Warbird Information Exchange

Well, it's come to that time. I've started thinking about getting an airplane. I could go the "normal" route and get a 182 (want at least something in the High Performance category as I need to be building time in HP aircraft) or I could go something a bit older. I had though of a Super Swift but even if I lost 100 pounds it'd still be (realistically) a 1 person airplane. I've also thought about some of the older Cessna taildraggers like the 180, 185, 190, and 195. However, my basic requirements are pretty straightforward:

1) Comfortably carry 2 grown adults and baggage with 3 hours of fuel plus reserves aboard.
2) High Performance category aircraft (200+HP engine and/or constant speed prop)
3) Economic to own - I want to keep total fixed costs under $1000/mo if possible and hangar rent is about $200-$250 around here. I want operating cost to be around $60/hr (that includes the accumulation for overhauls, annual, etc.).
4) IFR capable (doesn't have to have an IFR panel now, just be able to add IFR in the future)

5) (optional) I would like to have a conventional-type to get my tailwheel rating and build time in one.

Purchase is going to be at least 2 years away, so right now I'm looking more for the generic model and average price so I can start planning what I need to save up for the down-payment and put back for other costs once I make the purchase.

I'm sure you guys will have plenty of great ideas for me to be looking at.

I'm not up on current prices - haven't operated a GA plane in 12+ years. But it's hard to beat an older Mooney. The mid-late '60s M20C with manual gear (johnson bar) & older panel will be quite reasonable to purchase & operate. 145-150kts @ 8-9gph...

There are probably several homebuilts that may suit your needs as well if you're interested in that route...

_________________
Daddy always said, "If yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough" and I'm one tough sonofagun!

I used to have a '63 M20C – it's probably the most economical to own and maintain retractable gear plane out there, but only if you get one in good shape to start with. It's not however high-performance with only 180hp or 200 for the E model. (Not a taildragger either.) A C180 will certainly fit the bill, as would a 195. 190's are pretty scarce these days, most having been converted to 195s with a Jake. The Continental is harder to find parts for and the Jake has more HP. Although it's been done, I wouldn't recommend learning to fly a taildragger in one however – better to learn in a 140 or a 170. A 180 will get you into places a 195 won't – it doesn't really have flaps, at least not in the fowler sense of the word, so it isn't a bush plane. But it does have lots of ramp appeal and is a lot of fun to fly. You'd have to find out if you're insurable as well. Only one company is really writing policies for 195's right now. The great thing about 195's as a vintage plane is that it really is a modern classic - all metal, good parts availability and good support, so maintenance costs are very reasonable. It seats 5 and has a big baggage compartment that you can fill up. Look at the International 195 Club website, it's got tons of info and resources: http://www.cessna195.org/

Thanks for the replies so far. As I said, I'm looking a bit down the road and the two answers so far have been great.

Also, it doesn't have to be a taildragger, it's a "would like" not a "really want". The High Performance is a "really want" however because that's where I need time as much or more than anywhere else.

Another option might be a Super Swift - not going to get much in the way of baggage for your two adults, but ramp appeal is high & quite a few boast 210hp & CS prop...

_________________
Daddy always said, "If yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough" and I'm one tough sonofagun!

well - if you're thinking about something like a 182, you may as well get a 180. And if you're hanging out here, you may as well get something with a round engine like a 195. It's very easy to justify and really quite sensable. Just get TD time in something somewhat similar. he 140/170 is good because of the spring gear and side by side. My TD time was all in centerline stick type birds. PA-25, PA-18, S2's etc. I had a lot of hours and many, many landings, but the 195 was challenging to transition. All the cues I'd used before when I had no forward visibility were useless. So I had to relearn a lot. The 195 is also challenging because of the high cg (similar to a Stearman) and springy gear combined with narrow track/long wheel base, but very manageable once you get the feel.
If you're in the NY area I'll give you a ride.

It's alarming to me that we all seem to think along similar lines! When we started our quest for a place to spend money, we originally thought 180, then someone alerted me to spending my money wisely and getting a 195 instead. Both were a little spendy for the budget at the time, and I had (and still have ) only a little time in conventional gear airplanes. A Swift was high on the list as well, but I couldn't find what I wanted back then, and the tailwheel time was a factor for the insurance man as well. We finally found a manual gear M20E that fit what we wanted an airplane to do for the two of us, and we are very happy with it. We true out at around 150-152 kts. and burn 10/10.5 gallons per hour. Four cylinder Lycs are hard to beat when it comes time for overhaul, too. We'd like to go faster and lose the nose gear, but it's a good two person bird for the money invested. And if you have "friends" that you'd like to alienate, just invite them to sit in the back for a four-hour leg. They'll never ask to tag along again!



Scott

Well, at $4.50/gallon for fuel and about 13.5 GPH you just spent more than your operating cost on fuel alone...

True. However, I am willing to go over my target if it's worth it.

Thanks for the suggestion on the Mooney M20E. It and the 195 are right now towards the top of my list. I've had several people suggest a T-6 for a High Performance, Complex, Taildragger, but I don't think I'm willing to go that big quite yet and I like the idea of having at least a semblence of a cabin.

Keep the suggestions coming if you have any support or different recommendations for what to look at.

Well I see we think alike . . . I painted my 63 M20C in the original factory scheme, although with updated colors. It was a very good plane, practically bullet-proof. The landing gear system is great, although they are starting to have trouble with the latch mechanism failing if it hasn't been replaced. The 0-360 can be overhauled for ~ 15 grand and as long as you fly it enough to keep the cam lubricated it will easily go to 2000 hours. I never would have sold it if we didn't add twins to the family. Suddenly 4 seats wasn't enough and I had my excuse to buy the 195 I always wanted. (No Cherokee Six or 206, thank you very much) It burns more fuel but not anymore than those 2 alternatives. Annuals so far haven't been much more than the Mooney, and the insurance while more, I think mostly reflects the higher hull value over the Mooney. With the 195 I can land on grass and haul more stuff with a roomier cabin. They are both useful x-country machines. We regularly fly between NY and Chicago in ours. Mooneys happen to be undervalued, especially the c's. E's are a lot harder to find.

Skybolt,

We really DO think alike! When my painter saw the 1964 Sales Brochure and realized that's how we wanted the plane painted, he stared at me and said "that's a little out there, isn't it?'" After he finished he actually began to like it, but he thought Mooney's design department was on crack during the sixties. Painters like to mask straight lines.

CAPFlyer,

If you can swing the difference, the 195 would certainly be my choice--the cabin is bigger, the airplane is bigger, the motor is rounder, and it sits right when parked.

I too would agree that a 195 fits the bill, but if you are looking to distance yourself from all the spam-can drivers I would consider a Yak-18T, particularly one that has been converted to a full American-style electrical system.

A good friend has a 400 hp one, and it is an absolute blast to fly. Now that the Feds have removed the range limits on them they are legitimate cross-country aircraft. Most in the US are very low-time since rebuild and sell for around $85k. You can put 4 hefty adults in one AND still be legal AND still do half a vertical roll!

Some good info in this article:

http://www.russianaeros.com/Pilot%20Art ... ak-18T.pdf

Wow...didn't think there were any Yak-18T's in the US yet. That would actually be a perfect fit as there are 2 CJs owned by members of one of the museums I volunteer at and LNC is the home to the largest concentration of Russian L-jets in the Western Hemisphere, so I would fit right in.

Thanks for the great suggestions again guys. I will make sure to let everyone know what happens if we're all still around...

I think there are 10 Yak-18Ts flying in the US right now, plus another 2 or 3 in Canada. A couple of them have been for sale on Barnstormers recently, and of course you can still import them, though the current weak dollar makes that a bit more expensive proposition than it used to be.

Good luck in your search for the right plane. If I ever have kids, I'll probably be tricking out a Yak-18T for XC trips!

I owned 2 Mooneys for 10 year total. The best point is range, my 201 held 64 gal of fuel and burned 9gph leaned out in cruise. If you fill it up before the trip, you don't have to worry about running out unless you have a heck of a bladder, or astronaut diapers. It is also fairly fast, I planned 150k true airspeed at 8500. It flies well in the pattern, stable in roll, not as stable in pitch. It can land pretty short if you slow it down, or float a long ways if not. I went into an 1800'strip on a Texas ranch. Visibility is pretty good. The big items to check on prebuy or wing tank leakage at the seams, water leakage that can rust fuselage tubes, and nose gear damage. The plane is helll for strong, with a one piece spar, and tough gear.
The only real downside is cabin is not real big. The front seat has enough leg room for adults, the back seat is a little tight.
A 182 is fairly popular around here, but it is white bread as for as cool. Take a look a 180/185s also. I'd guess a 190/195 is harder to land, might be harder or more expensive to maintain, harder to resell? It does have the flair!
Early Bonanzas are really popular, Beech parts are expensive however.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK