Changing jobs....

[skyking]

I think it is a good idea to at least rent some other aircraft.
The Cherokee/Arrow platform is predictable and pleasant to fly, and I find that some passengers are ever so slightly more comfortable with a wing beneath them. Those are usually pretty tender passengers though.
For pictures and goofing off, the Cessnas are better. The damn low wing does get in the way and I really gave up taking pictures from the 310. I tell people "you had to be there" when they ask about pictures
Bonanzas are really a different plane, especially the early ones. They exhibit really nice flying characteristics, and have impressive short field performance. As the model progressed it got fat, as is often the case. More weight, more engine, and really not more fun IMO.
If you got lucky and found a decent 1960~1964 Cessna 210, those things are the bomb. Fast for what they are. They can be money pits, especially the landing gear systems which are hydraulic and complicated.
An Arrow with 200 HP clips along at 135 KT, so does a 230 HP Cessna 182 without the complication of retractable gear.
The 260 HP early 210 is significantly faster at 165 KT.
For simple performance and fun, the 182's are a good balance. Typically they have a 1300 pound useful load and 80 gallons of fuel. You can leave out fuel and haul quite a bit with those, or tank up and fly some good long legs.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I think it is a good idea to at least rent some other aircraft.
The Cherokee/Arrow platform is predictable and pleasant to fly, and I find that some passengers are ever so slightly more comfortable with a wing beneath them. Those are usually pretty tender passengers though.
For pictures and goofing off, the Cessnas are better. The damn low wing does get in the way and I really gave up taking pictures from the 310. I tell people "you had to be there" when they ask about pictures
Bonanzas are really a different plane, especially the early ones. They exhibit really nice flying characteristics, and have impressive short field performance. As the model progressed it got fat, as is often the case. More weight, more engine, and really not more fun IMO.
If you got lucky and found a decent 1960~1964 Cessna 210, those things are the bomb. Fast for what they are. They can be money pits, especially the landing gear systems which are hydraulic and complicated.
An Arrow with 200 HP clips along at 135 KT, so does a 230 HP Cessna 182 without the complication of retractable gear.
The 260 HP early 210 is significantly faster at 165 KT.
For simple performance and fun, the 182's are a good balance. Typically they have a 1300 pound useful load and 80 gallons of fuel. You can leave out fuel and haul quite a bit with those, or tank up and fly some good long legs.

It's tough finding that balance between what's for sale, what's affordable, and what's been maintained appropriately.

Thanks for the ideas. I need to build up that list of models to consider so I can work toward finding some to try out before I have the money to spend.