Today’s Top Pick is a 1978 Piper PA-28R-201T Turbo Arrow III.

Piper rolled out the PA-28R as the Cherokee Arrow in 1967 but soon dropped “Cherokee” from its name even though the only significant differences were the Arrow’s retractable gear and constant-speed propeller. The Arrow was also a lot faster than the fixed-gear PA28 with similar power, and gave Piper a model to compete with Mooney M20s and other entry-level retractables.

When discussing the Arrow, people will tell you that the ability to outpace its fixed-gear relatives does not make the aircraft a true speedster and that pilots should not expect more than 140 ktas in cruise. The Turbo Arrow III version for sale here, however, is the exception. Its turbocharged Continental TSIO-360 engine gives pilots the option of flying at higher altitudes without losing power the way naturally aspirated engines do. Turbo Arrows can reach 170 ktas given the right combination of power setting and altitude, which makes them capable traveling machines.   

This 1978 Piper Turbo Arrow III has 4,921 hours on the airframe and 159 hours on its 200 hp Continental TSIO-360 engine since overhaul in 2019 by Western Skyways. There are 884 hours on the Hartzell propeller since overhaul.

The panel features a Garmin GNC 420W GPS/Com, Bendix-King KX155 Nav/Com, Lynx NGT9000 transponder with ADS-B In and Out, AutoControl IIIB autopilot, Garmin Aera 660 with SiriusXM weather and audio, PS engineering audio panel with four-place intercom, and Electronics International instruments for manifold pressure, tachometer, oil pressure and temperature, fuel computer, CHT/EGT, amps and volts.

Additional equipment includes a standby vacuum system, Tanis engine preheater, electric pitch trim, rudder trim, dual toe brakes, LED landing light, and external power receptacle.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Finance. For more information, email info@flyingfinance.com.

• FLYING Magazine: Vermont’s Erin Connor Became a New Voice for Aviation at Miss America
• FLYING Magazine: A Flying Sojourn at Low Levels
• Plane & Pilot: Piper Cherokee Arrow
• Plane & Pilot: 1974 Piper Arrow II with LoPresti Speed Merchants Speed Kit
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Piper Arrow

The post This 1978 Piper PA-28R Turbo Arrow III Is a Faster-Than-Expected ‘AircraftForSale’ Top Pick appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

While there is no such thing as a cheap airplane, recent surveys of the GA market, including the diverse listings on AircraftForSale, reveal a number of models with prices that make them approachable. In some cases their prices are lower than pilots might expect and represent good values while in others the low “cost of entry” might lead to expensive maintenance costs.

• READ MORE: Sleuthing To Find the Right Airplane

Here’s a look at some of the models that offer a lot of performance at relatively low prices and some of the factors that might lead to higher and lower prices in today’s market.

Piper PA-24-250 Comanche

We often find many PA-24s on the market, and while their prices vary widely, typically between $75,000 and $150,000, they tend to be inexpensive compared with some other high-performance, four-seat retractables such as Beechcraft Bonanzas and Cessna 210s. Part of the reason might be that even the newest Comanches are more than 50 years old, as Piper ended production after a flood at the company’s Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, factory in 1972 damaged the PA-24 assembly line.

• READ MORE: Is It Better to Buy Your Last Airplane First?

Do not let the aircraft’s advanced years deter you, though, as a well-kept PA-24 can be a good traveling aircraft and a joy to own and fly. If the Piper does not quite suit you, the Beechcraft V-tail Bonanza can be a surprisingly economical alternative. 

Cessna 140

Shoppers can find nice examples of this classic Cessna two-seat taildragger for less than $40,000, though freshly restored versions might fetch more.

These small, lightweight, and relatively slow aircraft are better suited to short hops to nearby airports for lunch or fly-ins than long-distance travel, however, you can take longer trips in them if you are not in a rush. In most cases they will still get you there faster than a car.

The same goes for most of the Cessna’s vintage contemporaries, including Luscombe 8s, Taylorcrafts, and Aeronca Champs, which will perform the same antique-aircraft missions as the 140 similarly low prices.

Piper Lance

Pilots looking for a six-seat, single-engine family airplane on a budget face an uphill journey. Often the first model that comes to mind is the Beechcraft A36 Bonanza, but powerful demand has driven prices beyond many shoppers’ limits.

The Cessna 210 Centurion is another option, but their prices too have risen out of reach. Piper’s Saratoga is similarly steep, but its predecessors, the Lance and Turbo Lance, typically offer six-place cabin space at prices between $100,000 and $200,000 but often lower than $150,000. The turbo models give pilots the option of flying at higher altitudes than practical in most naturally aspirated singles. The Lance’s roomy cabin gives it the feel of an airborne SUV, which many passengers like.

Beechcraft C23 Sundowner

Beechcraft’s four-seat, low-wing trainers and personal utility aircraft, including the Musketeer, Sundowner and Sierra, were late to the lower-cost airplane party and could not match the sales of category rivals such as the Cessna 172 and Piper PA-28.

Today many buyers are giving the Beechcrafts another look, and some have found the rather obscure machines have features that set them apart from the Pipers and Cessnas in a positive way. More spacious cabins and better fit and finish give the model a higher-quality feel. Many prefer the 180 hp Sundowner to the lower-powered Musketeer and the more powerful and complex Sierra because of its combination of performance and price—often less than $50,000.

Mooney M20

Speaking of 180 hp airplanes, the long-running Mooney M20 series includes many models that used such modest power output to outrun aircraft with larger, more powerful engines, all while sipping less than 10 gallons per hour.

The basic model was on sale for decades, so there are a lot of them in circulation, and it seems that there is always a decent selection on the market. Those built in the 1960s and ’70s often cost less than $100,000 and provide a solid, economical path to aircraft ownership for pilots who want a good cross-country airplane. The type also has an active and supportive owners’ group that can make having a so-called orphan aircraft less daunting.

Cessna 310

Some part of me has longed for a Cessna 310 since childhood, and I still love its looks, whether we are talking about an early straight-tail “tuna tank” version or the later, long-nose R models that I spotted over my elementary school’s playground during the 1970s.

I can still make the case for one, because when it comes to getting a lot of airplane for the money, the light twin market is fertile ground as long as buyers do their homework, arrange thorough prebuy inspections (a rule for any aircraft purchase) and realize that the cost of ownership might be considerably higher than the cost of acquisition. I have seen many 310s lately for less than $150,000—sometimes much less. At such prices the buyer can find one with lower-time engines but will almost certainly have to deal with shortcomings like older avionics, dull paint, or worn interior. If you come across a combination that suits you, though, you could enjoy many years of cross-country bliss.

The post Finding Your Ideal Aircraft: Today’s Market Is Pricey, but Potential Bargains Abound appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

When equipped with SkyView HDX and the autopilot, Baron aircraft also will benefit from a yaw damper and approach capability when the autopilot is coupled with a compatible third-party IFR navigation instrument.

• READ MORE: Dynon Continues Progress on SkyView Installations in Certified Aircraft

When added to a SkyView HDX system, the three-axis autopilot starts at a list price of $11,192 for Baron aircraft, including all required hardware and servo harnesses. Other options that pilots frequently choose include the SkyView autopilot control panel ($664), which provides autoflight controls for the pilot, and the knob control panel ($335), which gives pilots the ability to adjust the values modified the most when flying with the autopilot, such as altitude, heading, track, and altimeter setting.

“We’re excited to expand the SkyView HDX and Dynon’s autopilot approval into the Beechcraft Baron series,” said Michael Schofield, Dynon’s director of marketing.

Dynon Certified products, including this autopilot approval, can be purchased and installed by any Dynon-authorized center. Dynon said additional autopilot approvals are in progress for select Mooney M20 and Beechcraft Debonair 33 aircraft. Electric trim and autopilot auto-trim are also widely available for Dynon autopilot-equipped aircraft.

The company said trim motor control and autopilot auto-trim are now available for most Dynon Certified autopilot installations with electric trim motors installed. In the past this feature was restricted to a select few trim systems, Dynon said. Now the restriction has been removed, so auto-trim can be used in all Dynon autopilot-equipped Cessna 182, Beechcraft 35 and 36 series, Piper Seneca, and Beechcraft Baron 58 series aircraft.

The post Dynon Certified Announces New FAA Approvals for SkyView HDX Avionics System and Autopilot appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Today’s Top Pick is a 1974 Piper PA-28R-200 Arrow.

Piper’s Arrow began in 1967 as a retractable version of the 180 hp fixed-gear PA-28. Tucking in the wheels gave the aircraft a noticeable bump in cruising speed and in popularity. Sales were brisk enough that after a couple of years Piper upgraded the engine to a 200 hp version of the four-cylinder Lycoming IO-360. Performance improved, making the Arrow more of a rival to the famously fast Mooney M20 series.

This Arrow has the sought-after 200 hp engine and would make a good traveling machine for families who want a reasonable combination of performance and economy. Arrows have long been go-to aircraft for flight schools, which use them to train pilots for complex endorsements. If you plan to buy one, you can easily get familiarization training to make sure it is the right airplane for you.

This 1974 Piper Arrow has 6,119 hours on the airframe, 1,465 hours on the engine since overhaul. Its panel features a Garmin GNS 430W, GMA 340, and Autocontrol III autopilot. The aircraft seats four and received a new interior and new paint in 2010.

Pilots looking for a gentle, forgiving four-seat family transporter that will feel especially familiar to those who trained in Piper PA-28s, should consider this 1974 Piper PA-28R-200 Arrow, which is available for $99,000 on AircraftForSale.

You can arrange financing of the aircraft through FLYING Financial Group. For more information, email info@flyingfinancial.com.

• FLYING Magazine: A Wing and a Prayer for a Classic Piper Arrow
• FLYING Magazine: Learn to Fly: Piston Aircraft
• Plane & Pilot: Wake Up To Wake Hazards
• Plane & Pilot: Piper PA28R-201 Arrow
• Plane & Pilot: Plane Facts: Piper PA-28s
• The Aviation Consumer: Piper PA-28R Arrow
• The Aviation Consumer: Used Aircraft Guide: Piper Arrow

The post Today’s Top Aircraft For Sale Pick: 1974 Piper PA-28R-200 Arrow appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Customers in every segment were welcomed with an array of options. A shopper interested in a two-seat trainer would have a variety of choices ranging from fabric taildraggers to brand-spanking-new concepts like the Piper Tomahawk and Beechcraft Skipper. Similarly, a shopper looking for four seats and good cross-country capability had a fascinating variety of models from which to choose.

This four-place cross-country category was particularly competitive. With offerings from Cessna, Beechcraft, Piper, Ryan, Aero Commander, Bellanca, Mooney, Grumman, and others, manufacturers found novel ways to provide solutions to a common mission—moving four seats from point A to point B as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

While many utilized similar designs from similar playbooks, a few took their own paths. Among the more interesting alternatives were Mooney with their M20 series, and Grumman with their AA-5 models. These two families of aircraft utilized completely different airframe construction techniques, vastly different cabin designs, and even differed with regard to fixed vs. retractable landing gear. Yet their missions were essentially the same. Here we explore why one might choose a Grumman AA-5 over a Mooney M20 and vice versa. 

Design and Evolution

Looking at the Grumman AA-5 and the four-cylinder Mooney M20 models, one might infer that the chief designers from each company agreed on very little.The low-slung M20 is equipped with retractable gear, while all AA-5 models utilize fixed gear. The Mooney sported the characteristic forward-swept tail that pivots in its entirety to provide pitch trim. Conversely, Grumman’s tail is traditional in both function and appearance. Even access to the cabins is vastly different, with Mooney utilizing a single right-side door while Grumman opted for a large canopy that slides back on rails to provide access from both sides.

Despite the differences, there are some fundamental similarities. The low-wing configuration, for example, four seats, and four-cylinder engines that produce from 150 to 220 horsepower.

To dig down into specifics and conduct a true apples-to-apples comparison with the AA-5, the wide array of Mooney M20 models offered over the years must be narrowed down. Produced from 1955 into the 2000s, more than 11,000 examples have been delivered, and the wide range of subtypes can be divided into groups based on cabin length.

The M20, M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, and M20E are the “short-body” Mooneys. The M20F, M20G, M20J, and M20K had an additional foot of fuselage length added ahead of the back seats and are thus known as the “medium-body” Mooneys. “Long-body” Mooney production began in 1988. As the long bodies utilize larger, six-cylinder engines, they are less comparable to the Grumman AA-5 series, and we’ll exclude them from this review.

Short- and medium-body Mooney production took place from 1955 through 1998. With a handful of exceptions, the vast majority utilized the Lycoming O-360 and IO-360 engines, ranging from 180 to 200 horsepower. The M20K was the only turbocharged variant among the short and medium bodies and offered 210 to 220 horsepower.

The relative consistency among short- and medium-body Mooneys makes the shopping process fairly straightforward. Many shoppers exclude the M20and M20A from contention, as these early subtypes incorporated wood construction in the wing and tail. The criteria among the remaining models mostly come down to engines, which typically becomes a choice between 180 and 200 horsepower. Besides cabin length and the presence of an additional cabin window in the medium-body airplanes, other differences include manual vs. powered flaps and landing gear, and throttle quadrants vs. push/pull knobs.

One notable development was the M20D Master, which came from the factory with fixed, non-retractable landing gear. It was marketed as “convertible” and one could upgrade it to retractable gear. Virtually all have been converted, and only a few remain in their original fixed-gear configuration. While the fixed gear reportedly reduces cruise speed by approximately 25 knots, it would also presumably reduce insurance premiums appreciably.

The Grumman AA-5 Traveler has had a considerably less complex array of subtypes, but was produced under a variety of manufacturer names as ownership of the company changed over the years. Production began in 1971 with the 150 hp AA-5 Traveler. This initial type was produced by American Aviation and later, by Grumman Aviation.

The AA-5A Cheetah was introduced as a 1976 model. Produced by Grumman American and then Gulfstream American, it had the same horsepower but was faster, thanks to drag reduction modifications. Along with all subsequent AA-5 subtypes, it incorporated a larger horizontal stabilizer that expanded the CG range, and fuel capacity increased from 37 to 52 gallons.

For the 1975 model year, the 180 hp Grumman American/Gulfstream American AA-5B Tiger was introduced. In addition to the greater speed and power provided by the more powerful engine, it also introduced a slightly thicker wing spar and a 200-pound gross-weight increase.

Production of all AA-5 subtypes ended in 1979, but between 1990 and 1993, a newly-formed company, American General Aviation Corporation, resumed production of the Tiger as the AG-5B. AGAC modified it with various minor aerodynamic and systems improvements, and built a total of 181. The Tiger was resurrected yet again when Tiger Aircraft produced an additional 51 AG-5Bs between 2001 and 2006.

Market Snapshot

A recent survey of M20 and AA-5 variants listed for sale on six of the most popular online classified sites at the time of this writing provides a breakdown of the median asking prices.

One of the most notable takeaways is the consistency in asking prices of the two types. For all of their differences, they still utilize nearly-identical engines to move four seats a similar distance at a similar economy. The market appears to place similar values on this level of functionality.

Predictably, newer models command higher prices and vice-versa. And not surprisingly, the older airplanes generally have a higher number of airframe hours than the newer ones. One anomaly is apparent in the median price of the newer Tigers, although the limited sample size likely plays a role. Also apparent is the massive increase in asking prices post-pandemic. While we did not conduct a comprehensive pricing survey of the M20 family prior to or in the early days of the pandemic, a FLYING evaluation of the AA-5 in mid-2020 revealed a median asking price of $48,500 across all subtypes. Today, that figure has increased to $122,500—a 153 percent increase.

The number of active listings for each type reflects production numbers and fleet sizes. With such a lengthy production run, just over 9,000 short- and medium-body M20s have been produced to date. In contrast, only 3,282 AA-5s have been produced in total.

Today, 5,231 short- and medium-body M20s remain active on the FAA registry, compared to 1,839 Grumman AA-5s. This reflects 58 and 56 percent of the original fleet sizes, respectively. This illustrates the greater selection that prospective Mooney owners have compared with those shopping for a Grumman.

Flight Characteristics

The different design philosophies between the Grumman and the Mooney become evident the moment one steps onto the wing to board. Like many low-wing aircraft, admittance to the Mooney is provided via a single door on the right side of the fuselage. Comparatively, the Grumman incorporates a canopy that slides back on rails, allowing occupants to board from either side. When it comes to ease of access, Grumman has the advantage here. If there’s a downside, it’s that opening the canopy in the rain will expose far more of the cabin to the elements.

Once settled inside, the expansive windows that make up the Grumman’s canopy and low sill height provide a spacious feel with a panoramic view. But while the Grumman has an inch and a half more headroom than the Mooney, the Mooney is approximately 1 to 3 inches wider, depending on the specific model and which interior door and wall panels are installed.

The Mooney’s slight lack of headroom can create a marginally more restrictive feeling. Similarly, the Mooney’s panel and window sills are higher than the Grumman’s, adding to the closed-in effect. Talk to Mooney owners, though, and even those on the taller side report having sufficient space to stretch their legs and get comfortable.

The back seats differ more than the front. Grummans provide backseat occupants with a more roomy environment, and Grumman owners love how easy it is to fold the back seats forward to create a spacious cargo area. With the removal of their front wheels, two full-sized adult bicycles can easily be carried in the back.

The rear seating area in short-body Mooneys is notoriously cramped. Anyone planning to invite an adult to ride there with any regularity would be well-advised to opt for a medium-body Mooney, as the additional foot of fuselage length is placed between the front and rear seats. Mooney owners report no perceptible difference in front-seat comfort between short- and medium-body models.

Another difference arises while taxiing. While the Mooney’s rudder pedals are linked directly to nosewheel steering in the traditional manner, the Grumman utilizes a free-castering nosewheel and, thus, requires differential braking to steer and maintain directional control. Critics of this design are quick to mention the increased brake wear that comes from frequent steering inputs and brake applications, but fans counter by touting the ability to deftly pivot into and out of tight parking spaces with little effort.

Takeoff, climb, and cruise performance vary substantially based on specific subtypes. Grumman owners report that the 180-hp Tiger, despite having only 30 more horsepower than the Traveler and Cheetah, exhibits vastly better takeoff and climb performance than the lower-powered versions. Similarly, the performance difference between a 180 hp Mooney with no aerodynamic mods and a 200-plus horsepower Mooney with those mods is substantial.

A Lot of Speed in an Economical Package

FLYING has flown the Mooney M20s and Grumman AA-5s since each model was born. And since that time, we’ve remarked on how they deliver honest cross- country speed at a price that was relatively easy to accept.

In a March 1997 used airplane report on the M20 series, Richard L. Collins wrote, “In 1963, Mooney tweaked the M20C Mark 21 and added the M20D to the line. Dubbed the Master, it is a fixed-gear airplane with the option to convert it to a retractable. The Master’s standard price new was $13,995, and when you got tired of cruising at 140 mph, Mooney would convert the airplane to a retractable for $1,600. Most have been converted…Mooney was selling a lot of airplanes in those days simply because they delivered a lot of speed in an economical package.”

The same words echoed in FLYING’s report on the new Tiger in February 1975. Collins wrote, “If the next era is to be one of efficient simplicity, Grumman American is right on target. The four GA lightplanes…are as basic as they come…[and the Tiger’s] 139-knot cruising speed, healthy rate of climb, and good useful load make it a contender in the marketplace…”

We can, however, make a direct comparison by reviewing the published performance data of a 180 hp Tiger and a 180 hp M20C. At maximum takeoff weight and similar environmental conditions, some differences become apparent. The Mooney, for example, provides better takeoff performance, with a ground roll of 815 feet, and 1,395 feet required to clear a 50-foot obstacle. This compares to 909 feet and 1,628 feet for the Grumman, respectively.

Once in the air, the two airplanes return nearly identical rates of climb at sea level—800 fpm for the Mooney and 808 fpm for the Grumman. In cruise, the Mooney’s retractable gear provides an advantage in cruise speed, but not as large as one might expect. At 7,000 to 7,500 feet, 32 to 34 degrees Fahrenheit, and 2,700 rpm, the Mooney will reach 146 knots—only slightly faster than the 139-knot Grumman.

In real-world conditions with decades-old airplanes, M20C owners report 140- to 145-knot cruise speeds, and Tiger owners report a range of 125 to 135 knots. Cheetahs are typically about 10 knots slower. On the other end of the spectrum, one M20E owner reports his 200-hp machine with extensive speed mods reaches 155 to 160 knots while burning 10 gallons per hour.

In terms of knots per gallon, both airplanes perform admirably, especially compared to competing types. At the commonly-reported figures of roughly 135 knots and 9 gallons per hour, the Grumman Tiger boasts 15 knots per gallon of fuel burn. At an additional 10 knots with the same fuel burn, many M20C owners see that figure rise to 16.

While a new owner of either airplane would be wise to obtain flight instruction from an instructor intimately familiar with the type, Mooney owners are quicker to warn newcomers to the peculiarities of the M20, emphasizing precise airspeed control on final.The airplane is particularly unforgiving of being forced onto the runway before the wing is finished flying. In an attempt to avoid pilot-induced oscillations, one Mooney training curriculum strongly warns against attempting to salvage a bounced landing, and recommends initiating a go-around on the first bounce.

The Mooney requires more runway distance for landing than the Grumman, with a 595-foot ground roll and a 1,550-foot distance over a 50-foot obstacle listed in the book. This compares with 415 feet and 1,135 feet for the Grumman. This may be partially because of the Mooney’s 69-knot approach speed, which is 6 knots faster than the Grumman.

Valuable as raw numbers may be, Grumman fans tout some of the less-quantifiable characteristics and features of their beloved airplanes. All AA-5s, for example, can be flown with the canopy slightly open. On the ground, it may be opened up completely for a refreshing blast of cool air on hot summer days.

Grumman owners also rave about their airplane’s handling characteristics. Control forces are notably light, requiring only slight fingertip pressures to maneuver as desired. The M20 series provides accurate, predictable handling as well but is noticeably heavier on the controls. This may appeal to instrument pilots with a preference for hand flying. Both airplanes utilize torque tubes and push/pull rods, providing a more precise connection to the ailerons than traditional cables.

According to the books, the M20C has a useful load of 1,050 pounds, slightly more than the Tiger’s.

Ownership

A thorough pre-purchase inspection by an experienced A&P is critical for both the AA-5 and M20 series. In addition to the usual threat of corrosion in aging aircraft, attention is prudent in areas unique to these types.

Although the Mooney is traditional in many respects, there are a few concerns. Mooney service bulletin M20-208B, for example, recommends a thorough annual inspection of the steel frame surrounding the cabin to determine whether any corrosion is present. As this check is not mandated, some owners might not perform it annually as recommended.

The nose gear is another critical check for the Mooney. The structure has strict tow limits, and if an unaware line worker attempts to turn the nose gear too sharply in either direction while towing, structural damage can occur that requires a rebuild to the tune of several thousand dollars. A careful visual inspection determines whether this damage is present.

Mooney fuel tanks are known to develop leaks. While they can be resealed, fuel bladders are a popular modification providing a more permanent solution. And although the Mooney’s landing gear lacks more complex air shocks or oil damping, the manufacturer does recommend replacement of the rubber shock absorber pucks every 8 to 10 years at a current cost of approximately $2,000 for the pucks themselves, before labor.

The Grumman has its unique pre-purchase and ongoing maintenance considerations. Early AA-5s developed problems with airframe bonding failing and resulting in delamination. Fortunately, most that have experienced the problem are thought to have been identified and permanently fixed. It remains important to have this confirmed by an A&P familiar with the issue.

Simple as the Grumman’s landing gear is, particularly compared to a retract, it has unique maintenance needs. The nose gear utilizes a design that should be thoroughly inspected prior to purchase and then at every annual. Grumman maintainers report that this item may be skipped or completed in an insufficient manner, resulting in pricey repairs down the road.

AA-5 wing spars are life-limited to 12,000 to 12,500 hours. Few AA-5s are approaching this amount of use, and the median airframe hours among the examples listed for sale at the time of this writing were less than 3,000. Anyone considering a particularly high-time AA-5 would be wise to take it into consideration.

The Grumman is otherwise a straight forward airframe design. Unlike most comparable aircraft, there are no moving parts inside an AA-5’s wing—all flap and aileron actuation is achieved via easily accessible torque tubes, upon which each control surface pivots. One maintainer points out there are fewer moving parts in an AA-5 than in a Cessna 150, and another enjoys how all flight control cables are neatly located in the center of the aircraft and are rather short.

Otherwise, no airworthiness directives (ADs) make ownership burdensome for either airplane. All tend to be one-time or recurring ADs that are straightforward to address. The Mooney owners we surveyed report uneventful annuals at $2,500 to $3,000. Grumman owners report a range of $1,500 to $2,500.

Insurance cost is one element of ownership in which the two types differ substantially. To compare the two types, we asked an insurance broker to create quotes for a 40-year-old private pilot with no instrument rating, 250 hours total time, and 5 hours in type. For a 1977 Grumman Tiger valued at $110,000 and liability limits of $1,000,000/$100,000, this theoretical pilot could expect to pay roughly $1,900 per year. For a 1969 Mooney M20C with the same hull value and liability limits, they could expect to pay roughly $6,000 per year.

If this pilot obtained an instrument rating and 1,500 hours total time with 25 hours in type, they could expect to pay roughly $1,500 per year for the Grumman and $4,000 per year for the Mooney. That makes the Mooney nearly three times as expensive to insure—an added $208 to $341 per month over a year in this case. Both models are well supported by active and bustling owners’ groups. The Grumman Owners and Pilots Association is the original type club for the Grumman. It holds regular events including an annual convention, and offers a pilot familiarization program for new Grumman pilots.

The Mooney Aircraft Pilots Association, or MAPA, is a valuable resource for Mooney ownership information. Additionally, Mooneyspace.com is an active forum, and Mooneysafety.com offers training resources and proficiency programs.

Our Take

In aviation, speed costs money, and diminishing returns approach quickly. When operating with a modest budget, the M20 and AA-5 series provide what might be the greatest-knot-per-dollar among four-place certified aircraft. Other types might offer more speed, but at the cost of six-cylinder fuel burn. Others might be less expensive to purchase and operate but will likely fall short in cross-country traveling ability.

Both the Mooney and Grumman seem to provide a nice balance of speed, operating economy, and ease of ownership. Without any overly difficult-to-source airframe parts, massive ADs, or orphaned engines in the equation, both types offer a compelling solution for longer-distance travel without an overly-burdensome ownership experience. 

Perhaps best of all, both types are enthusiastically supported by vibrant owners’ groups. For a nominal annual fee, a new owner can unlock a level of support, expertise, and camaraderie that owners of less-common types can only dream of. Whether a buyer opts for the M20 or the AA-5, it’s a safe bet they’ll enjoy their purchase for many years.

This article was originally published in the April 2023, Issue 936 of  FLYING.

The post Air Compare: Grumman AA-5 vs. Mooney M20 Series appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

That was the case a few years ago when a long-time pilot friend told me she wanted to upgrade to a Beechcraft Bonanza that had come up for sale. It was in the middle of the pandemic, which meant she probably wasn’t alone in her pursuit, as more people were finally deciding to tap into the general aviation market.

The problem, my friend explained, was that while she earned her private ticket years ago, she hadn’t pursued her instrument rating because flying was still just a hobby for her. Years went by while she worked in another industry, and she only periodically kept up with flying, usually going up with friends. However, now, with money in hand from her professional endeavors, she had the means to buy her own airplane.

There’s a reason the Bonanza has been in production since 1947, with more than 17,000 built. For most pilots, it gets the job done. Even older versions with enough retrofits—through engine upgrades, new glass displays,and electronic instruments—will feel almost new. With a Bonanza, you can get in and out of most fields with relatively modest runways and navigate moderately inclement weather with confidence. If you add on tip tanks or even internal auxiliary tanks, ferrying a Bo across the U.S. is doable and allows you to explore many places that an airliner can’t take you. Finally, with a six-seater variant, you can bring a lot of company along. However, all of that comes with a few caveats because of the higher exposure to risks, simply because you can do more.

Therein lies the challenge for many would-be buyers who find that leaping up in the airplane ranks isn’t as easy as they’d like it to be. Insurance companies tend to find pilots who lack an instrument rating or more advanced certifications too great a risk to provide reasonably priced coverage. Providers consider a series of factors that include the pilot’s background, recency and proficiency experience, and the category and class of the aircraft as part of the final policy premium.

Of all these factors, the most pressing is pilot experience and hull value. Simply put, in the eyes of your insurance agent, a bigger, faster, and more powerful airplane will naturally require a more experienced pilot, regardless of the would-be owner’s ability to pay for it. The more my friend realized this, she saw that being able to afford the Bonanza was the easy part.

The logic isn’t unreasonable, since if you want to fly a big, powerful cross-country airplane consistently, you’re going to need the option to file IFR—and it will offer the pilot the ability to get to most destinations more quickly. Popular higher-performance airplanes, like the Bonanza, Mooney M20, Cirrus SR22—and even the Piper Arrow—all allow pilots to climb to higher altitudes, which means there will be more opportunities to run into instrument meteorological conditions during any phase of the flight.

Aside from just the instrument rating, complex airplanes with retractable landing gear, variable pitch propellers, turbochargers, pressurization systems, and even a second engine all mean there are other levels of complexity to master. Those all need someone at the yoke who can handle emergencies if things go wrong. It gets even trickier if the airplane is older with less modern instruments or equipment.

So, as my friend discovered, her airplane-buying options were seriously limited, once she took insurance into the equation—and in her case, until she earned her instrument rating. She had to overcome that first, so she tapped me to help her prepare for her check ride. The first question we needed to answer was, was it practical for her to train in the airplane she wanted to buy, or should she try to complete the certificate in another model? Well, most pilots with an instrument rating will agree that the thinking—and the speed at which that thinking needs to happen to stay ahead of an approach—isn’t intuitive. Consequently, being in a fast aircraft with additional complexities makes it easier to be overwhelmed.

Ultimately, we determined it would be better for her to master the core skills, as much as practical, first on the ground with available simulators or even mobile applications, and then in a slower airplane, such as a Cessna172. After she had truly mastered the skills needed to execute all phases of instrument flight independently and consistently, it would be easier to move up.

Here’s the other thing. Even after my friend gained her instrument rating and could purchase her aircraft, another challenge awaited. She would discover that her insurance rate would be much higher because she didn’t have enough pilot-in-command experience in the make and model. To lower her rate, she’d probably have to fly with an equally or higher-rated pilot who could support her and be on her policy. And, it would help if that person was an instructor.

Most likely, if there is transition training available for the airplane, as some pilot groups of the airplane manufacturer offer, she’d need to complete that too, to get the insurance benefits at a cheaper price. For newer airplanes, some manufacturers, like Cirrus, have established training programs to get owners up to speed to lessen the insurance burden, and if you have the means, it is worthwhile to consider.

So, where did that leave my friend? It was clear that adding an instrument rating would only enhance her flying experience. She’d be able to enjoy more destinations with her friends and worry less about getting stranded or worse, scud-running to avoid marginal weather. Moreover, she discovered that overall, more training would ultimately lower her costs of purchasing and operating bigger, faster, and more powerful airplanes. Frankly, who wouldn’t want that?

The post Moving on Up appeared first on FLYING Magazine.