I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.

Michael

Michael,

> So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.

You need to be aware that having such a strong focus on the lowest
price may have inherent safety issues. You get what you pay for.

Having said that, have a look at the Ercoupe or the Piper Warrior 140.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Having said that, have a look at the Ercoupe or the Piper Warrior 140.

Or better yet, a rental. You could buy & feed a cow, but for most of us it
makes far more sense to buy milk.

Vaughn

Michael Adams wrote:
> I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own.

The rental. <G>

"Michael Adams" > wrote in message
t...
>I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
>heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
>seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on
>this before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low
>repair and parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
> Michael

There is no such thing as low parts cost on a certified airplane. The
voltage regulator on my Cherokee 140 went bad a few years ago. This is a
Chrysler part. NAPA gets $35 for an identical part. Piper sells theirs for
$350. BTW, the Cherokee 140 is at the bottom end of both the purchase price
scale as well as the maintenance scale. HOWEVER, I had both a $19,000 annual
followed by a $6000 annual. Those two prretty much put the plane back into
premimum condition. I've been spending around $1500/year since. (BTW, it's
for sale for $27,000)

The reason the parts are so expensive is because very few are manufactured,
and the certification cost is high. So, if you're really looking for low
cost parts, you can't do it with a certified aircraft.

That leaves you with buying a homebuilt. If you jump over to
rec.aviation.homebuilt and look for the FAQ, you can read plenty.

Michael Adams wrote:
> I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
> heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
> seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
> before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.

Piper Cub
Aeronca Champ

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Having said that, have a look at the Ercoupe or the Piper Warrior
>> 140.
>
> Or better yet, a rental. You could buy & feed a cow, but for most
> of us it makes far more sense to buy milk.
>
> Vaughn

While I agree with the rental if saving money is the key I also understand
that renting isn't always an option. So you might look at one of the new
S-LSA where you can do your own maintenance and become qualified to do your
own annual.

Another option that will reduce not only the cost of maintenance but also
the initial cost of ownership is going the homebuilt route.

In a previous article, "Vaughn Simon" > said:
>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Having said that, have a look at the Ercoupe or the Piper Warrior 140.
>
> Or better yet, a rental. You could buy & feed a cow, but for most of us it
>makes far more sense to buy milk.

A flying club combines many of the benefits of ownership with the low cost
of rental.

For instance, in my flying club <http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/>, the
monthly dues are less than what AOPA says a good renters insurance policy
will cost you. But you get clean, well maintained planes flown by people
who treat the planes like they have to pay the maintenance costs.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Fortunately, he was promoted far enough up the management ladder that he
no longer has any real responsibility and is kept far away from sharp or
dangerous objects - such as cc, gcc, vi and emacs. -- Curt Fennell

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:45:42 -0700, "Michael Adams" >
wrote:

>I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
>heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
>seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
>before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
>parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
>Michael
>

the hands down record for the least expensive aircraft to own was set
by Ron Wantajja (WWantaja, Waantaja, Wanttaja ..one of the letters is
doubled) in N500F. sheesh, annuals that were fun reading and cost less
than a carton of beer.

Stealth Pilot

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:22:33 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:45:42 -0700, "Michael Adams" >
>wrote:
>
>>I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
>>heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
>>seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
>>before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
>>parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
>the hands down record for the least expensive aircraft to own was set
>by Ron Wantajja (WWantaja, Waantaja, Wanttaja ..one of the letters is
>doubled) in N500F. sheesh, annuals that were fun reading and cost less
>than a carton of beer.

Today's Friday here, so the "t" is doubled.

The highs and the lows of my annual adventures:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/FLYM.HTM

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/ann97.htm

Ron Wanttaja

On Aug 23, 11:45 pm, "Michael Adams" > wrote:
> I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
> heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
> seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
> before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
> Michael

That is the nature of renting. Unless you are flying 100-150 hours per
year renting is going to save you a lot of money and be more
predictable.

-robert

On Aug 24, 6:14 am, Dave Butler > wrote:
> Michael Adams wrote:
> > I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
> > heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
> > seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
> > before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> > parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
> Piper Cub
> Aeronca Champ

Both those planes may find a rib rubbing and result in a $10,000
annual. I had this happen with the Aeronca Chief and my neighbor with
his Piper Cub.

-Robert

On Aug 24, 7:39 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> Michael Adams wrote:
> > I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own.
>
> The rental. <G>

Yup, I've had the bug on and off and no matter how I run the numbers I
can't justify it unless I have lots of mad money on hand, which I
don't. You can't beat a good flying club for the right balance
between value and availability.

A partnership can also cut your costs, but of course it has to be the
right partner, which isn't easy to find.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Aug 23, 11:45 pm, "Michael Adams" > wrote:
>
>>I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
>>heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
>>seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
>>before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
>>parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>>
>>Michael
>
>
> That is the nature of renting. Unless you are flying 100-150 hours per
> year renting is going to save you a lot of money and be more
> predictable.
>
> -robert
>

What Robert says it true. Any financial planner will tell you the same
thing. Goes for boats, RVs, etc; renting is better.

Having said that, it sure is nice to go to your hangar and pull our your
plane when all the rentals are out until nightfall.

I think you are being unrealistic - this is an expensive hobby,
unfortunately. Even the LSAs were supposed to be inexpensive. The Legion
Cub is $100,000.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

On Aug 24, 9:48 am, Ross > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 11:45 pm, "Michael Adams" > wrote:
>
> >>I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
> >>heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
> >>seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
> >>before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> >>parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
> >>Michael
>
> > That is the nature of renting. Unless you are flying 100-150 hours per
> > year renting is going to save you a lot of money and be more
> > predictable.
>
> > -robert
>
> What Robert says it true. Any financial planner will tell you the same
> thing. Goes for boats, RVs, etc; renting is better.
>
> Having said that, it sure is nice to go to your hangar and pull our your
> plane when all the rentals are out until nightfall.
>
> I think you are being unrealistic - this is an expensive hobby,
> unfortunately. Even the LSAs were supposed to be inexpensive. The Legion
> Cub is $100,000.

Totally, that is why I own my Mooney. I could probably rent a Baron
for the cost of owning the Mooney. However, I love going out to the
airport and launching into the fog without having to worry about the
condition of the instrumentation, etc. There are lots of great reasons
for owning a plane, but financial is not one of them.

-robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>What Robert says it true. Any financial planner will tell you the same
>>thing. Goes for boats, RVs, etc; renting is better.
>>
>>Having said that, it sure is nice to go to your hangar and pull our your
>>plane when all the rentals are out until nightfall.
>>
>>I think you are being unrealistic - this is an expensive hobby,
>>unfortunately. Even the LSAs were supposed to be inexpensive. The Legion
>>Cub is $100,000.
>
>
> Totally, that is why I own my Mooney. I could probably rent a Baron
> for the cost of owning the Mooney. However, I love going out to the
> airport and launching into the fog without having to worry about the
> condition of the instrumentation, etc. There are lots of great reasons
> for owning a plane, but financial is not one of them.
>

True. I scrimp on other things so I can keep my plane. No fancy
cars, boats or jet set lifestyles. On the other hand traveling
is a pleasure in your own plane... no long lines at the airport,
luggage getting lost or stuff stolen out of it, or idiotic
regulations about what you can't carry with you, etc. etc. We can
go when we want and more often than not land at a place that
is closer to our ultimate destination. To me its worth it.

Renting and buying are just different products. They both give you a
ride in something with a propeller and wings, but that's about it. How
do you compare the cost of steak versus hamburger? You can get a
number, but what does it mean? They are just different experiences.

I challenge you to find a rental airplane where:
-No reservation is needed.
-No one pressures you for a return date.
-Careful engine operation saves you money.
-The equipment is what you want.
-You can leave your charts and headsets in it...

and so on.

Renting will usually be cheaper. So will hamburger.

-John T.

On Aug 24, 11:59 am, "John T." > wrote:
> Renting and buying are just different products. They both give you a
> ride in something with a propeller and wings, but that's about it. How
> do you compare the cost of steak versus hamburger? You can get a
> number, but what does it mean? They are just different experiences.


That's part of our point. The OP is asking what the best hamburger to
buy is and we're saying hamburgers are for renting.

-Robert

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:59:26 -0400, "John T."
> wrote:

>Renting will usually be cheaper. So will hamburger.

And when the conversation starts with "least expensive"...

Good service includes educating the customer.

xyzzy > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Aug 24, 7:39 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> Michael Adams wrote:
>> > I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own.
>>
>> The rental. <G>
>
> Yup, I've had the bug on and off and no matter how I run the numbers I
> can't justify it unless I have lots of mad money on hand, which I
> don't. You can't beat a good flying club for the right balance
> between value and availability.
>
> A partnership can also cut your costs, but of course it has to be the
> right partner, which isn't easy to find.
>
>
And the wrong partner can be a nightmare.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

> Having said that, have a look at the Ercoupe or the Piper Warrior 140.

A small nit: A Cherokee 140 is a radically different (and far
cheaper) bird than the Piper Warrior.

There is no "Warrior 140".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
> heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
> seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
> before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.

Don't let these old geezers here scare you. You can buy an old
Ercoupe or Cessna 150 for less than $15,000 -- or about the price of a
decent 3-year-old mini-van. If you can afford to buy a used mini-van,
you can afford to own an airplane.

(If you can't, I'm afraid you're out of luck, and should go buy a bass
boat.)

Maintenance *will* be higher than owning a car, but you can save
yourself oodles (that's a technical term) of money if you (a) are
somewhat mechanically inclined (b) don't mind getting your hands
dirty, and (c) hook up with a good, honest mechanic.

Actually, (c) is the hardest part of airplane ownership. Without (c),
all bets are off, because the FAA has set up the classic conflict of
interest, whereby the guys who stand to make the most money from
declaring your airplane unairworthy are also the only guys who can fix
them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Aug 24, 4:08 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Michael,
>
> > So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> > parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
> You need to be aware that having such a strong focus on the lowest
> price may have inherent safety issues. You get what you pay for.
>
> Having said that, have a look at the Ercoupe or the Piper Warrior 140.

IMHO the venerable Cessna 150 is your best combo choice for cheapest
in all three categories: to purchase, maintain, and operate as a
general purpose everyday flyer. The Piper Cherokee (not Warrior,
that's a different plane - pedantic nit here) 140 is the next cheapest
overall, and gives you the benefit of 4 seats and considerable extra
speed, but also considerable extra fuel burn. The Ercoupe has become
too much of the antique, occasional-only special purpose flyer that
you spend all your time and money fixing up into a hangar queen
instead of using as a workhorse everyday flyer out of fear you'll
break something expensive or difficult to repair on it.

The Cherokee 140 has not been holding its resale value too well
lately, as the used plane market is full of good buys in a 140 so that
may be something to seriously consider if purchasing a plane dirt
cheap today right now bears more weight than future resale value in
your decision, but the Cessna 150's have been holding their resale
value rock solid even throughout the used plane market slump over the
past year or so...


cheers,
rutger

> That is the nature of renting. Unless you are flying 100-150 hours per
> year renting is going to save you a lot of money and be more
> predictable.

Owning carries implicitly 'you _will_ fly more' however, at least it
has for me. "You should only buy if your fly 100 hours or more per
year" isn't necessarily the best advice, unless your schedule is such
that you _cant_ fly more than 100-150 hours a year.

Honestly the best metaphor I can think of it is an attractive
girlfriend/mistress vs. a prostitute. Sure the physical mechanics are
the same, sure they'll both hit you in the wallet...

To an accountant, Prostitutes make certain business sense. (I've
actually heard more than one of them justify their lack of
relationship with this exact line).

But that doesn't mean they compare to the "real" thing... Its the
emotion that makes all the difference;)

EridanMan wrote:
>> That is the nature of renting. Unless you are flying 100-150 hours per
>> year renting is going to save you a lot of money and be more
>> predictable.
>
> Owning carries implicitly 'you _will_ fly more' however, at least it
> has for me. "You should only buy if your fly 100 hours or more per
> year" isn't necessarily the best advice, unless your schedule is such
> that you _cant_ fly more than 100-150 hours a year.

What is the deal with emphasizing so much? It is really annoying and
doesn't add anything to your message.

Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
: EridanMan wrote:
: >> That is the nature of renting. Unless you are flying 100-150 hours per
: >> year renting is going to save you a lot of money and be more
: >> predictable.
: >
: > Owning carries implicitly 'you _will_ fly more' however, at least it
: > has for me. "You should only buy if your fly 100 hours or more per
: > year" isn't necessarily the best advice, unless your schedule is such
: > that you _cant_ fly more than 100-150 hours a year.

: What is the deal with emphasizing so much? It is really annoying and
: doesn't add anything to your message.

: Matt

I thought it was *really* annoying and doesn't add *anything* to the message?

;-)

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"Michael Adams" > wrote in message
t...
>I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
>heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
>seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on
>this before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low
>repair and parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
> Michael

Least expensive is an older glider. $10K gets you something decent. If you
hook up with a club that has a winch for launching your major expense will
be gas for your car getting too and from...

If you just gotta have a noisemaker up front, your best bet is a low
performance homebuilt. You save in a couple ways - first the purchase price
will be lower, and, second, you can (can, not will) save on maintainance
since it is legal (but not always practical) to do your own maintainance.
And not every part has to be "certified".

Note: Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Homebuilts don't get an annual
inspection from an A/I, they get a "condition inspection" from an A/I, A/P
or the original builder- here's the catch - if you do your own work and when
you get to the "condition inspection" and your friendly A/P opens up the
cowl and says "Who the @#$% was the moron that did this?" you are, as they
say, screwed. You really need to work WITH your A/P to avoid surprises.
And, you need to have YOUR A/P do an inspection before you buy for the same
reason - could be this is the first time ANY A/P has looked under the hood,
eh?

On the other hand, if you are a decent wrench and you are able to build some
trust with your A/P you will most likely save quite a bit on the
maintainance.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> : EridanMan wrote:
> : >> That is the nature of renting. Unless you are flying 100-150 hours per
> : >> year renting is going to save you a lot of money and be more
> : >> predictable.
> : >
> : > Owning carries implicitly 'you _will_ fly more' however, at least it
> : > has for me. "You should only buy if your fly 100 hours or more per
> : > year" isn't necessarily the best advice, unless your schedule is such
> : > that you _cant_ fly more than 100-150 hours a year.
>
> : What is the deal with emphasizing so much? It is really annoying and
> : doesn't add anything to your message.
>
> : Matt
>
> I thought it was *really* annoying and doesn't add *anything* to the message?
>
> ;-)
>

I'd comment, but my experience with Ph.D.s (I work with a lot of them)
is that they aren't teachable. :-)

Matt

"Michael Adams" wrote in message

>I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own.

Can only speak for myself but a Cessna 150 is tuff to beat for just
simple pleasurable flying. Here's my stats on mine.

Purchased in 2000 for $12,000.00 had engine rebuilt for $8,000.00
airplane in great shape except for high time on engine. New radios,
all upgraded avionics etc came in the airplane.

NO annual in last seven years over $275.00
Fuel burn approx 6 gallons per hour.
Insurance cost $770.00 per year.
Purchased one set of tires, forget what I paid for them.
800+ hours later, Best airplane I've ever owned for my kind of flying.

Figure I still can sell it for close to $20,000.00.

Terry
N6401F

: > I thought it was *really* annoying and doesn't add *anything* to the message?
: >
: > ;-)
: >

: I'd comment, but my experience with Ph.D.s (I work with a lot of them)
: is that they aren't teachable. :-)

: Matt

Already taught as much as will fit, eh?

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
> : > I thought it was *really* annoying and doesn't add *anything* to the message?
> : >
> : > ;-)
> : >
>
> : I'd comment, but my experience with Ph.D.s (I work with a lot of them)
> : is that they aren't teachable. :-)
>
> : Matt
>
> Already taught as much as will fit, eh?
>

:-)

That don't call it Piled Higher and Deeper for nothing! :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> Piled Higher and Deeper

Heh.

Haven't heard that one since the '60s.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

On Aug 24, 9:44 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 6:14 am, Dave Butler > wrote:
>
> > Michael Adams wrote:
> > > I am looking for some input on the least expensive airplanes to own. I've
> > > heard so many horror stories about the $5000 or even $15,000 annual, or the
> > > seat adjuster that costs $600, that I thought I would get some input on this
> > > before buying. So I'm looking for low purchase price (used), low repair and
> > > parts costs, and low $ per hour to run.
>
> > Piper Cub
> > Aeronca Champ
>
> Both those planes may find a rib rubbing and result in a $10,000
> annual. I had this happen with the Aeronca Chief and my neighbor with
> his Piper Cub.
>
> -Robert

The Champ has an AD against the wooden spars. If the AD
is done properly, cracks are found in too many of of them. And a
cracked spar has to be replaced, not an inexpensive job, or the wings
can be replaced with brand-new aluminum-spar wings from American
Champion, another option that isn't cheap.
Those wooden spars crack in several ways: 1) At the strut
attach plywood doubler, where it creates a locally stiffened area, and
the spar tends to suffer compression cracks at the ends of the
doublers; 2) The ribs are aluminum and are fastened to the spar with
small nails through a flange on the rib, and as the spar shrinks
widthwise with age, those nails force the grain apart and cracks
appear in the spar faces; and 3) Cracks have been noted at the spar
butt connection holes.
None of this is good news. And further, the steel struts on
these older Champs are known to rust out from the inside; I flew a
number of hours on one before another mechanic stuck his awl clean
through the strut during an annual.
The small Continentals found on these airplanes sometimes
need TLC on the valves, and the crankshafts in many of them aren't
nitrided and wear rapidly (especially the front journals, farthest
from the oil pump) once the bearings wear and the oil pressure
falls.
I don't think there are any airplanes guaranteed not to
present unpleasant surprises of some sort. Been around aviation long
enough to think so. And as a mechanic, many owner wannabes come to me
and they often have some particular airplane they're looking at and
want my advice on what it might cost. Then they don't like what I tell
them, buy the airplane anyway and find out the hard way that it can
cost a lot more than they initially thought.
This isn't to discourage airplane ownership. It's just to warn
that you need to be really careful, and get a thorough, independent
inspection done before buying. Remember that the previous owner most
likely didn't want to spend any more than necessary on it.

Dan

Jay,

> A small nit: A Cherokee 140 is a radically different (and far
> cheaper) bird than the Piper Warrior.
>

You're correct. Sorry.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> , but the Cessna 150's have been holding their resale
> value rock solid even throughout the used plane market slump over the
> past year or so...
>

Doesn't that contradict the "cheap to buy" requirement?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Xyzzy,

> Yup, I've had the bug on and off and no matter how I run the numbers I
> can't justify it unless I have lots of mad money on hand, which I
> don't. You can't beat a good flying club for the right balance
> between value and availability.
>

Whenever your requirements include longer trips with little flying time
(e.g. fly to a nice place an hour or two away, stay for three or four
days and fly back), both rentals and most flying clubs aren't an option.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In a previous article, said:
>Whenever your requirements include longer trips with little flying time
>(e.g. fly to a nice place an hour or two away, stay for three or four
>days and fly back), both rentals and most flying clubs aren't an option.

Flying clubs are. I regularly fly a club plane to Ottawa (1.75 hours
flight time) and then stay for two or three days. I've flown to Oshkosh
(4.5 hours flight time) and let it sit for 8 days. Not all flying clubs
are douchebags about minimum flying hours per day.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be somewhere else." -
- Delenn, Babylon 5

Paul Tomblin > wrote:
: In a previous article, said:
: >Whenever your requirements include longer trips with little flying time
: >(e.g. fly to a nice place an hour or two away, stay for three or four
: >days and fly back), both rentals and most flying clubs aren't an option.

: Flying clubs are. I regularly fly a club plane to Ottawa (1.75 hours
: flight time) and then stay for two or three days. I've flown to Oshkosh
: (4.5 hours flight time) and let it sit for 8 days. Not all flying clubs
: are douchebags about minimum flying hours per day.

... but I think most probably are. Unless you're in a *large* flying club (more than 3-4 planes, with multiple ones
in the same class), it's not an option. Most I've seen have one or at most two of the "primary trainer class" (e.g. Cessna
150/152), "instrument trainer class" (e.g. Cherokee 140/180), "complex-trainer class" (e.g. Arrow/Mooney/172RG), or
"twin-trainer class" (twin Commanche, etc). Most of them have high utilizations and have rules structured to discourage
weekend trips.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Aug 24, 11:59 am, "John T." > wrote:
>
>>Renting and buying are just different products. They both give you a
>>ride in something with a propeller and wings, but that's about it. How
>>do you compare the cost of steak versus hamburger? You can get a
>>number, but what does it mean? They are just different experiences.
>
>
>
> That's part of our point. The OP is asking what the best hamburger to
> buy is and we're saying hamburgers are for renting.
>
> -Robert
>
>
I think the OP asked what the cheapest airplane to own is, so it could
be more of a serloin or T-bone question. It really depends on what
"cheap" is. The OP might consider $50,000 cheap.

Margy

True, and the cost to buy is different than the cost to maintain. You
can buy a M20C for about the same price as a C-172 and go much, most
faster, higher, etc but annuals are going to be much more.


> I think the OP asked what the cheapest airplane to own is, so it could
> be more of a serloin or T-bone question. It really depends on what
> "cheap" is. The OP might consider $50,000 cheap.
>
> Margy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Paul,

> Not all flying clubs
> are douchebags about minimum flying hours per day.
>

That's why I said "most". Consider yourself lucky.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Aug 26, 3:56 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> > , but the Cessna 150's have been holding their resale
> > value rock solid even throughout the used plane market slump over the
> > past year or so...
>
> Doesn't that contradict the "cheap to buy" requirement?

No, not necessarily, because while the 150s have been holding their
value, the price range for good specimens has been holding steady in
the upper teens to low twenties, with the finer specimens in the mod
twenties which in my book still falls in the "cheap to buy" category.

The better quality Cherokee 140s used to be mid-upper thirties, even
into the low forties for finer specimens and now those same calibre
aircraft are being sold in the upper twenties to mid thirties just to
get them moving on market.

I think the Cherokee is definitely the plane-per-dollar value leader
right now, but if you do not really need the four seats, faster cruise
and extra fuel burn, the Cessna 150 will get you into the air, and
keep you there for the overall long term, for less overall money spent
across.... for say 5 years or thereabouts of ownership or even longer
terms.

On Aug 26, 8:48 am, (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
> In a previous article, said:
>
> >Whenever your requirements include longer trips with little flying time
> >(e.g. fly to a nice place an hour or two away, stay for three or four
> >days and fly back), both rentals and most flying clubs aren't an option.
>
> Flying clubs are. I regularly fly a club plane to Ottawa (1.75 hours
> flight time) and then stay for two or three days. I've flown to Oshkosh
> (4.5 hours flight time) and let it sit for 8 days. Not all flying clubs
> are douchebags about minimum flying hours per day.
>
That's my club experience too. We are pretty flexible, with a minimum
usage charge of 1 hour per day. Scheduling rules are flexible enough
that I don't think anyone has failed to take a trip because of them
(now, failing to take a trip because there is no plane available,
that's a different story -- that's the rub of the tradeoff between
renting and owning).

But in reference to Thomas' rebuttal, we have 8 planes in our fleet
and about 150 flying members.

> What is the deal with emphasizing so much? It is really annoying and
> doesn't add anything to your message.

One of those gremlins of a bad habit that shows up when I don't
sufficiently self-censor myself. I apologize, and thank you for
calling me on it.

-Scott