Hi,
Question/thoughts:
I'm planning to buy a plane for family travel in the next two years and narrowing types. I'm a big bang for buck kind of person, but have ample means.
Things to know:
Seattle area
Finishing PPL, planning for IFR
Family of four (me 230, wife average size, plus two 4 year old girls)
Lot of things we'd like to be able to fly to, including some grass strips that are <200NM away
Some things we'd like to fly to that are ~500NM away, but would be less frequent
If I take my cousins instead of my family, the average weigth per person is 220, so if I think about a a four place plane, I mean 900lbs of meat in the cabin plus fuel.
___________________________________
I've been researching voraciously on various plane types and it keeps coming down to a couple of types.
1. Cherokee 6 (either 260 or 300). Lots of useful load, good short field, grass operations, low wing for crosswinds along the coast, fixed gear/low maint and insurance. Don't really care about the gas price, as I'm probably going to be a 50 hr/year pilot. they also seem easy to fly and pretty forgiving.
2. Comanche. Faster, actually has real useful loads and I've seen models with 3 person backseats (for smaller folks) giving me a 4 big adult or 3 adult and two little kid kind of plane. Cons: Insurance and MX will be higher, and I know to go get a good prebuy from someone who really, really knows them.
On the six, it really comes down to 260 vs 300 and how much you want to pay for avionics. Personally, I prefer flying to steam gauges, but I do like the traffic information presenting on the G1000 type systems, so would consider adding a GTN to something that was all round dial if I bought it to get me ADSB in+out and traffic, as well as GPS moving map. Looks like 55K for a 260 and 80K for a 300 that's in good shape, but with old panels, so add 20K for GTN + ADSB.
On the Comanche, the real question comes down to flavor... the 250's are cheap! the 260 B&C seem like the owners are *Real* proud of them in their asking prices and I can't really see the big advantage, beside FI, which is nice. Looks like 50K gets you a good one (250), but the 260 B&C runs 60K (plain) to 85K (well equipped/upgraded)
I've also looked at the 400. Seems really cool, could haul 5 with a useful of 1300 or so. Mostly, they seem well loved. Looks like 90-100K gets you a good one, though some will still need the glass upgrade.. It seems like this is a nice compromise in that you get good useful, tons of speed when you want it and a really unique airplane for around the price of the Cherokee 6/300
In reality, on our local trips to the San Jaun's or the beach, the speed doesn't matter, as we're talking 100-150NM one way trips anyway, so who cares if it's an hour in the air of 40 minutes in the air.
On the 500NM (Napa) to 800NM (Vegas) trip, it makes it into an easy 2.5 day weekend vs, being a full 3 days weekend deal.
This would be much easier if I could convince myself that the six/260 were enough.
thoughts?
Besides fuel cost, does anyone know why people say things like the 400 isn't a practical airplane? I haven't actually found a single specific thing about it that would make one think that, except fuel burn with the knobs pushed to the firewall
Question/thoughts:
I'm planning to buy a plane for family travel in the next two years and narrowing types. I'm a big bang for buck kind of person, but have ample means.
Things to know:
Seattle area
Finishing PPL, planning for IFR
Family of four (me 230, wife average size, plus two 4 year old girls)
Lot of things we'd like to be able to fly to, including some grass strips that are <200NM away
Some things we'd like to fly to that are ~500NM away, but would be less frequent
If I take my cousins instead of my family, the average weigth per person is 220, so if I think about a a four place plane, I mean 900lbs of meat in the cabin plus fuel.
___________________________________
I've been researching voraciously on various plane types and it keeps coming down to a couple of types.
1. Cherokee 6 (either 260 or 300). Lots of useful load, good short field, grass operations, low wing for crosswinds along the coast, fixed gear/low maint and insurance. Don't really care about the gas price, as I'm probably going to be a 50 hr/year pilot. they also seem easy to fly and pretty forgiving.
2. Comanche. Faster, actually has real useful loads and I've seen models with 3 person backseats (for smaller folks) giving me a 4 big adult or 3 adult and two little kid kind of plane. Cons: Insurance and MX will be higher, and I know to go get a good prebuy from someone who really, really knows them.
On the six, it really comes down to 260 vs 300 and how much you want to pay for avionics. Personally, I prefer flying to steam gauges, but I do like the traffic information presenting on the G1000 type systems, so would consider adding a GTN to something that was all round dial if I bought it to get me ADSB in+out and traffic, as well as GPS moving map. Looks like 55K for a 260 and 80K for a 300 that's in good shape, but with old panels, so add 20K for GTN + ADSB.
On the Comanche, the real question comes down to flavor... the 250's are cheap! the 260 B&C seem like the owners are *Real* proud of them in their asking prices and I can't really see the big advantage, beside FI, which is nice. Looks like 50K gets you a good one (250), but the 260 B&C runs 60K (plain) to 85K (well equipped/upgraded)
I've also looked at the 400. Seems really cool, could haul 5 with a useful of 1300 or so. Mostly, they seem well loved. Looks like 90-100K gets you a good one, though some will still need the glass upgrade.. It seems like this is a nice compromise in that you get good useful, tons of speed when you want it and a really unique airplane for around the price of the Cherokee 6/300
In reality, on our local trips to the San Jaun's or the beach, the speed doesn't matter, as we're talking 100-150NM one way trips anyway, so who cares if it's an hour in the air of 40 minutes in the air.
On the 500NM (Napa) to 800NM (Vegas) trip, it makes it into an easy 2.5 day weekend vs, being a full 3 days weekend deal.
This would be much easier if I could convince myself that the six/260 were enough.
thoughts?
Besides fuel cost, does anyone know why people say things like the 400 isn't a practical airplane? I haven't actually found a single specific thing about it that would make one think that, except fuel burn with the knobs pushed to the firewall
Last edited:
