you can have Complex and High
Performance (HP not required for Commercial PTS)
BT

"John Smith" > wrote in message news:jsmith-
>
> Cessna 182.
> Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
> The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
> Four full adults plus luggage.
> I don't worry about the ability to fly long distances in a single leg, I
> have reached the age where my bladder controls how long/far I fly.

[Matt Whiting]

John Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>
>> Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40 as
>> our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
>> getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
>> planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
>> an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
>> ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
>> do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
>> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
>> wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
>> would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
>> leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?
>
> Cessna 182.
> Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
> The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
> Four full adults plus luggage.
> I don't worry about the ability to fly long distances in a single leg, I
> have reached the age where my bladder controls how long/far I fly.

What part of "complex" didn't you understand?

[tyreah]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:53:07 -0400, Matt Whiting wrote:

> What part of "complex" didn't you understand?

The part where you think it describes your brain.
--
http://tinyurl.com/38zr4j

[Mike[_22_]]

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...
> Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40
> as our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are
> finally getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long
> distance" planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing
> trainer like an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to
> get complex ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like
> something that can do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade
> in - say a G540 stack and some other upgrades but still something that the
> insurance wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be
> nice but would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said,
> we were leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?

It sounds like your primary focus is training. That being said, what you
really need is a complex aircraft because presently you don't have one that
people can get their commercial rating. HP is irelevant towards the complex
rating as it's not needed. The HP endorsement really doesn't do anything
for you from a training perspective. A HP endorsement can generally be
obtained with a couple of hours of instruction, so buying a HP aircraft
solely for the intention of allowing people to pick up the endorsement
doesn't make a lot of sense.

I would highly caution against getting a turbo in a club environment. The
only way I would ever own a turbo is if I owned the plane exclusively or had
one or two partners that I was VERY confident in their engine management
abilities. Throwing a turbo aircraft into a big mix of 172 and DA40 pilots
is asking for trouble and big maintenance bills.

A Cardinal RG might be your best bet, although it's not going to do 150kts
it will come close. They make very good club planes. The same goes for an
Arrow II, although it would be a few kts slower still. A Bonanza might not
be a bad bet if you can find the right one. A 182RG would be quite nice as
a club plane and fits most of your requirements. It would also be a fairly
easy transition to those pilots familiar with the 172SP. I'm not sure if
you can put the Pponk conversion in a 182RG, but that might be a great
option if you can find a 182RG with a run out engine and then do the
conversion. I do know a straight leg Pponk 182 will get you over all but
the tallest mountains and is the next best thing to having a turbo.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Dave S > said:
>For a N/A arrow, my club required 10 in type or 25 multi plus a 2 hr
>checkout (could be inclusive of the type or multi hours), plus 100 TT.
>As a 44 hr private pilot, I had a little ways to go before I could take
>the plane..

Our club had a normally asparated Lance. We required 200 hours TT and 10
hours in type, or 2 hours if you had more than 25 complex already.

At one point the insurance company was talking about requiring an
instrument rating. But we got rid of the plane before that happened - the
engine was run out, and only a couple of us were flying it.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Remember, "close" counts in horse-shoes, hand-grenades and nuclear warfare;
but in spamming, it's considered unnecessary precision.
-- Alun Jones

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> John Smith wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Robert Barker" > wrote:
> >
> >> Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40
> >> as
> >> our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
> >> getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
> >> planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer
> >> like
> >> an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
> >> ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
> >> do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
> >> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
> >> wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
> >> would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
> >> leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?
> >
> > Cessna 182.
> > Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
> > The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
> > Four full adults plus luggage.
> > I don't worry about the ability to fly long distances in a single leg, I
> > have reached the age where my bladder controls how long/far I fly.
>
> What part of "complex" didn't you understand?

The part where I missed it.
Go for an Arrow II or a C172RG "Cutlass".

[Matt Whiting]

John Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> John Smith wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40
>>>> as
>>>> our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
>>>> getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
>>>> planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer
>>>> like
>>>> an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
>>>> ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
>>>> do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
>>>> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
>>>> wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
>>>> would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
>>>> leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?
>>> Cessna 182.
>>> Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
>>> The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
>>> Four full adults plus luggage.
>>> I don't worry about the ability to fly long distances in a single leg, I
>>> have reached the age where my bladder controls how long/far I fly.
>> What part of "complex" didn't you understand?
>
> The part where I missed it.
> Go for an Arrow II or a C172RG "Cutlass".

Now you're talking!

Matt

[f-newguy]

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...
> For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can do
> 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540 stack
> and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance wouldn't
> kill us...

182RG or turbo 182RG.

[Newps]

f-newguy wrote:
> "Robert Barker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can do
>> 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540 stack
>> and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance wouldn't
>> kill us...
>
> 182RG or turbo 182RG.
>
>

Insurance rates are plummeting. I am starting the fourth year of
ownership on my Bonanza. I've got a little over 300 hours in the Bo and
those are my only retract hours. The first years premium was $2800.
This year it's $1500. I did lower the hull value from $90K to $80K,
which was a $100 savings. An instrument rating makes so little
difference it isn't worth going to get one if you don't need/want one.

[BT]

It could be your insurance rates are "plummeting" because of your increased
experience level in the Bo.
BT

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> f-newguy wrote:
>> "Robert Barker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can do
>>> 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
>>> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
>>> wouldn't kill us...
>>
>> 182RG or turbo 182RG.
>
> Insurance rates are plummeting. I am starting the fourth year of
> ownership on my Bonanza. I've got a little over 300 hours in the Bo and
> those are my only retract hours. The first years premium was $2800. This
> year it's $1500. I did lower the hull value from $90K to $80K, which was
> a $100 savings. An instrument rating makes so little difference it isn't
> worth going to get one if you don't need/want one.

[Mike[_22_]]

"BT" > wrote in message
...
> It could be your insurance rates are "plummeting" because of your
> increased experience level in the Bo.
> BT

Another thing is that personal insurance is one thing, but club insurance is
quite another. For 5 or less members, most insurance companies will just
charge you the rate for the highest cost person (least experience). For 6
or more members (which can be assumed for a club that already has 3
aircraft), insurance rates climb significantly. Lots of clubs do have
Bonanzas, so it's certainly not cost prohibitive in all cases.


>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> f-newguy wrote:
>>> "Robert Barker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can do
>>>> 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
>>>> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
>>>> wouldn't kill us...
>>>
>>> 182RG or turbo 182RG.
>>
>> Insurance rates are plummeting. I am starting the fourth year of
>> ownership on my Bonanza. I've got a little over 300 hours in the Bo and
>> those are my only retract hours. The first years premium was $2800. This
>> year it's $1500. I did lower the hull value from $90K to $80K, which was
>> a $100 savings. An instrument rating makes so little difference it isn't
>> worth going to get one if you don't need/want one.
>
>

[Mike Noel]

Interesting you mention insurance rates. This year my 74 Archer costs about
650 to insure. Last year it was about 850 through the same company for the
same coverage.

My first thought was decreasing hull value, even though I have the same
stated hull value of 55K. Someone else mentioned there might be fewer
pilots available to insure so competition has driven down prices. Then
again maybe I broke some experience barrier.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> f-newguy wrote:
>> "Robert Barker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can do
>>> 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
>>> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
>>> wouldn't kill us...
>>
>> 182RG or turbo 182RG.
>
> Insurance rates are plummeting. I am starting the fourth year of
> ownership on my Bonanza. I've got a little over 300 hours in the Bo and
> those are my only retract hours. The first years premium was $2800. This
> year it's $1500. I did lower the hull value from $90K to $80K, which was
> a $100 savings. An instrument rating makes so little difference it isn't
> worth going to get one if you don't need/want one.

[xyzzy]

On Aug 22, 10:36*pm, "Robert Barker" > wrote:
> Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40 as
> our 3rd plane. *We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
> getting some good usage on our Diamond. *We've started "long distance"
> planning on our next planes. *We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
> an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
> ratings. *For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
> do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
> wouldn't kill us... *As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
> would incur some other problems with training, etc. *That said, we were
> leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... *Any suggestions?

Sounds like you need my club's fleet.

4 152 (for primary training)
2 172 SP
2 Warrior
2 Mooney M20J

The Mooney works pretty well in the club environment, no turbo,
simple, low maint landing gear. Just emphasize speed control on
landings during checkouts. It does 150 kts and has all you need for
the complex training.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 22, 8:55*pm, John Smith > wrote:

> Cessna 182.
> Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
> The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
> Four full adults plus luggage.

I do a lot of instruction in the C-182 but I cant say I'm a big fan of
the airplane. Cessna was just lazy and bolted a high performance
engine on their training plane. Its dog slow, sucks gas like no
tomorrow and flys like a box. I think the 172 is a fine airplane but
they really needed to go back to the drawing board when it was time
for the 182. Its a bit like putting a high performane engine in a Yugo
and calling that your high performance offering.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Might want to look at the ultra efficient Mooney. I live out West too
and I cross the Sierras at gross on a monthly basis with 4 on board.
Even the non-turbo Mooneys do great at 16,000 feet, burning about 7
gal/hr at 150 knots.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 25, 7:02*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> Another thing is that personal insurance is one thing, but club insurance is
> quite another. *For 5 or less members, most insurance companies will just
> charge you the rate for the highest cost person (least experience). *For 6
> or more members (which can be assumed for a club that already has 3
> aircraft), insurance rates climb significantly. *Lots of clubs do have
> Bonanzas, so it's certainly not cost prohibitive in all cases.

I do check outs for a club with an older Bonanza. They charge $210 an
hour. That's not bad for a high performance, complex airplane and
probably less than what most of us owners are paying to keep our birds
in the air.

-Robert

[Mike[_22_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 8:55 pm, John Smith > wrote:

> > Cessna 182.
> > Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
> > The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
> > Four full adults plus luggage.
>
> I do a lot of instruction in the C-182 but I cant say I'm a big fan of
> the airplane. Cessna was just lazy and bolted a high performance
> engine on their training plane. Its dog slow, sucks gas like no
> tomorrow and flys like a box. I think the 172 is a fine airplane but
> they really needed to go back to the drawing board when it was time
> for the 182. Its a bit like putting a high performane engine in a Yugo
> and calling that your high performance offering.

What plane are you trying to compare the 182 to?

[Gezellig]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Aug 22, 8:55*pm, John Smith > wrote:
>
>> Cessna 182.
>> Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
>> The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
>> Four full adults plus luggage.
>
> I do a lot of instruction in the C-182 but I cant say I'm a big fan of
> the airplane. Cessna was just lazy and bolted a high performance
> engine on their training plane. Its dog slow, sucks gas like no
> tomorrow and flys like a box. I think the 172 is a fine airplane but
> they really needed to go back to the drawing board when it was time
> for the 182. Its a bit like putting a high performane engine in a Yugo
> and calling that your high performance offering.
>
> -Robert

Robert, with only an engine change, was it the weight that turned the
182 into a woofer?

[Robert Barker]

Thanks to everyone for replying. Some really good points here. I kind of
smile at the 152 suggestion... We have days here in the summer that a 152
can't get off the ground unless it's really light on fuel and the
passgengers are built like twiggy!


"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 22, 10:36 pm, "Robert Barker" > wrote:
> Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40
> as
> our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
> getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
> planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
> an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
> ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
> do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
> stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
> wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
> would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
> leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?

Sounds like you need my club's fleet.

4 152 (for primary training)
2 172 SP
2 Warrior
2 Mooney M20J

The Mooney works pretty well in the club environment, no turbo,
simple, low maint landing gear. Just emphasize speed control on
landings during checkouts. It does 150 kts and has all you need for
the complex training.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:11:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> On Aug 22, 8:55 pm, John Smith > wrote:
>>
>>> Cessna 182.
>>> Not 150 kts, but fast enough.
>>> The ability to haul a load is more important than speed.
>>> Four full adults plus luggage.
>>
>> I do a lot of instruction in the C-182 but I cant say I'm a big fan of
>> the airplane. Cessna was just lazy and bolted a high performance
>> engine on their training plane. Its dog slow, sucks gas like no
>> tomorrow and flys like a box. I think the 172 is a fine airplane but
>> they really needed to go back to the drawing board when it was time
>> for the 182. Its a bit like putting a high performane engine in a Yugo
>> and calling that your high performance offering.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> Robert, with only an engine change, was it the weight that turned the
> 182 into a woofer?

It's more than an engine change. The first 182s had a smaller cabin, but
the rest of them have considerably more room than the 172 with a wider and
longer cabin. The wing is essentially the same, but everything else is
different.

The 182 is far more versatile than the 172. You can pull the power back on
a 182 and get 172 fuel burns at the same speeds, but you can carry more,
farther, higher, with more room and a better climb rate. If you want to go
faster, you have that option.

[xyzzy]

heh, I blew past the fact that we're flatlanders and you're mountain
folk. However, the Mooney is still a good suggestion for a club
plane, and a Warrior is an excellent low-wing trainer (though at your
altitude, like you said you may need to get an archer and treat it
like a warrior for loading purposes)

On Aug 28, 10:56*pm, "Robert Barker" > wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for replying. *Some really good points here. *I kind of
> smile at the 152 suggestion... *We have days here in the summer that a 152
> can't get off the ground unless it's really light on fuel and the
> passgengers are built like twiggy!
>
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 22, 10:36 pm, "Robert Barker" > wrote:
>
> > Our club currently flies a 172R and 172SP as trainers and a Diamond DA40
> > as
> > our 3rd plane. We've put tons of students thru our 172s and are finally
> > getting some good usage on our Diamond. We've started "long distance"
> > planning on our next planes. We'd like to get a good low wing trainer like
> > an Archer and we'd like to get a high performance plane to get complex
> > ratings. For the complex plane, we're thinking we like something that can
> > do 150kts or better that we can do a nice panel upgrade in - say a G540
> > stack and some other upgrades but still something that the insurance
> > wouldn't kill us... As we're near the mountains, turbo would be nice but
> > would incur some other problems with training, etc. That said, we were
> > leaning towards a Turbo Arrow III... Any suggestions?
>
> Sounds like you need my club's fleet.
>
> 4 152 (for primary training)
> 2 172 SP
> 2 Warrior
> 2 Mooney M20J
>
> The Mooney works pretty well in the club environment, no turbo,
> simple, low maint landing gear. *Just emphasize speed control on
> landings during checkouts. *It does 150 kts and has all you need for
> the complex training.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Aug 29, 6:08*am, "Mike" > wrote:

> The 182 is far more versatile than the 172. *You can pull the power back on
> a 182 and get 172 fuel burns at the same speeds, but you can carry more,
> farther, higher, with more room and a better climb rate. *If you want to go
> faster, you have that option

Wait, how do you make a 182 go fast? I teach in both round dial and
glass 182's and I've never seen one go fast. You put the same HP in
any other plane and you get good speed; but put it on the 182 and its
slow. Hence the saying "A 182 burns a lot of gas to go slow".

-Robert

[Mike[_22_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 29, 6:08 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > The 182 is far more versatile than the 172. You can pull the power back
> > on
> > a 182 and get 172 fuel burns at the same speeds, but you can carry more,
> > farther, higher, with more room and a better climb rate. If you want to
> > go
> > faster, you have that option
>
> Wait, how do you make a 182 go fast? I teach in both round dial and
> glass 182's and I've never seen one go fast. You put the same HP in
> any other plane and you get good speed; but put it on the 182 and its
> slow. Hence the saying "A 182 burns a lot of gas to go slow".

I was specifically comparing a 182 to a 172, which I understood to be your
comparison also. As such, the 182 is head and shoulders above.

So what are you comparing the 182 with to say it's slow? Your Mooney? Your
Mooney was designed to be efficient, with few other considerations given any
serious priority. The 182 was designed to be roomy, comfortable, stable,
and safe. It's basically an old man's aircraft, and as such it's been very
popular as it's still sold today virtually unchanged, while the Mooney has
morphed into something different and still can't come close to outselling
the Skylane. They are two different aircraft designed for different
objectives. It's not really fair to compare the two.

Furthermore the R182 will cruise about the same speed as your Mooney which
is not slower in my book. The Mooney might do it on less fuel, but there's
a lot of tradeoffs for that efficiency. Even at that you're only talking
about 1-2 gph better, which equates to less than $10 per hour less even at
$5 avgas. I'd rather pay the $10 and spend that hour in a 182.