Talk me out of this...

[Paul Folbrecht]

Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.

Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
pretty nice deal.

Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.

Concerns:

- Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
- Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
FBO bought it new).
- The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
FBO.

Pros:

- The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
- The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
care of squawks.

I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
put a direct dollar figure on.

I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.

~Paul

[C J Campbell]

We all want you to buy this airplane. Misery loves company.

[EDR]

In article .net>,
Paul Folbrecht > wrote:

First, just how big are you?
Are you going to be able to take someone else with you without having
to take your wallet out of your back pocket to have enough room?

Second, are you planning on using the airplane for travel?
Depending on your age, the short legs due to fuel supply won't be a
problem. If you have a strong bladder, and want to take someone with
you, you won't be taking much luggage with you. Two people and camping
gear to Oshkosh? I don't know!!!

You already have your certificate, you don't need a trainer.
Look for a four seater, more options, better resale.

[R.Hubbell]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:41:04 GMT Paul Folbrecht > wrote:

> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.


I'll let you decide, but give you some things to think about.

compare gallons per mile to jus about any other single.
Look at resale value.
Think about the trips you intend to take.


Good luck!


R. Hubbell


>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[Dave]

Did I read that right? A 'slow' 2-place plane with a new engine for $30K
after riding around for while with a 'run out' engine? Is a trainer
really what you want to fly now and for years to come?

As a comparison, I did a quick google and found a couple of Grumman AA5s
for sale for less than $34,000 that are approach certified. If you are
looking to do x-country work rather than around-the-patch work, the
4-place Grummans give a lot more bang for the buck than a 4-seat C or a
P (IMHO). People tend to go with what they already know, and so the AA5
series is often overlooked because most people didn't train in them,
thus the price of a comparble G will be less than that of C or P.

I am sure the 152 is a fine (if overpriced) plane... but you _did_ ask
to be talked out of it... <g> (but if I had to choose between a 152 and
no plane at all, I would go with the 152... better a slow plane than no
plane).

Dave
N9560L - GLS
74 Grumman AA5

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[BTIZ]

2050 SMOH on an 8000hr "training airplane:...

IIRC.. most C-152 engines hit TBO at 2000, so this engine is run out
already.. should not be any hours left in it..

BT

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[Jeff]

sounds like that engine is about due a overhaul.
I dont know what an engine costs for a 152, but you may want to check on
that so you know about how much your going to have to invest in the new
engine.

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[Jeff]

you know, I once heard a guy who said he saw a 152 actually hover over the
runway.
kinda windy day, the guy cut power to land and the plane kinda just hovered
there.

on windy days, there is this 152 up at my airport, the thing looks like a
kite flapping around on its tiedowns.

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[Jeff]

I would probably go with a rental instead of a slow old worn out plane.


> (but if I had to choose between a 152 and
> no plane at all, I would go with the 152... better a slow plane than no
> plane).
>
> Dave
> N9560L - GLS
> 74 Grumman AA5

[MRQB]

Most rentals are worn out or very close to being worn out! Ware do you think
them worn out plane come from?


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> I would probably go with a rental instead of a slow old worn out plane.
>
>
> > (but if I had to choose between a 152 and
> > no plane at all, I would go with the 152... better a slow plane than no
> > plane).
> >
> > Dave
> > N9560L - GLS
> > 74 Grumman AA5
>

[MRQB]

I am no expert but i belive the 0-235 in a 152 is a 2,400 TBO


"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:YBkVb.10199$IF1.4786@fed1read01...
> 2050 SMOH on an 8000hr "training airplane:...
>
> IIRC.. most C-152 engines hit TBO at 2000, so this engine is run out
> already.. should not be any hours left in it..
>
> BT
>
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
> >
> > Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> > think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> > me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> > throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> > pretty nice deal.
> >
> > Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> > to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> > too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> > like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
> >
> > Concerns:
> >
> > - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> > dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> > - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> > FBO bought it new).
> > - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> > FBO.
> >
> > Pros:
> >
> > - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> > - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> > care of squawks.
> >
> > I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> > flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> > break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> > aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> > put a direct dollar figure on.
> >
> > I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> > else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> > comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
> >
> > ~Paul
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article .net>,
Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
>
>Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
>think), SMOH is 2050.

You've got to figure the overhaul cost in. It's half again the cost of
the plane, at least! Call around, get estimates. The cheaper the airframe
the higher the relative value of the avionics and the engine, so get it
right.

But more importantly: Step one (as several have alluded to) is to figure
out what your mission is. THEN pick a plane that fits your mission. The
152 has a pretty limited mission.

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

[Abafon Goula]

You're kidding, right? Okay, instead of the normal candy coated
responses, here's your slap on the back of the head.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 02:41:04 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
>Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
>think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
>me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
>throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
>pretty nice deal.

That' their job. They need to unload a tired old piece of junk that's
already been amortized by their accountant long ago!

>Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
>to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
>too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
>like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.

That's because someone else may want to buy with their head!

>Concerns:
>
>- Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
>dropping another $10K or so within a few years.

10K? Do you want a junk yard engine or do you want an engine you'll
be comfortable on takeoff with? $10K MAY get you a field overhaul if
everything else is in good shape. If the engine is original, it has
8000 hours on it. Don't let anyone bull**** you on this. How are the
cylinders? How is the crank and cam? What about the induction system
and mags? Starter and alternator? Don't fall for that 10K rebuild
crap. It's for cheapskates that don't give a rat's ass about their
own safety.

>- Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
>FBO bought it new).
>- The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
>FBO.

Strike 2 and strike 3. Sounds like you're aware of what you're
getting into.
>
>Pros:
>
>- The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.

To a certain point. The plane is being used as a trainer and the
engine is being abused as part of normal training. And the engine is
only a third of the airplane. What about all the rest of the
twisting, yanking, pulling, banging and slamming on the airframe
itself?

>- The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
>care of squawks.

They could very well be, but I'll bet you don't get into their
finances and don't see the real picture. Nobody except a private
owner will take care of a plane as well as a private owner. Besides,
what's a replacement airplane going to cost them?

>I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
>flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
>break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
>aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
>put a direct dollar figure on.

What you never see are the pop ups that occur when owning. All those
items that you'll authorized to be fixed when you're the main guy.
And, have you figured who you're going to use as a mechanic? As long
as you keep the present one on, you'll never be his number one
concern. If you can't do the work yourself, a simple tire change will
cost you over $400. An oil change can easily cost $250. Need a prop?
Fork over another $2K!
>
>I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
>else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
>comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
>~Paul

Paul, unless you have $35K to **** away, I'd start doing some
research. First and foremost is your mission. If it's Saturday
burgers for the next bunch of years, the 152 is okay. If it's flying
over to grandma's, you're SOL. What you need to do is start looking
at the big picture which includes, resale (you'll want to upgrade in
about a year, guaranteed!), replacement parts availability, AD's,
SB's, insurance costs, hangar, annual costs, equipment, accessories,
etc. As others have stated, when you get the engine taken care of,
you'll have an 8000 hour $35,000 152, and you haven't even mentioned
avionics which could cost you $5000 in a blink of an eye!

My thoughts:
1. Too many hours for any plane. When you're done with it, you'll
need to part it out to recoup any of your investment
2. A trainer all its life is a very, very bad thing.
3. Avionics?
4. You need to get this for $10K or have them supply an overhauled
engine for the $19K to even consider the deal.
5. Run, don't walk from this one.
6. Trade A Plane. See what the world is really like in this
"recovering" economy. $35K buys a whole lot of airplane, including
good 172's if you're a high wing guy. If you're a low winger, the
Cherokees may be more bang for your buck, and more in your price
desires. If you can't come up with the cash, finance. You'll be
doing it anyway, but on your credit card after the bills start coming
in.
7. If you're ready to buy, you'll walk away from dozens before you
find the one you want.
8. Unless you fly regularly (200 hours a year) you'll never
cost-justify the purchase vs. renting, so take that out of the
equation.

[Jay Honeck]

Paul, buying a run-out, warhorse, 2-seat trainer doesn't sound like
something anyone here can recommend.

I went through a similar experience back in '98, only less so. I bought a
4-seat, 150 hp Warrior which we dearly loved, but my kids rapidly outgrew
its useful load. It was also a high-hour trainer, and we ended up fixing
virtually everything on that plane, from stem to stern, at great expense.

We sold it in early '02, and bought a 235 hp Pathfinder. Useful load
solved, lesson learned. Shoulda bought the Pathfinder (or similar) FIRST,
and I would have saved myself at LEAST $10K in the long run.

A 152 is an even worse prospect in this regard. IF it was IFR certified,
and IF you were only using it to build hours toward your commercial, or
something similar, it MIGHT make sense.

If, however, you are like the majority of us here (flying for personal and
business travel), a 152 is not going to do the job. You will end up trying
to sell it in a couple of years, after putting a new engine in it. You will
NOT get your money back.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Carl Orton]

I, too, was looking at 150/152 planes for quite awhile. I *knew* that my
mission would be limited since at 220 lbs, I knew that if I added *any*one,
I'd have only about an hour's worth of fuel.

Then, it finally hit me... I asked the same question of everyone who was
selling a 150/152: "Why are you selling it?" Every non-FBO replied: "I
should have gotten a 4-seater."

Read the writing on the wall...
Carl

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[John Harlow]

Join a flying club.

[CFLav8r]

Paul,
I don't know where you live but after a quick search on
aerotraderonline.com I found many planes in the price range that you
mentioned.
Here is one example of many:
1980 CESSNA 152 II, 4135 TT, 130 SMOH , Very Clean, Low Time,
$28,000, 1998 Paint, 2001 Int. Inspection Status: March 2003 Annual.

And there's even better deals than that if you look.
Try Trade-A-Plane or ASO.com

David (KORL)

[Robert A. Barker]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>

Paul: I bought a 1966 C150 last year for $18,500.
4275 TT 300 SMOH Paint and interior comletly redone in 1975 and flown by
one owner since.The 150
certainly has limited space and limited range but it is
plenty for my wife and I.We are both in our 70's so we
don't worry about space for the kids.

I just wanted to give you an idea of what you can find if you really
look.I think you are going to spend big bucks
just to keep this one going. I love my 150 but I wouldn't
pay that kind of money for a run out one.

Best of luck
Bob Barker N8749S

[Doug]

Get an independent A&P to do a compression check on this engine.
Usually, if the engine doesn't use oil and is making good
compressions, it will go another 500 hours, regardless of how many
hours is on it. Also, see if you can find out the history of rebuilds
on this engine. How long has it been since it had a MAJOR, that is new
crank bearings and new camshaft. If it has a fairly new crank and
camshaft, when it does need work, you may be able to get away with
just a top overhaul. If it has been 4000 hours or more since bottom,
you will need a complete rebuild.

Yes the engine is near TBO, but one thing, if you can run past TBO,
the engine hours are "free" as it has already been depreciated.

Plane prices are very soft right now, you should be able to deal down
a bit.

A 152 is a great little airplane. Have you checked out a Cessna 140?
Taildraggers are a lot of fun and always a challenge to fly.

Paul Folbrecht > wrote in message .net>...
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave wrote:
>
> Did I read that right?

Apparently not.

> A 'slow' 2-place plane with a new engine for $30K

He said about 2/3 of that.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Jim Weir]

Just an old fart's opinion, mindya...

My first airplane was a C-120 with a well-used engine. The deal I cut with the
person I bought it from is that I'd buy it on the condition that he (an A&P)
would mentor me on the overhaul...and sign it off when I got done. I learned
that engine pretty darned well after six months of work. I also learned enough
about engines to sit for the A&P exam myself (I had lots of airframe work time
but almost no aircraft piston engine work).

Sold it for well more than the total cost of acquisition PLUS the parts for the
engine.

Used that money to buy a 170 with a good engine but crappy interior. Spent
another six months on fixup, spruceup, and instrument/radio upgrades. You'd be
SURPRISED how much used good avionics are for sale if you just look.

Sold it for well more than the total cost of acquisition PLUS all the goodies I
hung on it.

Bought a 172, fixed and sold it ... bought a 182...just did a new-limits major
top on the 182 for about $5k plus 6 months...and I'll probably have the 182 for
the rest of my flying career.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, $19.2 for a clapped out 152 is way too much, even with a
year's hangar rent thrown in. When I bought the 120, I had combed tradeaplane
for about 3 months, graphing asking price versus "condition". Condition was
made up of several factors: total time, engine SMOH, interior, paint, and
avionics. Assign each one a "value" and graph value versus asking cost. There
IS a dip in the curve if you just look for it. Buy the one at the dip in the
curve.

Oh, and if you go against everybody else's opinion in this matter and buy it
anyway, do NOT buy it without a dye penetrant inspection of the landing gear
attach fittings. After 8000 hours, students will have beat this particular part
of the airplane to a bloody pulp.

Jim




->>
->> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
->> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
->> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
->> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
->> pretty nice deal.




Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Dave]

>>A 'slow' 2-place plane with a new engine for $30K
>
>
> He said about 2/3 of that.

Not after the engine... read my post again:

"A 'slow' 2-place plane with a new engine for $30K..."

....see the part about 'new engine'?

Dave

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave wrote:
>
> Not after the engine... read my post again:
>
> "A 'slow' 2-place plane with a new engine for $30K..."
>
> ...see the part about 'new engine'?

A, yes. In that case, you're being charitable.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Mark Astley]

Paul,

Take a step back and think about your plan for the next year or two. This
plane isn't going anywhere soon, trust me.

Besides tooling around the local area, and the occasional weekend trip, the
next thing you'll probably want to do is start working on your instrument
rating. For that, you'll need something with most of the avionics already
in it. Adding avionics to this plane is probably not going to be worth the
time and money. Also, for not much more you can get something like a
PA28-140 which will be faster and have two extra seats.

In fact, you might as well give this a quick read:

http://www.avweb.com/news/usedacft/181782-1.html

This article is a good reference for cheap planes for various uses.

Still, if you're bent on this particular plane, at least do it right. If
your seller (i.e. the FBO) won't agree to fly the plane to a nearby mechanic
to have it inspected, then walk away, NOW. This is standard practice when
buying a plane, if you skip the prepurchase you've just broken cardinal rule
number one. Take a look on airnav to find airports and shops around your
area, give one a call and see what they want for a prepurchase, most are
fairly reasonable.

best of luck,
mark

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul

[Mike Spera]

Talk you out of it? Easy. The engine is AT TBO... right now. And $10k is
a dream. Figure $15k+ IF there are no major surprises. Even if you get a
cheaped out OH for $10k and do nothing else (alternator, hoses,
baffling, heat shrouds, muffler, cables, etc.), this bird is still WAY
too expensive. The hangar rent is chump change.

Consider a ready-to-go basic airplane for $35k (Cherokee 140, older
Skyhawk, Grumman, etc.). You will be happier in the end.

Good Luck,
Mike

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
> - Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
> FBO bought it new).
> - The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
> FBO.
>
> Pros:
>
> - The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
> - The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
> care of squawks.
>
> I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
> flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
> break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
> aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
> put a direct dollar figure on.
>
> I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
> else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
> comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>
> ~Paul


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

[BTIZ]

> I am no expert but i belive the 0-235 in a 152 is a 2,400 TBO
>

you could be right... it's been so long since I've flown a straight 152...

most around here have been upgraded to 150HP conversions..

BT

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>
> Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
> me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
> throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
> pretty nice deal.
>
> Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
> to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
> too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
> like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>
> Concerns:
>
> - Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
> dropping another $10K or so within a few years.

Actually, I think an O-200 has a TBO of 2000 hours, so you might be putting
out engine money a lot sooner than you think.

[Dave]

True

Dave

>
> A, yes. In that case, you're being charitable.
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <sprVb.252862$na.415521@attbi_s04>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Paul, buying a run-out, warhorse, 2-seat trainer doesn't sound like
> something anyone here can recommend.
>
> I went through a similar experience back in '98, only less so. I bought
> a
> 4-seat, 150 hp Warrior which we dearly loved, but my kids rapidly outgrew
> its useful load. It was also a high-hour trainer, and we ended up fixing
> virtually everything on that plane, from stem to stern, at great expense.

but what a learning experience. You were in a much better position
to buy that 235! you knew what to look for, and you knew you really
wanted to own an airplane.

--
Bob Noel

[Scott]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
> >
> > Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
> > think), SMOH is 2050.
/snip/
> Actually, I think an O-200 has a TBO of 2000 hours, so you might be
putting
> out engine money a lot sooner than you think.
>
Tom,
Actually, the Continental O-200 has an 1800 hour TBO. The Lycoming O-235,
the only engine Cessna ever put in the 152, can have a TBO of 2400 hours, IF
ONLY GENUINE LYCOMING PARTS are used throughout (their emphasis). Slap one
Superior valve cover gasket on it, and the TBO drops to 2000 hours. Not
that any of these numbers are a concern to the potential buyer, or the FBO.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

[Paul Folbrecht]

Bob.. did I by any chance chat w/you at the EAA museum a couple months ago??

Robert A. Barker wrote:
> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>>
>>Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
>>think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
>>me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
>>throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
>>pretty nice deal.
>>
>
>
> Paul: I bought a 1966 C150 last year for $18,500.
> 4275 TT 300 SMOH Paint and interior comletly redone in 1975 and flown by
> one owner since.The 150
> certainly has limited space and limited range but it is
> plenty for my wife and I.We are both in our 70's so we
> don't worry about space for the kids.
>
> I just wanted to give you an idea of what you can find if you really
> look.I think you are going to spend big bucks
> just to keep this one going. I love my 150 but I wouldn't
> pay that kind of money for a run out one.
>
> Best of luck
> Bob Barker N8749S
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

THANKS a ton for all the responses. This place is great!

I have just read each and every line of each and every one of them and I
can say that at the moment I am certainly considerably less enthused
about this deal- I would say shying away from it, but I will do some
thinking.

I should have said a bit about my mission in the original post. It's
basically time-building with XC mostly within a 100 nm radius or so.
While a four-seater would definitely be nice, most of the time it will
be me & the girlfriend (she flew with me first time today and loved it)
with no real need for two more seats. I had actually been drawn to
150s/152s because of the fuel economy, but on second thought I can just
throttle back a 172 or Cherokee to 55% if I want to, right?

Performance is not a big concern right now. Although, after the flying
I did today (3.7 on the hobbs, fighting 40 knot headwinds part of the
trip), I can at least say I don't want to go any *slower* than a 152
does. :-)

I have to admit that I have not up to this point considered Pipers much
at all. I just certainly start looking that way as well, especially if
they do give more bang for the buck.

I guess the price is not really as good as I'd thought. I was figuring
it as $17,200 with the hangaring which did seem at least competitive.
And the rest of the plane is indeed in good shape. But- to those who
pointed to the fact that it's been a trainer- I hear ya. That does
bother me. I have seen what students do to airplanes and 25 years is a
long time!

In short, I definitely won't be doing anything soon and my feeling is
that I will likely pass this one by, or possibly make them an offer
considerably below asking.

~Paul

[Paul Folbrecht]

> First, just how big are you?
> Are you going to be able to take someone else with you without having
> to take your wallet out of your back pocket to have enough room?

I'm 5'10" and 170lb. (I *am* the FAA standard pilot.) The occupant of
the passanger seat is 130lb.

> Second, are you planning on using the airplane for travel?

Yes.

> Depending on your age, the short legs due to fuel supply won't be a
> problem. If you have a strong bladder, and want to take someone with
> you, you won't be taking much luggage with you. Two people and camping
> gear to Oshkosh? I don't know!!!

Short legs?? I can fly with my pax and light baggage with full fuel and
be under gross (well, very close, or a bit over, but certainly safe)!

With some real baggage I can still get 2 hour legs with reserve which I
could live with. I'm cursed with a weak bladder anyway.

> You already have your certificate, you don't need a trainer.
> Look for a four seater, more options, better resale.

Definitely leaning that way now.

[Paul Folbrecht]

That is correct.


MRQB wrote:

> I am no expert but i belive the 0-235 in a 152 is a 2,400 TBO

[Paul Folbrecht]

Really? 150 hp in a 152- that must be a fun airplane!

BTIZ wrote:

>>I am no expert but i belive the 0-235 in a 152 is a 2,400 TBO
>>
>
>
> you could be right... it's been so long since I've flown a straight 152...
>
> most around here have been upgraded to 150HP conversions..
>
> BT
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Well, a new 235 is about $20K, and I'd thought a major overhaul was
about half that, but apparantly I was wrong given the number of people
in this thread who're telling me I am.

Jeff wrote:

> sounds like that engine is about due a overhaul.
> I dont know what an engine costs for a 152, but you may want to check on
> that so you know about how much your going to have to invest in the new
> engine.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Ya, ya, ya, they're slow! :-) (I felt like I was damn-near friggin
hovering on the way back into Milwaukee today from Appleton, with winds
190 around 45 knots. GPS said 65 knots groundspeed tho.)

Jeff wrote:

> you know, I once heard a guy who said he saw a 152 actually hover over the
> runway.
> kinda windy day, the guy cut power to land and the plane kinda just hovered
> there.
>
> on windy days, there is this 152 up at my airport, the thing looks like a
> kite flapping around on its tiedowns.

[Paul Folbrecht]

> You're kidding, right? Okay, instead of the normal candy coated
> responses, here's your slap on the back of the head.

Where the hell were you when I was thinking about sticking that fork in
the toaster?

> That' their job. They need to unload a tired old piece of junk that's
> already been amortized by their accountant long ago!

You're assuming a bit there.

> 10K? Do you want a junk yard engine or do you want an engine you'll
> be comfortable on takeoff with? $10K MAY get you a field overhaul if

Junkyard.. wait, no. The second one.

> everything else is in good shape. If the engine is original, it has
> 8000 hours on it. Don't let anyone bull**** you on this. How are the
> cylinders? How is the crank and cam? What about the induction system
> and mags? Starter and alternator? Don't fall for that 10K rebuild
> crap. It's for cheapskates that don't give a rat's ass about their
> own safety.

I don't think the engine is the original. I really doubt it. I do know
that they recently replaced the 235 on another 152 with a brand new
(remanufactured) Lycoming.

> To a certain point. The plane is being used as a trainer and the
> engine is being abused as part of normal training. And the engine is
> only a third of the airplane. What about all the rest of the
> twisting, yanking, pulling, banging and slamming on the airframe
> itself?

Yeah, I worry about that. I worry about the landing gear especially.

> They could very well be, but I'll bet you don't get into their
> finances and don't see the real picture. Nobody except a private
> owner will take care of a plane as well as a private owner. Besides,

Makes sense.

> What you never see are the pop ups that occur when owning. All those
> items that you'll authorized to be fixed when you're the main guy.
> And, have you figured who you're going to use as a mechanic? As long
> as you keep the present one on, you'll never be his number one
> concern. If you can't do the work yourself, a simple tire change will
> cost you over $400. An oil change can easily cost $250. Need a prop?
> Fork over another $2K!

$250 for an oil change?! Now, that's something I can legally do myself-
why on earth would I pay that for it.

> Paul, unless you have $35K to **** away, I'd start doing some
> research. First and foremost is your mission. If it's Saturday
> burgers for the next bunch of years, the 152 is okay. If it's flying

It pretty much is.

> over to grandma's, you're SOL. What you need to do is start looking
> at the big picture which includes, resale (you'll want to upgrade in
> about a year, guaranteed!), replacement parts availability, AD's,
> SB's, insurance costs, hangar, annual costs, equipment, accessories,
> etc. As others have stated, when you get the engine taken care of,
> you'll have an 8000 hour $35,000 152, and you haven't even mentioned
> avionics which could cost you $5000 in a blink of an eye!
>
> My thoughts:
> 1. Too many hours for any plane. When you're done with it, you'll
> need to part it out to recoup any of your investment
> 2. A trainer all its life is a very, very bad thing.
> 3. Avionics?
> 4. You need to get this for $10K or have them supply an overhauled
> engine for the $19K to even consider the deal.
> 5. Run, don't walk from this one.
> 6. Trade A Plane. See what the world is really like in this
> "recovering" economy. $35K buys a whole lot of airplane, including
> good 172's if you're a high wing guy. If you're a low winger, the
> Cherokees may be more bang for your buck, and more in your price
> desires. If you can't come up with the cash, finance. You'll be
> doing it anyway, but on your credit card after the bills start coming
> in.
> 7. If you're ready to buy, you'll walk away from dozens before you
> find the one you want.
> 8. Unless you fly regularly (200 hours a year) you'll never
> cost-justify the purchase vs. renting, so take that out of the
> equation.

Your advice is being considered, sir. As to your last point- I'm a bit
curious about that as I normally see a lower number brandied about as
the break-even.

>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Expect for the TT figure, that aircraft looks very comparable to the one
under discussion. You're at $28K with a new engine- mine would be much
higher than that. But, then again, it would be higher. I guess I was
somewhat mistaken about the cost of overhaul which is obviously a major
miscalulation.

CFLav8r wrote:

> Paul,
> I don't know where you live but after a quick search on
> aerotraderonline.com I found many planes in the price range that you
> mentioned.
> Here is one example of many:
> 1980 CESSNA 152 II, 4135 TT, 130 SMOH , Very Clean, Low Time,
> $28,000, 1998 Paint, 2001 Int. Inspection Status: March 2003 Annual.
>
> And there's even better deals than that if you look.
> Try Trade-A-Plane or ASO.com
>
> David (KORL)
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Don't think I care for the challenge of a taildragger at the moment. I
think that 140 would have been a bear to handle on the icy runways I
dealt with today, for instance.

> A 152 is a great little airplane. Have you checked out a Cessna 140?
> Taildraggers are a lot of fun and always a challenge to fly.
>
> Paul Folbrecht > wrote in message .net>...
>
>>Me: 7x hour recently licenced PP-SEL.
>>
>>Plane: '79 C152 being sold by my FBO for $19,200. TT is around 8000 (I
>>think), SMOH is 2050. Annual just done. This looks like an Ok deal to
>>me when comparing to like models, but the clincher is that they are
>>throwing in one year of hangering as well. That makes it look like a
>>pretty nice deal.
>>
>>Ideally I'd like to go into this with a partner but I haven't been able
>>to find one and I do honestly think they'll unload this aircraft before
>>too long. Not sure if the price or terms are negotiable but I would
>>like to try to squeeze a second year of hangaring out of them.
>>
>>Concerns:
>>
>>- Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
>>dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
>>- Plane has been abused by students (including me) for 25 years now (the
>>FBO bought it new).
>>- The only A&Ps I know that I could have take a look at it work for this
>>FBO.
>>
>>Pros:
>>
>>- The plane flies a lot; I know that's good for the engine.
>>- The FBO is reputable and I know they do their maintenance and take
>>care of squawks.
>>
>>I'm torn in general on renting vs. owning right now. I anticipate
>>flying about 100 hours/year- by my calculations that's right around the
>>break-even point. However, knowing you're always going to have an
>>aircraft available to fly, even on short notice, is something you can't
>>put a direct dollar figure on.
>>
>>I know this issue in general has been beat to death more than anything
>>else here, and I've read a lot of the old threads, but any and all
>>comments welcome. I'm much newer at all this than most of you here.
>>
>>~Paul

[Roy Smith]

Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
> Yeah, I worry about that. I worry about the landing gear especially.

I'm reasonably sure Cessna designed the landing gear on the 152 to be
strong enough to support a 747.

[Paul Folbrecht]

> I don't mean to sound negative.... I'm a 150 driver, myself. However,
> you have to consider the aircraft just for what it is and accept all
> of the shortcomings of a trainer ... along with the benefits. The
> price seems rather high to me since I just bought my 1968 4600 hr 150
> for under 18K with a 265 hour engine, new paint, 4 year old interior,
> long range tanks, and solid (but not spectacular) dual radios that
> meet a little above minimum IFR standards.

That sounds like a helluva deal to me. I'd buy that plane in a hurry.

> Pricing on 150-152s seems to be terribly regional and you may have to
> go farther afield if you decide this is the type of aircraft for you.

Certainly not a problem for me. (One good thing about airplanes is that
they fly so they're easy to get from one point to another.)

> Personally, I prefer the 150 as it is perfectly happy on a 87 octane
> diet... but in an event, IMHO, these are some of the most affordable
> aircraft obtainable.... if you can live with their shortcomings.

I don't mind 150s but they do seem pretty anemic at gross on a hot day.
My first few hours were in one, then I changed schools.

>

[Paul Folbrecht]

No, since a 152 has a Lycoming O-235.

>>- Engine has only a few hundred hours till TBO. I know that means
>>dropping another $10K or so within a few years.
>
>
> Actually, I think an O-200 has a TBO of 2000 hours, so you might be putting
> out engine money a lot sooner than you think.
>
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

There are quite a few NTSBs about collapsed nosegears. But I guess
you're talking mainly about the mains. (No pun intended.. ugh.)

Roy Smith wrote:

> Paul Folbrecht > wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I worry about that. I worry about the landing gear especially.
>
>
> I'm reasonably sure Cessna designed the landing gear on the 152 to be
> strong enough to support a 747.

[Paul Folbrecht]

I meant to say "mine would be NOT much higher than that".

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> Expect for the TT figure, that aircraft looks very comparable to the one
> under discussion. You're at $28K with a new engine- mine would be much
> higher than that. But, then again, it would be higher. I guess I was

[Jeff]

a 2000 hr engine is worn out also.
who do you think flying schools sell their worn out planes to...students :)


MRQB wrote:

> Most rentals are worn out or very close to being worn out! Ware do you think
> them worn out plane come from?
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I would probably go with a rental instead of a slow old worn out plane.
> >
> >
> > > (but if I had to choose between a 152 and
> > > no plane at all, I would go with the 152... better a slow plane than no
> > > plane).
> > >
> > > Dave
> > > N9560L - GLS
> > > 74 Grumman AA5
> >

[Jeff]

65 kts GS ....
talk about a long trip :)
isnt that about the sped you rotate at ?

Paul Folbrecht wrote:

> Ya, ya, ya, they're slow! :-) (I felt like I was damn-near friggin
> hovering on the way back into Milwaukee today from Appleton, with winds
> 190 around 45 knots. GPS said 65 knots groundspeed tho.)
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > you know, I once heard a guy who said he saw a 152 actually hover over the
> > runway.
> > kinda windy day, the guy cut power to land and the plane kinda just hovered
> > there.
> >
> > on windy days, there is this 152 up at my airport, the thing looks like a
> > kite flapping around on its tiedowns.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> I don't think the engine is the original. I really doubt it.

Well, then - check the engine logbook. It's separate from the aircraft log.
Many flight schools that have several of the same type of plane will buy a
spare engine and swap engines out at TBO to minimize downtime. The engine in
there is unlikely to be the original, but it still may be pretty high time
and have been rebuilt several times already.

> Yeah, I worry about that. I worry about the landing gear especially.

Next time you're out there, take a look under the plane. If the big rivets
where the main gear legs attach have black outlines, leave it. This is known
as "weeping" and usually indicates that things are flexing a bit too much in
that area. Even if it passes this exam, I would seriously consider following
Jim Weir's advice.

> Your advice is being considered, sir. As to your last point- I'm a bit
> curious about that as I normally see a lower number brandied about as
> the break-even.

Break-even is about 100 hours a year for the typical costs. If you factor in the
cost of money, as some people advise, and if you hangar the aircraft, it tends to
be closer to 200 hours. More in areas with high hangar rents.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> I guess I was
> somewhat mistaken about the cost of overhaul which is obviously a major
> miscalulation.

Look in Trade-A-Plane for ads listing rebuilt engines. Add about $2,000 for the
shop labor to do the swap and perhaps $200 for shipping expenses to get the new
one to you and return yours. That will at least give you an estimate.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Chris Hoffmann]

You ain't kidding about the winds. They were from 250 when I was planning at
around 3 o'clock - by 3:30 they'd spun round to 200. Statrted double
checking my planning when it was obvious we were heading northwest instead
of northeast. :) 138 kts out - 78 kts back. Ouch.



"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Ya, ya, ya, they're slow! :-) (I felt like I was damn-near friggin
> hovering on the way back into Milwaukee today from Appleton, with winds
> 190 around 45 knots. GPS said 65 knots groundspeed tho.)
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > you know, I once heard a guy who said he saw a 152 actually hover over
the
> > runway.
> > kinda windy day, the guy cut power to land and the plane kinda just
hovered
> > there.
> >
> > on windy days, there is this 152 up at my airport, the thing looks like
a
> > kite flapping around on its tiedowns.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Yeah, the winds worked against me both ways. A bit annoying. I am
totally going to write a complaint letter to the NWS.

So was this one of your XCs? Dual?


Chris Hoffmann wrote:

> You ain't kidding about the winds. They were from 250 when I was planning at
> around 3 o'clock - by 3:30 they'd spun round to 200. Statrted double
> checking my planning when it was obvious we were heading northwest instead
> of northeast. :) 138 kts out - 78 kts back. Ouch.

[Chris Hoffmann]

This was sort of a "refresher" - I did both duals back in October, so we're
just catching up a bit before I take the phase check. Planned out a flight
to Manitowoc, but we didn't go much past West Bend. With the low ceilings
and winds, I was just fine with that. :)
Heh, SVFR practice? Not quite...


"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Yeah, the winds worked against me both ways. A bit annoying. I am
> totally going to write a complaint letter to the NWS.
>
> So was this one of your XCs? Dual?
>
>
> Chris Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > You ain't kidding about the winds. They were from 250 when I was
planning at
> > around 3 o'clock - by 3:30 they'd spun round to 200. Statrted double
> > checking my planning when it was obvious we were heading northwest
instead
> > of northeast. :) 138 kts out - 78 kts back. Ouch.

[Abafon Goula]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:17:20 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>> 8. Unless you fly regularly (200 hours a year) you'll never
>> cost-justify the purchase vs. renting, so take that out of the
>> equation.
>
>Your advice is being considered, sir. As to your last point- I'm a bit
>curious about that as I normally see a lower number brandied about as
>the break-even.

All those hidden pop-up things that can't be put down on paper. And
don't think for one minute you'll be satisfied once you own it.
You'll want to make it the best damn airplane in the GA fleet!

And don't stick a fork in the toaster.

[Jay Honeck]

> You ain't kidding about the winds. They were from 250 when I was planning
at
> around 3 o'clock - by 3:30 they'd spun round to 200. Statrted double
> checking my planning when it was obvious we were heading northwest instead
> of northeast. :) 138 kts out - 78 kts back. Ouch.

We flew back from WI yesterday. Winds aloft 230 at 55.

Ground speed on the GPS: 88 knots.

Our plane normally does 140 knots.

It was a loooong flight... :-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim]

If you're interested in 150's, send me an email. I've got a two pretty good
leads here in Central Wis.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

[Robert A. Barker]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Bob.. did I by any chance chat w/you at the EAA museum a couple months
ago??
>

Nope I wasn't there.

Bob

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:10:04 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>Well, a new 235 is about $20K, and I'd thought a major overhaul was
>about half that, but apparantly I was wrong given the number of people
>in this thread who're telling me I am.
>
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> sounds like that engine is about due a overhaul.
>> I dont know what an engine costs for a 152, but you may want to check on
>> that so you know about how much your going to have to invest in the new
>> engine.

Factoryengines.com lists O-235s for 15.2k, 17.9k, and 22.5k (overhaul,
remanufactured, and new respectively). Plus, you will have install
costs and have accessories to overhaul or replace. You could hit $20k
easily for an installed overhauled engine.

-Nathan

[Jim Weir]

If fuel economy is your goal, then let me do some math for you.

Let's presume you want to put, oh, say 500 hours on this rascal before you trade
up. Let's also presume you go at 6 gallons/hour. This means that in 500 hours
you will burn about 3000 gallons of fuel.

In a 150, you can burn autogas at $1.50 a gallon for a total cost of $4500.

In a 152 you have to burn 100(LL) at $2.50 a gallon for a total cost of $7500.

Factor the extra $3 grand into your equation.

Jim


Paul Folbrecht >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

I had actually been drawn to
->150s/152s because of the fuel economy

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Jim Weir]

About To Be New Plane Owner:

HEAR THIS. HEAR THIS if I have to repeat it ten thousand times. You can
legally DO ANYTHING yourself. **ANYTHING**. You just can't sign it off. If
you can find a mechanic willing to oversee your work, you can do ANYTHING.

Got it?

Jim


Paul Folbrecht >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


->
->$250 for an oil change?! Now, that's something I can legally do myself-
->why on earth would I pay that for it.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jim Weir wrote:
>
> In a 152 you have to burn 100(LL) at $2.50 a gallon for a total cost of $7500.

Or you can get an auto gas STC from either Petersen or the EAA. The EAA page notes
that modifications to the engine are required; even so, it's going to be cheaper
than running avgas.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message ...

> In a 152 you have to burn 100(LL) at $2.50 a gallon for a total cost of $7500.
>
I believe both the EAA and Petersen have the STC for the 152/O-235. I believe
Petersen requires 91 Octane in this application.

[FUji]

You seem to have tunnel vision on this particular bird. That's normal
considering you did your training there. We believe that the people that
trained us and gave us our start will look out for us. Don't count on it.

The voice of experience in the group says buy a faster four seater, but how
do you explain all the homebuilts that are 80% two seaters, being the
fastest growing segment of GA? Statistics show that most flying is done
solo. Yes, solo. Ask the four seat owners how often they have people in the
back. Extra cargo is nice, but how much more are you willing to pay for it?
For once or twice a year, you could rent something bigger. There are a lot
of us that have no intention of getting an instrument rating or commercial
ticket, and couldn't give a rat's ass about an IFR stack. We just want to
fly on the cheap while looking out the windows, and sometimes a two seat
trainer fits that mission.

If we compare a 152 to a 150, the 152 has a better engine (Lycoming) and
slightly better performance. However, the 150 has cheaper parts cost and a
lower purchase price giving a lower TCO. I find 152's overpriced at the
best of times and usually in worse shape than the 150's. Advantage, 150.

Other under-valued planes to look at would be the Grumman AA1, Beech
Musketeer (parts are expensive but rarely needed), Piper Tri-Pacer or Colt
(fabric so hangar recommended), Cherokee (even a two seater), or even a low
time Tomahawk (bad rep by people who've never flown them). Good examples of
all of these can be found for under 25K.

My advise would be to sit back, let this one go, leave the nest (FBO), and
check the classifieds. Not just the web based ones either. A lot of
aviation is still run by old timers that have no interest in computers at
all, so you'd be missing a large portion of possible deals. So when you go
for that next $100 hamburger, ask around about what's for sale.

[Jay Honeck]

> > 4-seat, 150 hp Warrior which we dearly loved, but my kids rapidly
outgrew
> > its useful load. It was also a high-hour trainer, and we ended up
fixing
> > virtually everything on that plane, from stem to stern, at great
expense.
>
> but what a learning experience. You were in a much better position
> to buy that 235! you knew what to look for, and you knew you really
> wanted to own an airplane.

True. I suppose, if it had gone the other way, and I had decided that I
HATED owning my own plane (or couldn't afford it), it would have been good
to just quit after the Warrior and move on...

So, there are always two sides to every coin.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <sprVb.252862$na.415521@attbi_s04>, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> > Paul, buying a run-out, warhorse, 2-seat trainer doesn't sound like
> > something anyone here can recommend.
> >
> > I went through a similar experience back in '98, only less so. I bought
> > a
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[BTIZ]

it's a gas... really.. on turbulent days you have to pull the power way back
to keep the cruise speed out of the yellow..

but on hot days 90F and up.. you appreciate the available power to get up
and out and high..

BT

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Really? 150 hp in a 152- that must be a fun airplane!
>
> BTIZ wrote:
>
> >>I am no expert but i belive the 0-235 in a 152 is a 2,400 TBO
> >>
> >
> >
> > you could be right... it's been so long since I've flown a straight
152...
> >
> > most around here have been upgraded to 150HP conversions..
> >
> > BT
> >
> >

[Jim Weir]

To all of you who were touting this feller into a four-place...

Three or four gallons an hour more..
Annuals on four seats instead of two...
Two more jugs to get parts for at overhaul...
Tires wear out faster landing at 2300# than at 1650#..
Prop is about $2k more...
Nowhere NEAR as cozy as a two-seater...
And folks at Oshkosh say, "You came across country in THAT???"

(P.S. If you find a REALLY OLD 150 you get to park in classic parking at
Oshkosh...Margie, what's this year's cutoff date of manufacture?

Jim



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Paul Folbrecht]

So that $15.2K is for a remanufactured engine or to remanufacture _your_
engine?? Cause I thought doing the latter (tearing it down and
replacing most of the parts) was the 'usual' method, and I thought (had
been told) that around $10K for everything for a 235 was about right.
(No, not told by the FBO that's selling the plane.)

> Factoryengines.com lists O-235s for 15.2k, 17.9k, and 22.5k (overhaul,
> remanufactured, and new respectively). Plus, you will have install
> costs and have accessories to overhaul or replace. You could hit $20k
> easily for an installed overhauled engine.
>
> -Nathan
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

Wow, Chris, we could've ended up there together. :-) MTW is where we
went for lunch yesterday. And, as for the weather, I can't say you were
being overly cautious, cause it was indeed MVFR at times. Well,
ATW->MTW turned out to be not bad (around 6 miles in haze most of the
way, cig about 2500agl), but back to MKE I hit several bad spots. I had
to go to 1500agl over OSH and considered landing right there for a
moment, but it got better shortly thereafter. (This was about 4PM.)

Do run up there sometime and visit Joe's, across from the airport. Well
worth it.

~Paul

Chris Hoffmann wrote:

> This was sort of a "refresher" - I did both duals back in October, so we're
> just catching up a bit before I take the phase check. Planned out a flight
> to Manitowoc, but we didn't go much past West Bend. With the low ceilings
> and winds, I was just fine with that. :)
> Heh, SVFR practice? Not quite...>

[Paul Folbrecht]

I bet most here were well aware of that, but I think I just learned
something important. Why the hell isn't that pointed out in the PPL
study materials? The implication from what I'd read is definitely that
you can only PERFORM "basic maintenance" as a PP.

Jim Weir wrote:

> About To Be New Plane Owner:
>
> HEAR THIS. HEAR THIS if I have to repeat it ten thousand times. You can
> legally DO ANYTHING yourself. **ANYTHING**. You just can't sign it off. If
> you can find a mechanic willing to oversee your work, you can do ANYTHING.
>
> Got it?
>
> Jim

[Paul Folbrecht]

Ah. Talked to a gent about your age who had just bought a 150 for he &
the wife. First name was Bob and if the last wasn't Barker it was
something close to that.

Robert A. Barker wrote:

> "Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>Bob.. did I by any chance chat w/you at the EAA museum a couple months
>
> ago??
>
>
> Nope I wasn't there.
>
> Bob
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

But I can't seem to get autogas at most airports.

Jim Weir wrote:

> If fuel economy is your goal, then let me do some math for you.
>
> Let's presume you want to put, oh, say 500 hours on this rascal before you trade
> up. Let's also presume you go at 6 gallons/hour. This means that in 500 hours
> you will burn about 3000 gallons of fuel.
>
> In a 150, you can burn autogas at $1.50 a gallon for a total cost of $4500.
>
> In a 152 you have to burn 100(LL) at $2.50 a gallon for a total cost of $7500.
>
> Factor the extra $3 grand into your equation.
>
> Jim
>
>
> Paul Folbrecht >
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> I had actually been drawn to
> ->150s/152s because of the fuel economy
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:43:34 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:

>So that $15.2K is for a remanufactured engine or to remanufacture _your_
>engine?? Cause I thought doing the latter (tearing it down and
>replacing most of the parts) was the 'usual' method, and I thought (had
>been told) that around $10K for everything for a 235 was about right.
>(No, not told by the FBO that's selling the plane.)
>
>> Factoryengines.com lists O-235s for 15.2k, 17.9k, and 22.5k (overhaul,
>> remanufactured, and new respectively). Plus, you will have install
>> costs and have accessories to overhaul or replace. You could hit $20k
>> easily for an installed overhauled engine.

Factoryengines usually has pretty good prices, but I was surprised
about the $15k for a O-235 overhaul. I have a O-360 in my Cherokee,
and its overhaul is only $13.8k.

Regarding the differences between overhauls - I'm not an expert at
this by any means, but here's my take...

Overhauled engine: Engine parts are replaced or reworked as necessary
to be within overhaul limits. You need to be careful about what type
of overhaul is specified. There are two main kinds of overhauls,
service limits, and new limits. Service limits are the absolute
minimums as specified by the engine manufacturer (a bad idea in my
opinion). There are also overhauls to new limits, ie the components
of the engine have the same tolerances as a new engine. Either way,
the engine comes out with the same logbook, and total time is not
reset. It is however 0 hours since major overhaul.

Blueprinted engines: There are speciality shops that match/balance
components to provide a smoother and more powerful engine. These
typically cost more than a regular overhaul, and perhaps more than a
remanufactured engine. Regardless, the engine will not be zero timed.
It is essentially an overhaul to super-specifications.

Remanufactured. Engine components are reworked/replaced to new
limits. Engine is issued a new logbook and is 0 TT / 0 SMOH. Many
question the value of the reman besides having a zerotimed logbook.

New engine: This the easy one. It is brand new from Lycoming. O TT,
0 TSMOH.

Avweb has a good article on engine overhauls:
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182826-1.html

-Nathan

[Jim Weir]

Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, come in here and teach this foundling about the Grapes of
Wrath.

Jim



Paul Folbrecht >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->But I can't seem to get autogas at most airports.



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> So that $15.2K is for a remanufactured engine or to remanufacture _your_
> engine?? Cause I thought doing the latter (tearing it down and
> replacing most of the parts) was the 'usual' method, and I thought (had
> been told) that around $10K for everything for a 235 was about right.

That outfit will sell you an overhauled engine for $15.2K. You will have to
remove yours, install theirs, and send them yours as a "core". You re-use all the
old peripherals, such as the carb, alternator, etc.. There are lots of extra
goodies that you should replace at this time, such as the cooling baffle material.

Now, an overhauled engine is one in which the engine is disassembled, every part
is checked to make sure it meets the specs for *return to service*, and the engine
is put back together with any part that doesn't meet those specs replaced with one
that is *serviceable*. A remanufactured engine is one in which every part meets the
specs for a *new* part, not just a *serviceable* one. A new engine is just that.

What you're describing is generally referred to as a "field overhaul". There are
pluses and minuses to doing it this way. If the mech is good and you opt for
replacing unserviceable parts with new ones, you can wind up with a better engine
than swapping for a major shop overhauled engine, but if you do that, it'll likely
cost you in the 15K range anyway.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Chris Hoffmann]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Wow, Chris, we could've ended up there together. :-) MTW is where we
> went for lunch yesterday.

Yeah, but my instructor would never stop for lunch... :(

And, as for the weather, I can't say you were
> being overly cautious, cause it was indeed MVFR at times. Well,
> ATW->MTW turned out to be not bad (around 6 miles in haze most of the
> way, cig about 2500agl), but back to MKE I hit several bad spots. I had
> to go to 1500agl over OSH and considered landing right there for a
> moment, but it got better shortly thereafter. (This was about 4PM.)

Hmm.. We started out around 4, and the ceilings were already down to 1200' -
we didn't get more than 1000' agl the entire flight. (well, we didn't really
try to, either, just held 2000 MSL.)
6 miles visibility sure ain't much at that height. Got a nice spooky view
of Holy Hill in the haze though.
>
> Do run up there sometime and visit Joe's, across from the airport. Well
> worth it.
>
> ~Paul

Will have to do that - on my SOLO x-country. :P

[SeeAndAvoid]

Have you even asked an insurance company for a quote?
That might be a sobering experience with your hours. Also, if financed, the
bank wont just finance any amount, they'll figure a value they'll work off
and if the sellers asking too much, you'll come up with the difference.

I almost did something like this right after I got my CFI, a C152, about
half this much (but in 1983), but I was going to have it in a flying club
and instruct in it. Even then I had doubts and didnt, and glad I didnt as
the flying industry started sliding right after that.

You may be average FAA size NOW, don't mean you'll stay that way, or your
wife/girlfriend/friends. Kind of like buying a computer, reach a little
further than you think you need NOW and you'll probably thank yourself
later.

As far as this hangar throw-in, see how much they'd lower the price if
that's deleted. It's a trainer, it's probably fairly beat-up, being outside
won't hurt it much more. I'm betting they wont lower the price at all. If
not, then just turn and leave - it's a scam.

And as far as the advice on a four seater, keep in mind most of the ones
mentioned really are 2+2's. More room to recline back, throw a few things
in the back, not overlap shoulders too much with the person on the right
side, etc. But at least with those you can work towards your IFR, and build
up hours in something a little faster and more comfortable.

My advice: RENT. Buying was the best thing I ever did, but it doesnt work
for every situation.

Chris

[Paul Folbrecht]

> Have you even asked an insurance company for a quote?

Of course. Do you think I'm just some recently licensed pilot who
thought about buying the first airplane he saw for sale and asked a
bunch of people on the Internet if he should do it or not?

AOPA quoted me a bit under $600 for hull & liability which was much
lower than I was expecting.

> That might be a sobering experience with your hours. Also, if financed, the
> bank wont just finance any amount, they'll figure a value they'll work off
> and if the sellers asking too much, you'll come up with the difference.

If I bought it I'd be paying cash.

> You may be average FAA size NOW, don't mean you'll stay that way, or your

I pretty much plan on it. Bodybuilding/fitness is another interest of
mine. I'm sure as heck not gonna gain 40lb of blubber in the next year
or two, anyway.

> wife/girlfriend/friends. Kind of like buying a computer, reach a little
> further than you think you need NOW and you'll probably thank yourself
> later.

That strategy definitely works well for computers.

> As far as this hangar throw-in, see how much they'd lower the price if
> that's deleted. It's a trainer, it's probably fairly beat-up, being outside
> won't hurt it much more. I'm betting they wont lower the price at all. If
> not, then just turn and leave - it's a scam.

It actually looks surprisingly good. They've had it in the hangar the
last couple times I've been there working on it and the exterior does
look really good.

> And as far as the advice on a four seater, keep in mind most of the ones
> mentioned really are 2+2's. More room to recline back, throw a few things
> in the back, not overlap shoulders too much with the person on the right
> side, etc. But at least with those you can work towards your IFR, and build
> up hours in something a little faster and more comfortable.

The 2-seat vs. 4-seat question is one of the most important for me right
now. And I am heavily leaning (still) towards the former. 4 seats
would be very nice, indeed, when I want them, but I need to be pragmatic
here. I don't need them and won't use them most of the time.

Thanks for the comments.

~Paul

>
> My advice: RENT. Buying was the best thing I ever did, but it doesnt work
> for every situation.
>
> Chris
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

> If we compare a 152 to a 150, the 152 has a better engine (Lycoming) and
> slightly better performance. However, the 150 has cheaper parts cost and a
> lower purchase price giving a lower TCO. I find 152's overpriced at the
> best of times and usually in worse shape than the 150's. Advantage, 150.

I priced some 150s on aerotrader and you're sure as heck right. As a
matter of fact I think right now a 150 might be my best bet.


> Other under-valued planes to look at would be the Grumman AA1, Beech
> Musketeer (parts are expensive but rarely needed), Piper Tri-Pacer or Colt
> (fabric so hangar recommended), Cherokee (even a two seater), or even a low
> time Tomahawk (bad rep by people who've never flown them). Good examples of
> all of these can be found for under 25K.
>
> My advise would be to sit back, let this one go, leave the nest (FBO), and
> check the classifieds. Not just the web based ones either. A lot of
> aviation is still run by old timers that have no interest in computers at
> all, so you'd be missing a large portion of possible deals. So when you go
> for that next $100 hamburger, ask around about what's for sale.
>
>

[Paul Folbrecht]

>>being overly cautious, cause it was indeed MVFR at times. Well,
>>ATW->MTW turned out to be not bad (around 6 miles in haze most of the
>>way, cig about 2500agl), but back to MKE I hit several bad spots. I had
>>to go to 1500agl over OSH and considered landing right there for a
>>moment, but it got better shortly thereafter. (This was about 4PM.)
>
>
> Hmm.. We started out around 4, and the ceilings were already down to 1200' -
> we didn't get more than 1000' agl the entire flight. (well, we didn't really
> try to, either, just held 2000 MSL.)
> 6 miles visibility sure ain't much at that height. Got a nice spooky view
> of Holy Hill in the haze though.

Are you accusing me of scud-running just two weeks after getting my
license?! Damnit.. you're right. The cigs were low. Hey, I got
briefings out of both Timmerman and Appleton and did NOT get "VFR not
recommended" either time (I would never not heed such a warning- never,
at this stage of experience, anyway). And both times they told me again
things looked to be "clearing up" which they most certainly did not.

I have actually been thinking about that whole experience quite a bit.
I always thought briefers would be erring on the side of caution but not
this time- sometimes the weather just does not do what's expected. Of
course all those low cigs and haze were completely unforecast for the
whole day. It was supposed to be clear below 12,000' as of midnight
Saturday. But the wind was as forecast.

>
>>Do run up there sometime and visit Joe's, across from the airport. Well
>>worth it.
>>
>>~Paul
>
>
> Will have to do that - on my SOLO x-country. :P
>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> ... and the exterior does look really good.

My personal nickname for my old 150 was "The Whore", because it was painted up
real pretty but had been heavily used.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Two LOLs in a row here.. G.R., you're as funny as the Onion.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>>... and the exterior does look really good.
>
>
> My personal nickname for my old 150 was "The Whore", because it was painted up
> real pretty but had been heavily used.
>
> George Patterson
> A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
> you look forward to the trip.

[Paul Folbrecht]

Jim, I emailed you yesterday morning- did you get it?

Jim wrote:

> If you're interested in 150's, send me an email. I've got a two pretty good
> leads here in Central Wis.

[Chris Hoffmann]

"Paul Folbrecht" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> I have actually been thinking about that whole experience quite a bit.
> I always thought briefers would be erring on the side of caution but not
> this time- sometimes the weather just does not do what's expected. Of
> course all those low cigs and haze were completely unforecast for the
> whole day. It was supposed to be clear below 12,000' as of midnight
> Saturday. But the wind was as forecast.

You know, before today it never even occured to me to check the outlook the
night before or whatever. I've always just gotten the current wx an hour
before the flight and maybe made a cursory check of the forecast for later
in the day. But after seeing how much I missed between the time I planned
the flight to when my instructor and I sat down together to look at the
weather more closely, it made a big impression on me to not rely on just a
snapshot, but to get a bigger picture of the weather unfolding.

That said, as you put it, those conditions that day weren't really forecast
beforehand. The briefers were probably just as surprised as everyone else.
Kinda par for the course in Wisconsin, though. If you want the weather to
change, just wait a few minutes....

[Abafon Goula]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:49:31 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
> wrote:


>The 2-seat vs. 4-seat question is one of the most important for me right
>now. And I am heavily leaning (still) towards the former. 4 seats
>would be very nice, indeed, when I want them, but I need to be pragmatic
>here. I don't need them and won't use them most of the time.
>
>Thanks for the comments.
>
>~Paul
>
Nobody does.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> >
> > ... and the exterior does look really good.
>
> My personal nickname for my old 150 was "The Whore", because it was
painted up
> real pretty but had been heavily used.
>
One of those where "You don't want to put your key in THAT ignition"?

[Javier Henderson]

Paul Folbrecht > writes:

> I bet most here were well aware of that, but I think I just learned
> something important. Why the hell isn't that pointed out in the PPL
> study materials? The implication from what I'd read is definitely
> that you can only PERFORM "basic maintenance" as a PP.

Probably because most instructors aren't airplane owners.

I know that there are frequent contributors here who are airplane
owners and CFI's, so I'm sure I'll hear about it, but I'm talking
in general, run of the mill FBO's, your average rental outfit, and
so on.

-jav