What are you going to buy with your first real Doc paycheck?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
audi-r8-aud_r8_09_v10_test_1.jpg

I dream to one day own an R8. But the monthly payment is so much, even if I'm making $200k+ a year I don't think I will be able to bring myself to spend that much on a car. Unless when I am finally an attending I can buy a 2010 R8 which will be 13 years old by then, so maybe it is more practical than I suspect! haha or maybe I will purchase whatever Tesla model emerges in 2023.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I dream to one day own an R8. But the monthly payment is so much, even if I'm making $200k+ a year I don't think I will be able to bring myself to spend that much on a car. Unless when I am finally an attending I can buy a 2010 R8 which will be 13 years old by then, so maybe it is more practical than I suspect! haha or maybe I will purchase whatever Tesla model emerges in 2023.
I like your taste. The R8 is definitely near the top of my list!
 
hows that thing drive? FAST?!

It's fast, but not crazy burnouts at 90mph fast. A better adjective is fun. Coming from my old Subaru sti which was ridiculous/stupid fast, I can say I'm not in any hurry to have a car that fast or faster. The appeal wears off after the 20th kid tries to race you at every stop light even when you're pointing at your radar detector going off. The last thing I need is to be arrested for street racing lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Probably a decent vacation to Hawaii...always wanted to go.

Would be nice to drive something exotic...but I think after 25-30 most guys move on from that dream
 
And here I thought I was going to have some GT3's posted haha... I don't think I'd ever have the skill to drive that without having a death wish :0
 
And here I thought I was going to have some GT3's posted haha... I don't think I'd ever have the skill to drive that without having a death wish :0
Lol same here mane but I won't let that stop me from trying to purchase one
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's fast, but not crazy burnouts at 90mph fast. A better adjective is fun. Coming from my old Subaru sti which was ridiculous/stupid fast, I can say I'm not in any hurry to have a car that fast or faster. The appeal wears off after the 20th kid tries to race you at every stop light even when you're pointing at your radar detector going off. The last thing I need is to be arrested for street racing lol
very very smart! Subi's are very fun though!
 
very very smart! Subi's are very fun though!
I loved both my Subaru's (02 bugeye and 04 sti). I just honestly hit a bad moment with the sti and a tuning shop that made me leave the tuning thing.
I'll stand by this statement though: their awd is so stupid proof. The best awd car I've ever driven. I never felt out of control. Even when I was perpendicular to the road, the car still corrected. Never got stuck either. Subaru really did make a solid platform.
If the rumors are true, then the RX9's should be coming out around the time I graduate residency... so... let's hope they're true.
Please god put a turbo in that rotary! That was the main reason I hated the rx8!
 
Please god put a turbo in that rotary! That was the main reason I hated the rx8!
I loved the RX8 regardless of the problems with it's torque curve. It's what I did my racing in. But you are right, and I think Mazda probably learned their lesson. Even with the 16X motor that's probably going to end up in the RX9, they'll have some sort of turbo set up going. Hopefully they go for a single instead of some twins.

Regardless, I hope these guys are still around by that point, and will want to step back from the prototypes and develop a GT class RX9.
 
Apparently lots of people like cars. *shrug*
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Apparently lots of people like cars. *shrug*
Lol. I'm an addict. Since I learned to drive and built my own car (I never recommend installing a motor solo ever. Get help). It's calmed down since med school. But it's just my niche
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I live in a city where I street park every day. I wonder what those cars would look like after 6 months of urban parallel parking in my neighborhood (or my old 75 dollar a month off-street spot under a drippy overpass)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not weird at all, just means you need to start setting your sights on some bigger ticket items then just shoes.

For example I got my eyes on one of these (FWIW I am a instrument rated pilot). While it may not be first doc paycheck its certainly something to save for.

View attachment 192009

Used market has them around 5-600k for a good one. You have about 1100 nautical mile usable range which is all I need for where I am in the country.

I know a surgeon with one of these...

1631.jpg


400k new and has a good tax attorney who can make the entire thing one giant tax write off. Really really nice inside and smooth to fly in.
 
I know a surgeon with one of these...

1631.jpg


400k new and has a good tax attorney who can make the entire thing one giant tax write off. Really really nice inside and smooth to fly in.
Yeah that's a Cirrus SR20, based on that price. (It's actually like 420k before tax.

It's a nice plane for sure, but for ill take my choice before yours. The Piper Mirage I posted originally is pressurized which means you can fly above 12,000ft and not use an oxygen mask, in fact it has a ceiling of about 26,000ft, it's turbo charged, takes 6 not 4, and has a larger payload, among other details. It's also faster.

The SR 20 is not turbocharged (limits the service ceiling which is no bueno for mountain flying that I would do here in the Rockies), the SR22 is turbocharged but still not pressurized so you have to wear an O2 mask (no thank you), and it still only carries 4 people on a limited range and it has a super small wing span = poor glide ratio

Thanks for sharing though.
 
Yup, the parachute also kinda kills the amount of storage/cargo, which doesn't help. Also it sits in a part of the country where the closest mountain isn't exactly close by, to put it mildly. But for him, it's been a great plane for getting to and from the place on the beach on the weekends, among other destinations.
 
Yeah that's a Cirrus SR20, based on that price. (It's actually like 420k before tax.

It's a nice plane for sure, but for ill take my choice before yours. The Piper Mirage I posted originally is pressurized which means you can fly above 12,000ft and not use an oxygen mask, in fact it has a ceiling of about 26,000ft, it's turbo charged, takes 6 not 4, and has a larger payload, among other details. It's also faster.

The SR 20 is not turbocharged (limits the service ceiling which is no bueno for mountain flying that I would do here in the Rockies), the SR22 is turbocharged but still not pressurized so you have to wear an O2 mask (no thank you), and it still only carries 4 people on a limited range and it has a super small wing span = poor glide ratio

Thanks for sharing though.
What's your opinion about having a helicopter for private ownership and traveling verses a small plane? Btw I know absolutely nothing about aviation..
 
350z guy checking in! I have owned two Z's and loved them a lot. I have always wanted a wrx but never got around to owning one yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
350z guy checking in! I have owned two Z's and loved them a lot. I have always wanted a wrx but never got around to owning one yet.
Yo! I have a g35 6spd coupe but I'm trying to get another car before medical school starts. I'd be stoked if I can find a way to acquire an Evo, sti, s2000, mustang gt, or Jeep Wrangler.
 
Last edited:
Update: my fiancée got a pretty sizable tax refund and we bought a king-sized Serta last weekend. If I stop posting it's because I went into a coma from sleeping too well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
What's your opinion about having a helicopter for private ownership and traveling verses a small plane? Btw I know absolutely nothing about aviation..
Personally, in my mind anything over 300 miles is fixed wing aircraft territory. There exist helicopters that can go farther but helicopters are slow and louder then fixed wing aircraft making them less comfortable.

It really depends on your mission (intended use). Personally I rather have a plane and a comfortable car then a helicopter. Helicopter is cool because you can hover, but plane is cool because I can go to places I wouldn't normally with out one.

The best thing in my mind would probably be rent/charter the heli and own the plane.

Also, in an engine out situation you have to rely on autorotation to land which is not fun stuff. There the potential for a lot more to go wrong on a helicopter and it makes he maintenance of them that much more expensive.

A good plane that has a good glide ratio can often glide 10-50 miles depending on cruising altitude before touching down. That glide down is very much controlled, gives you time to assess the problem and potentially fix it and do a mid air restart, and worst comes to worst with a 50 mile range you should always be able to find a suitable landing area (unless over water) allowing you to land the plane safely with out damage to personnel or aircraft.

They also have a higher payload and generally fly a lot lot faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I need some nice boots/chukkas to wear casually. Any of you shoeaholics have recommendations?
 
The same crap I already have plus a loan payment/savings.
 
I will be continuing my resident lifestyle by renting until my loans are paid off within hopefully 1-3 years depending on obviously how much debt i incur, living costs wherever i end up, how much i am making/how much my wife is making, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Update: my fiancée got a pretty sizable tax refund and we bought a king-sized Serta last weekend. If I stop posting it's because I went into a coma from sleeping too well.
Gotta agree here. Spending the money on a quality bed makes a world of a difference. I think that's why I got by with 4 hours of sleep on occasions. Mine isn't king sized serta but I did spend some money on my bed before school because I was determined to have some comfort if I needed to sleep.
In other news, Porsche cayenne are ****. Don't buy them or you'll get a bill for 22k to replace the motor for a car you spent <15k on. lol I'm glad I looked into that
 
Gotta agree here. Spending the money on a quality bed makes a world of a difference. I think that's why I got by with 4 hours of sleep on occasions. Mine isn't king sized serta but I did spend some money on my bed before school because I was determined to have some comfort if I needed to sleep.
In other news, Porsche cayenne are ****. Don't buy them or you'll get a bill for 22k to replace the motor for a car you spent <15k on. lol I'm glad I looked into that
Even just buying a set of blackout curtains for the bedroom can make a huge difference. I recently bought some and I highly recommend them for anyone living in a place with a lot of light pollution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Even just buying a set of blackout curtains for the bedroom can make a huge difference. I recently bought some and I highly recommend them for anyone living in a place with a lot of light pollution.

They're super helpful while working nights, too. Love my blackout curtains.
 
I'm not buying anything until my student loans are paid off.

Then I'm buying a new car, since mine'll be like, 14-15 years old at that point, and likely have 250k+ miles. Something that's a sedan with four wheel drive and a sub-35k price tag..

Then maybe a small house. 200k, tops, and not a part of a HOA, so I can build a greenhouse out back and learn to take care of some plants.

After that, piling away money in investments and real estate until I can retire, hopefully by 5o or 55.

This guy gets it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This guy gets it.
You guys probably aren't from California. In California if you are a physician you are almost expected to have a flashy car and big house haha. So hence after paying of Student loans I will be buying a BMW and a hopefully pretty decent house later down the line.
I actually just came back from a 4th of July party at an OB/GYN's house. He just paid of his student debts like a year ago, graduated 5 years ago, and has a $1million+ house on a hill in a very nice neighborhood and two BMW's in the drive way. Not married so paid all on his own. He makes way above the average salary for his specialty though.
 
Yo! I have a g35 6spd coupe but I'm trying to get another car before medical school starts. I'd be stoked if I can find a way to acquire an Evo, sti, s2000, mustang gt, or Jeep Wrangler.
Just saw this! I sold my 35oz a while back. I have a TSX right now but I'm hoping to be able to sell it soon to get a g35 6spd before schools starts!
 
You guys probably aren't from California. In California if you are a physician you are almost expected to have a flashy car and big house haha. So hence after paying of Student loans I will be buying a BMW and a hopefully pretty decent house later down the line.
I actually just came back from a 4th of July party at an OB/GYN's house. He just paid of his student debts like a year ago, graduated 5 years ago, and has a $1million+ house on a hill in a very nice neighborhood and two BMW's in the drive way. Not married so paid all on his own. He makes way above the average salary for his specialty though.

all the bmw tells me is that you're a jerk that doesn't have a turn signal button in their car
if you want to really show that you made it, get a bentley or something
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You guys probably aren't from California. In California if you are a physician you are almost expected to have a flashy car and big house haha. So hence after paying of Student loans I will be buying a BMW and a hopefully pretty decent house later down the line.
I actually just came back from a 4th of July party at an OB/GYN's house. He just paid of his student debts like a year ago, graduated 5 years ago, and has a $1million+ house on a hill in a very nice neighborhood and two BMW's in the drive way. Not married so paid all on his own. He makes way above the average salary for his specialty though.
Just so you know, you can get a BMW leased or financed and not have to pay for it in full.... The house is likely mortgaged. He could have only put 250,000 down and gotten a great mortgage rate on that house by only saving 50k/year for each of those 5 years so he doesn't need to be making way above average for his specialty. It's not hard to save 50k/year as a single man on a 250-300k salary.
 
Last edited:
You guys probably aren't from California. In California if you are a physician you are almost expected to have a flashy car and big house haha. So hence after paying of Student loans I will be buying a BMW and a hopefully pretty decent house later down the line.
I actually just came back from a 4th of July party at an OB/GYN's house. He just paid of his student debts like a year ago, graduated 5 years ago, and has a $1million+ house on a hill in a very nice neighborhood and two BMW's in the drive way. Not married so paid all on his own. He makes way above the average salary for his specialty though.

Actually I AM from California, born and raised. This is how I know how much of a trap the big house/nice car thing is!! Admittedly I don't plan on moving back to CA after med school. The price tag just isn't even close to worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You guys probably aren't from California. In California if you are a physician you are almost expected to have a flashy car and big house haha. So hence after paying of Student loans I will be buying a BMW and a hopefully pretty decent house later down the line.
I actually just came back from a 4th of July party at an OB/GYN's house. He just paid of his student debts like a year ago, graduated 5 years ago, and has a $1million+ house on a hill in a very nice neighborhood and two BMW's in the drive way. Not married so paid all on his own. He makes way above the average salary for his specialty though.
And he's probably buried in debt to pay for it all. If you want to.pay off your student loans just to sell your future right back to the banks so you can show off, that's fine. It's much better to shirk societal expectations and be free than to be a debt slave until you die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Actually I AM from California, born and raised. This is how I know how much of a trap the big house/nice car thing is!! Admittedly I don't plan on moving back to CA after med school. The price tag just isn't even close to worth it.
Yep me too!

The jobs I looked at there were on parity or even below the standard elsewhere but coupled with a higher cost-of-living. I figured I'm Close enough to get home or to the beach whenever I want to but in a better financial position.

By the way, it's not at all required to drive a nice car or fancy just because you're in California. Some of my best friends are surgeons in California, driving 10-year-old plus cars and living fairly modestly by choice. They may live in $1 million plus homes but those are two bedroom bungalows Not everyone in LA is driving Lamborghinis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
You guys probably aren't from California. In California if you are a physician you are almost expected to have a flashy car and big house haha. So hence after paying of Student loans I will be buying a BMW and a hopefully pretty decent house later down the line.
I actually just came back from a 4th of July party at an OB/GYN's house. He just paid of his student debts like a year ago, graduated 5 years ago, and has a $1million+ house on a hill in a very nice neighborhood and two BMW's in the drive way. Not married so paid all on his own. He makes way above the average salary for his specialty though.
I'm from California and I don't give a rat's ass if the expectation is for me to buy a flashy car and an expensive house. I drive the same car I bought in residency and my husband drives the same car we got in med school. I just offered to look into getting a new car (something in the 25-30k range that he commented about the other day because it is all wheel drive and gets good reviews) and he said he didn't really think he needed it since his car is running fine. We are in the same place we bought in med school (although we redid the kitchen and are redoing the landscaping to get rid of the lawn). I'm guessing my net worth is a lot higher than that guy you describe (because everything is probably financed) and I will be hanging out on the beach in semi retirement long before he can afford to cut back on his hours. You have to live for yourself, not to meet other people's expectations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
I know a surgeon with one of these...

1631.jpg


400k new and has a good tax attorney who can make the entire thing one giant tax write off. Really really nice inside and smooth to fly in.

Not a fan of the Cirrus. Overpriced, and an under performer. Also, if you feel like you need to have a built in parachute, maybe you shouldn't pull the wheels up in the first place. Oh yeah, forgot, the gear isn't even retractable in that thing...

Piper Malibu Mirage? Pretty spendy.

Want to go fast? Mooney M20 series. Long range, high cruise speed. Not built for fat people, Mooney accomplishes their speed by having a small cross sectional area. Nice windows, good view. Cheaper than the Mirage.

For practical fun flying, I'd go with a Cessna 182 or a Piper Cherokee 235 Dakota. These tend to be forgiving in terms of flight characteristics, and with enough power that you can take off out of Denver on hot day with just about everything you want to cram in the plane.

A glass cockpit is pretty to look at, but having a Garmin 430, a pair of working VOR receivers/Glidescope and the common sense not to fly in conditions that aren't your end of the swimming pool is a better combination.

$.02.
 
Yep me too!

The jobs I looked at there were on parity or even below the standard elsewhere but coupled with a higher cost-of-living. I figured I'm Close enough to get home or to the beach whenever I want to but in a better financial position.

By the way, it's not at all required to drive a nice car or fancy just because you're in California. Some of my best friends are surgeons in California, driving 10-year-old plus cars and living fairly modestly by choice. They may live in $1 million plus homes but those are two bedroom bungalows Not everyone in LA is driving Lamborghinis.
Yea **** that. There are plenty of mid sized cities (if you're not on coasts) where your quality of life is going to be better in a lot of aspects. I'd sacrifice the weather if it means a bigger house, less crowds, travel, and water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not a fan of the Cirrus. Overpriced, and an under performer. Also, if you feel like you need to have a built in parachute, maybe you shouldn't pull the wheels up in the first place. Oh yeah, forgot, the gear isn't even retractable in that thing...

Piper Malibu Mirage? Pretty spendy.

Want to go fast? Mooney M20 series. Long range, high cruise speed. Not built for fat people, Mooney accomplishes their speed by having a small cross sectional area. Nice windows, good view. Cheaper than the Mirage.

For practical fun flying, I'd go with a Cessna 182 or a Piper Cherokee 235 Dakota. These tend to be forgiving in terms of flight characteristics, and with enough power that you can take off out of Denver on hot day with just about everything you want to cram in the plane.

A glass cockpit is pretty to look at, but having a Garmin 430, a pair of working VOR receivers/Glidescope and the common sense not to fly in conditions that aren't your end of the swimming pool is a better combination.

$.02.
Lol. I can tell you have flown a bit, but you are speaking a little out of your booty. If I had to guess you are probably still accruing hours to get your VFR license. Agree with you on the Cirrus. The piper also can be a little spendy if you buy it new but used, they offer substantial value for all that they offer between, speed, range, payload, flight characteristics, cabin space, seating capacity, and various features of the sort be it turbo, turbine prop, and/or pressurized depending on which of the 3 you get. Plus, once inside the seating is much more comfortable and feels like a big lazy boy recliner vs a small seat where you are crouching and can barely fit like a mooney.

There are only 2 reasons to buy a mooney. They are fast and affordable. That's about it. They are not just not for fat people, they are not for people who are 5'10" or taller and I'm 6'2". Their payload is abysmal, even if you are taking midgets it only fits 4 people including pilot vs. 6 on the piper. They are also an unforgiving airplane with their small wing span/area meaning they stalk easier, and have a worse glide ratio.

The C182 is slow as can be, being turbo charged it has a service ceiling of 18,000 feet but you and your passengers would need to wear an oxygen mask which sucks, not to mention at 18,000 feet over the rockies you can encounter some crazy winds like a 75kt head wind for example (very common), and with 145kt cruise speed that means you are traveling in the at highway speeds. And btw, it doesn't have the power to take off out of Denver on a hot day with full payload and fly west. Well, technically you probably could but it would not be smart due to the high density altitude the heat creates.

Piper Cherokee is only good for carrying things (can carry its weight in payload) but that's about it. With a ceiling at 14,000 ft it's not equipped to for mountain flying. It's also slow just like the Cessna.

Couple of observations too. I'm not a cirrus fan but there is a reason why they made the landing gear stationary vs being retractable. Reason?

Complex Endorsement.

The Cirrus is targeted to more amateur pilots, and casual users. If they had added retractable landing gear it would have meant they would need to get their complex aircraft endorsement, and insurance companies would charge more to insure it being a complex aircraft. Many GA pilots have landed perfectly on the run way but forgot to put the landing gear down and wrecked the plane.

Complex aircraft are described as any plane that has the following 3 things.
Retractable landing gear, moving flaps, and an adjustable-pitch/constant speed prop (such as the one found on the cirrus, and the Skylane for that matter as well)
Not to mention that your thought process for not wanting a parachute is incomplete. Essentially you are saying if you want a parachute to take off then you shouldn't be flying. But then why do you need a seatbelt either? It's all about safety, and the parachute adds another layer.

Finally, glass cockpits are the bees knees in aviation technology. There is nothing wrong with the standard analog 6 pack and a good GPS like the 430, perfectly safe and simple to use and will take you anywhere you want to go, but to go from there to saying it's better than glass cockpit it a boldface lie, and sounds like something an old timer who doesn't want to relearn or buy new avionics told you for the Skycatcher you rent.

Facts.
 
Last edited:
I know a surgeon with one of these...

1631.jpg


400k new and has a good tax attorney who can make the entire thing one giant tax write off. Really really nice inside and smooth to fly in.

My grandfather was a surgeon and when he was still alive he co-owned two planes with another dude. They also shared the hanger space payment. I think if you find other people who also like to fly, planes aren't as astronomically expensive as people think. A luxury for sure, but definitely doable. If you're dead-set on being the sole owner of a plane for some reason, costs can probably go up.

For me, I have no idea what I'll buy when I finally get some money. Probably start saving. I'll also probably buy a gun and proceed to be yelled at for decades by my girlfriend for doing so. That decision is less about the money than it is about having an idea of where I'll be settling down so I don't have to worry about buying a gun that will be illegal in the state where I ultimately wind up, though.
 
Lol. I can tell you have flown a bit, but you are speaking a little out of your booty. If I had to guess you are probably still accruing hours to get your VFR license. Agree with you on the Cirrus. The piper also can be a little spendy if you buy it new but used, they offer substantial value for all that they offer between, speed, range, payload, flight characteristics, cabin space, seating capacity, and various features of the sort be it turbo, turbine prop, and/or pressurized depending on which of the 3 you get. Plus, once inside the seating is much more comfortable and feels like a big lazy boy recliner vs a small seat where you are crouching and can barely fit like a mooney.

There are only 2 reasons to buy a mooney. They are fast and affordable. That's about it. They are not just not for fat people, they are not for people who are 5'10" or taller and I'm 6'2". Their payload is abysmal, even if you are taking midgets it only fits 4 people including pilot vs. 6 on the piper. They are also an unforgiving airplane with their small wing span/area meaning they stalk easier, and have a worse glide ratio.

The C182 is slow as can be, being turbo charged it has a service ceiling of 18,000 feet but you and your passengers would need to wear an oxygen mask which sucks, not to mention at 18,000 feet over the rockies you can encounter some crazy winds like a 75kt head wind for example (very common), and with 145kt cruise speed that means you are traveling in the at highway speeds. And btw, it doesn't have the power to take off out of Denver on a hot day with full payload and fly west. Well, technically you probably could but it would not be smart due to the high density altitude the heat creates.

Piper Cherokee is only good for carrying things (can carry its weight in payload) but that's about it. With a ceiling at 14,000 ft it's not equipped to for mountain flying. It's also slow just like the Cessna.

Couple of observations too. I'm not a cirrus fan but there is a reason why they made the landing gear stationary vs being retractable. Reason?

Complex Endorsement.

The Cirrus is targeted to more amateur pilots, and casual users. If they had added retractable landing gear it would have meant they would need to get their complex aircraft endorsement, and insurance companies would charge more to insure it being a complex aircraft. Many GA pilots have landed perfectly on the run way but forgot to put the landing gear down and wrecked the plane.

Complex aircraft are described as any plane that has the following 3 things.
Retractable landing gear, moving flaps, and an adjustable-pitch/constant speed prop (such as the one found on the cirrus, and the Skylane for that matter as well)
Not to mention that your thought process for not wanting a parachute is incomplete. Essentially you are saying if you want a parachute to take off then you shouldn't be flying. But then why do you need a seatbelt either? It's all about safety, and the parachute adds another layer.

Finally, glass cockpits are the bees knees in aviation technology. There is nothing wrong with the standard analog 6 pack and a good GPS like the 430, perfectly safe and simple to use and will take you anywhere you want to go, but to go from there to saying it's better than glass cockpit it a boldface lie, and sounds like something an old timer who doesn't want to relearn or buy new avionics told you for the Skycatcher you rent.

Facts.

Hey, thanks for writing back. I was hoping my smack talk would prompt a response from some cirrus driver. You'll have to do.

"If I had to guess you are probably still accruing hours to get your VFR license." -Hmm... yeah.... I might have more ink than you think... ;).

"There are only 2 reasons to buy a mooney. They are fast and affordable. That's about it." -Two things I like...

"They are also an unforgiving airplane with their small wing span/area meaning they stal(l) easier, and have a worse glide ratio." -Aspect ratio. Yes, this is true. They eat runway, and land kinda hot. I think that this is a reasonable sacrifice for speed. It requires more work, more planning, and more proficiency. They aren't a beginner's airplane, but they aren't the space shuttle either. They are fraction of the price of an aircraft of comparable performance.

"The C182 is slow as can be, being turbo charged it has a service ceiling of 18,000 feet but you and your passengers would need to wear an oxygen mask which sucks, not to mention at 18,000 feet over the rockies you can encounter some crazy winds like a 75kt head wind for example (very common), and with 145kt cruise speed that means you are traveling in the at highway speeds. And btw, it doesn't have the power to take off out of Denver on a hot day with full payload and fly west. Well, technically you probably could but it would not be smart due to the high density altitude the heat creates." -140 kts isn't that bad. On the other end, it has a pretty low stall speed and ground roll. That increases your options for landing, which is in all actuality, pretty important. Your approach to mountain flying puzzles me. Mountain flying is about understanding air currents, not picking the highest mountain around, and flying straight over it. Density altitude... Yes, that is indeed what I was referring to in that last statement, not the Bermuda Triangle like bunch of extra gravity found in Colorado. ;)

The Piper PA28-235 the (last three refer to engine HP in Pipers) has a 235 hp motor, which makes it pretty much the same as a C-182, just with a cheaper Hershey bar wing. You will find, if you experiment, that you can exceed the service ceiling in the manual, but indeed, it just isn't that good of a wing. One thing that is good about Pipers is the 12 volt electrical system, which means that you can jump it with a car if you leave the master on. Cessnas have a 24 volt system, which require two batteries in series. I can only imagine what happens if you do this in a cirrus. After much hand wringing, you probably call the salesman.


"The Cirrus is targeted to more amateur pilots, and casual users." -Fo sho. "If they had added retractable landing gear it would have meant they would need to get their complex aircraft endorsement, and insurance companies would charge more to insure it being a complex aircraft. Many GA pilots have landed perfectly on the run way but forgot to put the landing gear down and wrecked the plane." -I would not call that a perfect landing. There is this thing called the checklist. On a serious note, I really don't think that an aircraft should be designed to accommodate this level of incompetence. That's what I was getting at with my comment about the parachute. Seatbelts are something you should wear in anything rolling along at 70 mph. You can have gusting cross winds, animals on the runway, etc. The ground and its proximity are dangerous to airplanes. Having a parachute implies that for some reason, up in the air, you could just all of a sudden lose control of the aircraft. Ask yourself... Why? If you are making good choices about the conditions, this really should not happen.

It may surprise you, but I do know what a complex endorsement is. What's wrong with learning to fly an airplane where you can change the aerodynamics of the wing and the prop, along with the fuselage, if that's where the gear happen to be? It forces you to think, and manage the machine better, making use of its features. Furthermore, if you are spending 400K on a cirrus, what difference is the extra training and insurance cost? I just don't see the savings there.

Taking this all together, I feel that Cirrus caters to a mindset that feels like it can buy safety without developing proficiency. All joking aside, that kind of thinking and airplanes don't really mix. Here's an article that says it well: http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/


This article talks about the glass cockpit, as well. Sure, there is nothing wrong with having good instrumentation, and extra data. At the end of the day, if you aren't mentally prepared to fly hard single pilot IFR like some part 135 guy doing his daily routine, you just shouldn't do it. End of story. You just can't buy your way out of disorientation, confusion, and fear. Having the basic six (with working gyros) a good GPS, and knowing how your VORs work is fundamental. I am not saying that it is better, clearly it's not. What I am saying, is unless you are very comfortable with using the basic six, flying in actual clouds/ice/rain/storms, the glass cockpit won't make that much difference. It doesn't make decisions for you.

Back in the 1960's, rumor has it that they called the V-35 Bonanza the "fork tailed doctor killer". The airplanes have changed, but the doctors haven't.

Opinions.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your point of view.
 
Last edited:
I loved the RX8 regardless of the problems with it's torque curve. It's what I did my racing in. But you are right, and I think Mazda probably learned their lesson. Even with the 16X motor that's probably going to end up in the RX9, they'll have some sort of turbo set up going. Hopefully they go for a single instead of some twins.

Regardless, I hope these guys are still around by that point, and will want to step back from the prototypes and develop a GT class RX9.

The problem with the RX8 goes far beyond it's torque curve. Yes, the motor is a little underpowered, especially in contrast to some of the straight six designs out there. But the real problem actually lies in the apex seals. I've worked on a snot-load of cars and often pick up craigslist projects to earn some money on the side, but I won't touch an RX8. The apex seals are good for 70k-130k miles, then they're toast. I see them all over CL at 100k because "Car needs a tune-up."

Run. Away. :p
 
The problem with the RX8 goes far beyond it's torque curve. Yes, the motor is a little underpowered, especially in contrast to some of the straight six designs out there. But the real problem actually lies in the apex seals. I've worked on a snot-load of cars and often pick up craigslist projects to earn some money on the side, but I won't touch an RX8. The apex seals are good for 70k-130k miles, then they're toast. I see them all over CL at 100k because "Car needs a tune-up."

Run. Away. :p
Yeah. Don't get me started on the apex seals (and the designed fouling of the spark plugs due to the oil consumption). Whoever manufactured the apex seals actually put out a bad batch of them one year that was even worse normal. In the race cars we had we would break the motors in for approximately 12 hours of run time before we considered them race ready. Properly broken in the motors could last the majority if not the whole season of the amateur series and the pro series. With the bad batch, the motors lasted for about 2 weekend events before they blew. Always the apex seals. Went through lots of motors that year. The team never recovered. Of course I don't think Mazdaspeed ever admitted the seals were flawed, but from talking to people since then, the seals magically started lasting to more acceptable run times.
 
Hey, thanks for writing back. I was hoping my smack talk would prompt a response from some cirrus driver. You'll have to do.

"If I had to guess you are probably still accruing hours to get your VFR license." -Hmm... yeah.... I might have more ink than you think... ;).

"There are only 2 reasons to buy a mooney. They are fast and affordable. That's about it." -Two things I like...

"They are also an unforgiving airplane with their small wing span/area meaning they stal(l) easier, and have a worse glide ratio." -Aspect ratio. Yes, this is true. They eat runway, and land kinda hot. I think that this is a reasonable sacrifice for speed. It requires more work, more planning, and more proficiency. They aren't a beginner's airplane, but they aren't the space shuttle either. They are fraction of the price of an aircraft of comparable performance.

"The C182 is slow as can be, being turbo charged it has a service ceiling of 18,000 feet but you and your passengers would need to wear an oxygen mask which sucks, not to mention at 18,000 feet over the rockies you can encounter some crazy winds like a 75kt head wind for example (very common), and with 145kt cruise speed that means you are traveling in the at highway speeds. And btw, it doesn't have the power to take off out of Denver on a hot day with full payload and fly west. Well, technically you probably could but it would not be smart due to the high density altitude the heat creates." -140 kts isn't that bad. On the other end, it has a pretty low stall speed and ground roll. That increases your options for landing, which is in all actuality, pretty important. Your approach to mountain flying puzzles me. Mountain flying is about understanding air currents, not picking the highest mountain around, and flying straight over it. Density altitude... Yes, that is indeed what I was referring to in that last statement, not the Bermuda Triangle like bunch of extra gravity found in Colorado. ;)

The Piper PA28-235 the (last three refer to engine HP in Pipers) has a 235 hp motor, which makes it pretty much the same as a C-182, just with a cheaper Hershey bar wing. You will find, if you experiment, that you can exceed the service ceiling in the manual, but indeed, it just isn't that good of a wing. One thing that is good about Pipers is the 12 volt electrical system, which means that you can jump it with a car if you leave the master on. Cessnas have a 24 volt system, which require two batteries in series. I can only imagine what happens if you do this in a cirrus. After much hand wringing, you probably call the salesman.


"The Cirrus is targeted to more amateur pilots, and casual users." -Fo sho. "If they had added retractable landing gear it would have meant they would need to get their complex aircraft endorsement, and insurance companies would charge more to insure it being a complex aircraft. Many GA pilots have landed perfectly on the run way but forgot to put the landing gear down and wrecked the plane." -I would not call that a perfect landing. There is this thing called the checklist. On a serious note, I really don't think that an aircraft should be designed to accommodate this level of incompetence. That's what I was getting at with my comment about the parachute. Seatbelts are something you should wear in anything rolling along at 70 mph. You can have gusting cross winds, animals on the runway, etc. The ground and its proximity are dangerous to airplanes. Having a parachute implies that for some reason, up in the air, you could just all of a sudden lose control of the aircraft. Ask yourself... Why? If you are making good choices about the conditions, this really should not happen.

It may surprise you, but I do know what a complex endorsement is. What's wrong with learning to fly an airplane where you can change the aerodynamics of the wing and the prop, along with the fuselage, if that's where the gear happen to be? It forces you to think, and manage the machine better, making use of its features. Furthermore, if you are spending 400K on a cirrus, what difference is the extra training and insurance cost? I just don't see the savings there.

Taking this all together, I feel that Cirrus caters to a mindset that feels like it can buy safety without developing proficiency. All joking aside, that kind of thinking and airplanes don't really mix. Here's an article that says it well: http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/05/dicks-blog-whats-wrong-with-cirrus-pilots/


This article talks about the glass cockpit, as well. Sure, there is nothing wrong with having good instrumentation, and extra data. At the end of the day, if you aren't mentally prepared to fly hard single pilot IFR like some part 135 guy doing his daily routine, you just shouldn't do it. End of story. You just can't buy your way out of disorientation, confusion, and fear. Having the basic six (with working gyros) a good GPS, and knowing how your VORs work is fundamental. I am not saying that it is better, clearly it's not. What I am saying, is unless you are very comfortable with using the basic six, flying in actual clouds/ice/rain/storms, the glass cockpit won't make that much difference. It doesn't make decisions for you.

Back in the 1960's, rumor has it that they called the V-35 Bonanza the "fork tailed doctor killer". The airplanes have changed, but the doctors haven't.

Opinions.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your point of view.

So first and foremost then. What rating, if any at all do you hold, and how many actual flight hours do you have logged?

Your comments are based from a dearth of knowledge that leads me to confidently believe that you do not hold an IFR rating or are close to it, which ultimately is what is important because otherwise your perspective is akin to a teenager with their driving permit. Sure you can drive the car safely, but you shouldn't be driving with other people, in bad weather, or in tricky situations. You still have a lot to learn.

But it's okay, I am happy to entertain your thought process on your journey to become a better pilot, as a good pilot is always learning and it's always nice to talk flying.

Re-Mooney fast and affordable: Sure, two things that anyone likes... but at what cost? Range, payload, comfort, space, passenger capacity, ease of flight/forgiving flight characteristics, pressurized, service ceiling? So essentially you sacrifice everything else..... That is why they are so "affordable" because no body wants to compromise all of those other things.

Re-Unforgiving: You seem to be very focused on your landing areas.... Thats actually not really that big of a deal. unless you plan to do mostly back country flying you will be hard pressed to find a field that is too short for ANY single prop plane. Especially in light of the fact that most short fields and grass strips are private fields anyways, that you cannot land on without prior arrangements and permission, like knowing someone who owns a hangar. Even then, most private strips are plenty long enough to accommodate just about any single engine aircraft. The unforgiving characteristics is more of a flight characteristic. Most importantly stall characteristics and glide ratio. You are training on a 172 I am sure, so you think that because you know how to recover a stall in a plane that is capable of auto-recovery (if you stall a C172 and don't touch the controls it will come out of the stall by itself in short order, which is why its such a great/safe training aircraft), but other aircraft that are much less forgiving like the mooney can stall much easier and are substantially more difficult to recover once stalled, and the stall can spiral into a more complex stall like a cross controlled stall and/or flat spin which would be a kiss of death in that plane. Glide ratio is also improtant because it dictates your glide distance to a runway in case of an engine out situation.

Re jumping your plane: Not sure how this is a big deal... You would normally have your FBO do this for you anyways... And a Cirrus runs a 24 volt system as well... not a big deal.

Re-182 and mountain flying: Not sure what your reference of 140kts actually being good is compared to, but no its not. It's really slow in fact. Compared to a Sky Hawk its a rocket, but that doesnt make it fast. A moped is fast compared to a bicycle... More over you completely glide over the inconvenience of having to wear an O2 mask at altitude due to the lack of pressurization, which is a big inconvenience. Not to mention having to pay to have the O2 tank refilled every so often which is not cheap.
On the topic of mountain flying, I actually live in Denver, so my approach to mountain flying is not to hit a mountain, or put myself in a situation where it is at all likely. Period. The mountains out here can get above 14,000 feet and we have hundred that are 13,000ft. Have you ever flown at the service ceiling of your Cessna 172? I have.... the rate of climb is like 50fpm. With the gusts you can encounter at that altitude in the middle of the mountains, it would be extremely foolish and dangerous to fly in the mountains in any plane with similar performance characteristics, especially in the summer where its exacerbated. One good mountain wave (actual phenomena) and you will be pushed into the side of a mountain faster then you know what hit you.

Just on that alone is how I can tell that you still have some serious training left to do. You are taking the theoretical maximums of a plane and putting them all together. You don't get max velocity, max rate of climb, max payload, max range, and max service ceiling all at the same time.... In fact, there are only a handful of combinations where you can even have 2 of those at the same time. Essentially, when you push the planes performance envelope to one extreme, you are compromising in just about every other area leaving you vulnerable.

Down the list we go....

Landing planes without bringing the gear down. It happens more often than you think. It's not a reason to not buy a retractable gear airplane, but its just another factor. Some people, in addition to not wanting to have to remember to raise/lower the gear, also dont want the added risk and headache retractable gear brings. Mainly, the added maintenance it requires, and the added risk of failure during flight. People not only forget to lower the gear, but it also happens that sometimes they go to lower it but one of the tires wont deploy, or none at all because of some in flight malfunction. I had a family friend whome this happened to on a Piper Aztec, and they had to do a belly landing right there in the middle of the runway (fortunately made it unharmed). Thats why its more expensive to insure and maintain, and for some people its not worth the risk/headache/cost, a lot of times these types of people tend to be amateur pilots. They have enough to deal with being a new pilot, they don't feel a desire to rush into adding to the pile.

Seat belts and parachutes: So you think the reason you have a seat belt in the plane is for runway collisions/encounters? What about turbulence? Ever found yourself flying along and unexpectedly hit wake turbulence that causes your little 172 to flip upside down, or do a full barrel roll? It has happened many times, and you can try to avoid it but sometimes its impossible to know when you are flying along and you crossed the flight path where a jet flew through over a minute ago and is 5 miles away now. Wake current lasts an extremely long time. Additionally, general turbulence can do similar things, causing your plane to jump, drop, flip any number of things if it is severe. You probably want a seat belt during those times too. If you have to do an engine out landing, or any type of emergency landing... you also probably want your seat belt on. it's not just for when you are rolling during take off and landing, its for your safety over the course of the entire flight. How this pertains to a parachute? Well, sometimes, things happen during a flight that are out of your control and lead to unexpected events/situations the severity of which can be variable, coupled with the unexpected nature of an inflight mechanical failure and the pressure this brings, it can lead to tragic events due to pilot error. In Cirrus's defense, they DO NOT have a single recorded death whenever the parachute was deployed, and the insurance companies covered the damage every single time. It's not about incompetence, its about layers of security. It's foolish to think you are above needing extra layers of security because you are such an advanced pilot. Go tell a fighter pilot they shouldn't have electable seats too.

Re-Cirrus mindset: Cirrus doesn't cater to this mindset. What happens is there exist poor instructors who don't give their students the tools to perform under emergency circumstances, and or allow their students to believe they are invincible, coupled with the easy to fly nature of the plane and the over eagerness of some pilots to fly beyond what their skills dictate. This doesn't mean that you should hold the technology liable for the hubris of man/woman. You wouldn't say that a new mercedes with all of the features it carries standard like collision avoidance, active cruise control with lane finding technology, 360 degree airbags, anti-sway/roll bars, and anti-lock brakes makes it a bad car because it caters to the mindset of people being poor drivers would you? Same logic. Technology in aviation is a good thing, pilot error is responsible for over 90% of general aviation incidents. The fact that you think the only reason you would suddenly lose control up in the air is due to poor judgement in flying conditions demonstrates naivete and lack of experience.

Re:Glass Cockpit: Clearly you have never flown a glass cockpit or else you would know that the displays show you all the information your standard 6-pack shows you, it just shows you on a screen vs a dial.... So you still have to know how to use a glide-scope, VOR, etc etc. And many times they have backup instruments in the form of analog in case there is ever an electronics failure (which it would have to be a double/total electronics failure, as its a redundant system). What a digital/glass cockpit does give you however are many added safety/awareness features. Big ones being synthetic vision,/TAWS (Terrain Awareness & Warning System), TCAS (Traffic & Collision Avoidance Systems, Weather alert systems with radar overlaying your GPS route, lighting strike indicators, digital VOR overlay on your GPS, to name a few.

Finally, your thoughts on flying during IFR conditions are the final nail in the coffin as to why I know with certainty that you are not an IFR rated pilot. Your philosophy of, you shouldn't fly IFR conditions unless you fly it every day just like a commercial pilot is wrong, and is what gets people killed. Avoid all weather is a VFR philosophy meant for a new pilot. However, and this is especially true on longer routes, you cannot control or predict every variable of a flight, and often times the preferred route will be through some sort of cloud cover or weather. A good IFR pilot will not avoid a cloud because they worry about becoming disoriented. That's a non-issue for an IFR pilot because you received substantial training in how to fly a plane without looking out the window. It's literally a per-requisite. Continuing to fly in IFR conditions will keep your training fresh and improve your skills/confidence. It's not to say that you should fly in a severe thunderstorm by choice, but to shy away from overcast skies starting at 4,000 ft is silly. What you are really doing is a disservice to your training, yourself, and anyone who ever flies as a passenger with you, because you are not putting your skills to constant use. So when the times comes, not if, you will be in a much worse position then had you not been avoiding the cloud cover. Your IFR rating is all about teaching precision of flight, during sub-optimal conditions and how to stay calm and not be intimidated by it.

The first thing my CFI told me when I got my IFR rating was, good job, now go and use it. You have to keep on flying IFR, the people who get into trouble are the ones who avoid it, but think they are playing it safe since they already have their rating, but truth is you can't control the weather, and your can't control every variable.

As for your V-tail Bonanza reference, that is correct. It was labelled the doctor killer. It's pretty well known among pilot, and especially doctor pilots. If you go back in this thread several pages to around page 14 or 15 I believe. I reference the V-Tail Bonanza and its nickname as the doctor killer, in a similar context.

You seem to be at a point in your training in which you have obviously been around a lot of instructors/pilots and been involved in or heard their conversation. You are saying a lot of the normally heard stuff, but its evident you don't know the why, and its leading to you misusing your points because you still don't know enough yet. You'll get there for sure as you obviously have a passion for it like I do, but for now lets just say that you have a long way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Obviously, medical school's do a very good job of recruiting very responsible students. Or, all the crazy med students are still recovering from last nights kegger and havn't got around to checking SDN.
How is it responsible to not maximize your quality of life while you're younger? It blows my mind that people want to have more money for their older years when a variety of cancers or heart disease could pop up and end everything.
Yes you should spend wisely but you shouldn't hold yourself back... spend money while you're healthy and and not old. Ideally having money during the golden 18-25 year age bracket is best but that's exceptionally rare.

I'd personally want a decent ferrari as early as possible as an attending.. or another "average" exotic (and yes it would be financed).
 
Top