Hello,

I am seriously considering the purchase of an airplane and would like
to ask the group for potential dos and don'ts. I would so appreciate
any guidance, advice, or practical tips other pilots in this newsgroup
could offer. Also, to ask about any financial considerations that my
not be obvious to a first time owner.

If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
manufacturers might also be considered.

Thanks so much in advance for any help you could give us.

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from the end of aviationns

"KayInPA" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
>
> I am seriously considering the purchase of an airplane and would like
> to ask the group for potential dos and don'ts. I would so appreciate
> any guidance, advice, or practical tips other pilots in this newsgroup
> could offer. Also, to ask about any financial considerations that my
> not be obvious to a first time owner.
>
> If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
> a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
> looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
> we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
> manufacturers might also be considered.
>
> Thanks so much in advance for any help you could give us.
>
> --
> Kay
> Student Pilot
> email: remove "ns" from the end of aviationns

1) Figure out what your "mission" is, then buy the airplane for that
mission.
2) Don't buy the first airplane you look at.
3) Don't buy an airplane because it has a pretty paint job.
4) Find a good mechanic (get references) who is familiar with the aircraft
type you're looking at. Preferably this mechanic will be at your home
field. Explain to the mechanic that not only are you looking for an
airplane, you're looking for a mechanic. Have that mechanic do your
pre-purchase inspection.
5) Buy the nicest (i.e. best equipped, properly maintained) airplane you
can afford. It'll be cheaper in the long run than upgrading an airplane
with a bad paint job, used up engine, or ancient avionics.

KB

Here's the best advice you can receive;

1. Join the type club for the particular aircraft you're considering.
They'll be able to tell you the do's and don'ts of the units as well
as the performance specs of the various year models..

2. Get a prebuy done by a mechanic knowledgable in the model you're
considering.

3. See #2

4. See #2

5. See #2

Good luck


On 3 Apr 2004 05:09:51 -0800, (KayInPA)
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I am seriously considering the purchase of an airplane and would like
>to ask the group for potential dos and don'ts. I would so appreciate
>any guidance, advice, or practical tips other pilots in this newsgroup
>could offer. Also, to ask about any financial considerations that my
>not be obvious to a first time owner.
>
>If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
>a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
>looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
>we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
>manufacturers might also be considered.
>
>Thanks so much in advance for any help you could give us.

> If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
> a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
> looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
> we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
> manufacturers might also be considered.

Hi Kay,

Personally, I would recommend renting a wide variety of aircraft for a short
time -- six months to a year -- after getting your ticket. Expose yourself
to as many different makes and models as possible, before you decide to
purchase one.

You may find that you prefer something different than what you trained in,
and purchasing the wrong plane can be expensive. (Although it's hard to go
too wrong with a 172. You can always sell it for darned near what you paid
for it.)

As for finances, do NOT try to justify your purchase financially. Owning an
aircraft can be done for convenience, or business, or enjoyment, or a hobby,
or training, or a billion other reasons -- but it cannot be done to "save
money."

That said, I wouldn't trade it for the world. The knowledge that I can go
from Iowa to Florida in 6.5 hours -- at a moment's notice -- provides a
great deal of "value" to me -- especially in winter. :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Kyles advice is right on. I would add "buy an airplane that you can afford
to fly without thinking about the expense" I know some frustrated pilots
who don't fly much because the Baron (or whatever) is expensive enough that
they don't fly it unless they really need to go somewhere. Also I would
prefer an airplane that I could keep at the nearest airport. So if the
nearest airport does not have hanger space availible, get an airplane that
you are willing to leave outside.

Mike
MU-2

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "KayInPA" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am seriously considering the purchase of an airplane and would like
> > to ask the group for potential dos and don'ts. I would so appreciate
> > any guidance, advice, or practical tips other pilots in this newsgroup
> > could offer. Also, to ask about any financial considerations that my
> > not be obvious to a first time owner.
> >
> > If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
> > a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
> > looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
> > we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
> > manufacturers might also be considered.
> >
> > Thanks so much in advance for any help you could give us.
> >
> > --
> > Kay
> > Student Pilot
> > email: remove "ns" from the end of aviationns
>
> 1) Figure out what your "mission" is, then buy the airplane for that
> mission.
> 2) Don't buy the first airplane you look at.
> 3) Don't buy an airplane because it has a pretty paint job.
> 4) Find a good mechanic (get references) who is familiar with the
aircraft
> type you're looking at. Preferably this mechanic will be at your home
> field. Explain to the mechanic that not only are you looking for an
> airplane, you're looking for a mechanic. Have that mechanic do your
> pre-purchase inspection.
> 5) Buy the nicest (i.e. best equipped, properly maintained) airplane you
> can afford. It'll be cheaper in the long run than upgrading an airplane
> with a bad paint job, used up engine, or ancient avionics.
>
> KB
>
>

Don't just buy a cessna because you trained in it.

There are several other models available that are appropriate to low time
pilots.

I like the idea of renting around in order to compare models. You may also
find that some private owners will give you a ride, but don't expect them to
let you do anything other than a few turns.

There is a wide amount of choices in your price range that vary a lot on
load, handling, stability, fun, etc. Don't worry too much about speed
because it tends to cost more than its worth to most buyers in your range.
Getting speed always means giving up something else.

"KayInPA" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
>
> I am seriously considering the purchase of an airplane and would like
> to ask the group for potential dos and don'ts. I would so appreciate
> any guidance, advice, or practical tips other pilots in this newsgroup
> could offer. Also, to ask about any financial considerations that my
> not be obvious to a first time owner.
>
> If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
> a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
> looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
> we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
> manufacturers might also be considered.
>
> Thanks so much in advance for any help you could give us.
>
> --
> Kay
> Student Pilot
> email: remove "ns" from the end of aviationns

Great advice and do your homework on maintenance and insurance costs.
But don't let it discourage you, you'll never have a better feeling
with all your clothes on than when you get your first flying machine.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:32:21 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
>"KayInPA" > wrote in message
om...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am seriously considering the purchase of an airplane and would like
>> to ask the group for potential dos and don'ts. I would so appreciate
>> any guidance, advice, or practical tips other pilots in this newsgroup
>> could offer. Also, to ask about any financial considerations that my
>> not be obvious to a first time owner.
>>
>> If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
>> a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
>> looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
>> we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
>> manufacturers might also be considered.
>>
>> Thanks so much in advance for any help you could give us.
>>
>> --
>> Kay
>> Student Pilot
>> email: remove "ns" from the end of aviationns
>
>1) Figure out what your "mission" is, then buy the airplane for that
>mission.
>2) Don't buy the first airplane you look at.
>3) Don't buy an airplane because it has a pretty paint job.
>4) Find a good mechanic (get references) who is familiar with the aircraft
>type you're looking at. Preferably this mechanic will be at your home
>field. Explain to the mechanic that not only are you looking for an
>airplane, you're looking for a mechanic. Have that mechanic do your
>pre-purchase inspection.
>5) Buy the nicest (i.e. best equipped, properly maintained) airplane you
>can afford. It'll be cheaper in the long run than upgrading an airplane
>with a bad paint job, used up engine, or ancient avionics.
>
>KB
>

All of the things already mentioned. plus...

Establish the partnership agreement IN WRITING !.

Even if just between the 2 of you, in WRITING determine how expenses will be
handled, maintainence, what happens when things BREAK when YOU and they are
using it. There are 2 basic methods.

1: You estimate all costs ahead of time, divide by XX hrs of planned annual
use then charge an hourly rate accordingly. Most partnerships are done this
way. You determine that GAS will be always left to the tabs (or full). Any
more left in, is free for the next flyer. If expenses are more than what's
"in the bank", then you have one time assessments to meet the expenses.

2: You split everything 50/50. (My partnership is this way). All expenses
are split 50/50 each month EXCEPT GAS. When returning you leave the gas at
the tabs. The more you fly, the better for you. My partner and I get along
great and the plane is always in tip top shape. if something breaks when I'm
flying. I take it to the mechanic and we split the cost. Same for my
partner.



For the purchase contract, there is a good boiler plate in the AOPA website.
If youre not a member.. join. Use the title search service (cheap check to
be sure the seller is the ONLY owenr of the plane). I got insurance through
them too. Frist year was 1500, second 1000 (I got my instrument, partner has
ATP and 27000 hrs !).

Don't think the pre-buy will find EVERYTHNG. We had a good prebuy but
found some things later but we were happy with our purchase and still are.
If you can find it, buy it with the radios you want in it OR it has to be
such a good deal that you will put the radios in and have $ left over.
radio installation is not cheap. We put a GPS , NAV COM and audio panel.
The INSTALL bill alone was $3000. This was added to an IFR cert airplane !

Plan on 2-3000 each for unexpected repairs the first year.

GOOD LUCK.

BILL

On your pre buy make sure you take a mechanic can check the avionics and
instruments in the pre buy its the only thing we did not check and during
the after purchurace inspection was deturmed that most all my instruments
needed replaced nice little $2,400 dent in the pocket book but what the hell
its only money we can always make more right.


"KayInPA" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
>
> I am seriously considering the purchase of an airplane and would like
> to ask the group for potential dos and don'ts. I would so appreciate
> any guidance, advice, or practical tips other pilots in this newsgroup
> could offer. Also, to ask about any financial considerations that my
> not be obvious to a first time owner.
>
> If I decide to go forward, I'll be buying the airplane with a partner;
> a friend of mine who is beginning his instrument studies. We are
> looking in the $60k - $100k price range and prefer Cessnas because
> we're training in 172s. However, if we find the right deal, other
> manufacturers might also be considered.
>
> Thanks so much in advance for any help you could give us.
>
> --
> Kay
> Student Pilot
> email: remove "ns" from the end of aviationns

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 08:32:21 -0500, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

Hi Kyle,

>1) Figure out what your "mission" is, then buy the airplane for that
>mission.

Yes, that's the trickiest part! We know that we primarily want to
share the airplane for training purposes (i.e. our instrument ratings)
with the secondary goal being the freedom to go further away and for
longer stretches of time than our FBO allows. I think an IFR 172 fits
the first bill exactly right, but it doesn't fit the second objective
nearly as well.

Considering training expenses, a 100 nm rental-airplane leash may
quickly turn the $100 hamburger into sort of a $7,000 hamburger.

>4) Find a good mechanic (get references) who is familiar with the aircraft
>type you're looking at. Preferably this mechanic will be at your home
>field. Explain to the mechanic that not only are you looking for an
>airplane, you're looking for a mechanic. Have that mechanic do your
>pre-purchase inspection.

We are very fortunate to have an ATP pilot friend who is also an A&P
willing to help us look at airplanes. Choosing a person who will
ultimately be our regular mechanic is something else, and is on the
list to do before we get serious about any particular airplane.

>5) Buy the nicest (i.e. best equipped, properly maintained) airplane you
>can afford. It'll be cheaper in the long run than upgrading an airplane
>with a bad paint job, used up engine, or ancient avionics.

Excellent advice. Thank you very much!


--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:33:56 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Kyles advice is right on. I would add "buy an airplane that you can afford
>to fly without thinking about the expense" I know some frustrated pilots
>who don't fly much because the Baron (or whatever) is expensive enough that
>they don't fly it unless they really need to go somewhere. Also I would
>prefer an airplane that I could keep at the nearest airport. So if the
>nearest airport does not have hanger space availible, get an airplane that
>you are willing to leave outside.

Mike, thanks very much. I hadn't considered the fact that until
hangar space becomes available, we'll be tying her down.

>Mike
>MU-2

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 07:36:42 -0600, Stu Gotts >
wrote:

>Here's the best advice you can receive;
>
>1. Join the type club for the particular aircraft you're considering.
>They'll be able to tell you the do's and don'ts of the units as well
>as the performance specs of the various year models..

Excellent! Thanks for this tip, it makes perfect sense.

>2. Get a prebuy done by a mechanic knowledgable in the model you're
>considering.
>
>3. See #2
>
>4. See #2
>
>5. See #2
>

OK. :)

>Good luck

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:46:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Personally, I would recommend renting a wide variety of aircraft for a short
>time -- six months to a year -- after getting your ticket. Expose yourself
>to as many different makes and models as possible, before you decide to
>purchase one.

Actually, this is what my instructor is recommending as well. I think
it's great advice. On the other hand, 6 months will come and go
before a blink of an eye and I'd like to get started on the planning
part of this before hand. I believe it's going to take some time to
work out the partnership arrangements, find a mechanic, decide on the
home field etc. In the meantime, I will take you up on your
suggestion and fly different kinds of aircraft. First on the list is
the FBO's Piper Arrow.

>You may find that you prefer something different than what you trained in,
>and purchasing the wrong plane can be expensive. (Although it's hard to go
>too wrong with a 172. You can always sell it for darned near what you paid
>for it.)

Exactly what we were thinking: Purchase a forgiving airplane for
learning instruments that will not be too hard to sell later on and
that won't lose much of its value.

>As for finances, do NOT try to justify your purchase financially. Owning an
>aircraft can be done for convenience, or business, or enjoyment, or a hobby,
>or training, or a billion other reasons -- but it cannot be done to "save
>money."

I know! But try selling that to my husband. :) The numbers need to
work at least mythically before we sign on the dotted line for a hobby
of mine. Going for me is the fact that we signed on a similar dotted
line for his hobby a few years ago: a very painful check for a golf
club membership. Now, if there's a hobby expense that makes less
sense financially than airplane ownership, it must be golf club
membership. (Conduct business out there?... Oh, um, uh-huh. :) )

>That said, I wouldn't trade it for the world. The knowledge that I can go
>from Iowa to Florida in 6.5 hours -- at a moment's notice -- provides a
>great deal of "value" to me -- especially in winter. :-)

Jay, that's the lure indeed. Thanks so much for your post!

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:47:08 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

>Don't just buy a cessna because you trained in it.

Also to consider is that the field we are training on is on the short
side, and turf. But you're right, that airport may not be ultimately
where we end up basing the airplane. I actually do like Piper
aircraft very well. I trained in a Warrior the first 20 hours of my
lessons and *still* miss the visibility in the pattern with the low
wing. I also miss its throttle placement. And its manual flaps.

I do not miss its single door though.

>I like the idea of renting around in order to compare models. You may also
>find that some private owners will give you a ride, but don't expect them to
>let you do anything other than a few turns.

I take every ride I can, and have had the opportunity to fly in some
beautiful airplanes! My favorite so far was a Commanche. It was
meticulous... a little out of my reach at the moment though.

>There is a wide amount of choices in your price range that vary a lot on
>load, handling, stability, fun, etc. Don't worry too much about speed
>because it tends to cost more than its worth to most buyers in your range.
>Getting speed always means giving up something else.

This is something to consider. It's very tempting to try and get a
fast airplane. But I think you're right, and also: how fast can you
get within our price range and still have a solid aircraft with few
squawks?

And no matter what, you'll always want it to be faster right? A friend
of mine just bought a turbo Arrow, and is already complaining it isn't
fast enough.

My thoughts are that we need to get something reasonable for longer
cross countries, but if there's an overwhelming need to get somewhere
quickly it's pretty easy to call US Air. Know what I mean?

Thank you so much for your post. This piece about speed consideration
is very valuable.

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 20:23:49 -0500, "Bill" > wrote:

>Establish the partnership agreement IN WRITING !.
>
>Even if just between the 2 of you, in WRITING determine how expenses will be
>handled, maintainence, what happens when things BREAK when YOU and they are
>using it. There are 2 basic methods.
>
>1: You estimate all costs ahead of time, divide by XX hrs of planned annual
>use then charge an hourly rate accordingly. Most partnerships are done this
>way. You determine that GAS will be always left to the tabs (or full). Any
>more left in, is free for the next flyer. If expenses are more than what's
>"in the bank", then you have one time assessments to meet the expenses.
>
>2: You split everything 50/50. (My partnership is this way). All expenses
>are split 50/50 each month EXCEPT GAS. When returning you leave the gas at
>the tabs. The more you fly, the better for you. My partner and I get along
>great and the plane is always in tip top shape. if something breaks when I'm
>flying. I take it to the mechanic and we split the cost. Same for my
>partner.
>

Yes, absolutely! All this needs to be worked out in advance in writing
so that friends stay friends. What would be your opinion of a hybrid
here? I think some variable expenses should be prorated, but fixed
expenses should be split evenly. I mean, the hangar fee and annual
inspection for example, will need to be done regardless of who flies
more.

>For the purchase contract, there is a good boiler plate in the AOPA website.
>If youre not a member.. join. Use the title search service (cheap check to
>be sure the seller is the ONLY owenr of the plane). I got insurance through
>them too. Frist year was 1500, second 1000 (I got my instrument, partner has
>ATP and 27000 hrs !).

I didn't know that AOPA offered a purchase contract. What a great
resource, one I'll look into more. Thanks!

>Don't think the pre-buy will find EVERYTHNG. We had a good prebuy but
>found some things later but we were happy with our purchase and still are.
>If you can find it, buy it with the radios you want in it OR it has to be
>such a good deal that you will put the radios in and have $ left over.
>radio installation is not cheap. We put a GPS , NAV COM and audio panel.
>The INSTALL bill alone was $3000. This was added to an IFR cert airplane !
>
>Plan on 2-3000 each for unexpected repairs the first year.

Good advice. We had thought of setting funds aside for maintenance
and for an eventual overhaul, but not a cushion for first year
squawks.

>GOOD LUCK.

Thanks!!

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 22:56:22 -0800, "MRQB" > wrote:

>On your pre buy make sure you take a mechanic can check the avionics and
>instruments in the pre buy its the only thing we did not check and during
>the after purchurace inspection was deturmed that most all my instruments
>needed replaced nice little $2,400 dent in the pocket book but what the hell
>its only money we can always make more right.

Thanks MRQB. :) I hope you're enjoying your new airplane!

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> I know! But try selling that to my husband. :) The numbers need to
> work at least mythically before we sign on the dotted line for a hobby
> of mine.

This is the way we started ten years ago, only the other way around -- I was
a pilot first. My wife, Mary, got her ticket five years later -- and we've
spent the last five years sharing flight-time equally, and flying with our
kids all over the country!

The main thing is to get your husband interested enough to get HIS pilot's
certificate. Then you've got it made in the shade! :-)

> Going for me is the fact that we signed on a similar dotted
> line for his hobby a few years ago: a very painful check for a golf
> club membership. Now, if there's a hobby expense that makes less
> sense financially than airplane ownership, it must be golf club
> membership. (Conduct business out there?... Oh, um, uh-huh. :) )

Hee hee! Mary and I used to golf, before I got my ticket. Now, when asked
to describe flying to a total stranger, our usual response is "It ain't
golf..."

That's the trouble with flying -- once you've tasted it, EVERYTHING else is
boring. The last time I golfed, all I could do was watch the planes flying
over, wishing I was up THERE spending my money, rather than down here on the
turf, chasing that stupid white ball.... ;-)

That was over 8 years ago, and I don't miss it at all.

> >That said, I wouldn't trade it for the world. The knowledge that I can
go
> >from Iowa to Florida in 6.5 hours -- at a moment's notice -- provides a
> >great deal of "value" to me -- especially in winter. :-)
>
> Jay, that's the lure indeed. Thanks so much for your post!

Once you've been somewhere a great distance from home, you realize how
powerful and wonderful your airplane can be. We have flown to the Grand
Canyon, Albuquerque, Carlsbad, Flori-duh, Ohio, Michigan -- and all points
in between -- for the last ten years. (All VFR, by the way.) There is
just no greater feeling than flying 1200 miles in a day, and arriving,
feeling refreshed. Try THAT in your car.

More importantly, because of the close-knit aviation community, no matter
where you go, you're right "at home." It doesn't matter where you fly --
airports are friendly, cool places!

Good luck with your search -- and with convincing your husband!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The 3-way partnership that I am in (Cardinal RG '75) has a mixed form:

1- the fixed costs (insurance, tie-down, etc and $1000 against the
annual), we each pay in each month:
1/3 of the monthly amount each month
2- the variable costs, we each pay in each month:
$15 per tach hour for maintenance
$10 per tach hour for engine overhaul reserve
3- we leave the plane full of fuel (the oil and other expendables are
covered in #2)
4- extraordinary items (like this fall's paint job):
we have a special assessment, 1/3 each

One of us keeps the books, one is the maintenance honcho, and the
third deals with the insurance company.

We schedule by phone call (1 guy hasn't flown in almost 2 years, makes
it easy).

I have owned planes solo previously, this is my first partnership.
I have been in this for just over a year and am "happy as a hog in
slops" as the country phrase goes.

- Steve


On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:55:58 -0400, KayInPA >
wrote:

>On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 20:23:49 -0500, "Bill" > wrote:
>
>>Establish the partnership agreement IN WRITING !.
>>
>>Even if just between the 2 of you, in WRITING determine how expenses will be
>>handled, maintainence, what happens when things BREAK when YOU and they are
>>using it. There are 2 basic methods.
>>
>>1: You estimate all costs ahead of time, divide by XX hrs of planned annual
>>use then charge an hourly rate accordingly. Most partnerships are done this
>>way. You determine that GAS will be always left to the tabs (or full). Any
>>more left in, is free for the next flyer. If expenses are more than what's
>>"in the bank", then you have one time assessments to meet the expenses.
>>
>>2: You split everything 50/50. (My partnership is this way). All expenses
>>are split 50/50 each month EXCEPT GAS. When returning you leave the gas at
>>the tabs. The more you fly, the better for you. My partner and I get along
>>great and the plane is always in tip top shape. if something breaks when I'm
>>flying. I take it to the mechanic and we split the cost. Same for my
>>partner.
>>
>
>Yes, absolutely! All this needs to be worked out in advance in writing
>so that friends stay friends. What would be your opinion of a hybrid
>here? I think some variable expenses should be prorated, but fixed
>expenses should be split evenly. I mean, the hangar fee and annual
>inspection for example, will need to be done regardless of who flies
>more.
>
>>For the purchase contract, there is a good boiler plate in the AOPA website.
>>If youre not a member.. join. Use the title search service (cheap check to
>>be sure the seller is the ONLY owenr of the plane). I got insurance through
>>them too. Frist year was 1500, second 1000 (I got my instrument, partner has
>>ATP and 27000 hrs !).
>
>I didn't know that AOPA offered a purchase contract. What a great
>resource, one I'll look into more. Thanks!
>
>>Don't think the pre-buy will find EVERYTHNG. We had a good prebuy but
>>found some things later but we were happy with our purchase and still are.
>>If you can find it, buy it with the radios you want in it OR it has to be
>>such a good deal that you will put the radios in and have $ left over.
>>radio installation is not cheap. We put a GPS , NAV COM and audio panel.
>>The INSTALL bill alone was $3000. This was added to an IFR cert airplane !
>>
>>Plan on 2-3000 each for unexpected repairs the first year.
>
>Good advice. We had thought of setting funds aside for maintenance
>and for an eventual overhaul, but not a cushion for first year
>squawks.
>
>>GOOD LUCK.
>
>Thanks!!

"KayInPA" > wrote in message
...

> with the secondary goal being the freedom to go further away and for
> longer stretches of time than our FBO allows. I think an IFR 172 fits

Does your FBO actually have a limit on how far away you can take the
airplane in miles? That would be quite odd and would seem to defeat the
point of flying.

If the problem instead is that the FBO has a minimum number of hours for a
daily rental, then I suspect that even if you took the airplane for a week
at a time occasionally with say a 3-hour daily minimum, you still would come
out way, way ahead financially compared with owning your airplane.

Not only that, but if you are known to the FBO as a responsible renter and
frequent customer, I suspect you might well be able to negotiate more
flexible cross-country rental terms than the official terms offered to the
public.

In my mind these are the reasons to buy an airplane:

(1) You fly so many trips that you frequently run into scheduling conflicts
with your local rental airplanes

(2) You plan to fly IFR and cannot locate a rental airplane equipped with
the redundant equipment you prefer for those flights, i.e. backup vacuum
pump or electric AI

(3) You have concerns about the maintenance of the locally available rental
airplanes

(4) You wish to fly an airplane type or class which is not practically
available for rental, i.e. a high performance complex airplane

(5) Pride of ownership -- this is fine on its own as a rationalization as
long as you realize you will pay SUBSTANTIALLY more money to own an airplane
similarly equipped as one you can rent


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"KayInPA" > wrote in message
...

> Kay
> Student Pilot

I would very much suggest you hold off on buying an airplane while you are a
student pilot. Get your private and then figure out what your typical
flying mission will be like. Many (most?) pilots find out that their
aviation goals and missions change once they get their private and start
flying for pleasure.

Even if your goal is to get your instrument rating, I am not sure it makes
sense to buy an airplane just for that goal. The cost of owning an airplane
is substantially more than the cost of an IFR rating, and one way airplane
owners often SUBSTANTIALLY increase their costs is by buying an airplane
which does not meet their needs and then trading up in 1-2 years.

You need to hold onto an airplane for 5+ years in order to make the
economics of maintenance somewhat realistic. Buying a 172 to complete your
IFR training -- only to realize you really need a 182 given the
distance/payload of your trips -- would be way way more expensive than
getting your IFR rating in a rental 172.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"KayInPA" > wrote in message
...

> suggestion and fly different kinds of aircraft. First on the list is
> the FBO's Piper Arrow.

If the FBO has a reasonably maintained Arrow for rent, why buy?
Retractables usually get much less use at most FBOs than trainers, and
certainly the FBO will realize that the potential customer to rent an Arrow
is someone to take the airplane on trips. The odds are very high you can
negotiate reasoanble terms for weekend or week-long trips in the airplane.

> Jay, that's the lure indeed. Thanks so much for your post!

If you are going to buy the airplane as a partnership, then you will not
necessarily be able to use it "on a momen't notice" to go to Florida.
Besides, on a practical basis you need a good deal of flexibility in your
schedule to fly that kind of trip in a piston single even if you are an
experienced IFR pilot in an extremely well-equipped high performance single.

I really think you should just rent for a while and figure out what types of
trips truly fit into your schedule and lifestyle and thus what type of
airplane you really need. If you buy and airplane to meet your needs as a
private student or as an instrument student, the odds are high that your
needs will change and make the airplane a very expensive short-term asset.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"KayInPA" > wrote in message
...

> This is something to consider. It's very tempting to try and get a
> fast airplane. But I think you're right, and also: how fast can you
> get within our price range and still have a solid aircraft with few
> squawks?

Mid-1960's vintage Mooneys can be an excellent value for a 130-knot
airplane -- perhaps cheaper than a 182.

Insuring a retractable like a Mooney will probably be a lot easier for you
after you get your IFR rating --- yet another reason to hold off on an
airplane purchase for now.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> In my mind these are the reasons to buy an airplane:
>
> (1) You fly so many trips that you frequently run into scheduling
conflicts
> with your local rental airplanes
>
> (2) You plan to fly IFR and cannot locate a rental airplane equipped with
> the redundant equipment you prefer for those flights, i.e. backup vacuum
> pump or electric AI
>
> (3) You have concerns about the maintenance of the locally available
rental
> airplanes
>
> (4) You wish to fly an airplane type or class which is not practically
> available for rental, i.e. a high performance complex airplane
>
> (5) Pride of ownership -- this is fine on its own as a rationalization as
> long as you realize you will pay SUBSTANTIALLY more money to own an
airplane
> similarly equipped as one you can rent

#1 and #4 go pretty much exacerbate each other, wouldn't you say?

Years ago, when I was building time, the club I belonged to had only two of
about 25 planes that even mildly IFR equipped.

Right now, I'm looking to buy since most of it's use will be for business
(about 75% or more).

You might add a (6) Ability to take overnight trips.

If you need to be gone 2-3 days, it's not unrealistic to expect to be
charged 9 hours time.

Fortunately we'll be able to afford a "newer" airplane (1987-1992). Anything
to look out for going THAT way?

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...


> You might add a (6) Ability to take overnight trips.

I would only add that if your overnight trips require IFR equipment not
available in a rental airplane.

As much as it is frustrating to pay 9 hours minimum rental for a 2-3 day
trip, almost certainly this would be cheaper than buying an airplane.
Suppose your rental airplane costs $80/hour and you have to pay for 4 hours
you do not use -- $320 is nothing compared with surprise maintenance bills
you could get owning an airplane. Suppose you make 10 such trips in a year
for $3,200 in rental "overcharges" -- you will pay far more in maintenance,
hangar/tiedown, and insurance for an airplane you own.

> Fortunately we'll be able to afford a "newer" airplane (1987-1992).
Anything
> to look out for going THAT way?

It all depends what your flying mission is -- the best advice though was
given earlier in this thread by Mike Rappaport and that is to buy an
airplane which you can buy without thinking about the cost per hour to fly.
It is quite common for pilots to own airplanes and then not fly them as much
as they would like because they are concerned about the incremental costs of
fuel or maintenance to fly the airplane; that means they bought more
airplane than they can afford to fly OR maintain. They would be much better
off either renting or buying a less expensive airplane. And by the way,
this phenomenon applies to everything from a C152 to a cabin-class twin;
there is definitely a tendency of pilots to buy the most expensive airplane
they can stretch their budget to afford, whereas a much better plan is to
buy an airplane which is a step down to something where cost is not a major
concern in the family budget.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

>> This is something to consider. It's very tempting to try and get a
>> fast airplane. But I think you're right, and also: how fast can you
>> get within our price range and still have a solid aircraft with few
>> squawks?

> Mid-1960's vintage Mooneys can be an excellent value for a 130-knot
> airplane.

That would be an awfully slow Mooney. My 1967 'C' model (the slowest
model of the mid 1960s Mooneys) does 140-145 kt. The 'E' models are 5-7
kts faster.

KR

"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
...

> That would be an awfully slow Mooney. My 1967 'C' model (the slowest
> model of the mid 1960s Mooneys) does 140-145 kt. The 'E' models are 5-7
> kts faster.

I am talking "real" cruise numbers at realistic power settings below 10,000
feet. I used to own a 1967 Mooney M20C and if I flight planned for 130
knots it would work out just about right.

How fast is my current Cessna P210? Well, the book says it can fly 198
knots at 23,000 feet. That is true (+/- winds aloft and time to climb) but
the "real" flight planning speed is 160 knots.

By comparison, I would use 100 knots as a "real" speed for a C172.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article >,
KayInPA > wrote:
>This is something to consider. It's very tempting to try and get a
>fast airplane.

Do the math on a few flights before you swoon for "fast". Sure, there's
a big difference between my Comanche and a C-152, but the 10-15kts I have
on a C-182 only save 10-15 minutes on a 3 hour flight.

>And no matter what, you'll always want it to be faster right? A friend
>of mine just bought a turbo Arrow, and is already complaining it isn't
>fast enough.

A Turbo * isn't that fast. The book numbers look good, but you have to
fly high to take advantage. If you're "in PA" (instead of, say, CO)
most of the time the Turbo isn't going to matter at all.

Take an Arrow III. The non turbo models list 137kt cruise. The turbos
claim 172kts. So what you know is that at 7000-8000' (the highest
altitude that a non-turbo engine can make 75% power) BOTH Arrows cruise
at about 137kts and IF you climb the Turbo Arrow into the mid-teens it
will go faster.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:1bZbc.179169$1p.2133112@attbi_s54...

> Do the math on a few flights before you swoon for "fast". Sure, there's
> a big difference between my Comanche and a C-152, but the 10-15kts I have
> on a C-182 only save 10-15 minutes on a 3 hour flight.

Another consideration is that if someone plans to upgrade to other airplanes
in the future, it is very helpful to buy and build time in a retractable
airplane. An older Mooney costs about the same as a C182, but Mooney time
is more valuable from an insurer's perspective for a pilot who may step up
to other airplanes in the future.

> A Turbo * isn't that fast. The book numbers look good, but you have to
> fly high to take advantage. If you're "in PA" (instead of, say, CO)

The main advantage of a Turbo is not speed; it is sustained rate of climb to
altitude, which allows you to (1) operate easier at high density altitude
airports; and (2) climb higher to take advantage of tailwinds and/or get on
top of weather. Number (2) is usually not practical unless the airplane
also has known-icing and spherics equipment, which is unlikely for a first
airplane.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> If you're "in PA" (instead of, say, CO)
> most of the time the Turbo isn't going to matter at all.

Depends on where you're going. It will be real handy getting over the top of the many
class-B airports in this area.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

In article >,
G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
>Ben Jackson wrote:
>> If you're "in PA" (instead of, say, CO)
>> most of the time the Turbo isn't going to matter at all.
>
>Depends on where you're going. It will be real handy getting over the
>top of the many
>class-B airports in this area.

What is the cruise-climb setting for a turbo Arrow? Can you run them
at 100% clear up to 10000' MSL?

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > You might add a (6) Ability to take overnight trips.
>
> I would only add that if your overnight trips require IFR equipment not
> available in a rental airplane.

That's my point. At least around here, the rentals have only basic IFR
equipment. Under that, the overnighters must be frequent enough to justify
the costs of ownership.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ben Jackson wrote:
> >
> > If you're "in PA" (instead of, say, CO)
> > most of the time the Turbo isn't going to matter at all.
>
> Depends on where you're going. It will be real handy getting over the top
of the many
> class-B airports in this area.
>

Which is generally how high? How bout the MEA's in the area?


--
"Flying an airplane is just like riding
a bike -- it's just a lot harder to put
baseball cards in the spokes" -- Capt. Rex Cramer

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > You might add a (6) Ability to take overnight trips.
>
> I would only add that if your overnight trips require IFR equipment not
> available in a rental airplane.
>
> As much as it is frustrating to pay 9 hours minimum rental for a 2-3 day
> trip, almost certainly this would be cheaper than buying an airplane.
> Suppose your rental airplane costs $80/hour and you have to pay for 4
hours
> you do not use -- $320 is nothing compared with surprise maintenance bills
> you could get owning an airplane. Suppose you make 10 such trips in a
year
> for $3,200 in rental "overcharges" -- you will pay far more in
maintenance,
> hangar/tiedown, and insurance for an airplane you own.

In my case, it's more like two or three a month. And around here, anyway,
$80 an hour will get you a VFR equipped 172 - not something I care to take
frequent trips from the Colorado front range to SLC, PHX, GTF, etc. Even the
flat land trips are usually 300nm or more.

I equate rental aircraft to rental cars: you pay all the maintenance costs
along with the profit margin of the rent-a-car company. Fine if your trips
are infrequent, especially if those infrequent trips are merely pleasure
trips rather than business. In my case, each business trip has $100K-$250K
or more on the line.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

> In my case, it's more like two or three a month. And around here, anyway,
> $80 an hour will get you a VFR equipped 172 - not something I care to take
> frequent trips from the Colorado front range to SLC, PHX, GTF, etc. Even
the
> flat land trips are usually 300nm or more.

In that case your flying hours and the difficulty of your typical missions
are substantially above that of most general aviation pilots. No doubt that
mission justifies owning an airplane. Given frequent trips to Colorado I
would think the minimum airplane for the mission is probably a turbocharged,
known-ice Mooney if a 4-place will do or else a known-ice Cessna T210/P210
if 6 seats or high payload is required. Renting this type of airplane is
virtually impossible except from the West Valley Flying Club in California.

> I equate rental aircraft to rental cars: you pay all the maintenance costs
> along with the profit margin of the rent-a-car company. Fine if your trips
> are infrequent, especially if those infrequent trips are merely pleasure

Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning an
airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper. Very, very few general
aviation pilots fly that much.

> trips rather than business. In my case, each business trip has $100K-$250K
> or more on the line.

In that case does it make sense to fly yourself in a piston single? If that
much is on the line and these are "must be there" trips, would it make more
sense to charter a twin turboprop for better weather capability?


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article >,
Richard Kaplan > wrote:
>
>Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning an
>airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
>200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper.

And I'd guess that very few renters fly 100-150 hours/year. So if you
fly your own plane enough to 'break even' versus renting, odds are you
are spending more in absolute terms than you would have as a renter.
You just get to fly more.

It's almost impossible to justify owning based on cost. What I did was
work out how much I thought it would cost per year, all told, and decided
I was willing to spend it. At around 100hr/yr many 4 place singles come
in at around $100/hr. If you are willing to spend $10,000/yr on flying
then you can probably be a happy owner. And remember that's going to be
lots of relatively painless fuel receipts and a few bills like maintenance
and insurance that will top $1000-2000.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > In my case, it's more like two or three a month. And around here,
anyway,
> > $80 an hour will get you a VFR equipped 172 - not something I care to
take
> > frequent trips from the Colorado front range to SLC, PHX, GTF, etc. Even
> the
> > flat land trips are usually 300nm or more.
>
> In that case your flying hours and the difficulty of your typical missions
> are substantially above that of most general aviation pilots. No doubt
that
> mission justifies owning an airplane. Given frequent trips to Colorado I
> would think the minimum airplane for the mission is probably a
turbocharged,
> known-ice Mooney if a 4-place will do or else a known-ice Cessna T210/P210
> if 6 seats or high payload is required. Renting this type of airplane is
> virtually impossible except from the West Valley Flying Club in
California.

I'm looking at an F33A and will likely add turbonormalization (TATurbo),
amybe SKS but I'm not sure that latter one's a necessity.

>
> > I equate rental aircraft to rental cars: you pay all the maintenance
costs
> > along with the profit margin of the rent-a-car company. Fine if your
trips
> > are infrequent, especially if those infrequent trips are merely
pleasure
>
> Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning
an
> airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
> 200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper. Very, very few general
> aviation pilots fly that much.
>
> > trips rather than business. In my case, each business trip has
$100K-$250K
> > or more on the line.
>
> In that case does it make sense to fly yourself in a piston single? If
that
> much is on the line and these are "must be there" trips, would it make
more
> sense to charter a twin turboprop for better weather capability?

Charter costs for six or eight flights a month would be a killer I suspect.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> I'm looking at an F33A and will likely add turbonormalization (TATurbo),
> amybe SKS but I'm not sure that latter one's a necessity.

For flying in the Colorado mountains on a regular mission-oriented basis?
Known-icing would be the first item on the list. Is the TKS on the F33A
STC'd yet for known-ice? I know they were aiming for it but I am not sure
if they achieved it.

> Charter costs for six or eight flights a month would be a killer I
suspect.

Not if $100K to $250K are really "on the line" for each trip... it all
depends how mission-critical your trips are.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Which is generally how high? How bout the MEA's in the area?

The New York trio is 7,500', Philly is 7,500', and the Baltimore/DC trio is 10,000'.
Of course, the ADIZ reduces the utility of being able to get over the DC class-B.
Glancing at the IFR chart for this area, I see one MEA as low as 1,600' and a high of
14,000. Most are in the 2-5 thousand foot range. There have been noises about
increasing the NY class-B to 10,000'.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

>> That would be an awfully slow Mooney. My 1967 'C' model (the slowest
>> model of the mid 1960s Mooneys) does 140-145 kt. The 'E' models are 5-
>> 7 kts faster.

> I am talking "real" cruise numbers at realistic power settings below
> 10,000 feet. I used to own a 1967 Mooney M20C and if I flight planned
> for 130 knots it would work out just about right.

I flight plan my 'C' model Mooney for 140 kts. 140-145 kts is a real
world number for me. I typically fly at 10-12,000 ft. WOT and 2500 RPM
in cruise, which are realistic power settings for me. Out west, not many
MEAs are less than 10,0000.

KR

Kudoos Ben. You hit the nail on the head. I made the same decision. I was
willing to pay the extra to own the plane rather than rent it. In my case,
I started flying so much more, that it has really been worth it. And I
bought a new plane!


"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:EH2cc.76692$JO3.40893@attbi_s04...
> In article >,
> Richard Kaplan > wrote:
> >
> >Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning
an
> >airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
> >200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper.
>
> And I'd guess that very few renters fly 100-150 hours/year. So if you
> fly your own plane enough to 'break even' versus renting, odds are you
> are spending more in absolute terms than you would have as a renter.
> You just get to fly more.
>
> It's almost impossible to justify owning based on cost. What I did was
> work out how much I thought it would cost per year, all told, and decided
> I was willing to spend it. At around 100hr/yr many 4 place singles come
> in at around $100/hr. If you are willing to spend $10,000/yr on flying
> then you can probably be a happy owner. And remember that's going to be
> lots of relatively painless fuel receipts and a few bills like maintenance
> and insurance that will top $1000-2000.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

I would have to disagree with you Richard.

I bought my plane at about 25 hours. I was incredibly bored with the planes
I was renting. The new plane was so much nicer to fly. I flew much more
often, and enjoyed it much more.

Also, if you buy a new plane, it can make sense to move up much sooner than
5 years because of depreciation rules. If you buy used, you can usually get
most of what you paid for the plane if not more (assuming you don't get
taken on the buy). So I really don't get your 5 year rule.

Now, if you figure you really need a 182 for your mission, and you are not
ready to own one, then it would make sense to rent a 172 until then.

On the other hand, if what you really want is an Archer, and it meets your
needs, then why wait?

A more important factor may be the time it takes to BE an airplane owner.
Imagine dealing with your car mechanic on nearly a monthly basis. You are
already taking time out of your schedule to learn to fly, it you buy a used
plane, you could be adding another part time job to your schedule.


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "KayInPA" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Kay
> > Student Pilot
>
> I would very much suggest you hold off on buying an airplane while you are
a
> student pilot. Get your private and then figure out what your typical
> flying mission will be like. Many (most?) pilots find out that their
> aviation goals and missions change once they get their private and start
> flying for pleasure.
>
> Even if your goal is to get your instrument rating, I am not sure it makes
> sense to buy an airplane just for that goal. The cost of owning an
airplane
> is substantially more than the cost of an IFR rating, and one way airplane
> owners often SUBSTANTIALLY increase their costs is by buying an airplane
> which does not meet their needs and then trading up in 1-2 years.
>
> You need to hold onto an airplane for 5+ years in order to make the
> economics of maintenance somewhat realistic. Buying a 172 to complete
your
> IFR training -- only to realize you really need a 182 given the
> distance/payload of your trips -- would be way way more expensive than
> getting your IFR rating in a rental 172.
>
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

>
> > suggestion and fly different kinds of aircraft. First on the list is
> > the FBO's Piper Arrow.
>
> If the FBO has a reasonably maintained Arrow for rent, why buy?
> Retractables usually get much less use at most FBOs than trainers, and
> certainly the FBO will realize that the potential customer to rent an
Arrow
> is someone to take the airplane on trips. The odds are very high you can
> negotiate reasoanble terms for weekend or week-long trips in the airplane.
>

Our local clubs have the opposite experience. The Arrow at one, and the 177
RG at the other are rented out over 60 hours a month unless they are in the
shop over yet another wheels up landing.


> > Jay, that's the lure indeed. Thanks so much for your post!
>
> If you are going to buy the airplane as a partnership, then you will not
> necessarily be able to use it "on a momen't notice" to go to Florida.
> Besides, on a practical basis you need a good deal of flexibility in your
> schedule to fly that kind of trip in a piston single even if you are an
> experienced IFR pilot in an extremely well-equipped high performance
single.
>
> I really think you should just rent for a while and figure out what types
of
> trips truly fit into your schedule and lifestyle and thus what type of
> airplane you really need. If you buy and airplane to meet your needs as a
> private student or as an instrument student, the odds are high that your
> needs will change and make the airplane a very expensive short-term asset.
>

See my disagreement with this above. In my mind, a pilot should get over a
hundred hours (more is better) before stepping up to anything more than a
180hp or less trainer. Most people take 2 years to fly that 100 hours.

Perhaps your advice is too general? Maybe its even best for the majority,
but in my mind, not the overwhelming majority.

>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

"Dude" > wrote in message
...


> I bought my plane at about 25 hours. I was incredibly bored with the
planes
> I was renting. The new plane was so much nicer to fly. I flew much more
> often, and enjoyed it much more.

How long have you owned this plane? If you have owned it 5+ years, then
yes, it was a good deal. If that time has not yet elapsed, then time will
tell if it meets your needs as your flying habits evolve.

> Also, if you buy a new plane, it can make sense to move up much sooner
than
> 5 years because of depreciation rules. If you buy used, you can usually
get

A student pilot buying a new plane?!? $200K invested in a very recently
aquired hobby?

> most of what you paid for the plane if not more (assuming you don't get
> taken on the buy). So I really don't get your 5 year rule.

If you sell a used plane within a few years of buying it, you will no doubt
have spent more money in catch-up maintenance than you can realistically
recover when you sell it.

> On the other hand, if what you really want is an Archer, and it meets your
> needs, then why wait?

Because at 25 hours it is unlikely you will know what you really want.
Your needs will change, you will prefer X-ctry or aerobatics or you will
need to go into short strips or you will need extended range or who knows
what else will change.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dude" > wrote in message
...

> See my disagreement with this above. In my mind, a pilot should get over
a
> hundred hours (more is better) before stepping up to anything more than a
> 180hp or less trainer. Most people take 2 years to fly that 100 hours.

Absolutely... Beyond a doubt a pilot with under 100 hours does not know yet
what his/her long-term flying mission is and buying an airplane at that time
is probably not a good idea.

> Perhaps your advice is too general? Maybe its even best for the majority,
> but in my mind, not the overwhelming majority.

It is the very rare pilot indeed who at less than 100 hours has a good feel
for what airplane will suit his long-term flying missions.

And it is the very rare pilot indeed who at less than 100 hours has a good
grasp of the economics of airplane ownership.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On 4-Apr-2004, Stephen N Mills > wrote:

> The 3-way partnership that I am in (Cardinal RG '75) has a mixed form:

<snip>

> I have owned planes solo previously, this is my first partnership.
> I have been in this for just over a year and am "happy as a hog in
> slops" as the country phrase goes.
>
> - Steve


I, too, have been in 3-way partnerships, in my case for a number of years
and with three different airplanes. We have always used a simple formula in
which all fixed and maintenance expenses are divided evenly and fuel
(returned to specific tank levels) is paid by the user. This works for us
because we each use the plane approximately the same number of hours per
year on average.

In my opinion, a GOOD partnership is the best compromise between cost and
availability, Our Arrow IV gets flown about 180 - 220 hrs/year, and even
with a hangar and meticulous maintenance we honestly figure our average
hourly costs are below what we would have to pay if we rented a comparable
airplane. But unlike renting, we have almost complete scheduling freedom.
With three owners each flying about 70 hours/year, conflicts are rare. We
now use an on-line scheduling system that makes things even simpler.

--
-Elliott Drucker

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > Which is generally how high? How bout the MEA's in the area?
>
> The New York trio is 7,500', Philly is 7,500', and the Baltimore/DC trio
is 10,000'.
> Of course, the ADIZ reduces the utility of being able to get over the DC
class-B.
> Glancing at the IFR chart for this area, I see one MEA as low as 1,600'
and a high of
> 14,000. Most are in the 2-5 thousand foot range. There have been noises
about
> increasing the NY class-B to 10,000'.
>

Denver's runs to 12,000 and, come early summer I'll likely be flying out of
Colorado Springs, 6200' up to 6900' if I base near Blackforest (00V). MEA's
westbound run in the high 13's.

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm looking at an F33A and will likely add turbonormalization (TATurbo),
> > amybe SKS but I'm not sure that latter one's a necessity.
>
> For flying in the Colorado mountains on a regular mission-oriented basis?

More like "over" than "in".

> Known-icing would be the first item on the list.

Hmm...in looking around, I'd say I've seen ZERO known-ice singles around.
Maybe for the winter months, but that's our slow season (custom home
building).

> Is the TKS on the F33A
> STC'd yet for known-ice? I know they were aiming for it but I am not sure
> if they achieved it.

Don't know, I've only seen two with it and they were not aorund here.

>
> > Charter costs for six or eight flights a month would be a killer I
> suspect.
>
> Not if $100K to $250K are really "on the line" for each trip... it all
> depends how mission-critical your trips are.

For that money I'd look at a known-ice turboprop.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

> More like "over" than "in".

How do you plan to get "over" the clouds in the winter?


> Hmm...in looking around, I'd say I've seen ZERO known-ice singles around.

Do you mean you do not see that many for sale or you do not see them on the
ramp?

If the former, just look at Mooneys, 210/T210/P210s, Malibus, and
Commanders.

If the latter, do they fly practical cross-countries multiple times per
month?

> Maybe for the winter months, but that's our slow season (custom home
> building).

April is the most common month for icing accidents.

> For that money I'd look at a known-ice turboprop.

Probably not a bad idea for someone with the mission profile you describe...
either you will end up spending more money on charters or airplane ownership
or you will decide your mission is not so critical and cancel some trips or
you will drive or fly commercial on a good number of your trips.

Except for flights restricted to the non-mountainous parts of the Southwest
or the warm parts of the South, the odds of realistically completing
multiple monthly mission-critical cross-country business trips in a
non-deiced piston single are nil unless you are willing to accept regular
cancellations.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

> And it is the very rare pilot indeed who at less than 100 hours has a good
> grasp of the economics of airplane ownership.

It is a very rare pilot at ANY level of flight experience that has a good
grasp of the economics of airplane ownership.

Owning takes a completely different skill-set than flying.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:nNccc.190156$Cb.1727673@attbi_s51...

> It is a very rare pilot at ANY level of flight experience that has a good
> grasp of the economics of airplane ownership.
> Owning takes a completely different skill-set than flying.

Yes, I can agree with that completely.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

> > I bought my plane at about 25 hours. I was incredibly bored with the
> planes
> > I was renting. The new plane was so much nicer to fly. I flew much
more
> > often, and enjoyed it much more.
>
> How long have you owned this plane? If you have owned it 5+ years, then
> yes, it was a good deal. If that time has not yet elapsed, then time will
> tell if it meets your needs as your flying habits evolve.
>

You rely on the statement that I am challenging to defend itself. Its the 5
years that I am challenging, so using it as a comeback doesn't help me make
sense of what you are trying to teach me.

I can assure you that if I were to trade up ( which I may do), I would still
be ahead due to tax savings. My plane is on a leaseback, and its not really
costing much at all. So what if it doesn't meet my needs anymore, my point
was that it takes much less time before the penalty for trading up is too
much. Also, how many hours does one have to fly before they are ready to
move up in ANY case? Renting a plane at $80 an hour for 200 hours is
$16,000 plus two years rental insurance for a total of $16,800. If you buy
a 60k plane, put 200 hours on it in 2 years, what is the worst you will lose
out? Maybe it will end up costing you an extra $4,000 or $5,000, IF you
really did buy the wrong plane. In the meantime, you had a lot of value you
get by being the owner and not having to schedule, pay daily minimums, etc.

> > Also, if you buy a new plane, it can make sense to move up much sooner
> than
> > 5 years because of depreciation rules. If you buy used, you can usually
> get
>
> A student pilot buying a new plane?!? $200K invested in a very recently
> aquired hobby?

Newly acquired hobby only if you don't count time spent from childhood
through adulthood building models, reading about aviation, looking up at
every plane flying by, and wishing I were able to fly. Are you full time in
the aviation business? You seem to have lost the passion, man! Certainly,
without knowing the income of the person you are working with, its hard to
tell what they consider a reasonable loss, but to anyone in the flying hobby
an extra couple thousand a year can't be a huge mistake.


>
> > most of what you paid for the plane if not more (assuming you don't get
> > taken on the buy). So I really don't get your 5 year rule.
>
> If you sell a used plane within a few years of buying it, you will no
doubt
> have spent more money in catch-up maintenance than you can realistically
> recover when you sell it.
>

Aha! This could be a gem of info. I am completely inexperienced here.
Tell me more. What kind of bill are we looking at on a 50 to 100k basic
plane like 182, arrow, mooney etc. I know the common wisdom on avionics is
that adding them to an old frame gets a poor return, but what about other
repairs and fixes. Are there any rules of thumb like 20% or 50% or what
not?


> > On the other hand, if what you really want is an Archer, and it meets
your
> > needs, then why wait?
>
> Because at 25 hours it is unlikely you will know what you really want.
> Your needs will change, you will prefer X-ctry or aerobatics or you will
> need to go into short strips or you will need extended range or who knows
> what else will change.
>

Perhaps I mistated. I think you may not know what you WANT. What you NEED
will be much easier to identify though. Where you are going to travel
shouldn't change because you get more hours. You can talk about your mission
with other pilots, instructors, FBO owners, plane salesmen, etc.. I got a
LOT of info from these sources when I bought. Much of it contradictory, but
it was easy enough to weed through. I suppose if you really don't know what
you want or need, then you should wait. However, that seems to be a matter
of maturity and research over pilot experience.

>
>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

>
> > See my disagreement with this above. In my mind, a pilot should get
over
> a
> > hundred hours (more is better) before stepping up to anything more than
a
> > 180hp or less trainer. Most people take 2 years to fly that 100 hours.
>
> Absolutely... Beyond a doubt a pilot with under 100 hours does not know
yet
> what his/her long-term flying mission is and buying an airplane at that
time
> is probably not a good idea.
>

Ahh, but what if what they buy is a trainer or trainer like plane? You see,
you jumped a step in your logic. I have seen several older pilots stepping
down from their higher powered machines to Archers, Skyhawks, Stars, Tigers
etc. These planes do meet the wants and needs of many pilots with enough
hours and skills to fly more "advanced" planes. The Star and Tiger are
really good examples because the are nearly as fast many more powerful
planes.


> > Perhaps your advice is too general? Maybe its even best for the
majority,
> > but in my mind, not the overwhelming majority.
>
> It is the very rare pilot indeed who at less than 100 hours has a good
feel
> for what airplane will suit his long-term flying missions.
>
> And it is the very rare pilot indeed who at less than 100 hours has a good
> grasp of the economics of airplane ownership.
>

I think that you and Jay have found the mark above. It can be a seperate
skill set. Many students don't know anything about larger planes, while
nuts like me read everything we could get our hands as soon as we started on
our private.

>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > More like "over" than "in".
>
> How do you plan to get "over" the clouds in the winter?
>

Around here they top out at 10-12K during winter. Besides, I'd rather not go
_through_ mountain during winter (or summer for that matter) even with
deicing equipment.

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hmm...in looking around, I'd say I've seen ZERO known-ice singles
around.
>
> Do you mean you do not see that many for sale or you do not see them on
the
> ramp?

For Sale..but as for "on the ramp", Is say I haven't taken that much notice
(not that I won't now that the suggestions been offered).

>
> If the former, just look at Mooneys, 210/T210/P210s, Malibus, and
> Commanders.
> If the latter, do they fly practical cross-countries multiple times per
> month?
>
> > Maybe for the winter months, but that's our slow season (custom home
> > building).
>
> April is the most common month for icing accidents.

Yes, and that's the start of our work season in the more northern latitudes.

>
> > For that money I'd look at a known-ice turboprop.
>
> Probably not a bad idea for someone with the mission profile you
describe...
> either you will end up spending more money on charters or airplane
ownership
> or you will decide your mission is not so critical and cancel some trips
or
> you will drive or fly commercial on a good number of your trips.

Where we work, commercial flights are not really an option. When we go to a
site, there's at least two of us and sometimes three. We judiciously avoid
the larger metro areas where there's a lot of competition.

> Except for flights restricted to the non-mountainous parts of the
Southwest
> or the warm parts of the South, the odds of realistically completing
> multiple monthly mission-critical cross-country business trips in a
> non-deiced piston single are nil unless you are willing to accept regular
> cancellations.

So far we've had just a few cancellations (and WE make the determination of
when to visit sites in progress, but clients make the determination for
first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition for
going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily work for
has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our group.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition for
> going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily work
for
> has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our
group.

I think a really nice compromise would be using something like a Bonanza or
even a C182 for VFR or benign IFR flights but having access to a twin
turboprop like a KingAir for days when weather is a challenge. This sort of
arrangement would allow the economic advantages of a piston single combined
with the weather capability of a twin turboprop.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dude" > wrote in message
...

> You rely on the statement that I am challenging to defend itself. Its the
5
> years that I am challenging, so using it as a comeback doesn't help me
make
> sense of what you are trying to teach me.

What I am saying is that there are a lot of random expenses involved in
airplane maintenance so that a year or even two years is not enough to get
an accurate cost of maintaining a given airplane, but these things tends to
average out over 5 years.

In other words, if I were to look at my airplane maintenance expenses for a
given year they might differ by as much as a factor of 3, yet a running
5-year average would be fairly predictable.


> I can assure you that if I were to trade up ( which I may do), I would
still
> be ahead due to tax savings.

What tax savings do you get by owning instead of renting? If you mean
depreciation, then you have to balance that against the cost of capital of
buying an airplane. Rental prices spread the cost of capital over many
users, so an accurate comparison of rental vs. owning usually favors renting
from a purely economic perspective.


>My plane is on a leaseback, and its not really
> costing much at all.

Well the only leaseback model I have seen that works well is where the owner
is an A&P or otherwise can tightly control maintenance costs.

A new airplane has much lower maintenance costs, but the value of a new
airplane depreciates and thus creates a high risk of a loss.


So> a 60k plane, put 200 hours on it in 2 years, what is the worst you will
lose
> out? Maybe it will end up costing you an extra $4,000 or $5,000, IF you
> really did buy the wrong plane. In the meantime, you had a lot of value
you

You could lose much more than that. A new engine could cost twice your
estimated maximum loss. New exhaust, corrosion repair, new prop are others
which could cause very significant blips in maintenance costs.

> every plane flying by, and wishing I were able to fly. Are you full time
in
> the aviation business? You seem to have lost the passion, man!
Certainly,
> without knowing the income of the person you are working with, its hard to
> tell what they consider a reasonable loss, but to anyone in the flying
hobby
> an extra couple thousand a year can't be a huge mistake.

I haven't lost the passion at all; I am as addicted to airplanes as anyone
else. I have, however, been around enough to have a sense of the economic
reality of owning an airplane.

I only wish the risk of airplane maintenance were only an extra couple
thousand dollars per year. I have known any number of instances where
surprise maintenance cost a pilot 20% of the value of an airplane -- no
matter if the airplane is a Piper Cub or a Gulfstream, that is a lot of
money.



> Aha! This could be a gem of info. I am completely inexperienced here.
> Tell me more. What kind of bill are we looking at on a 50 to 100k basic
> plane like 182, arrow, mooney etc. I know the common wisdom on avionics
is
> that adding them to an old frame gets a poor return, but what about other
> repairs and fixes. Are there any rules of thumb like 20% or 50% or what
> not?

A typical rule of thumb is to expect 5% to 10% of an airplane's cost in
"catch up" maintenance with a possible upper limits of 20% if you get really
unlucky.


> Perhaps I mistated. I think you may not know what you WANT. What you
NEED
> will be much easier to identify though. Where you are going to travel

Most students do not have a good sense of what avionics they will need.
They also tend not to have enough perspective on weather patterns to make
judgments on items like weather avoidance equipment vs. a nice paint job,
turbocharger vs. extended fuel tanks, etc.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dude" > wrote in message
...

> Ahh, but what if what they buy is a trainer or trainer like plane? You
see,
> you jumped a step in your logic. I have seen several older pilots
stepping

I agree completely that a training airplane fits the bill for many pilots.
But I also see lots of pilots with trainers who get bored after they get
their private certificate because they decide that cross-country flight or
aerobatics are what they really enjoy. So they buy a trainer but fly it
less than 50 hours per year, whereas perhaps they would get much more
enjoyment out of an aerobatic Citabria or a faster cross-country airplane in
which they can visit family.

Flying patterns change considerably after one gets a private certificate.
One huge factor in this is family support -- the pilot whose spouse is
thrilled with his/her first flight in an airplane may go on to buy a
cross-country flying machine, while the pilot whose spouse is terrified of
airplanes might be better off with a 2-seat aerobatic airplane. These sorts
of things cannot usually be predicted while a pilot is in training.


> I think that you and Jay have found the mark above. It can be a seperate
> skill set. Many students don't know anything about larger planes, while
> nuts like me read everything we could get our hands as soon as we started
on
> our private.

That is absolutely true, but no matter how much you read it is hard to have
a sense of weather patterns on your likely routes until you start flying.
If you discover that icing typically blocks Thanksgiving trips to visit
Grandma in the Northeast, that could have a radically different effect on
your airplane choice than if you lived in Texas.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition
for
> > going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily work
> for
> > has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our
> group.
>
> I think a really nice compromise would be using something like a Bonanza
or
> even a C182 for VFR or benign IFR flights but having access to a twin
> turboprop like a KingAir for days when weather is a challenge. This sort
of
> arrangement would allow the economic advantages of a piston single
combined
> with the weather capability of a twin turboprop.

Thanks for the points.

Our missions run typically two types:

1) Initial contact with clients or sub-contractors; entails three and
occasionly four travelers. These are MUST be meetings.

2) Followup's and periodic inspections - one or two people and can be
delayed.

For a turboprop, we've got experience with a Jetprop 900 (1000 conversion)
and that thing is sweet. Maybe a 690B or a 840...

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition
> for
> > > going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily
work
> > for
> > > has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our
> > group.
> >
> > I think a really nice compromise would be using something like a Bonanza
> or
> > even a C182 for VFR or benign IFR flights but having access to a twin
> > turboprop like a KingAir for days when weather is a challenge. This
sort
> of
> > arrangement would allow the economic advantages of a piston single
> combined
> > with the weather capability of a twin turboprop.
>
> Thanks for the points.
>
> Our missions run typically two types:
>
> 1) Initial contact with clients or sub-contractors; entails three and
> occasionly four travelers. These are MUST be meetings.
>
> 2) Followup's and periodic inspections - one or two people and can be
> delayed.
>
> For a turboprop, we've got experience with a Jetprop 900 (1000 conversion)
> and that thing is sweet. Maybe a 690B or a 840...

(Too quick on the SEND button.)

This one might possibly be placed on leaseback so that it does get full
utilization.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:35:54 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>Does your FBO actually have a limit on how far away you can take the
>airplane in miles?

Yes. 100 nm for rentals. The owner prefers to do all work on his
aircraft and that is the distance he is comfortable flying out in the
event of needed repair.

>That would be quite odd and would seem to defeat the
>point of flying.

I agree. Hence, this thread. :-)

>If the problem instead is that the FBO has a minimum number of hours for a
>daily rental, then I suspect that even if you took the airplane for a week
>at a time occasionally with say a 3-hour daily minimum, you still would come
>out way, way ahead financially compared with owning your airplane.

I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable minimum. It is availability for
longer trips that I'm looking for.

>Not only that, but if you are known to the FBO as a responsible renter and
>frequent customer, I suspect you might well be able to negotiate more
>flexible cross-country rental terms than the official terms offered to the
>public.

I am still hopeful that negotiation for the Arrow will be possible for
some cross countries moderately over 100 nm this summer. Pittsburgh
to Sandusky, OH comes immediately to mind.

Richard, thank you for all your thoughtful posts to me on this
subject. You and the other experienced pilots in the group have given
me a *lot* to think about.

I'm taking a cross-country flight from my home field in Pittsburgh to
Chicago with my instructor tomorrow. Yes, that's far beyond the
normal 100 nm rule, but the owner realizes the educational value of
such a trip and we got an exception.

At the least, I think I need to discuss an arrangement with him
regarding the Arrow. You are correct: it is seldomly rented. Perhaps
with generous renter's hull insurance and an agreement regarding
potential repairs on the road, something may be worked out.

Again, to you and to all the others: my many many thanks.

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

>
> In other words, if I were to look at my airplane maintenance expenses for
a
> given year they might differ by as much as a factor of 3, yet a running
> 5-year average would be fairly predictable.
>

Okay, I can see this, but it sounds like you are saying that years 1 and 2
are bound to be higher than 3, 4, and 5.

> > I can assure you that if I were to trade up ( which I may do), I would
> still
> > be ahead due to tax savings.
>
> What tax savings do you get by owning instead of renting? If you mean
> depreciation, then you have to balance that against the cost of capital of
> buying an airplane. Rental prices spread the cost of capital over many
> users, so an accurate comparison of rental vs. owning usually favors
renting
> from a purely economic perspective.
>

I could care less about the capital costs to others. Its the cost to me
that counts. So far, I have spent about what renting would have cost me.
Yes, I lose cost of money on the down payment, but given that all my
investments have been headed south except my home and plane...

What kills renting is fleet insurance at 8% of hull. Its not the capital
costs. The insurance company is making all the money on my plane. I am
just covering costs other than purchase (not counting depreciation write
offs).

>
> >My plane is on a leaseback, and its not really
> > costing much at all.
>
> Well the only leaseback model I have seen that works well is where the
owner
> is an A&P or otherwise can tightly control maintenance costs.
>

My experience has been fine. The plane has not had many problems that were
not covered under warranty, or that the factory did not pick up outside of
warranty. I did switch FBO's, but I didn't have any real gripes about the
cost of repairs at the old school. Perhaps your AP's are more aggressive in
your area. Down here, they are cheaper than car mechanics.

> A new airplane has much lower maintenance costs, but the value of a new
> airplane depreciates and thus creates a high risk of a loss.
>

I would only sell my plane in a trade. The free loan from Uncle Sam that
comes in the form of depreciation and expense write off is much greater than
the actual depreciation so I would be ahead so long as I can aviod recapture
which is pretty easy to do.

>
> So> a 60k plane, put 200 hours on it in 2 years, what is the worst you
will
> lose
> > out? Maybe it will end up costing you an extra $4,000 or $5,000, IF you
> > really did buy the wrong plane. In the meantime, you had a lot of value
> you
>
> You could lose much more than that. A new engine could cost twice your
> estimated maximum loss. New exhaust, corrosion repair, new prop are
others
> which could cause very significant blips in maintenance costs.

You are assuming the most incredible losses. Also, if you put a new engine
in the plane you can get back much of that because it increases the value,
so your only loss is the hours short of TBO. Corrosion repair should not
occur within a few years of an adequate prebuy. If someone is going to buy
badly, it won't matter what kind of pilot they are. A fool will still be a
fool after he has his ATP.

> > every plane flying by, and wishing I were able to fly. Are you full
time
> in
> > the aviation business? You seem to have lost the passion, man!
> Certainly,
> > without knowing the income of the person you are working with, its hard
to
> > tell what they consider a reasonable loss, but to anyone in the flying
> hobby
> > an extra couple thousand a year can't be a huge mistake.
>
> I haven't lost the passion at all; I am as addicted to airplanes as anyone
> else. I have, however, been around enough to have a sense of the economic
> reality of owning an airplane.
>
> I only wish the risk of airplane maintenance were only an extra couple
> thousand dollars per year. I have known any number of instances where
> surprise maintenance cost a pilot 20% of the value of an airplane -- no
> matter if the airplane is a Piper Cub or a Gulfstream, that is a lot of
> money.
>
I am not sure that you are subtracting increases in the plane's value from
the costs. If you can recoup the repairs in the resale, you never really
lost the money. 20k can almost rebuild planes in the under 100k range
unless you have to replace a low time engine without any relief from the
manufacturer.

>
>
> > Aha! This could be a gem of info. I am completely inexperienced here.
> > Tell me more. What kind of bill are we looking at on a 50 to 100k basic
> > plane like 182, arrow, mooney etc. I know the common wisdom on avionics
> is
> > that adding them to an old frame gets a poor return, but what about
other
> > repairs and fixes. Are there any rules of thumb like 20% or 50% or what
> > not?
>
> A typical rule of thumb is to expect 5% to 10% of an airplane's cost in
> "catch up" maintenance with a possible upper limits of 20% if you get
really
> unlucky.
>

I would be interested to hear what others think of this rule of thumb,
anyone? What do you consider the odds of being really unlucky are 5%?


>
> > Perhaps I mistated. I think you may not know what you WANT. What you
> NEED
> > will be much easier to identify though. Where you are going to travel
>
> Most students do not have a good sense of what avionics they will need.
> They also tend not to have enough perspective on weather patterns to make
> judgments on items like weather avoidance equipment vs. a nice paint job,
> turbocharger vs. extended fuel tanks, etc.
>

You are talking about planes that should be flown buy 300 plus hour pilots.
300 hours is a lot of rental, and a lot of time for someone who wants to own
rather than rent. Really, I would plan on having many more hours than that
before trying use a stormscope or strikefinder to avoid weather. I advise
using the phone to avoid the weather before you decide to fly to pilots that
green.


>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

These sorts
> of things cannot usually be predicted while a pilot is in training.
>

This is at the heart of our disagreement, and I disagree.

>
> > I think that you and Jay have found the mark above. It can be a
seperate
> > skill set. Many students don't know anything about larger planes, while
> > nuts like me read everything we could get our hands as soon as we
started
> on
> > our private.
>
> That is absolutely true, but no matter how much you read it is hard to
have
> a sense of weather patterns on your likely routes until you start flying.
> If you discover that icing typically blocks Thanksgiving trips to visit
> Grandma in the Northeast, that could have a radically different effect on
> your airplane choice than if you lived in Texas.
>

I really do not understand this, did grandma move? Did the spouse decide
after the purchase that he/she did not like to fly in the plane? I think
you are describing a buyer that buys totally on a whim, with little
forethought. I hope we weed many of these personality types from the ranks
of the pilot community before Darwin gets them.

Honestly, lets say you are approached in the hangar by a student that says
he is going to start flying to a city a few hundred miles away after he gets
his private. You know the weather patterns that are likely on the route.
Are you not going to tell him? "You will be seeing T storms everyday during
April down there, make sure you have your IFR certificate, weather systems,
and oxygen or your going to get stuck a lot." Or, "Thats a nice flight.
Hardly any day you will need to wait for more than a few hours. Just watch
out for the balloon on the island."

Did you think he would buy a plane without asking anyone about the
appropriateness of the plane for his mission? Even a wet behind the ears
CFI can steer him away from a really bad decision.



>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

I recently read an article where the author recommended paying for an
annual versus a pre-buy inspection. That way, new parts and serviced
items are on the old seller and not the new owner. Which, as you found,
often seem to pop up when it's time for the annual on your new plane.

This certainly seemed like sound advice? Anyone care to make a counter
point?



On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:56:22 -0800, MRQB wrote:

> On your pre buy make sure you take a mechanic can check the avionics and
> instruments in the pre buy its the only thing we did not check and during
> the after purchurace inspection was deturmed that most all my instruments
> needed replaced nice little $2,400 dent in the pocket book but what the hell
> its only money we can always make more right.

In article >,
Greg Copeland > wrote:
>I recently read an article where the author recommended paying for an
>annual versus a pre-buy inspection.

My airspeed indicator wasn't checked during the annual. It wasn't even
checked during the prebuy inspection. I did take a test flight and saw
it go up and down, but if it had been intermittant I wouldn't have known.

I think the lesson here is that if you're going to be an airplane owner
you can't let a $2500 maintenance bill get you down. Buying one of the
least expensive production planes (and I think an older C-152 qualifies!)
doesn't change that. Somewhere between C-152 and pressurized, cabin class
twin that goes up an order of magnitude.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> I recently read an article where the author recommended paying for an
> annual versus a pre-buy inspection. That way, new parts and serviced
> items are on the old seller and not the new owner. Which, as you found,
> often seem to pop up when it's time for the annual on your new plane.
>
> This certainly seemed like sound advice? Anyone care to make a counter
> point?

You will find it very hard to get the old owner to agree to those terms. It is quite
possible to get an owner to agree to having the inspection be done by your mechanic
as an annual. The usual terms are that glitches found are discussed after the annual
and the existing owner is free to walk away if you try to leverage the price down too
much. In that case, your IA may not get to see the logs until after you purchase the
plane, and the new parts and serviced items are still probably on you.

As toecutter pointed out the last time this sort of thing was discussed, the IA will
have to make a written record of the glitches, but few owners would hand the actual
logs over under those terms. Another poster stated that his tactic is to allow the
mechanic to inspect the logs before inspecting the plane, while the owner keeps the
logs during the aircraft inspection. When I sold my Cessna, I held the logs and the
IA did not touch them until after the deal was done.

In my case, the owner wanted the inspection to be an annual just because he wanted a
full year before doing it again. It only cost him about $100 more than getting a
pre-purchase done.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:52:01 +0000, Dude wrote:

> You are assuming the most incredible losses. Also, if you put a new engine
> in the plane you can get back much of that because it increases the value,
> so your only loss is the hours short of TBO. Corrosion repair should not
> occur within a few years of an adequate prebuy. If someone is going to buy
> badly, it won't matter what kind of pilot they are. A fool will still be a
> fool after he has his ATP.

My father has been a pilot long before I was born. He's owned several
planes. I've recently started to talk about getting my license. At any
rate, the finance side of owning is something that my father has always
shared with me. Recently, I had an even more detailed conversation,
working up a spreadsheet that breaks down costs of ownership. He assures
me the wise man plans for 20%. Even better, bank 25% so that you ride out
really, really bad surprises. Needless to say, he plans on 25% and his
reserve is pretty much empty right now. Why? Surprises are there, just
lurking. He has a rather new plane. It's a 172R. I don't remember the
year on this one, but it's not older than the late 90's.

My point? The 20% that he's telling you seems like very sage advice. If
you don't need, you've got some cash for moving up, when you're ready.
Should you need the reserve, you'll be dang glad you planned for it.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:22:25 +0000, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>>
>> I recently read an article where the author recommended paying for an
>> annual versus a pre-buy inspection. That way, new parts and serviced
>> items are on the old seller and not the new owner. Which, as you found,
>> often seem to pop up when it's time for the annual on your new plane.
>>
>> This certainly seemed like sound advice? Anyone care to make a counter
>> point?
>
> You will find it very hard to get the old owner to agree to those terms. It is quite
> possible to get an owner to agree to having the inspection be done by your mechanic
> as an annual. The usual terms are that glitches found are discussed after the annual
> and the existing owner is free to walk away if you try to leverage the price down too
> much. In that case, your IA may not get to see the logs until after you purchase the
> plane, and the new parts and serviced items are still probably on you.
>
> As toecutter pointed out the last time this sort of thing was discussed, the IA will
> have to make a written record of the glitches, but few owners would hand the actual
> logs over under those terms. Another poster stated that his tactic is to allow the
> mechanic to inspect the logs before inspecting the plane, while the owner keeps the
> logs during the aircraft inspection. When I sold my Cessna, I held the logs and the
> IA did not touch them until after the deal was done.
>
> In my case, the owner wanted the inspection to be an annual just because he wanted a
> full year before doing it again. It only cost him about $100 more than getting a
> pre-purchase done.
>
> George Patterson

Okay. Fair points. So, assuming that the seller will allow it, does it
appear to be the preferred route? Granted, while the seller could walk,
it seems like it still bought you protection. Especially so, if the
seller isn't willing to price accordingly. Even if the annual is put on
the logs until post-sale, sure seems like the preferred path?

Ya, I know I'm being pedantic here, but I'm am looking for any downside to
this strategy. Thus far, it all seems like nothing but goodness.

Greg Copeland

Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> Okay. Fair points. So, assuming that the seller will allow it, does it
> appear to be the preferred route?

Absolutely; just don't expect the seller to pay for a bunch of stuff your mechanic
finds, when *his* mechanic either didn't notice or doesn't think it's important. The
technique has several advantages, from the buyer's viewpoint. For one thing, it
prevents "surprises" at the first annual, since this *is* the first annual. If your
IA finds stuff you don't want to pay for, and the owner won't pay for it, you're not
stuck. If you buy the plane, you're not looking at an annual within the next few
months, as might be the case with a pre-buy inspection.

The most important thing in my opinion is that prospective buyers may take the
results of a pre-buy inspection too lightly; few mechanics will come right out and
say, "If I were you, I'd run from this one." Their usual approach is to tell you what
they've found and assume that you know how serious it is. Change that to an annual,
however, and they hand you a list of squawks and an estimate of the cost. That
estimate tends to get your attention, and much of it has to be done right now.

It is important to arrange an understanding with all concerned that, if you buy the
plane, the inspection will be logged as an annual. If you don't buy the plane, it was
a pre-purchase inspection.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

"Dude" > wrote in message
...


> Okay, I can see this, but it sounds like you are saying that years 1 and 2
> are bound to be higher than 3, 4, and 5.

Years 1 and 2 and not "bound to be" higher than years 3, 4, and 5, but more
often than not this is the case. A lot of airplanes get deferred
maintenance when an owner is nearing time to sell his airplane.

> What kills renting is fleet insurance at 8% of hull.

If the hull insurance is split between multiple renters, then the cost of
insurance for a rental is much lower per pilot tha nowning an airplane.

> My experience has been fine. The plane has not had many problems that
were
> not covered under warranty, or that the factory did not pick up outside of
> warranty. I did switch FBO's, but I didn't have any real gripes about the

Wow.... no there is why you have a different experience. You are talking
about a new airplane if you have a warranty! Sure maintenance costs will be
low.. but there is a major depreciation expense in the first couple years of
buying a new airplane, whereas used airplanes rarely depreciate and maybe
even appreciate slowly.

If your airplane is rented and thus quickly accumulates hours, then it will
REALLY depreciate in cost.


> cost of repairs at the old school. Perhaps your AP's are more aggressive
in
> your area. Down here, they are cheaper than car mechanics.

Aviation mechanics are cheaper than car mechanics everywhere. It generally
takes much more time to access aviation parts, however. Much more
importantly, airplane parts cost VERY SUBSTANTIALLY more than auto parts,
often 2-3 times what the identical auto part would cost.

> I would only sell my plane in a trade. The free loan from Uncle Sam that
> comes in the form of depreciation and expense write off is much greater
than
> the actual depreciation so I would be ahead so long as I can aviod
recapture
> which is pretty easy to do.

You get a depreciation/expense writeoff on a used airplane as well, albeit
somewhat slower -- but in the end you get the same tax advantage from a new
vs. an old plane. However, the actual depreciation in value of a new plane
is quite real and in fact would reduce the amount of money available when
you step up to your next airplane.


> > > out? Maybe it will end up costing you an extra $4,000 or $5,000, If
you
> > > really did buy the wrong plane. In the meantime, you had a lot of
value

It could cost you $10,000 or $15,000 easily if you buy the wrong plane.

> You are assuming the most incredible losses. Also, if you put a new
engine
> in the plane you can get back much of that because it increases the value,

You cannot get back the full value of a new engine.

Much more importantly, if your engine is halfway to TBO when it needs an
overhaul, the very most you might recover in cost is half of the value of
the engine -- you cannot recover the value of the "unused" TBO time if the
engien did not make it.

> so your only loss is the hours short of TBO. Corrosion repair should not
> occur within a few years of an adequate prebuy. If someone is going to
buy

Corrosion can be hidden, i.e. painted over and not visible on a prebuy. Or
in the case of an older Mooney, it is time-consuming to inspect the steel
tubing for corrosion and thus this item is often missed on a prebuy.

> I am not sure that you are subtracting increases in the plane's value from
> the costs. If you can recoup the repairs in the resale, you never really
> lost the money. 20k can almost rebuild planes in the under 100k range
> unless you have to replace a low time engine without any relief from the
> manufacturer.

A new exhaust system, an overhaul on a low-time engine, corrosion repairs,
and many other "gotcha" repairs do not come close to increasing the cost of
an airplane in proportion to the cost of the repairs.

> rather than rent. Really, I would plan on having many more hours than
that
> before trying use a stormscope or strikefinder to avoid weather. I advise
> using the phone to avoid the weather before you decide to fly to pilots
that
> green.

I would encourage spherics use by any pilot planning a cross-country trip in
the summer. Spherics are much easier to interpret than radar. If a pilot
is going go buy an airplane but have a mission profile that would not
benefit from a Stormscope/Strikefinder, then why not just rent a local
airplane?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dude" > wrote in message
...

> I really do not understand this, did grandma move? Did the spouse decide
> after the purchase that he/she did not like to fly in the plane? I think
> you are describing a buyer that buys totally on a whim, with little
> forethought. I hope we weed many of these personality types from the
ranks
> of the pilot community before Darwin gets them.

I have met more pilots than I can possibly remember who have been surprised
either positively or negatively regarding how their expectation of airplane
practicality differed from reality.

The fact is that no matter what someone may be advised re: weather patterns,
it takes the experience of actually renting a car to drive the family home
from Thanksgiving dinner for it to hit home what the limitations of an
airplane are. Going on a family vacation by general aviation takes a
certain sense of adventure and spontaneity from a family which is more
realistically experienced than imagined; some kids love the adventure and
others do very poorly with sudden changes in plan. Some kids love flying in
an airplane and others don't. Some spouses are enthusiastic about flying
but develop motion sickness; others are so thrilled at visiting family
easier that they become instant aviation enthusiasts.

I am not just guessing here... I have seen this happen many times.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On 8-Apr-2004, "Richard Kaplan" > wrote:

> I have met more pilots than I can possibly remember who have been
> surprised either positively or negatively regarding how their expectation
> of
> airplane practicality differed from reality.
>
> The fact is that no matter what someone may be advised re: weather
> patterns, it takes the experience of actually renting a car to drive the
> family home
> from Thanksgiving dinner for it to hit home what the limitations of an
> airplane are. Going on a family vacation by general aviation takes a
> certain sense of adventure and spontaneity from a family which is more
> realistically experienced than imagined; some kids love the adventure and
> others do very poorly with sudden changes in plan. Some kids love flying
> in an airplane and others don't. Some spouses are enthusiastic about
> flying
> but develop motion sickness; others are so thrilled at visiting family
> easier that they become instant aviation enthusiasts.
>
> I am not just guessing here... I have seen this happen many times.


Without IFR capability in the pilot and the airplane one cannot rely on
using an airplane for on-schedule X-C trips lasting more than a few hours.
That's not to say they can't be done safely -- IF a VFR-only pilot is
willing to wait out weather (maybe for several days) or settle for alternate
transportation home.

The situation changes significantly with an instrument rating. Really bad
weather may still disrupt your schedule, but there is a wide range of
weather conditions in which VFR flight would be suicidal while IFR is quite
safe. In the 30 years or so since I got my instrument ticket, I can recall
only one trip I couldn't complete due to weather. (Some delays, but only
once did I have to find an alternative ride home. That one was due to
widespread moderate to severe icing.)

-Elliott Drucker

I would point out that IFR cross country being safe is true only when
you have an all-weather airplane available that you are rated in AND you
have the experience and currency to safely fly it. Many see the
instrument rating as the "holy grail" and then are disappointed to learn
the the rental Archer is not suddenly impervious to weather events just
because they have an instrument rating.

> In the 30 years or so since I got my instrument ticket, I can recall
> only one trip I couldn't complete due to weather. (Some delays, but only
> once did I have to find an alternative ride home. That one was due to
> widespread moderate to severe icing.)

Only 1 cancellation in 30 years? I won't argue for a second that you
were not able to do this. If you are prepared to wait LONG enough, any
adverse weather will eventually move on. What makes the equation tricky
is when the family is sitting in a strange FBO for 8 hours and the
weather only improves a little bit. You (/your family) may personally be
able to sit it out for quite a while, maybe even overnight or 2 full
days. But, add a "schedule back home" and kids/spouse and you are no
longer the sole decision maker on what is reasonable. I suspect most
people, especially those toting family/others will reach the "buster"
point many more times than you did flying that many years.

I believe the dispatch rate for the average non-deiced piston single
spam can goes from about 50% VFR to about 75% IFR. I can believe a much
higher rate if you are talking about a fully equipped turboprop flying
around Arizona. The typical line rental here in the Chicago area will
not be able to maintain your ratio of successfully flown (safe) flights.

I agree it is suicidal (or patently stupid) to knowingly fly into IFR
conditions without a rating. But having the rating does not make IFR
conditions automatically "safe" (and I believe nobody is suggesting
otherwise). Thunderstorms/icing/low ceilings/non-currency usually
present various degrees of risk to the IFR pilot. Again, many can be
mitigated by the proper equipment. A CATIIIc equipped airliner can be
thought of as having a pretty high dispatch rate in relative safety WITH
a properly trained and current crew on board armed and safe operating
procedures (aka "the company manual") and current weather/planning.
Change any of those parameters and I believe safety begins to erode. At
some point, the instrument rating does not mean anything over a VFR-only
ticket (thunderstorms/icing/low ceilings) when you fly a basic piston
single.

Good Luck,
Mike




__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

On 10-Apr-2004, Mike Spera > wrote:

> I would point out that IFR cross country being safe is true only when
> you have an all-weather airplane available that you are rated in AND you
> have the experience and currency to safely fly it. Many see the
> instrument rating as the "holy grail" and then are disappointed to learn
> the the rental Archer is not suddenly impervious to weather events just
> because they have an instrument rating.


You are right about instrument currency, of course. But if you refuse to
fly in weather until experienced, how will you become experienced? As to
the airplane's capabilities, what is really required is that equipment be
more than a match for the weather at hand and that critical systems be
backed up. IFR is obviously a much better deal in your own airplane where
you can assure proper maintenance and equipment level.



> Only 1 cancellation in 30 years? I won't argue for a second that you
> were not able to do this. If you are prepared to wait LONG enough, any
> adverse weather will eventually move on. What makes the equation tricky
> is when the family is sitting in a strange FBO for 8 hours and the
> weather only improves a little bit. You (/your family) may personally be
> able to sit it out for quite a while, maybe even overnight or 2 full
> days. But, add a "schedule back home" and kids/spouse and you are no
> longer the sole decision maker on what is reasonable. I suspect most
> people, especially those toting family/others will reach the "buster"
> point many more times than you did flying that many years.

What I meant (and though I made clear) is that I have only once had to
abandon my airplane away from home base due to weather. (I have had to do
it a couple of other times due to mechanical problems.) A much higher
number of trips were cancelled (before leaving home base) because of
weather. I have also had any number of delays, some for hours. But I have
also had similar weather delays when using the airlines. Many of my trips
included family members.


> I believe the dispatch rate for the average non-deiced piston single
> spam can goes from about 50% VFR to about 75% IFR. I can believe a much
> higher rate if you are talking about a fully equipped turboprop flying
> around Arizona. The typical line rental here in the Chicago area will
> not be able to maintain your ratio of successfully flown (safe) flights.

I would say my IFR dispatch rate has been significantly better than 75%. If
I relied on rental aircraft your figure might have been about right, but I
have always had my own plane. By far, the biggest reason for cancellation
has been icing, which is a year-round consideration here in the Pacific
Northwest. Widespread areas of thunderstorms and/or low ceilings are rare.



>
> I agree it is suicidal (or patently stupid) to knowingly fly into IFR
> conditions without a rating. But having the rating does not make IFR
> conditions automatically "safe" (and I believe nobody is suggesting
> otherwise). Thunderstorms/icing/low ceilings/non-currency usually
> present various degrees of risk to the IFR pilot. Again, many can be
> mitigated by the proper equipment. A CATIIIc equipped airliner can be
> thought of as having a pretty high dispatch rate in relative safety WITH
> a properly trained and current crew on board armed and safe operating
> procedures (aka "the company manual") and current weather/planning.
> Change any of those parameters and I believe safety begins to erode. At
> some point, the instrument rating does not mean anything over a VFR-only
> ticket (thunderstorms/icing/low ceilings) when you fly a basic piston
> single.

You are of course correct that an instrument ticket should not be considered
a license to fly in the same weather conditions tackled by professional
crews in heavy turbine equipment. However, I also think that the "gap" in
weather conditions that can safely be dealt with between VFR and "basic" IFR
is substantial, and encompasses the majority of days in most places.

--
-Elliott Drucker

In article >, Mike Spera
> wrote:

> I have owned a basic trainer for 10 years. Cherokee 140, no autopilot,
> no spherics, no POWER. So, I am pretty limited. Single pilot IFR without
> any automation in a platform that is not all that stable keeps me VERY
> busy just keeping up with the airplane. Maybe with an A/P. spherics, a
> GROUND based radar picture, 100 more HP, and deice equipment, I would
> feel more in control.

The nice thing about the cherokee 140 as an instrument platform
is that it isn't that hard to stay ahead of the plane. Add
the complexity and speed of an additional 100 hp, and it'll be
easier to let it get away from you.

(I also have owned my cherokee 140 for 10 years).

--
Bob Noel

> wrote in message
...>

> safe. In the 30 years or so since I got my instrument ticket, I can
recall
> only one trip I couldn't complete due to weather. (Some delays, but only
> once did I have to find an alternative ride home. That one was due to
> widespread moderate to severe icing.)

That depends on what airplane you fly, where you fly, and what you consider
to be a delay.

If you try flying on a winter vacation from Pennsylvania to Florida in
January in a non-known-ice airplane, you could easily be delayed 3 days each
way.

If you try flying in the Northeast on Thanksgiving - a transition time when
you can experience thunderstorms, icing, thundersnow, or any combination --
you can easily be delayed by a couple of days in any piston airplane,
especially one without icing equipment and without weather detection
equipment.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
...

> I believe the dispatch rate for the average non-deiced piston single
> spam can goes from about 50% VFR to about 75% IFR. I can believe a much
> higher rate if you are talking about a fully equipped turboprop flying
> around Arizona. The typical line rental here in the Chicago area will
> not be able to maintain your ratio of successfully flown (safe) flights.


I couldn't agree more.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

> wrote in message
...>

> What I meant (and though I made clear) is that I have only once had to
> abandon my airplane away from home base due to weather. (I have had to do
> it a couple of other times due to mechanical problems.) A much higher
> number of trips were cancelled (before leaving home base) because of

That makes a lot more sense. So what you are saying is that you have
abandoned a good number of trips and that you have delayed your return on
others. People need to experience this and see how it realistically fits
with their family lifestyle before buying an airplane. Maybe they will
decide to just rent. Or maybe they will decide to save up for a known-ice
Mooney. Or buy an airplane with weather datalink already installed. Etc.
Etc.

> weather. I have also had any number of delays, some for hours. But I
have
> also had similar weather delays when using the airlines. Many of my trips

The dispatch rate flying commerical is way, way higher than my airplane
which is well-equipped for IFR by GA standards --- known-ice, radar,
spherics, weather datalink. There are advantages afforded by the speed,
service ceiling, climb rate, and redundancy of a transport category airplane
that I simply cannot compete with.

If you are getting dispatch rates with a piston airplane which come anywhere
close to that of an airliner then you are flying trips you shouldn't be
flying.

In fact, the dispatch rate of commercial airliners exceeds my dispatch rate
by *car* for cross-country trips.

> crews in heavy turbine equipment. However, I also think that the "gap" in
> weather conditions that can safely be dealt with between VFR and "basic"
IFR
> is substantial, and encompasses the majority of days in most places.

A lot of this depends on the mission.

Based in the Northeast my dispatch rate on week-long family vacations with a
fudge factor built in for departure and arrival is almost 100% -- I once
cancelled a trip due to a double-hurricane coming up the east coast.

My dispatch rate for weekend trips is about 90%.

My dispatch rate for business trips when I MUST be there at 10AM is about
50% -- the risk is too high that fog will not clear or I will need to go
missed and divert etc. Get-there-itis pressure is too high.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On 11-Apr-2004, "Richard Kaplan" > wrote:

> > What I meant (and though I made clear) is that I have only once had to
> > abandon my airplane away from home base due to weather. (I have had to
> > do
> > it a couple of other times due to mechanical problems.) A much higher
> > number of trips were cancelled (before leaving home base) because of
>
> That makes a lot more sense. So what you are saying is that you have
> abandoned a good number of trips and that you have delayed your return on
> others. People need to experience this and see how it realistically fits
> with their family lifestyle before buying an airplane. Maybe they will
> decide to just rent. Or maybe they will decide to save up for a known-ice
> Mooney. Or buy an airplane with weather datalink already installed.
> Etc.
> Etc.
>

Well, in 30 years the number of trips I have cancelled due to weather has
been "a good number", but on average I'd say maybe one or two per year.
Usually it's due to widespread icing over the Cascades.



> > I have also had any number of delays, some for hours. But I
> > have also had similar weather delays when using the airlines.
>
> The dispatch rate flying commerical is way, way higher than my airplane
> which is well-equipped for IFR by GA standards --- known-ice, radar,
> spherics, weather datalink. There are advantages afforded by the speed,
> service ceiling, climb rate, and redundancy of a transport category
> airplane that I simply cannot compete with.

Weather delays in airline flying are common, not because the airplanes and
crews can't handle the weather but because ATC and airport capacity at the
few hub airports are constrained when thunderstorms and/or low ceilings are
an issue. For most of my missions, ATC capacity is not an issue, so delays
are at my discretion. The good news about flying your own plane is that it
is ready to go as soon as weather permits. No missed connections. And of
course you have the flexibility to select a route that bypasses limited
areas of bad weather. United can't decide to change its hub to Indianapolis
when a line of thunderstorms causes massive delays in Chicago.


>
> If you are getting dispatch rates with a piston airplane which come
> anywhere close to that of an airliner then you are flying trips you
> shouldn't be
> flying.
>

Depends upon how you define dispatch rate, given the vastly greater schedule
flexibility of flying your own plane. If I suspect there may be weather
delays I can leave earlier than planned. Can't do that on the airlines. I
can often choose a route and/or fuel stop that avoids weather. Can't do
that on the airlines. I can take a 3 hour lunch to let a line of storms
pass. The airlines may be forced to do that, but it will usually mean
missed connections. All that said, the airlines still offer higher
reliability of safely getting to where you want to go more or less when you
want to be there, but if you use the flexibility inherent in flying your own
light airplane (NOT a rental!), the difference isn't all THAT huge.


>
> > crews in heavy turbine equipment. However, I also think that the "gap"
> > in weather conditions that can safely be dealt with between VFR and
> > "basic"
> > IFR is substantial, and encompasses the majority of days in most places.
>
> A lot of this depends on the mission.
>
> Based in the Northeast my dispatch rate on week-long family vacations with
> a fudge factor built in for departure and arrival is almost 100% -- I once
> cancelled a trip due to a double-hurricane coming up the east coast.
>
> My dispatch rate for weekend trips is about 90%.
>
> My dispatch rate for business trips when I MUST be there at 10AM is about
> 50% -- the risk is too high that fog will not clear or I will need to go
> missed and divert etc. Get-there-itis pressure is too high.

If I MUST be there by 10 AM and there is a possibility of morning weather
problems I go the day before. I would do that on the airlines as well if
there was a possibility of widespread fog in the morning that will keep even
the airlines on the ground. You are right about the need to take steps to
reduce "get-there-itis" pressure.

--
-Elliott Drucker

> wrote in message
...>

> missed connections. All that said, the airlines still offer higher
> reliability of safely getting to where you want to go more or less when
you
> want to be there, but if you use the flexibility inherent in flying your
own
> light airplane (NOT a rental!), the difference isn't all THAT huge.

I don't count a flight being cancelled by airlines and getting there 6 hours
later as a cancellation --> you still get there.

Airlines can, indeed, plan routes around weather; in fact, an airliner at
500 knots can do this much, much easier than I can do at 160 knots.

The difference between airline reliability and general aviation realiability
is VERY significant anywhere except the Southwest U.S. Also Florida is
very reliable except during the afternoon in the 6-month rainy season.

Especially if you fly a non-deiced airplane, you can be grounded for several
days in a row in the Northeast or Midwest or Northwest due to icing. In the
summertime, frontal thunderstorms can easily prevent completion of a
cross-country trip for 1-2 days.

Also what happens if you have an 8-hour cross country trip you plan to start
at 10AM but weather does not clear until 10PM? The airlines will get a
fresh crew to do the night flight. Will you start a long night flight at
10PM single-pilot IFR after you have been up all day checking weather?

There are LOTS of advantages to GA travel and I do it all the time... but
the only realistic way to do it is to either be prepared to rent a car or to
schedule departure/arrival windows which are 24-36 hours wide depending on
the season and the capabilities of the pilot and airplane.

On the other hand, a rather novel use of general aviation when weather is
bad is that you may be able to fly to an inexpensive airline airport such as
a Southwest hub and continue your trip from there. When I had to cancel my
trip from Pittsburgh to Orlando due to 2 hurricanes, I flew my airplane to
Norfolk Virginia and got the family $69 tickets to continue the flight from
there to Orlando; that was immensely less expense than the commercial fare
from Pittsburgh to Orlando and a strategy I will not forget in the future.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In the Midwest, you can usually follow a line of thunderstorms (albeit at a
distance) and still make your destination even if a bit late. Many people
just park it for a few hours and let the storms roll through, then continue
their trip in the beautiful clear skies behind the front.

--
Jim Carter
Seen on a bumper sticker:
If you can read this, thank a teacher
If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...>
>
> > missed connections. All that said, the airlines still offer higher
> > reliability of safely getting to where you want to go more or less when
> you
> > want to be there, but if you use the flexibility inherent in flying your
> own
> > light airplane (NOT a rental!), the difference isn't all THAT huge.
>
> I don't count a flight being cancelled by airlines and getting there 6
hours
> later as a cancellation --> you still get there.
>
> Airlines can, indeed, plan routes around weather; in fact, an airliner at
> 500 knots can do this much, much easier than I can do at 160 knots.
>
> The difference between airline reliability and general aviation
realiability
> is VERY significant anywhere except the Southwest U.S. Also Florida is
> very reliable except during the afternoon in the 6-month rainy season.
>
> Especially if you fly a non-deiced airplane, you can be grounded for
several
> days in a row in the Northeast or Midwest or Northwest due to icing. In
the
> summertime, frontal thunderstorms can easily prevent completion of a
> cross-country trip for 1-2 days.
>
> Also what happens if you have an 8-hour cross country trip you plan to
start
> at 10AM but weather does not clear until 10PM? The airlines will get a
> fresh crew to do the night flight. Will you start a long night flight at
> 10PM single-pilot IFR after you have been up all day checking weather?
>
> There are LOTS of advantages to GA travel and I do it all the time... but
> the only realistic way to do it is to either be prepared to rent a car or
to
> schedule departure/arrival windows which are 24-36 hours wide depending on
> the season and the capabilities of the pilot and airplane.
>
> On the other hand, a rather novel use of general aviation when weather is
> bad is that you may be able to fly to an inexpensive airline airport such
as
> a Southwest hub and continue your trip from there. When I had to cancel
my
> trip from Pittsburgh to Orlando due to 2 hurricanes, I flew my airplane to
> Norfolk Virginia and got the family $69 tickets to continue the flight
from
> there to Orlando; that was immensely less expense than the commercial fare
> from Pittsburgh to Orlando and a strategy I will not forget in the future.
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
m...

> In the Midwest, you can usually follow a line of thunderstorms (albeit at
a
> distance) and still make your destination even if a bit late. Many people
> just park it for a few hours and let the storms roll through, then
continue
> their trip in the beautiful clear skies behind the front.

That works reasonably well when you are traveling Westbound since you can
usually fly within 50 miles of the line of storms, let the storms go
overhead, and continue on. Usually this will result in about a 2-3 hour
delay.

If you are headed Eastbound, however, on a trip of say 300 miles, you may
well lose the whole day since storms tend to travel about 30 knots and thus
it could take 10 hours for the path to clear and there could even be another
line of storms behind it or perhaps it is night IMC when the storms finally
clear and you are probably not rested enough to try night IMC at that point.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article >, "Richard
Kaplan" > writes:

>That works reasonably well when you are traveling Westbound since you can
>usually fly within 50 miles of the line of storms, let the storms go
>overhead, and continue on. Usually this will result in about a 2-3 hour
>delay.
>
>If you are headed Eastbound, however, on a trip of say 300 miles, you may
>well lose the whole day since storms tend to travel about 30 knots and thus
>it could take 10 hours for the path to clear and there could even be another
>line of storms behind it or perhaps it is night IMC when the storms finally
>clear and you are probably not rested enough to try night IMC at that point.
>
>

Or north or south. One of the prettiest cloud sights I can remember was a
flight north over Mich after landing and letting a front pass over. The line
was off to the right for the next hour.

Chuck

Rich,
that's what I used to think too until I was riding right seat on a bird
going into Knoxville, Tn ANG base one day. We followed a line from Tinker to
Knoxville by landing about every 100 miles and having another cup of coffee.
Eventually the storms started to fall apart and we were in a perfect
position to take advantage of the breakup. We were late but only by about 8
hours and we had beautiful cloud formations to follow all day long. (We were
in light iron so penetration or over-the-top were out of the question).

--
Jim Carter
Seen on a bumper sticker:
If you can read this, thank a teacher
If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > In the Midwest, you can usually follow a line of thunderstorms (albeit
at
> a
> > distance) and still make your destination even if a bit late. Many
people
> > just park it for a few hours and let the storms roll through, then
> continue
> > their trip in the beautiful clear skies behind the front.
>
> That works reasonably well when you are traveling Westbound since you can
> usually fly within 50 miles of the line of storms, let the storms go
> overhead, and continue on. Usually this will result in about a 2-3 hour
> delay.
>
> If you are headed Eastbound, however, on a trip of say 300 miles, you may
> well lose the whole day since storms tend to travel about 30 knots and
thus
> it could take 10 hours for the path to clear and there could even be
another
> line of storms behind it or perhaps it is night IMC when the storms
finally
> clear and you are probably not rested enough to try night IMC at that
point.
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>