Newsgroups: rec.aviation

I have experience in each of these aircraft, at high density altitude
and in the Colorado Rockys.

> This list of attributes has led me to three airplanes:

Excellent choice of aircraft.  I would add the 200hp Beachcraft aircraft
to the list, while you are looking and comparing.

> * Piper Archer: 180 hp and simple systems.  We've heard they are nice to
>   fly and we are going to arrange a flight sometime in the next few weeks.
>   We both learned on Cessnas so they represent the greatest unknown.

This one violates your range requirements.  You can have full fuel or
full passenger load...  Piper owners/lovers consider this a benefit.
Unfortunately, an archer with the hershey-bar (all archers and below,
actually) wing will climb like a dog with a full load in your proposed
flight regime.  As this family grows (lbs), this airplane will
fail to meet your needs the soonest.

> * Cessna 177B Cardinal: 180 hp, huge interior, flys nice, but some
>   pilots can make it porpoise on landing.  The airframe is not real
>   common.

Neat airplane...  what you have here is approximately a C-172 with more
expensive maintenance because all the parts on this airplane were only
made for the Cardinal.  The 200hp fixed gear cardinal is a much better
performer, but again, as you pointed out, this airframe (and parts) is
not common.  Anything you save in initial cost will soon be eaten up in
larger maintenance/improvement costs.

> * Cessna 182 Skylane: 230 hp, common, stable, excellent payload.  I
>   have some concerns about economy with a six cylinder that drinks 12 or
>   13 gal per hour.

Actually, 12.5 gph < 5,000 MSL and more like 10.5 gph at 12,500 gph.
This aircraft climbs best of the group discussed and is more stable and
structurally more sturdy.  From your criteria, the C-182 is the aircraft
of choice.  You live and operate in a valley and want to be at 12,000
soon, with a load, enroute to your destination.

> Which (finally) brings me to the questions I would like to ask the net.

> * What are your thoughts on my selection criteria?  Are we worrying about
>   the right things?

I like Dr Dan's thought(s)....  he brings up the point of
(paraphrasing):  "how soon will I outgrow this aircraft"?  If you can
forsee outgrowing this aircraft, then you are money and time ahead to
buy the larger, more capable aircraft first.  You won't have to
duplicate the avionics work, maintenance and improvements when you move
up to what you should have bought in the first place.

> * Are there other airplanes we should add to the list?

A 200hp Beachcraft will be a bit slower and drink more fuel,
but may be available for a lower price tag.

The Piper PA-28-235 has enough horsepower to overcome my objections
to load/fuel/climb performance above.

> * What are your experiences with these (or other) airplanes?

> Feel free to post directly to the net or email a response to me, I will
> summarize, unless you indicate that you wish your mail to remain private
> (or unless nobody responds).

Bottom_line:  In the mountains, < 200hp is looking for delays and
problems.  I have flown 100hp Cessna 150s and 85hp cubs in the mountains
on "good" days.  It was fun, but by no stretch of the imagination was
this anything like "reliable transportation".  I am also a glider pilot
and am able to "soar", to help their apparent performance.  I say again,
< 200hp creates more problems than the perceived cost savings predict.

To the net:  Please note that these are my opinions.  I am not fishing
to ignite a flame war.  If you have different experiences, please post
them, I am anxious to hear them.

Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD     | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado  80525-9599 
EMAIL:  jle@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation