Best aircraft for European trips

And despite all the downsides their owners still love them.🙂
I flew one that to put it mildly had seen better days, hired from a club. Yes it was quirky but once I got used to some of it’s little quirks I quite enjoyed it. A bit like getting into an old farm pick up truck. At first you think this is not going to get you where you want to go but it plods along reliably and it grows on you. You don’t worry about putting it down on a short grass runway and you just feel its going to get you there🙂
Mind you if I was to buy one for European touring I would take advantage of some of the more modern options available. Except for the engines 150hp and mogas would be okay for me to.just plod along.

Here is a funnily written article about the Apache: https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets/piper-apache

It was the Apache that I fell in love with when I was 7 or 8 years old.

Me too, exactly the same except I was nine or ten. I called them ‘little old twins’ and still enjoy seeing them occasionally.

If I had my time again I would have bought a Piper Apache and had it updated with all the new round digital dials, and because I could have bought it very very cheaply I would have had basically everything done to it to make it as new.
It’s not for everyone and has limitations but those limitations are for the most part the way I spent most of my time flying anyway.🙂
It was the Apache that I fell in love with when I was 7 or 8 years old. My parents had friends in Pembrokeshire south Wales and he took me gliding at Havefordwest aerodrome. I enjoyed it but I was more interested in a red and cream Piper Apache in the parking area.
I owned several twins but never the Apache despite the fact that not long ago some were on Planecheck for as little as £20,000 and were flyable. The things that needed doing could have been done over time.
It could have been IMO a great machine for touring Europe.
Please note that this is a personal thing and not something I would expect anyone on here to agree with.🙃

Peter wrote:

So I can do this just as before.

What do you use to “visualize” your flights? That is really cool! The maps and the speed/altitude strip charts.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

And I would second the statement about twins: Current prices of twins vs comparable singles may well buy a lot of gas and maintenance. If i was in the market for a serious IFR tourer, there is very little which outdoes a Seneca, starting with the 2 upwards.

Would you mind explaining this statement? I guess you mean that comparable singles are priced more than than twins, so you could buy a cheaper twin and use the money for increased fuel and maintenance? Could you expand on this for me? Thanks!

The 201 or 20J is actually a pleasant airplane to fly. Not sure what handling tweaks were made in addition to the Lo Presti aerodynamic clean up refinements, but it is worth trying to fly one first hand.

Wingover wrote:

I guess I have to read more before deciding to go fly in one.

I’d simply go and see for yourself. Most of those things are owt’s, many by people who have never flown the respective type. Also, it varies considerably with the way the prop has been balanced. my C is close to 60 years old and has very few vibrations. A lot less than certain PA28’s I’ve flown, which on the other hand have been abused by students. Go figure.

@UdoR in comparison with a lot of types, Comanches are well known to be corrosion resistant because they were internally primed when new. I believe it was zinc chromate, which is a very effective primer for aluminum. A ‘59 Comanche owning friend and I used to marvel at his plane at every Annual because the inside looked literally like new after what was then 50 years. It had lived in Kansas for most of its life, hangared and taken well care of.

Some other types were internally primed too (my plane is another example) and some were not. The steel tube fuselage structure of a Mooney was primed but like any steel tube fuselage structure (including Cubs etc which live forever, and can be repaired forever in places like Alaska) it can rust in particular locations, and need repair if the plane has led a rough life and been kept outside in bad weather. I think the biggest issue with Mooneys in this regard is that you can’t just strip off fabric for easy access. But on the other hand it’s generally easier to repair steel tube corrosion than aluminum monocoque corrosion.

1970s planes are relatively new when compared with the types that people have been rebuilding for decades (since the 70s and before), and as a result of their different construction and additional systems they are usually more complex. That doesn’t in my mind make them into consumer durables like a lot of the stuff we buy nowadays, use and eventually throw away. Even relatively new 1970s construction planes are better than that.

Much depends on: hangared or not, and where based. I didn’t say the type is specially likely to corrode

1970s… that’s about 50 years ago! Europe is not Arizona. One owner I know posted a load of “lots of rust” pics elsewhere and I’ve looked for them (I have them too but not authorised to post) but they appear to have been removed. I think he sold the plane as soon as he poured in enough €€€ (5 digits) to get a CofA issued.

Interesting video posted by Bosco while I was typing this.