Nubie Question: New or Used for New Pilot?

[picopirate]

If I were to take out one of those 20 yr financing plans I could afford up
to $200k. Not saying I want to, just saying I could (and live on soup an
romin noodles for a few years). Okay it would not be that bad but it would
be tighter than I would like. Anyway, if I were to decide to get a plane,
whats the best route new or used? It seems like if I want any type of
saving to justify going with a used aircraft, I have to get something at
least 20 years old. What type of things would I want to consider if buying
something 20 yrs old?

I am looking for something to take me on extended weekend trips to my family
who live around 700 miles away and I would like something that holds 4
adults in some level of comfort for shorter 200 mile trips. Considering my
use is it better to get something older that wont depreciate as much or
something new that will be more reliable and have new avionics/GPS?

I dont plan to do anything for about another year (saving up for down
payment), but I jsut wanted to get an idea on where to focus a majority of
my efforts. Granted, Ill keep all options open but I just dont want to
waste time looking at something thats not right for me.

Thanks,
Pico

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
picopirate > wrote:
>If I were to take out one of those 20 yr financing plans I could afford up
>to $200k.

The spread between old and new aircraft prices is such that $200k means
you can have just about any used airplane you want and pretty much no new
airplane that will fit your mission.

You're on the right track -- you've defined your mission and budget. Now
you just need to work on flying various types to see what you like.

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

[Dan Luke]

"picopirate" wrote:
> I am looking for something to take me on extended weekend
> trips to my family who live around 700 miles away and I
> would like something that holds 4 adults in some level of
> comfort for shorter 200 mile trips.

A Cessna 182 fits those missions.

> Considering my use is it better to get something older that
> wont depreciate as much or something new that will be
> more reliable and have new avionics/GPS?
> I dont plan to do anything for about another year
> (saving up for down payment),

Judging by the fact that you must finance the plane and save for a down
payment, I'd say you better make sure the monthly notes on the plane are
low enough so that you can actually afford to fly it. A 182 flown fifty
hours/year will probably cost you well over $100/hour, all costs
considered.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stu Gotts]

Remember that the price of a new plane will take a big hit the first
year (just like a new car). If you're considering owning the aircraft
for 20 years then you should look at a good 1 or 2 year old pre owned
model.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 04:41:39 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>In article >,
>picopirate > wrote:
>>If I were to take out one of those 20 yr financing plans I could afford up
>>to $200k.
>
>The spread between old and new aircraft prices is such that $200k means
>you can have just about any used airplane you want and pretty much no new
>airplane that will fit your mission.
>
>You're on the right track -- you've defined your mission and budget. Now
>you just need to work on flying various types to see what you like.

[C J Campbell]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:6Gngc.17392$yD1.42379@attbi_s54...
> In article >,
> picopirate > wrote:
> >If I were to take out one of those 20 yr financing plans I could afford
up
> >to $200k.
>
> The spread between old and new aircraft prices is such that $200k means
> you can have just about any used airplane you want and pretty much no new
> airplane that will fit your mission.
>

A new Cessna 172 would fit his mission quite well and it would cost less
than $200K. So would a Diamond.

[C J Campbell]

Among new airplanes you would have a choice of the Cessna 172S or a Diamond.
These planes will fit your mission profile quite well. The Diamond has a
wider cockpit than the Cessna.

Airplanes depreciate quite a lot the first three to five years then
gradually start to increase in value. Exceptions would be airplanes like the
Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these
planes are already approaching mandatory retirement.

Probably the best deals out there are used late model Cessna 182s.
Trade-a-Plane shows several of these as low as $170,000. The 1998 and 1999
model years were very good airplanes. There are also some used Cirrus SR20s
that are less than $200K and they still have a lot of life in them.

You could take an old airplane and re-paint it, put new interior and
avionics in it, a new engine, and guess what? It is still an old airplane!
It will never have all the safety features and capability of the newer ones.
The new Cessnas may have the same model designations as the older ones, for
example, but they might as well be different types. They are faster, more
fuel efficient, and far more comfortable. Everything from fuel systems to
avionics to engines has changed. Even the supposedly draggy airframe got a
thorough going-over.

Still, for the down payment that you put on one of these shiny suckers you
could buy an ancient 172 that will still fit your mission profile and you
won't have any monthly payments at all. You might even be able to afford to
fly the thing now and then. You could lose your job, but you won't have to
give up your airplane in order to be able to eat. Personally, I find far
more comfort and safety in staying out of debt than in having the latest new
thing. I would not buy an airplane that I could not pay cash for.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> The spread between old and new aircraft prices is such that $200k means
> you can have just about any used airplane you want and pretty much no new
> airplane that will fit your mission.

The Maule MX-7-180B costs much less than $200k and meets those specs.

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".

[[email protected]]

Your mission profile calls for 700 nm trips. The new 4-place airplanes you
could get for $200,000, for example a Cessna 172,would not come close to
having the range to make this flight nonstop. And with a stop thrown in a
700 nm trip in a 120 kt airplane would probably take around 7 hours. If you
make this trip frequently, you should probably be looking for a somewhat
faster, longer range airplane. With your budget you could really choose
anything from later model Piper Arrows (140 kts and more than enough range)
or high performance fixed gear singles (Cessna 182, Piper Dakota, around 140
kts but may be marginal in range) to high performance heavy singles
(Bonanza, Cessna 210). The latter could make your 700 nm trips nonstop in a
comfortable 4.5 hours

Unless you live and fly in the Southwest, you either have or will want to
get an instrument rating. Choose an airplane that is already well equipped
with modern avionics, or budget maybe $20K-$30K for an upgrade.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Robert Coffey]

4 adults in a 172?

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:6Gngc.17392$yD1.42379@attbi_s54...
>
>>In article >,
>>picopirate > wrote:
>>
>>>If I were to take out one of those 20 yr financing plans I could afford
>
> up
>
>>>to $200k.
>>
>>The spread between old and new aircraft prices is such that $200k means
>>you can have just about any used airplane you want and pretty much no new
>>airplane that will fit your mission.
>>
>
>
> A new Cessna 172 would fit his mission quite well and it would cost less
> than $200K. So would a Diamond.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Robert Coffey wrote:
>
> 4 adults in a 172?

Well, if you're one of these people who insists that *real* adults all weigh at least
200 pounds, then no, it won't carry four. But the 172R will carry four 170 pound
adults and 25 gallons of fuel. Pretty comfortably, too.

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".

[C J Campbell]

"Robert Coffey" > wrote in message
...
> 4 adults in a 172?
>

He wanted four adults and a range of 200 miles. That works out in a 172. No,
you cannot carry four adults and full fuel, but that is not what his
question was.

[PaulH]

As others have mentioned, you take a big depreciation hit plus
interest charges on a new aircraft.

As you gain experience, your requirements, likes, dislikes, etc will
likely change.

I'd suggest starting with an older model until you refine what you
really want. Maintenance costs are higher, but all aircraft are
expensive to maintain whether old or new.

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:51:32 -0700, PaulH wrote:

> As others have mentioned, you take a big depreciation hit plus
> interest charges on a new aircraft.
>
> As you gain experience, your requirements, likes, dislikes, etc will
> likely change.
>
> I'd suggest starting with an older model until you refine what you
> really want. Maintenance costs are higher, but all aircraft are
> expensive to maintain whether old or new.

Are there any rules-of-thumb to go by when taking higher maintenance
costs into account on older planes? What constitutes an older plane? 10
years? 30 years? Or is it all relative?

[Doug Campbell]

I had an '82 172 from 82-99, on leaseback most of the time.
Average was $14/hr for maint (not including TBO accrual for engine)
Did NOT seem to get worse toward the end. Some years were $19,
some were $8. Put 8000 hrs on it. Final year on lease was $13.50.

I find I spend more per hour in personal use, because there are far fewer
hours to spread it over.

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:51:32 -0700, PaulH wrote:
>
> > As others have mentioned, you take a big depreciation hit plus
> > interest charges on a new aircraft.
> >
> > As you gain experience, your requirements, likes, dislikes, etc will
> > likely change.
> >
> > I'd suggest starting with an older model until you refine what you
> > really want. Maintenance costs are higher, but all aircraft are
> > expensive to maintain whether old or new.
>
> Are there any rules-of-thumb to go by when taking higher maintenance
> costs into account on older planes? What constitutes an older plane? 10
> years? 30 years? Or is it all relative?
>

[ET]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

<<<snippage>>>

> Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these
> planes are already approaching mandatory retirement.
>

<<< more snippage >>>

So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr
restriction that will be in place by the end of the year???

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[C J Campbell]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> :
>
> <<<snippage>>>
>
> > Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these
> > planes are already approaching mandatory retirement.
> >
>
> <<< more snippage >>>
>
> So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr
> restriction that will be in place by the end of the year???

I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said they are
getting close. They must fly the things constantly.

Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I
wish them well. Then they can start figuring out why these things are
falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I
suspect training is the issue.

[ET]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

>
> "ET" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> <<<snippage>>>
>>
>> > Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of
>> > these planes are already approaching mandatory retirement.
>> >
>>
>> <<< more snippage >>>
>>
>> So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000
>> hr restriction that will be in place by the end of the year???
>
> I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said
> they are getting close. They must fly the things constantly.
>
> Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now.
> I wish them well. Then they can start figuring out why these things
> are falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for
> it. I suspect training is the issue.
>
>

After being in one myself (Not an experienced pilot talking here...) I
CAN see how the complex systems can be confusing until one gets used to
them. Then as you think,, hrm what screen is that on... what button
makes that happen.... how do I turn on the autopilot and program it
properly... your in imc and don't know which way is up and think the
guages are lying to you....

Interesting... one of the older cirrus accident reports mentioned that
the "please remove before flight" pin that keeps the CAPS handle secured
on the ground had never been removed. I wonder if that pilot was more
paranoid about the chute being pulled accidentaly than needing it in a
hurry.

Your right about the 5K hour issue. I saw some pretty ****ed off posts
on the cirrus owners assn forum talking about how cirrus didn';t exactly
bring that to there attention before they plunked down there 300+ large.
--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Martin Kosina]

I agree, 182 is probably the best overall fit, with maybe the Arrow
(70+gals) and 177B (60 gal LR tanks) or 177RG second. I have only
flown one Arrow and it was *not* a 140 knot airplane, but that was a
beater, maybe it would do it on a good day... I love my Cardinal
dearly, but the 182 is the better airplane if you need to carry just a
bit more weight bit more often, no doubt about it. Costs maybe 25%
more to own at the most, I would guess.

> Unless you live and fly in the Southwest, you either have or will want to
> get an instrument rating. Choose an airplane that is already well equipped
> with modern avionics, or budget maybe $20K-$30K for an upgrade.

Also agreed, plus you will want something that can comfortably top
10K+ MEAs (at you typical loads) if you live in the West. If you can
afford 100K+ airplanes, I would definitely look at the turbo variants
(T-Arrow, T182, etc). As you become a proficient instrument pilot,
high altitude capability (or lack of it) will become one of the
primary go/no-go factors. In the East, where ice is not as
omnipresent, thunderstorm avoidance is probably the name of the game
and the turbo will not offer as significant edge there. I don't fly
all that much to make qualified comments, but over the years I have
noticed the line where I change between wishing for boots and radar
runs roughly along the continetal divide ;-)

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "ET" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:
>>
>><<<snippage>>>
>>
>>>Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of these
>>>planes are already approaching mandatory retirement.
>>>
>>
>><<< more snippage >>>
>>
>>So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr
>>restriction that will be in place by the end of the year???
>
>
> I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said they are
> getting close. They must fly the things constantly.
>
> Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I
> wish them well.

I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this
limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this
limit?

> Then they can start figuring out why these things are
> falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I
> suspect training is the issue.
>

according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out
of the sky. Maybe the training has improved.

[C J Campbell]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >>>Cirrus SR22 which has a severely restricted airframe life; some of
these
> >>>planes are already approaching mandatory retirement.
> >>>
> >>
> >><<< more snippage >>>
> >>
> >>So you've flown over the 4000+hr current restriction and the 12,000 hr
> >>restriction that will be in place by the end of the year???
> >
> >
> > I have not. Good heavens. No, a couple of flight schools have said they
are
> > getting close. They must fly the things constantly.
> >
> > Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I
> > wish them well.
>
> I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this
> limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this
> limit?

Ah, if it is not on the Internet, it must not be true, eh? :-)

The airframe life limit for the SR20 is 12,000 hours. The airframe life
limit for the SR22 is 4030 hours. The only place you will find that is by
reading the type certification. There may be some place you can find that on
the Internet. It is not in the POH for either aircraft, nor does Cirrus
mention it in any of their advertising or in the purchase agreement.

>
> > Then they can start figuring out why these things are
> > falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I
> > suspect training is the issue.
> >
>
> according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out
> of the sky. Maybe the training has improved.
>

Well, there were two of them quite recently, but maybe "Flying" went to
press before those incidents occurred.

[PaulH]

It depends a lot on how the previous owner and his/her A&P treated
maintenance issues. Catch-up is very expensive. It also depends on
your attitude. Retractable gear can add significantly to maintenance
cost if the owner is very particular because the cost of failure is so
high.

Example: gear strut shows leakage. One owner will have the seals
replaced immediately, another will let it go until it's flat, another
will put on the list for the next annual. Multiply this by 1000
individual parts.

Review the annual logs. On an older aircraft (>5 years) it should
show lots of nitty-gritty fixes - seals, hinges, wires, etc.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

C J Campbell wrote:

>>>
>>>Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years, now. I
>>>wish them well.
>>
>>I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this
>>limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this
>>limit?
>
>
> Ah, if it is not on the Internet, it must not be true, eh? :-)

Not at all, I just wanted a quick-n-easy link to point someone to.

> The only place you will find that is by
> reading the type certification. There may be some place you can find that on
> the Internet.

That info sure makes the googling easier.

Found a reference to it here:
http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf

Getting the correct number (4350) off that website makes Cirrus's own
website be result #2 when googling on: sr22 4350 hours

http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/faq/index.html

It's definitely easy to find when you know the right info to google for.

The comparision site also says that TBO on the SR22 engine is only 1700
hours, that surprised me.

>>>Then they can start figuring out why these things are
>>>falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I
>>>suspect training is the issue.
>>>
>>
>>according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out
>>of the sky. Maybe the training has improved.
>>
>
>
> Well, there were two of them quite recently, but maybe "Flying" went to
> press before those incidents occurred.
>

True. But those were not fatal accidents. An alarmingly high rate of
fatal accidents was the knock on Cirrus, as I recall. The latest FLYING
has a column by one of their regulars claiming the cirrus accident rate
is now roughly equivalent to that for 182's.

[G.R. Patterson III]

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
> according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out
> of the sky.

That would have been the opinion of the staff at Flying about three months ago.

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".

[John Kazickas]

anyone know how Diamond Aircraft compares to the Cirrus? Same airframe
life? how about safty record??

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Cirrus has been promising that 12,000 hour restriction for years,
>>>> now. I
>>>> wish them well.
>>>
>>>
>>> I searched the online POH for the SR20 and could not find this
>>> limitiation documented. Can you provide a link to documentation of this
>>> limit?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, if it is not on the Internet, it must not be true, eh? :-)
>
>
> Not at all, I just wanted a quick-n-easy link to point someone to.
>
>> The only place you will find that is by
>> reading the type certification. There may be some place you can find
>> that on
>> the Internet.
>
>
> That info sure makes the googling easier.
>
> Found a reference to it here:
> http://www.airplanenoise.com/articles/Skylane%20vs.%20Cirrus.pdf
>
> Getting the correct number (4350) off that website makes Cirrus's own
> website be result #2 when googling on: sr22 4350 hours
>
> http://www.cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/faq/index.html
>
> It's definitely easy to find when you know the right info to google for.
>
> The comparision site also says that TBO on the SR22 engine is only 1700
> hours, that surprised me.
>
> >>>Then they can start figuring out why these things are
>
>>>> falling out of the sky. There just seems to be no good reason for it. I
>>>> suspect training is the issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> according to the current issue of FLYING, they have stopped falling out
>>> of the sky. Maybe the training has improved.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, there were two of them quite recently, but maybe "Flying" went to
>> press before those incidents occurred.
>>
>
> True. But those were not fatal accidents. An alarmingly high rate of
> fatal accidents was the knock on Cirrus, as I recall. The latest FLYING
> has a column by one of their regulars claiming the cirrus accident rate
> is now roughly equivalent to that for 182's.
>
>