Given my mission profile where 90% of my trips are below 300nm and in the UK, where one of the real advantages is the IRR, I fear the humble Worrier ticks all the boxes. Fueled at the tabs it carries four average to slender adults, and awaiting @Graham ISO certification, cruises at KTAS120.
A European IR tourer is a big jump and with the high airway MEAs of Europe, hampered by lack of serious de icing.
My trip to Eddsfield via Cambridge took around 3 hours twenty flying time return, a fast RG tourer would have done it in around one hour less, but am not sure it would have coped with the grass strips en route (obstacles, 500 – 600m). Here the at the threshold speed of the Warrior at around 50-55 KIAS is a distinct advantage. The Arrow II and a lighter earlier Bonanza or Comanche might cope with a grass strip, but am not sure I would be that comfortable using them that way on a regular basis.
Perhaps the Arrow II, which btw has a relatively simple robust electro-hydraulic RG system, is a regular visitor at farm strips, but only cruises about 15% faster than my Warrior.
The Eddsfield residents are a Hawk XP and a Socata Rallye, good honest farm strippers :)
Not to ruin anything, only to point out there are other solutions to the family – aircraft conundrum. And I’m not kidding. This is the preferable solution for many, maybe the majority even 
First, a specious Caravelle with all the room you need for you and your family, and the power to tug a trailer:
Then, a trailer with an aircraft.
The could be a problem if your wife also has a license. Who will drive, who will fly? 
172driver wrote:
there’s one massive difference between Europe and the US, at least the western part: distance.
I really think the US/Canada and Europe need to be looked as in totally different ways, yes. The differences are way too big for many of the things to even be comparable. Insurance (big issue in the US, none in Europe for now), infrastructure, maintenance cost, e.t.c. simply make for different missions and for different requirements.
Even in the US missions can be massively different. Someone in Central US who never aspires to cross the Rockies but stays in the flat lands will hardly ever need turbocharging. But be based in Colorado and do regular trips to California? Totally different ballgame.
Same here. Folks based in northern Germany, Belgium, Netherlands who are happy flying to the frisian islands and do not aspire to fly over the Alps have different requirements. The definition of Mission is so important because of this. Someone who lives in Hannover and has a holiday home in Rügen won’t need to climb over 5000 ft in most of his career, DA is not an issue, e.t.c. But if your destination is in the Alps or beyond the alps, that changes massively.
172driver wrote:
Our club has now – sadly and, IMHO, stupidly – sold our C210. Much as I loved that airplane, the gear was a constant source of mx events. Nothing big, but there always were issues. The Sword of Damocles that hung over it was the main gear power pack which was way over its normal lifespan. Cost (parts only): $ 8000.
Cessna retracable gears are one contraption I would never want to be confronted with as an owner, not only because of maintenance but also because of the fact that they suffer quite a lot of gear collapses and gear up landings for technical reasons. Hence, insurance for those is higher than others, hence maintenance is quite massive and as you said, there are types (especcially those with gear dors still in place) which would simply be a too high risk for me financially.
172driver wrote:
Interestingly that doesn’t seem to be the case for twins. I am about to start flying a Beech Baron BE55 and all the insurers want are 10 hours in make and model.
That is very weird indeed. Maybe they assume that people flying twins are much more experienced and doing the twin rating makes for more comitted people? Really interesting.
What I hear in the grapevine of US brokers, the main reason for retracable singles getting almost uninsurable is that there are too many pilot induced gear up events and that people transfer to those planes too early. A figure I’ve heard as a minimum to be insurable is 500 hrs. IMHO, this would cause the whole complex market to implode, if that was done in Europe this way and it appears to put a massive dent in complex value in the US. And more and more often you get adds of great planes getting sold because the owner can not get insurance renewal or only to conditions which are onerous to say the least. One case I heard of is a 75 year old guy with x-thousands of hours and who had his top notch lovely Mooney for over 30 years and almost had to quit because insurances refused to renew his cover. He eventually managed to get insured for another 3 years I believe with the help of a well known broker, but his premium quatrippled and it took the combined effort of broker and some others to convince the underwriter that it was pointless to order the guy to do 100 hrs with an FI as not only was he an FI himself (plus examiner, plus ex Navy and Airlines) plus having over 3000 hours on that particular airplane. Stuff like that is ridiculous and age discrimination.
Airborne_Again wrote:
FAA complex: has retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller.
EASA complex: MTOM over 5700 kg, or requires more than one pilot or has a jet engine or has more than one turboprop engine or is certified for more than 19 pax.
Yes thank you. Very important point.
Thankfully we don’t have this in Europe yet, even though also here some companies have pulled out of the GA insurance market and the rest have risen premiums.
C182 would be my best pick for anyone looking for 4pob family and does not know where to start, it’s all weather & terrain aircraft going from grassroots to airways (I can guarantee it climbs with wheels full of mud & wings full of ice and lands piece of cake in 30kts winds), it can be flown by any pilot regardless of his experience and tick his mission, but it has nothing charming about it except being fully functional = you can’t go wrong and you won’t regret it
The advice is not for someone who knows where to start, has probably got an airplane and knows exactly what he is missing and what he loves about it !
RobertL18C wrote:
Given my mission profile where 90% of my trips are below 300nm and in the UK, where one of the real advantages is the IRR, I fear the humble Worrier ticks all the boxes. Fueled at the tabs it carries four average to slender adults, and awaiting @Graham ISO certification, cruises at KTAS120.
You know, the Cherokee 140/150 / Warrior is a very much underestimated airplane I think. It definitly makes a great first airplane and works perfectly well for this kind of missions.
RobertL18C wrote:
Perhaps the Arrow II, which btw has a relatively simple robust electro-hydraulic RG system, is a regular visitor at farm strips, but only cruises about 15% faster than my Warrior.
I’d add the C-E and F Mooneys with manual gear to that list of airplanes which have a very minimal price increase over an Archer or Tiger. The gear is totally easy to maintain and has no electric or hydraulic parts. My C is quite happy on grass too. The only hydraulic it has are the flaps, so probably par for the course with the Arrow II. At the time I almost bought an Arrow II but shied away over high maintenance costs vs the same billing period of the Mooney. But I am starting to think that was an unfortunate and not fully representative examples.
LeSving wrote:
Not to ruin anything, only to point out there are other solutions to the family – aircraft conundrum. And I’m not kidding. This is the preferable solution for many, maybe the majority evenFirst, a specious Caravelle with all the room you need for you and your family, and the power to tug a trailer:
You know, you may be running in open doors here.
Given the travel conditions in Europe right now, where testing, harassment and restriction is what hampers airline and GA alike, i’ve been musing over some adds for a camper van. Some are here available for as low as 5000 Euros (in drivable and certified condition) and feature full bed-bath-kitchen and space for 4-6.
Seriously speaking: They are dirt cheap to buy, run on about 8 l/100km diesel and will do the trip to Bulgaria in about 2 days. And when you get tired or see a place worth staying for a day or so, just park it and go to sleep. Yes I know there are regulations forbidding camping in many places, but there are apps which give you parkings where RV’s are allowed in various capacities. They are not weather critical and would also work well for short weekend trips, where they’d save hotel costs as long as you know where to park for night stops. Many are quite independent from external power (solar panels or generators) and have toilet and showers.
The Turbo Dakota is a wonderful aeroplane for farm strips and touring. It’s faster and nicer to hand fly than a 182. Will do 140Ktas at 12 USG per hour, and almost 130Ktas on 10 USG. I think I prefer it to the Lycoming Dakota. We will copy a few things from this Dakota for our TU206G restoration, Deltair for the engine rebuild and the S-Tec 55X autopilot.
C182 would be my best pick for anyone looking for 4pob family and does not know where to start, it’s all weather & terrain aircraft going from grassroots to airways (I can guarantee it climbs with wheels full of mud & wings full of ice and lands piece of cake in 30kts winds), it can be flown by any pilot regardless of his experience and tick his mission, but it has nothing charming about it except being fully functional = you can’t go wrong and you won’t regret it
@lbra it may be because I have spent many hours in a 182, and while it is an excellent holder of value and is quite a Swiss army knife in its versatility: the handling is ponderous, it is quite thirsty, quite noisy, pilot visibility not great, and maintenance is more than you might expect for a fixed gear aircraft.
@WF is right in saying the Dakota is a much nicer handling aircraft, and they tend to enjoy a premium over the 182 as a result. The sleeper Cherokee 235 has been ‘discovered ‘, and good examples can’t be found cheap any longer
@Mooney_Driver the Mooney Mark 21 Super 21 and Executive with Johnson bar undercarriage are great and very well built, it’s just that the less efficient Arrow is better known amongst aircraft mechanics in the UK
C182 would be my best pick for anyone looking for 4pob family
Seconded. Mine is a TR182 which imo is the best of the bunch, but a fixed gear 182 is a true swiss army knife. Not the fastest but will get in and out of anywhere, carry 4 people with baggage and decent fuel (3 hours). Turbo if (as someone said earlier) your location or mission takes you over serious mountains, otherwise NA is fine.
I looked around a lot when I bought my plane (20 years ago!) and that was my conclusion then, and still is. I was very lucky to find a TR182 in good shape, which I have maintained to a high standard since. Pipers… not my personal cup of tea, reinforced by the woes of my friend with an Arrow. Bonanza – I looked at the smaller one (33?) and it has a CG range of about a millimetre. Plus parts are horribly expensive. Mooneys are nice though not sure about the parts situation long term.
All that said, if I was in the market for a new-to-me plane right now, I’d probably get a DA40. But it’s definitely not a 4-person plane.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
What I hear in the grapevine of US brokers, the main reason for retracable singles getting almost uninsurable is that there are too many pilot induced gear up events and that people transfer to those planes too early.
If that is such a deal breaker why not exclude that kind of risk from the insurance? This is at least a risk which is under control of the pilot as opposed to corrosion issues or engine problems which can easily set you off by the same amount of money as a gear up landing.
@johnh I feel somewhat churlish having made some less flattering comments about the 182. The type has provided me safe practical transportation for many decades, in all kinds of weather. In terms of GA the type is as close to blue chip as you can get, especially the Reims built 182Q.
