If it's your first plane, the simpler/more common, the better. You have a
whole load of things to learn about and there's nothing better to learn on
than something like a 172, 182, Cherokee, or Arrow. Every mechanic knows how
to work on them and annuals won't break the kids' college fund. Avionics are
flukey and problems in the stack can drive you batty, OTOH if your autopilot
goes TU you can usually just placard it INOP until you feel like paying the
piper. Not so much an option when the engine starts coughing.

IMHO it's hard to do much better than a 180HP 172 for a first plane, though
a good case can be made for the 182 or Arrow class for a more-experienced
pilot who knows he'll get the benefit of the higher cruise speeds or useful
load.

-cwk.

"Slip'er" wrote in message
news:MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03...
I am going to put a lot of constraints on this question, bear with me.
How
much does the size of the engine and airframe contribute to cost of
ownership? I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck
in
the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
THIS.....repeat. Somethings are obvious, CS prop more maintenance than
fixed prop. Retrac more maintenance than fixed, etc. But, other than
fuel,
is a 180hp much more expensive to maintain than a 160hp or a 115 hp? How
about Continental vs Lycoming vs Franklin vs Ranger radial? I have some
flexibility regarding purchase price. What is more likely to burn me
later
on is month to month expenses This is what a need an sensitivity analysis
on.

Thanks.