A video on the Flying Doodles YouTube Channel is a ranking of the top 10 single engine airplanes according to “best bang for your buck.” Check out the video below and see if you agree with the rankings.
What planes should have been included on the list? Do you agree with the rankings?
Any comparisons of 40+-year-old aircraft should include Maintenance Costs, Fleet Size, Parts Availability, etc. which will have a significant impact on keeping that aircraft in the air.
What happened to the Arrow..? Would have thought that would be on the list…
Should have included the Cessna 210… Good range, good power, good weight carrying capacity. Need to look at that one…
No Vans Aircraft Aircraft? More speed, more maneuverability. Oh, it’s not certified to increase price by 400%.
Grumman Tigers cruise is 140kts by the book and many, if rigged properly eclipse this number. I’ll buy all you can find at the price you advertised. $40k Is a nice down payment on a well cared for Tiger. Double the down payment, and you can own one.
This list should be “antique airplanes under $100k.”
Yes. Mooney. New ones overpriced, but the C thru J models have crisp handling, speed, strength, and low operating costs. A good C or E appears to go for $40 – $60K; the J’s start at $75K.
Bankrupt? The new $800K Mooney can’t compete on value with the used ones.
Wow! Really?
Ridiculous! All real pilots airplanes have a wheel under the tail… not under the nose! I’ve owned many airplanes and gliders but was never tempted to buy on with a nose-wheel; I’ve always had to get paid to fly one of those!
What does this mean? I’ve never understood the attitude that only “real pilots” fly tail wheel airplanes.
It means that the further forward the center-of-gravity of the airplane the easier it is to handle on the ground at the expense of better but more coordinated handling when airborne.
Lol! That’s just being ignorant and close minded. Acting as if you because you drag a wheel behind you and can’t see over the cowling that you are somehow a better pilot. That’s funny.
Uh… the video shows a 177RG.
But seems this video is confusing the 177 Fixed Gear performance numbers with the 177 Retractable Gear performance numbers.
The 177 RG cruise speed is better than 145KTAS at 8000 feet (70% power) burning 10gph.
And its range with 60 gallons on board is over 800nm when flying at that power setting/altitude.
The video indicates 130KTAS and a range of less than 500nmi…. which is simply wrong for the RG.
However, if you reduce power to 50% at 8000 feet you do get down to 130 KTAS at 8gph but have a range of over 900nmi.
Those are book numbers for the 177RG… which you can see for yourself if you’d like at this url (pdf):
https://tinyurl.com/177RG-Performance.
So this video provides a very poor assessment based on incorrect numbers of a very capable aircraft.
Makes me wonder about the numbers these guys are claiming for the other aircraft.
Are they wrong about those, also?
His numbers are wrong for the Grumman as well. The 180 HP Tiger is supposed to have a range of 686 nm and a speed of 143 knots.
The 150 HP Traveler numbers appear to be used for speed, but I have no idea where he got the range of 350 from.
Utter nonsense. Comparing antique old school planes to each other results in nothing meaningful. And oh, the Mooney? It’s bankrupt…if it’s such a great bargain why isn’t anyone buying one?