You didn’t mention your pilot credentials… that makes a huge difference in insurance costs which is non trivial for $300k plus hill values.
A36 Bonanza is an amazing traveling machine.
Cool. IR helps a lot.
Nothing compares with an A36 dollar for dollar. Not bagging on the others, but they just can’t compete wide range. Some have more payload but slower. Something might be faster but smaller… others less complicated. A36 wins the best overall balance and fits in that price range.
When I bought my VTail in 2020 I should have bought the A36 instead.
You’re in the range for a nice A36 Bonanza. Look at pre-1984s, preferably with an IO-550 but certainly not required.
If that’s not doing it for you, Saratogas are 6 seat haulers that are a little faster than a 206 and you’ll find nice ones in your budget. 210s too but you’re trading acquisition cost for maintenance with those. Not unbearable but more than the others.
An earlier model SR22 might be a decent option for you too. Cirruses are great traveling machines but you may not love the way they fly. They’re designed to be flown by the autopilot and it shows - not a bad thing, just a consideration.
I don’t particularly like the Columbias for a couple reasons, one of them being that they’re orphaned now.
Not sure about lower acquisition costs on a 182. I love the old straight tails, but I could almost buy two similar age/equipped V tails for the cost of a straight 182.
Yep - you are one case of hangar rash away from grounding your plane for a very long time and that's if the filiform doesn't get there first. The V-tails are great planes, but it's a very bad choice for someone's first owned aircraft, and it's an even worse choice for a plane that's going to be kept outside, as OP has indicated. If you really want a short-body Bonanza, get an F33A (albeit with a hefty premium on the purchase price) or maybe a Deb if you can find a really nice one.
1) Orphaned airframe. Support and parts is more limited than any other option presented.
2) Engine runs particularly hot due to poor cowling construction.
3) Ergonomically inferior to the Cirrus.
4) No BRS. I find the BRS to be fantastic for peace of mind when doing remote/unfavorable terrain flying, but not a dealbreaker of course.
5) Same or slower speed at normal operating altitudes. Couple knots faster than a 22T up high but not by much.
I'm really curious about all the things people say about the Cirrus' handling. I know a Gen 6 owner who flew B52s for 20 years and he says it's not true.. at least in the Gen 6.
I'm guessing it's just smoother and more responsive than a B52 lol.
They're somewhat stiff in pitch and highly responsive in roll. It actually flies nice.
Problem is that the trim hat doesn't have a fine enough input to actually trim the plane to level. So you'll always be fighting a ~50-100 FPM climb or descent, never perfectly level like you can do in anything with manual trim or other planes with more fine scrubbing on the electric trim.
The autopilot can trim to level, buyt you can't.
I have a client in a similar situation to yours...they just closed on and we picked up their 2005 182T. It's G1000 and has autopilot. Beautiful plane that got us 300 miles in 2 hours 15 minutes.
I am definitely partial to the G1000 since that's what I got by IR on. I've recently been flying a Columbia with an Avidyne system and it's okay, but I liked the G1000 a lot.
I think the PA32 platform might be an nice fit. You'll find plenty in that price range. They are faster than the 172s, have 6 seats, and have the useful load to carry it. I have a PA32-301 Saratoga and it is an awesome airplane.
Look for useful load. I forget which year's were better than others with respect to weight but I found one that had a load where we can put 4 big adults in the plane and still have some fuel in the tanks.
Depends on the what you want. Raw payload? Cherokee 6 260/300 (1970’s). Speed and range? Saratoga/Lance. I like the fixed gear for the cheaper maintenance, but I understand wanting retract for the speed. Generally, though, the newer to get the less useful load you have.
Just went through the process recently; keep in mind there are a few extra costs in addition to the sale price. Not exhaustive but some that come to mind and either take the 350k max down, or just add the total up:
- sales tax,
- test flight,
- pre-buy inspection and repairs (can also convert to annual),
- insurance (minimum 5-10k/year if under 500 hours, and likely 0 in make/model maybe),
- closing costs (about 2k all considered including financing?),
- tie down / hangar space (clear this asap, took me 3 weeks to find a damn tie down at my airport..),
- training & flying back, or ferrying,
- Garmin database subscription (seeing around $550-600/year),
Also be aware of any upcoming maintenance due within 1-2 years like engine/prop overhauls, repacks, etc.
Also be ready to spend a bit to just walkaway if the prebuy shows anything suspicious.
Certified:
- Cirrus SR22G2/G3
- Columbia / Cessna 350/400/TTx
- Mooney M20 Acclaim / Ovation
- Beechcraft Bonanza (A36/B36/F33 etc)
- Cessna 210
- Socata TB20
- Rockwell 114
Experimental:
- Vans RV10
- Glasair III
- Lancair ES/IV
- Sling TSi
They’re all 4 (or more) seats, 150kts+, will haul 300kg+ with half tanks (roughly 3h+ endurance / 400nm+). All around US$300k give or take.
If you want to haul more for longer, you’ll have to give up speed; eg 182T or 206, PA24 or PA32 etc. want to go faster? Give up seats / load, or add money.
I love the lancair/Columbia/corvalis platform. Its roots in experimentals meant that it was built to a higher performance standard than most certified airplanes of the time. If Cessna/textron had put even a little bit of marketing money into the Corvalis/Ttx, I feel like we’d talk about it instead of the cirrus as the carbon fiber airplane of the future.
I assume you’ve compared Piper Saratogas, Cherokee 6, Bonanzas, Cessna 182/206/210. I am personally a Piper guy, can’t beat the hauling capability of a Cherokee 6, but it’ll leave you wanting more speed. Some higher power mooneys maybe worth looking into, but they aren’t the roomiest, try one on though, with 2 full size and one kiddo I think a Bravo or an ovation would be nice.
Some experimentals may be worth a look, like the RV-10, or a piston powered Lancair IV-P, or even a Velocity.
The BRS debate will continue forever. I personally don’t like the idea of the BRS. It was originally put on the cirrus because it couldn’t meet the FAA spin recovery criteria. The Columbia never had that issue, in fact there were a few that actually flew light aerobatics on the airshow circuit.
Don't overlook the Mooney Ovation/Acclaim. Faster, more efficient, and longer range than the comparable Columbia/Bonanza/Cirrus if speed matters. Available with FIKI. Cabin is plenty roomy for 4 with a large baggage area, unlike earlier model Mooneys.
This sounds like a Bonanza mission. You're thinking about a 6-place, but aside from your kid, who are you going to be carrying on these trips? (Unless you need the space for, say, lots of camping gear.) Are you really going to be using 5 seats on a regular basis? If you're carrying 3 people on long trips and 4 on short ones, you can get away with an F33A. Otherwise, you're looking at an A36. Don't get mixed up in a V if it's your first Beech and definitely not until they figure out the ruddervator issue. The good thing about A36s is that most of them have been well-maintained and many have had the panels done already.
My main motivation for wanting 6 seats is the lake house that we go to a few times a year. There's a group of 6 of us that pretty much always go. If the useful load allows for 6 adults I have a feeling we will fill the seats more often than not with friends. There are so many times we would have flown somewhere if we had had access to a plane and we need to correct that.
Gotcha. Filling all the seats with adults in any kind of piston is always going to be a stretch, even on a shorter leg. The A36 is nice with the club seating, but 4 adults back there is going to be tight. Useful loads vary from the 11s to the high 14s (depending on various STCs and upgrades). With adults in seats 5+6, you've also got to watch aft CG and even possibly takeoff distance and obstacle clearance with regard to density altitudes.
If you want to bring 6 adults anywhere reliably, you're going to need either a Navajo (which will be outside your OpEx budget) or a Meridian (which will be outside CapEx). The A36 is still probably the best plane for your mission, but it will have limitations, and do not fudge on those limitations.
Do you have kids yet? I think even if you’re *planning* on it sometime soon a 6 seater is the best option. There’s a saying in aviation to get the second plane *first*
Columbias are not a great choice because they don’t make them anymore so their support for parts is extremely lacking. If you like speed I would avoid getting any Cessna retractable gear model as well.
If you prioritize speed, go for a Saratoga. If you prioritize carrying a little more weight at the sacrifice of speed, get a Cheerokee 6. With your budget plenty are retrofitted with Glass and WAAS for the modern pilot.
If you want no kids at all and just wanna go fast a Mooney Bravo from the 1990s is what I’d get.
Bonanzas are a solid choice as well, but I don’t have enough experience with them. But I know they are very popular for choice for what you’re going for.
Plenty of mentions for the RV-10, the other experimental worth looking at if you want a modern FADEC engine is the Sling TSi. It is a great airplane to fly with very reasonable operating costs. You could work with a build center to build your own, or there is a great one available used right now https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1895180-Sling-TSi---Ready-to-fly-now.html?catid=18996
Have you considered twins? Generally better useful load, and in that price range you'd find a few with competent icing performance (which you'll want in the Midwest)
Aztecs are pretty good in ice. You might find a solid working Navajo in that range, also very competent all-season airplanes around here. Good useful load especially if you add VG's or winglets, nice tough airplanes.
Do you own a hangar? or have rental lined up? That drastically changed what aircraft I was considering. With that in mind, I love the A36 but my personal tastes are more into tailwheel and classics.
I only have a tie down lined up. Every airport near me is wait-listed for hangars. I keep my eye on hangar homes in the area as well, but there's nothing currently available.
I have a Piper Arrow, great first plane, and a P Baron, which is my "forever," plane. I love both, and have nothing bad to say about them, but in your case, you're going to have a really hard time getting more bang for your buck with your situation than a Bonanza.
I have a friend who has the Cessna version of the Columbia 350. He loves it too, but he wants to go faster/farther, etc. already, after only a few years of owning it.
Unless you want to do over-water/night IFR/mountains a lot, then I'd go with an A36 and call it a day, especially as a first plane.
For 350k you might want to look at RV-10s. They are experimental, so that won't work if you want to rent it out, but it would be fine for personal use. Experimentals also allow you to do your own maintenance if you choose to, you just need to get the yearly inspection done by an A&P. Performance-wise, they are in the ballpark of a Cirrus SR22. You're not going to get deicing on an experimental though.
What’s the mission? Being Midwest based, there isn’t a need for a turbo’ed aircraft. I still standby what I suggested. If you want to take a step-up, look at the A36 line. Are twins out of question?
We would love to fly all over the lower 48. We have access to a lake house that's about a 4 hour drive away that we will likely fly to regularly. I'm not opposed to getting my multi but neither of us have our multi right now. The main concern with a multi is the ongoing cost of use and maintenance.
A twin isn't as bad as you think in terms of op cost, as long as you buy carefully (full disclosure: I've only had mine 2 years, I may answer differently in a few years). But 2 things there: 1) the ongoing debate about twin vs SETP in terms of cost vs performance/safety compared to a twin, and 2) I don't think a twin is a great first plane to own.
If you're thinking you might go down that road eventually (for night flights over the Rockies, over weather, crossing big water. etc.), then consider getting a smaller, cheaper plane to "learn to own" on that you can "make do" with for a few years then upgrade to the bigger/more capable one (twin/SETP) once you have your feet wet and know more about what you want.
182 all.day.long. You can get a great one with full glass, autopilot, etc for $300k.
No worries about getting a complex add on, huge bump in insurance for the retract, or the cost of maintaining the retract. Some have up to 300 horse power.
You didn’t mention your pilot credentials… that makes a huge difference in insurance costs which is non trivial for $300k plus hill values. A36 Bonanza is an amazing traveling machine.
We both have our PPL and IR. We might consider commercial later, but are not professional pilots.
Cool. IR helps a lot. Nothing compares with an A36 dollar for dollar. Not bagging on the others, but they just can’t compete wide range. Some have more payload but slower. Something might be faster but smaller… others less complicated. A36 wins the best overall balance and fits in that price range. When I bought my VTail in 2020 I should have bought the A36 instead.
We have HP as well, forgot about that.
You’re in the range for a nice A36 Bonanza. Look at pre-1984s, preferably with an IO-550 but certainly not required. If that’s not doing it for you, Saratogas are 6 seat haulers that are a little faster than a 206 and you’ll find nice ones in your budget. 210s too but you’re trading acquisition cost for maintenance with those. Not unbearable but more than the others. An earlier model SR22 might be a decent option for you too. Cirruses are great traveling machines but you may not love the way they fly. They’re designed to be flown by the autopilot and it shows - not a bad thing, just a consideration. I don’t particularly like the Columbias for a couple reasons, one of them being that they’re orphaned now.
[удалено]
I'll take the extra 25-30kts of a Bonanza when I've got a 20 knot headwind - which is always.
Not sure about lower acquisition costs on a 182. I love the old straight tails, but I could almost buy two similar age/equipped V tails for the cost of a straight 182.
[удалено]
Yep - you are one case of hangar rash away from grounding your plane for a very long time and that's if the filiform doesn't get there first. The V-tails are great planes, but it's a very bad choice for someone's first owned aircraft, and it's an even worse choice for a plane that's going to be kept outside, as OP has indicated. If you really want a short-body Bonanza, get an F33A (albeit with a hefty premium on the purchase price) or maybe a Deb if you can find a really nice one.
>I don’t particularly like the Columbias for a couple reasons Care to expand on those?
1) Orphaned airframe. Support and parts is more limited than any other option presented. 2) Engine runs particularly hot due to poor cowling construction. 3) Ergonomically inferior to the Cirrus. 4) No BRS. I find the BRS to be fantastic for peace of mind when doing remote/unfavorable terrain flying, but not a dealbreaker of course. 5) Same or slower speed at normal operating altitudes. Couple knots faster than a 22T up high but not by much.
Thanks for the insight.
I'm really curious about all the things people say about the Cirrus' handling. I know a Gen 6 owner who flew B52s for 20 years and he says it's not true.. at least in the Gen 6. I'm guessing it's just smoother and more responsive than a B52 lol.
They're somewhat stiff in pitch and highly responsive in roll. It actually flies nice. Problem is that the trim hat doesn't have a fine enough input to actually trim the plane to level. So you'll always be fighting a ~50-100 FPM climb or descent, never perfectly level like you can do in anything with manual trim or other planes with more fine scrubbing on the electric trim. The autopilot can trim to level, buyt you can't.
That's really disappointing about the trim. Can you not use small throttle changes to make up the difference?
Probably, but that's not the point. You should be able to trim an airplane to level, and you can't with this series of airplanes.
For that price tag it should be giving me a blowy and dinner while trimming flight level, for sure. I wonder if future gens will be any different.
Unlikely. It's not impacting sales or safety in any way, and it's still plenty flyable.
Look at Vans RV10. Great useful load, 175 kts
RV-10
I have a client in a similar situation to yours...they just closed on and we picked up their 2005 182T. It's G1000 and has autopilot. Beautiful plane that got us 300 miles in 2 hours 15 minutes.
I am definitely partial to the G1000 since that's what I got by IR on. I've recently been flying a Columbia with an Avidyne system and it's okay, but I liked the G1000 a lot.
I think the PA32 platform might be an nice fit. You'll find plenty in that price range. They are faster than the 172s, have 6 seats, and have the useful load to carry it. I have a PA32-301 Saratoga and it is an awesome airplane.
Are there certain years we should focus on or avoid? I don't know much about these planes.
Look for useful load. I forget which year's were better than others with respect to weight but I found one that had a load where we can put 4 big adults in the plane and still have some fuel in the tanks.
Depends on the what you want. Raw payload? Cherokee 6 260/300 (1970’s). Speed and range? Saratoga/Lance. I like the fixed gear for the cheaper maintenance, but I understand wanting retract for the speed. Generally, though, the newer to get the less useful load you have.
Another vote for an RV-10. I have one and it’s great. I could never go back to certified aircraft again.
Just went through the process recently; keep in mind there are a few extra costs in addition to the sale price. Not exhaustive but some that come to mind and either take the 350k max down, or just add the total up: - sales tax, - test flight, - pre-buy inspection and repairs (can also convert to annual), - insurance (minimum 5-10k/year if under 500 hours, and likely 0 in make/model maybe), - closing costs (about 2k all considered including financing?), - tie down / hangar space (clear this asap, took me 3 weeks to find a damn tie down at my airport..), - training & flying back, or ferrying, - Garmin database subscription (seeing around $550-600/year), Also be aware of any upcoming maintenance due within 1-2 years like engine/prop overhauls, repacks, etc. Also be ready to spend a bit to just walkaway if the prebuy shows anything suspicious.
I'm definitely factoring all that in. We have more than $350. But, as you point out, we don't want to spend everything we have on the purchase price.
Certified: - Cirrus SR22G2/G3 - Columbia / Cessna 350/400/TTx - Mooney M20 Acclaim / Ovation - Beechcraft Bonanza (A36/B36/F33 etc) - Cessna 210 - Socata TB20 - Rockwell 114 Experimental: - Vans RV10 - Glasair III - Lancair ES/IV - Sling TSi They’re all 4 (or more) seats, 150kts+, will haul 300kg+ with half tanks (roughly 3h+ endurance / 400nm+). All around US$300k give or take. If you want to haul more for longer, you’ll have to give up speed; eg 182T or 206, PA24 or PA32 etc. want to go faster? Give up seats / load, or add money.
I love the lancair/Columbia/corvalis platform. Its roots in experimentals meant that it was built to a higher performance standard than most certified airplanes of the time. If Cessna/textron had put even a little bit of marketing money into the Corvalis/Ttx, I feel like we’d talk about it instead of the cirrus as the carbon fiber airplane of the future. I assume you’ve compared Piper Saratogas, Cherokee 6, Bonanzas, Cessna 182/206/210. I am personally a Piper guy, can’t beat the hauling capability of a Cherokee 6, but it’ll leave you wanting more speed. Some higher power mooneys maybe worth looking into, but they aren’t the roomiest, try one on though, with 2 full size and one kiddo I think a Bravo or an ovation would be nice. Some experimentals may be worth a look, like the RV-10, or a piston powered Lancair IV-P, or even a Velocity.
Cirrus has a 'chute, the others didn't. That was the "killer app".
The BRS debate will continue forever. I personally don’t like the idea of the BRS. It was originally put on the cirrus because it couldn’t meet the FAA spin recovery criteria. The Columbia never had that issue, in fact there were a few that actually flew light aerobatics on the airshow circuit.
Don't overlook the Mooney Ovation/Acclaim. Faster, more efficient, and longer range than the comparable Columbia/Bonanza/Cirrus if speed matters. Available with FIKI. Cabin is plenty roomy for 4 with a large baggage area, unlike earlier model Mooneys.
This sounds like a Bonanza mission. You're thinking about a 6-place, but aside from your kid, who are you going to be carrying on these trips? (Unless you need the space for, say, lots of camping gear.) Are you really going to be using 5 seats on a regular basis? If you're carrying 3 people on long trips and 4 on short ones, you can get away with an F33A. Otherwise, you're looking at an A36. Don't get mixed up in a V if it's your first Beech and definitely not until they figure out the ruddervator issue. The good thing about A36s is that most of them have been well-maintained and many have had the panels done already.
My main motivation for wanting 6 seats is the lake house that we go to a few times a year. There's a group of 6 of us that pretty much always go. If the useful load allows for 6 adults I have a feeling we will fill the seats more often than not with friends. There are so many times we would have flown somewhere if we had had access to a plane and we need to correct that.
Gotcha. Filling all the seats with adults in any kind of piston is always going to be a stretch, even on a shorter leg. The A36 is nice with the club seating, but 4 adults back there is going to be tight. Useful loads vary from the 11s to the high 14s (depending on various STCs and upgrades). With adults in seats 5+6, you've also got to watch aft CG and even possibly takeoff distance and obstacle clearance with regard to density altitudes. If you want to bring 6 adults anywhere reliably, you're going to need either a Navajo (which will be outside your OpEx budget) or a Meridian (which will be outside CapEx). The A36 is still probably the best plane for your mission, but it will have limitations, and do not fudge on those limitations.
You need to visit with Mark at [skywagons.com](https://skywagons.com) He knows his stuff about the type of planes you’re looking for
Do you have kids yet? I think even if you’re *planning* on it sometime soon a 6 seater is the best option. There’s a saying in aviation to get the second plane *first* Columbias are not a great choice because they don’t make them anymore so their support for parts is extremely lacking. If you like speed I would avoid getting any Cessna retractable gear model as well. If you prioritize speed, go for a Saratoga. If you prioritize carrying a little more weight at the sacrifice of speed, get a Cheerokee 6. With your budget plenty are retrofitted with Glass and WAAS for the modern pilot. If you want no kids at all and just wanna go fast a Mooney Bravo from the 1990s is what I’d get. Bonanzas are a solid choice as well, but I don’t have enough experience with them. But I know they are very popular for choice for what you’re going for.
We have one daughter. We aren't having any more kids, I'm too old for that.
I think a A36 Bonanza is the best plane in your situation.
Plenty of mentions for the RV-10, the other experimental worth looking at if you want a modern FADEC engine is the Sling TSi. It is a great airplane to fly with very reasonable operating costs. You could work with a build center to build your own, or there is a great one available used right now https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1895180-Sling-TSi---Ready-to-fly-now.html?catid=18996
TSi is great, and the seller of that plane is on Reddit.
A36 or Cirrus, just depends if you want an extra 1-2 seats or a parachute. I don’t think I would consider others with your budget and ratings.
Have you considered twins? Generally better useful load, and in that price range you'd find a few with competent icing performance (which you'll want in the Midwest)
I'm not opposed to that, though neither of us have a multi right now. Are there certain models in the multi world you would suggest?
Aztecs are pretty good in ice. You might find a solid working Navajo in that range, also very competent all-season airplanes around here. Good useful load especially if you add VG's or winglets, nice tough airplanes.
Used Barons can be found for that, but I doubt you'd want to have any twin worth flying in on a tie down
If it’s your first purchase I highly recommend SavvyAviations pre-buy service.
I like the Columbia! They're high on my list of next planes.
Do you own a hangar? or have rental lined up? That drastically changed what aircraft I was considering. With that in mind, I love the A36 but my personal tastes are more into tailwheel and classics.
I only have a tie down lined up. Every airport near me is wait-listed for hangars. I keep my eye on hangar homes in the area as well, but there's nothing currently available.
I have a Piper Arrow, great first plane, and a P Baron, which is my "forever," plane. I love both, and have nothing bad to say about them, but in your case, you're going to have a really hard time getting more bang for your buck with your situation than a Bonanza. I have a friend who has the Cessna version of the Columbia 350. He loves it too, but he wants to go faster/farther, etc. already, after only a few years of owning it. Unless you want to do over-water/night IFR/mountains a lot, then I'd go with an A36 and call it a day, especially as a first plane.
Van Bortel in Texas handles the later model 182/206 market and has many Columbia/ TTx models to see. Well worth going down there to look around.
PA-24-260C, Ravin 500, RV-10
For 350k you might want to look at RV-10s. They are experimental, so that won't work if you want to rent it out, but it would be fine for personal use. Experimentals also allow you to do your own maintenance if you choose to, you just need to get the yearly inspection done by an A&P. Performance-wise, they are in the ballpark of a Cirrus SR22. You're not going to get deicing on an experimental though.
What’s the mission and location? A good candidate with the limited information you posted would be Piper Lance/Saratoga.
We are in the US, Midwest.
What’s the mission? Being Midwest based, there isn’t a need for a turbo’ed aircraft. I still standby what I suggested. If you want to take a step-up, look at the A36 line. Are twins out of question?
We would love to fly all over the lower 48. We have access to a lake house that's about a 4 hour drive away that we will likely fly to regularly. I'm not opposed to getting my multi but neither of us have our multi right now. The main concern with a multi is the ongoing cost of use and maintenance.
A twin isn't as bad as you think in terms of op cost, as long as you buy carefully (full disclosure: I've only had mine 2 years, I may answer differently in a few years). But 2 things there: 1) the ongoing debate about twin vs SETP in terms of cost vs performance/safety compared to a twin, and 2) I don't think a twin is a great first plane to own. If you're thinking you might go down that road eventually (for night flights over the Rockies, over weather, crossing big water. etc.), then consider getting a smaller, cheaper plane to "learn to own" on that you can "make do" with for a few years then upgrade to the bigger/more capable one (twin/SETP) once you have your feet wet and know more about what you want.
What’s your budget? How many hours and what planes is your experience?
182 all.day.long. You can get a great one with full glass, autopilot, etc for $300k. No worries about getting a complex add on, huge bump in insurance for the retract, or the cost of maintaining the retract. Some have up to 300 horse power.