Antonio wrote:
I subscribe to the general opinion that one should not plan on single-pilot ifr without as a minimum a wing leveller.
I would add altitude hold to that. There are pretty simple systems such as the S-Tec 30 or 30Alt (to retrofit a wing levler) which will just hold the altitude. During the time I flew without an AP, I felt it was much more “work” to keep the altitude within the prescribed +100-0 ft then correcting some heading deviation of a few degrees. Personally, I would not even fly VFR on longer routes without at least hdg/alt hold.
And ATC will be much more spooked by an altitude deviation than a heading one (last IFR flight I had, I was litterally told (by Paris control) “You navigate wherever you want, just call me if you need to deviate from FL120”)
Antonio wrote:
One of light aviation’s best kept secrets: a C177RG will fit the mission better than most, (950lbs useful, 750nm, 140KTAS @ 9 GPH, large cabin, easy on grass…) , with a large STC, OEM and owners organisations backing it 40 years after production ended.
Have to say I generally like Cessnas. I recall one guy a few years back who primarily wanted to do travel back and forth and ended up buying a 210. Of all the “non complex” planes, I suppose the 182 is maybe the best family van ever conceived. But the 177 is very pretty, both fixed gear and RG.
Seeing that the OP is in Germany, here is an interesting 210… classic but very much up to date in avionics and looks like pampered.
As a former DA40 operator, I feel that the old metal aircraft are being granted an unfair advantage in the comparisons.
While there is no question that some of the 1960s stuff was aerodynamically well designed, a DA40 is built according to much more stringent passive safety features and there were many cases where people survived thanks to the fuel system that was specifically designed to prevent post impact fires and the reinforced cabin and seat structure.
These safety enhancements obviously come at a cost in airframe weight, payload and range.
I have seen terrifying pictures of crashed metal aircraft. Trashed…
A crashed DAxx will typically show a broken tail boom and an essentially intact cabin. Post crash fires are extremely rare. How much payload would you give up in return for this?
This said, I do have my strong reservations against buying a Diamond Aircraft again, but this is a different story.
Flyingfish wrote:
a DA40 is built according to much more stringent passive safety features and there were many cases where people survived thanks to the fuel system that was specifically designed to prevent post impact fires and the reinforced cabin and seat structure.
You are very right here. In particular, this has given my quite some concern recently with my own plane and it’s brand, as it appears that far too many accidents with that airplane end up in flames where there should not have been any injury at all. Very recently, the owner of a brand new Acclaim Ultra made an emergency landing after engine failure in the US. The collision with obstacles he hit while trying to avoid oncoming cars caused a fire. Both occupants survived initially without serious injuries, yet the owner/pilot died a few days ago after an agonizing hospital stay of over 4 months. As far as I know the passenger is alive and better of. Mind, this plane had both doors.
Fire is the worst thing that can happen so fire prevention must be on top of everybodys mind. I hear that with Mooneys the best way to address this is to put bladder tanks, which are less likely to leak in case of an accident, but obviously the Cirrus Shute or better designed tanks like in the DA are of a vital importance here.
Having said all this the Cirrus question re-emerges: Seeing as the OP wishes to fly regularly to and with his family, the chute should be an option at least. Even a SR20 can fulfil his requirements more than and at night and in IMC, the shute adds a lot of value.
Seeing offers such as this one
https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=46491 planecheck_D_EAII_46491_pdf
make me realize that the SR20 series now comes into pricing where quite a potent airplane can be gotten for reasonable money.
Flyingfish wrote:
A crashed DAxx will typically show a broken tail boom and an essentially intact cabin.
Diamond’s do not own the best safety record in the light aircraft industry for no reason…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
here is an interesting 210
I would not recommend a 210 as a first owned airplane, much less under EASA reg and much less such an early version. Nothing to do with piloting but rather “owning” skills.
A “baby 210” aka 177RG is a much more sensible first aircraft and, although less capable, is much less costly and complex to operate and maintain than a 210.
Also, Patrick does not seem to have a need for the 210’s hauling capacity.
A 182 is much less efficient than a 177RG. The latter is slightly faster on a much lesser cost, and cabin space is similar. Load capacity may vary but is around 100-150lbs higher on the 182…but that is quickly eaten up by extra fuel in a trip of any significant length. As I said…a well kept secret ;)
Visually I like the lines of the 177, especially RG, but I could not be bothered to climb onto the wing at every single refuel. Also in 5 trips in a 172 I hit my head 6 times in something. I understand the advantage of gravity fuel etc, but it’ll be low wing for me.
The SR20 is a contender, if only it could get yet a little cheaper.
I find the useful load in an avgas-burning DA40 limiting.
Arne wrote:
in 5 trips in a 172 I hit my head 6 times in something
lol …. I also find it difficult to crawl under the wing to check wheels and brakes
Now I know the real reason why some favour low vs high wing ;)
Jokes aside, a 172 and 182 are easy enough to climb onto to check the wing via the fuselage step and strut . A 177 and 210 need a separate step ( I carry a lightweight small collapsible one) . I find it no more difficult than climbing onto the wing of a low-winger every time someone boards the plane (which in my case is several times times the amount of times someone has to climb to check on top of the wings).
IN northern countries, I have used the high wing as a rain shelter for luggage and people so often…and in our sunny Spain, as a badly needed sun shelter during pre-and-post-flight. Cabin temps also benefit.
BTW you can’t beat a 177 for access: they are by far the easiest airplane to climb into. Not only is it easier than any low wing (like most high-wingers) but also it is favored among the handicapped pilot community for the same reasoning:
-Low onto the ground.
-90 degree-opening cabin door
-No wing strut in the way.
You should have seen the paraplegic handicapped pilot in Northern Arkansas that we bought our plane from fifteen years ago, climbing onto the pilots seat from his chair, then folding it and picking it up to place it behind the pilots seat, all unassisted. Not that most of the rest of us would (hopefully) need it, but it just shows how easy it is.
Antonio wrote:
I would not recommend a 210 as a first owned airplane, much less under EASA reg and much less such an early version. Nothing to do with piloting but rather “owning” skills.
Ok, I am interested to hear why. Not because I question what you say but because I’d like to know for future reference.
This particular one simply looked like a very nicely upgraded plane. And the interior reminds me of other classics..
looks like it has been subject of discussion here before.
As for low wing vs high wing: Having owned both (C150 and M20) and flown several other low wings, I have to agree with you, there is simply no easier plane to get in and out of, particularly in the rain it is very nice to be able to shelter under the wing. Today, I can only be lucky if a high wing airplane is parked next to me. Also opening the door in the rain, exactly nothing happens in Cessna whereas seat and floor get soaked in the Mooneys and Pipers. Obviously even worse in that respect are the Grummans, Robins, Navions or DA20/40’s, in other words any airplane with a canopy.
