banner
banner

23 Apr 2024, 17:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 11:21 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8086
Post Likes: +5779
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
A Pacer would be a great bang for the buck if you can find a good one. Since the market doesn't love them, they don't seem to get as much TLC and care as other vintage taildraggers.

A friend had a 180hp Pacer that climbed like a rocket. He put slightly oversized tires on it (not tundra tires, but maybe something like 8.00x6) and still had a pretty good cruise speed.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 11:43 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/26/11
Posts: 46
Post Likes: +22
How 'bout a Piper Clipper? Looks like a fun VFR airplane. Or you could get an early 172 with the O-300 and the venturies in that price range.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 11:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/02/18
Posts: 270
Post Likes: +134
Location: 20GA
Aircraft: RV-4
Not too interested in a 172. As far as an IFR travel airplane goes I’m able to rent a 182RG for far less than I can own anything comparable, so something like the Mooney suggested earlier has too much overlap for me there.

I appreciate the Piper suggestions, it appears they will certainly be a bit less underpowered if I find one with an O-320; I see cruise speed is still a bit lacking compared to some of these slick EABs.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 12:26 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/22/14
Posts: 9279
Post Likes: +16624
Company: Mountain Airframe LLC
Location: Mena, Arkansas
Sounds like you are leaning toward experimental, but a Cessna 170 series would be a good step up. Still a lot of support for C145/O-300 series engines, and they are just "modern" enough that most mechanics are familiar with them. Airframe and systems are simple and easy to maintain. I think less than 10 AD's, with only one being a recurring AD (seat tracks and seat pin engagement).


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 12:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12799
Post Likes: +5226
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Swap for an 0-200?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 14:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/02/18
Posts: 270
Post Likes: +134
Location: 20GA
Aircraft: RV-4
Username Protected wrote:
Sounds like you are leaning toward experimental, but a Cessna 170 series would be a good step up. Still a lot of support for C145/O-300 series engines, and they are just "modern" enough that most mechanics are familiar with them. Airframe and systems are simple and easy to maintain. I think less than 10 AD's, with only one being a recurring AD (seat tracks and seat pin engagement).


This is an option, but I’m not sure the market is where I need it to be to make the step right now. Definitely a lot of type knowledge transferable from 120/140 to 170 thought, so I wouldn’t be going in blind.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 14:14 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8086
Post Likes: +5779
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
If the only problem with the 120 is performance, the O-200 STC might be the best best. There’s certainly a used market for the original engine to offset the cost.

Cessna 170s are getting a little pricey too. The only one on trade a plane is a $150k bush flying beast with all the mods. (I don’t know if they’ll get that. It seems to be priced for the cost of the the use grades, not a reasonable market value.)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 14:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/02/18
Posts: 270
Post Likes: +134
Location: 20GA
Aircraft: RV-4
Username Protected wrote:
If the only problem with the 120 is performance, the O-200 STC might be the best best. There’s certainly a used market for the original engine to offset the cost.

Cessna 170s are getting a little pricey too. The only one on trade a plane is a $150k bush flying beast with all the mods. (I don’t know if they’ll get that. It seems to be priced for the cost of the the use grades, not a reasonable market value.)


This would help with takeoff and climb performance, certainly. Cruise gains would be negligible though; I’ve found that the local sightseeing circuit can only be flown so many times and at 85 knots the options for a burger run are limited.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 15:01 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/23/13
Posts: 8086
Post Likes: +5779
Company: Kokotele Guitar Works
Location: Albany, NY
Aircraft: C-182RG, C-172, PA28
I was always impressed by the performance the Pacer gets for the price. It’s similar to a 172, but basically designed like a 30s plane.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 16:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/02/18
Posts: 270
Post Likes: +134
Location: 20GA
Aircraft: RV-4
Username Protected wrote:
I was always impressed by the performance the Pacer gets for the price. It’s similar to a 172, but basically designed like a 30s plane.


It seems like a big engine version of what I have now. I’m doing some additional research on them.

This isn’t a hard requirement but there is a part of me that has always wanted something tandem with a stick. It seems that may be difficult to find in this market segment, though.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 16:12 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 10/04/19
Posts: 653
Post Likes: +400
Company: Capella Partners
Location: Alpine Airpark, 46U
Aircraft: P35, TW Pacer
I fly my pacer, Charlie, all over the country.

Climb is over 1000fpm even when it's hot, as long as there's only two of us in there.

PA-22/20-150 means a conversion to TW from tri-pacer with 150hp o-320.

I have the climb prop on and 8.5s, so I'm cruising at 100 KTAS. A cruise prop and smaller wheels will give you 110KTAS without firewalling everything.

Not the fastest plane in the world, but big capability. Bought for 29k, put 5k in. Saw a nice clean pacer go for 30k 2 wks ago, and one for 80k with an IFR panel. Lots of variation in price. Lack of supply has created weird demand for pacers.

Clipper is a pacer without a back seat, so is a colt. Both are also good options. Take the back seats out of your pacer and have a huge baggage compartment without feeling obligated to take people with you and degrade your performance. FYI I have been at gross with 4 adults in plane and still performs fine, just lands faster.

If experimental: buy a bearhawk patrol and be happy.

-J

_________________
PPL AMEL
@jacksonholepilot on instagram
firstlast@gmail.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 17:39 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/24/18
Posts: 492
Post Likes: +346
Location: New Jersey, KVAY
Aircraft: Citabria
There are some 115 hp Citabrias (7ECA) in reasonable condition that might be close to your price point. Here is one I saw : http://www.mauleairtexas.com/aircraft/l ... ECA&id=432

It will be a decent performer with two onboard. I think typical empty weight is around 1100 lbs with a gross weight of 1650. The wing spar on any early Citabria with the wood spar should be inspected by someone with good knowledge of Citabrias.
Mark


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 18:29 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/06/13
Posts: 404
Post Likes: +247
Location: KFTW-Fort Worth Meacham
Aircraft: C208B, AL18-115
I vote PA-16 Clipper. Cheap, simple, but with control sticks and sporty handling by reputation. I have not flown one. You can find theM with O-320’s.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 19:42 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/11/10
Posts: 12404
Post Likes: +11415
Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Cessna 185, RV-7
Username Protected wrote:
If experimental: buy a bearhawk patrol and be happy.

-J

Point me to the source of those sub-$40k Patrols and I'll buy three. :D


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering moving up from the 120 - opinions?
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2020, 20:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/02/18
Posts: 270
Post Likes: +134
Location: 20GA
Aircraft: RV-4
Username Protected wrote:
If experimental: buy a bearhawk patrol and be happy.

-J

Point me to the source of those sub-$40k Patrols and I'll buy three. :D


They do look cool. It seems 40K will get me a partially completed fuselage and maybe even the parts to build the rest!

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.Latitude.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.