Can’t we skip the discussion about single vs. multi here? It’s pointless anyway. The engine sound of any twin is just so cool that it’ll win any real argument-based head-to-head comparison hands down…….
UdoR wrote:
Can’t we skip the discussion about single vs. multi here? It’s pointless anyway. The engine sound of any twin is just so cool that it’ll win any real argument-based head-to-head comparison hands down…….
Haha, indeed, twin is the king, question is only about one’s budget.
For me the order is:
piston single < piston twin < turboprop single < turboprop twin
robirdus wrote:
Below 100k don’t even think about an IFR capable 4-seater?
Bought one last week. Bought one this week.
I would see no need for a 100k light IFR Piper Archer when for 20% more I didn’t exactly have a path being beaten to the door for the TR182 with an overhauled engine/prop/all accessories/new 430W/mode S and King Autopilot. The TR182 would be vastly more capable. We’ve sold lots of IFR-capable aircraft for under 100k in the recent past.
If you couldn’t afford a new 50k BMW and were looking at 10k used ones then you would have to make do with the best of the bunch available. That kind of rational thinking is sometimes absent in aircraft purchases where the expectations are that you can get the airframe/engine/paperwork/avionics/cosmetics you want, for the budget you have. I am thrilled every time I sit into something that I bought for fraction of its new price, and it has all the mission capability of the new item. Be that a car, boat or aeroplane. Also, many people are in love with the idea of buying an aeroplane and use it to open every conversation with fellow pilots. I can think of quite a few who have been involved in this mental process for years now 
WilliamF wrote:
I am thrilled every time I sit into something that I bought for fraction of its new price, and it has all the mission capability of the new item. Be that a car, boat or aeroplane.
Me too, and although the best time in history for buying light aircraft has seemingly slipped into the recent past, I’m very happy to have one plane, ten motorcycles and three cars to demonstrate my adherence to the concept Only one of the above was bought new, and later on it will be the first to go.
My plane, bought for $35K, does what I want at a price that is a compete non-issue to my finances. Setting it up for IFR if that’s what I wanted would not be a big deal financially, when spread over time. What more could I wish for? It’s just awesome.
It’s even better BTW when they appreciate, not depreciate.
WilliamF wrote:
I can think of quite a few who have been involved in this mental process for years now
DITTO. I feel the term is Tyre Kickers….
My recent is a 2005. BMW740i, 300 quid, 650 for the MOT. Simply awesome machine and I float about thinking of the days of PCP and all the others in their 21 plate Kia Sportage at £425.00 per month……Ahhh old age and experience
IFR certification is missing
Going by the specs listed in the ad, this Mooney is perfectly IFR legal in Europe.
@BeechBaby an E65 740i for £300? I’m going to have nightmares just thinking about the knackered bushes and oil leaks…
Snoopy wrote:
Going by the specs listed in the ad, this Mooney is perfectly IFR legal in Europe.
Sounds like a nice airplane. Dual G5 and GFC500 – as the seller suggests to install – would be around USD 30k here in the US.
I would see no need for a 100k light IFR Piper Archer when for 20% more I didn’t exactly have a path being beaten to the door for the TR182 with an overhauled engine/prop/all accessories/new 430W/mode S and King Autopilot. The TR182 would be vastly more capable. We’ve sold lots of IFR-capable aircraft for under 100k in the recent past.
A 100k Archer would have
overhauled engine
overhauled prop
2x G5
GNC355A or similar
GFC500
Mogas
Cheap maintenance expenses ongoing
Sure, a Turbo is nice for climb gradients on SIDs and to get on top*.
*through ice, which I wouldn’t do anyway. The flying I did this summer (subjective experience) „on top“ was usually FL380.
So, the TR182 gets a few % more dispatch rate for a lot more risk and cost.
The term „IFR capable“ is very broad. I fly IFR in my Cherokee in mostly VMC to avoid airspace/traffic/terrain.
I’m too cowardly to fly in „all weather“ in 50 year old SEPs. Personally, the typical VFR PPL going for the IR so „…can finally fly in bad weather..“ is victim to a misconception. Peter‘s article sums it up nicely:
Many non-instrument pilots think that instrument pilots fly around in IMC but nothing could be further from the truth; instead one can hilariously observe that the very hard to get IR enables one to spend 99% of one’s flight time cruising in sunshine, wearing a T-shirt and shorts, with ATC doing nothing but helping along the way! However, there are several prices to pay for the membership of this highly organised and predictable flying club, and one of these is a need for a more detailed weather picture – due to a number of factors:
- IFR flight is done under tight radar control; ATC allow deviations “due weather” but getting the clearance can take time especially if a climb or descent is requested. ATC will almost always accommodate your weather avoidance requests, but your emergency authority is there to be used if the alternative is penetrating weather that endangers the flight.
- the Eurocontrol airway system does not support the idea of flight below the airway MEAs (minimum enroute altitudes) even where terrain clearance or conflicting traffic are not an issue
- the airway MEAs (or, more practically, the levels at which traffic is supported by the IFR / ATC system) are mostly above FL070
- the SAT (static air temperature) at FL070+ is usually freezing (in northern Europe, even in the summer) so any IMC carries a risk of structural icing
- the aircraft usually has little or no anti-ice equipment
- the aircraft usually has no radar so cannot see embedded CBs etc if flying in IMC (a stormscope is a good piece of kit but considered not sufficient by many)
- the aircraft operating ceiling is not high enough to get above frontal-weather cloud tops
- flight in IMC can be turbulent, and frightening for passengers who do not understand what is or is not safe
- flight in significant turbulence needs to be below Va (i.e. slow) especially if in IMC
IO…… Nope totally sound with a FSH. It is like new. Please do not have nightmares as I float in luxury…..
