Need commuter (280nm) plane, Which One?

lacofdfireman · #1 11-01-2006, 04:52 PM

Well being a long distance commuter now, (Live in St. George UT and work in Lancaster, CA) I have decided that flying would be far better than driving the 360miles that I am currently driving. I have flown in Paul Rosales 6A and really loved it but am wondering if I should go with a 7A? I have decided at least at this point that building is not going to be an option for awhile. I do have this in my long term goals but need to be in the air now instead of 2-6 years from now if I build. I have also sat in an 8 but really prefer the side by side seating. I know the cockpit size from a 6A to 7A is virtually the same but the 7A seemed to be a larger plane otherwise.
Also which engine choice would be better for me? 160hp or the 180hp. To me time is money but so is GPH's. I want to make a wise choice when it comes to engine size since that is one of the major expenses. I also just need a basic VFR panel with night flying capabilities.
I must say I am very impressed with the Van's Aircraft planes. Most people I talk to say I would be better off in a 172 or 182 that is 30-40years old then to buy a Used Experimental or "Custom Built" plane. What are your theories.

Also on the last note. I just started flying lessons so I will be a low time pilot when I make my plane purchase. Also my budget is going to be $70-80k.

So what would be the best commuter both economically and performance wise?

Thanks

Kyle Boatright · #2 11-01-2006, 05:07 PM

Your best "deal" will be on a -6a with a 160 horsepower engine.

The -7 was designed to do two things that were not features in the -6. First, everything in the kit is match drilled to make assembly faster and more accurate. If you are buying a flying airplane, that shouldn't matter much to you, although you should look more closely at a -6 to make sure it is properly assembled. The second thing is that the -7 has a slightly larger wing and a somewhat higher gross weight. To you that translates to a slower aircraft on the same HP and a higher useful load.

As far as being a low time pilot, make sure you get good transition training.

Also, if I was commuting 360 miles frequently, I'd make sure the airplane had at least a wing leveler/ single axis autopilot like the TruTrack or the Trio. About $2k for either unit.

DeltaRomeo · #3 11-01-2006, 05:26 PM

Hi Dave,

Make sure to regularly scan the classified section for RV-6A's if that's in fact what you're looking for.

Go to http://www.vansairforce.com/community/search.php and put RV-6A in the Key Word(s) box. Make sure you have the VAF Classified forum selected in the Search in forum(s) box.

I just searched it and found (3) flying ones for sale.

Best,
Doug

lacofdfireman · #4 11-01-2006, 06:10 PM

Have another question!! I have also been scanning the barnstormers website and they have a good selection of RV's. Looks like from that site I could slip into a 6A for my budget of $80 niclely and have a great plane. Just wondering when they say the year of the plane For Example 2004 RV-6A does this mean the kit was purchased in 2004 or does this mean the plane recieved it's airworthiness cert in 2004? Guess what I am saying is if I bought a kit this year (06) and it took me 4 years to complete would it be registered as an 2006 or a 2010?

Kyle Boatright · #5 11-01-2006, 06:38 PM

The year refers to when the airworthyness certificate was issued.

videobobk · #6 11-01-2006, 06:57 PM

While the 6A would normally be the most economical choice, you might also consider the 9A. It seems that Van's people consider it the plane of choice when doing cross country work and it is about the same speed as the 7A with the same power. They seem to sell for a bit less than the 7's, probably because many are fixed pitch and carbed O-320's. Cabin size is the same as the 7A. Normal engine with the 9 is 150 or 160 hp with 160 being the most common, I believe. Very economical traveler, but I am a little prejudiced.

Bob Kelly

flyeyes · #7 11-01-2006, 07:09 PM

I would second the recommendation for a -9A as a commuter, especially given the route you'll be flying over. The -9 has a larger, higher aspect ratio wing which should be a little better (theoretically) at altitude, and would have a lower landing speed. A low landing speed could become very important over some of the terrain between St George and Lancaster.

James Freeman

jcoloccia · #8 11-01-2006, 08:01 PM

The 172's and Warriors are nice planes but they're dogs around the Antelope valley, especially if you're anywhere near gross weight. 644fpm at sea level? Yeah right. Maybe when it's new and polished. Combine a tired engine with some cracked fairings, a warm day (typical around here) and slightly sloppy pilot tecnique (keep that ball centered!) and you'll fnd yourself struggling at about 100fpm or less past 9000 feet some days.

I'd be looking at planes like the 182, Piper P28-235 or Dakota($$$), of course anything from Vans etc... I wouldn't even consider anything without a constant speed prop except maybe something from Vans just because they perform so well regardless....certainly no fixed pitch spam cans. We live in Lancaster and rent fixed pitch spam cans...we know...the climb can be brutal. We're looking to buy a plane ourselves. A big reason is that we're both tired of spending the first 30 minutes, or more, of each flight in a climb just to clear terrain and get out of the turbulence.

Just another perspective and something to think about.

Now a better question is if you're considering this just for a commuter, why not get a -3?

Decisions, decisions.....

RVbySDI · #9 11-02-2006, 11:53 AM

You might think hard on the reasons for your commute. Are you commuting because you absolutely have to get somewhere at a specific time? I ask because a real factor in daily commuter flying will eventually end up involving the fact that you will have to arive at either end of the commute, without question, at a specific time regardless of the weather (i.e. you have to be at work at 8:00 am every day). If your answer to that question is yes then I might suggest you seriously examine the issues of having to fly in weather. You mention that you are interested in a plane with day/night VFR. This may not be a good choice if you absolutely have to be at the end of your commute on a bad weather day. I mention these issues not as a discourgement but as something you might want to seriously consider when you examine the type of airplane you are looking at and how it is equipped.

Baja_Traveler · #10 11-02-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVbySDI

I might suggest you seriously examine the issues of having to fly in weather.

This exact thought has gone through my head while thinking of my job (I'm a contractor who tests biotech and pharmaceutical equipment and facilities, so I travel all over So. Cal. for sometimes months at a time on some jobs.)
My conclusion was that on most jobs I would have to have a vehicle at both ends in case I got stuck behind weather (and also get from the airport to the job and back). Here in So. Cal. we mostly have to worry about coastal marine layers and not so much the storms that spring up out of nowhere like the midwest.

I drive through St. George every year on my way to Solitude to ski. I understand that flying weather can be a bit unpredictable starting about now through the winter? Either way - man thats a long drive to make every week!