Airplanes in a 60' x 60' Hangar?

[Kyle Boatright]

Anyone have experience with a 60x60 hangar? Our EAA chapter may have the
opportunity to lease one, and the economics will be driven by the number of
aircraft we can store. We'll have a mix of types - figure 25% RV's, 25%
kitfoxes, 25% C-172's, and 25% Cherokees.

Any thoughts on the number of aircraft we can store in that size hangar
assuming the mix of aircraft is roughly as listed?

My guess is that 6 will fit easily, and 8, maybe more, will be possible.

Thanks in advance,

KB

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:03:04 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>Anyone have experience with a 60x60 hangar? Our EAA chapter may have the
>opportunity to lease one, and the economics will be driven by the number of
>aircraft we can store. We'll have a mix of types - figure 25% RV's, 25%
>kitfoxes, 25% C-172's, and 25% Cherokees.
>
>Any thoughts on the number of aircraft we can store in that size hangar
>assuming the mix of aircraft is roughly as listed?
>
>My guess is that 6 will fit easily, and 8, maybe more, will be possible.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>KB
>
>
I'm sharing an 80x80 hangar and we.ve had 6 planes in it but it was
fairly tight now there's 4 planes one for each door and everyone is
happy. The 6 planes were a 172, a150, 3 cherokees and a murphy rebel.
Sounds like you'd be doing a lot of moving planes around to get in and
out. It's a recipe for hangar rash and lots of bad feelings

[Kyle Boatright]

"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:03:04 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> > wrote:
>
>>Anyone have experience with a 60x60 hangar? Our EAA chapter may have the
>>opportunity to lease one, and the economics will be driven by the number
>>of
>>aircraft we can store. We'll have a mix of types - figure 25% RV's, 25%
>>kitfoxes, 25% C-172's, and 25% Cherokees.
>>
>>Any thoughts on the number of aircraft we can store in that size hangar
>>assuming the mix of aircraft is roughly as listed?
>>
>>My guess is that 6 will fit easily, and 8, maybe more, will be possible.
>>
>>Thanks in advance,
>>
>>KB
>>
>>
> I'm sharing an 80x80 hangar and we.ve had 6 planes in it but it was
> fairly tight now there's 4 planes one for each door and everyone is
> happy. The 6 planes were a 172, a150, 3 cherokees and a murphy rebel.
> Sounds like you'd be doing a lot of moving planes around to get in and
> out. It's a recipe for hangar rash and lots of bad feelings

I tend to agree. The airport where this hangar will be is quickly morphing
from a weekend flyer type airport to an airport with a large contingent of
upscale aircraft. Everything from high end singles to G-IV's. The 60x60's
are priced fairly high ($2500/mo is the whisper price), and our group of old
farts simply can't justify $400, $500, or $600/month each to hangar
relatively inexpensive aircraft. There *might* be adequate interest if 8
planes would comfortably fit, which would give a price of ~$300/ea/month,
but if the price was any higher, it simply wouldn't fly (so to speak)...

Of course, there is the option of the aircraft lift systems to squeeze a few
more planes in, but that further complicates the game of musical chairs when
someone has to dig an airplane out of the back of the hangar... The
downside of installing aircraft lifts is that the lease contracts indicate
that any capital improvements stay with the hangar when the lease is out.

KB

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:31:21 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
>"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:03:04 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone have experience with a 60x60 hangar? Our EAA chapter may have the
>>>opportunity to lease one, and the economics will be driven by the number
>>>of
>>>aircraft we can store. We'll have a mix of types - figure 25% RV's, 25%
>>>kitfoxes, 25% C-172's, and 25% Cherokees.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts on the number of aircraft we can store in that size hangar
>>>assuming the mix of aircraft is roughly as listed?
>>>
>>>My guess is that 6 will fit easily, and 8, maybe more, will be possible.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>>KB
>>>
>>>
>> I'm sharing an 80x80 hangar and we.ve had 6 planes in it but it was
>> fairly tight now there's 4 planes one for each door and everyone is
>> happy. The 6 planes were a 172, a150, 3 cherokees and a murphy rebel.
>> Sounds like you'd be doing a lot of moving planes around to get in and
>> out. It's a recipe for hangar rash and lots of bad feelings
>
>I tend to agree. The airport where this hangar will be is quickly morphing
>from a weekend flyer type airport to an airport with a large contingent of
>upscale aircraft. Everything from high end singles to G-IV's. The 60x60's
>are priced fairly high ($2500/mo is the whisper price), and our group of old
>farts simply can't justify $400, $500, or $600/month each to hangar
>relatively inexpensive aircraft. There *might* be adequate interest if 8
>planes would comfortably fit, which would give a price of ~$300/ea/month,
>but if the price was any higher, it simply wouldn't fly (so to speak)...
>
>Of course, there is the option of the aircraft lift systems to squeeze a few
>more planes in, but that further complicates the game of musical chairs when
>someone has to dig an airplane out of the back of the hangar... The
>downside of installing aircraft lifts is that the lease contracts indicate
>that any capital improvements stay with the hangar when the lease is out.
>
>KB
>
>
>
I thought the lifts were free standing. In my mind that wouldn't be a
capital improvement Although it might be tough to sell a used one.
Are any of the planes hangar queens that would stay in the back corner
for months. Do the wings on a kitfox fold easily enough to do it every
time you park the plane.If yes to any of these then it might work out
OK

[Kyle Boatright]

"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:31:21 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:03:04 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anyone have experience with a 60x60 hangar? Our EAA chapter may have
>>>>the
>>>>opportunity to lease one, and the economics will be driven by the number
>>>>of
>>>>aircraft we can store. We'll have a mix of types - figure 25% RV's, 25%
>>>>kitfoxes, 25% C-172's, and 25% Cherokees.
>>>>
>>>>Any thoughts on the number of aircraft we can store in that size hangar
>>>>assuming the mix of aircraft is roughly as listed?
>>>>
>>>>My guess is that 6 will fit easily, and 8, maybe more, will be possible.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>
>>>>KB
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm sharing an 80x80 hangar and we.ve had 6 planes in it but it was
>>> fairly tight now there's 4 planes one for each door and everyone is
>>> happy. The 6 planes were a 172, a150, 3 cherokees and a murphy rebel.
>>> Sounds like you'd be doing a lot of moving planes around to get in and
>>> out. It's a recipe for hangar rash and lots of bad feelings
>>
>>I tend to agree. The airport where this hangar will be is quickly
>>morphing
>>from a weekend flyer type airport to an airport with a large contingent of
>>upscale aircraft. Everything from high end singles to G-IV's. The
>>60x60's
>>are priced fairly high ($2500/mo is the whisper price), and our group of
>>old
>>farts simply can't justify $400, $500, or $600/month each to hangar
>>relatively inexpensive aircraft. There *might* be adequate interest if 8
>>planes would comfortably fit, which would give a price of ~$300/ea/month,
>>but if the price was any higher, it simply wouldn't fly (so to speak)...
>>
>>Of course, there is the option of the aircraft lift systems to squeeze a
>>few
>>more planes in, but that further complicates the game of musical chairs
>>when
>>someone has to dig an airplane out of the back of the hangar... The
>>downside of installing aircraft lifts is that the lease contracts indicate
>>that any capital improvements stay with the hangar when the lease is out.
>>
>>KB
>>
>>
>>
> I thought the lifts were free standing. In my mind that wouldn't be a
> capital improvement Although it might be tough to sell a used one.
> Are any of the planes hangar queens that would stay in the back corner
> for months. Do the wings on a kitfox fold easily enough to do it every
> time you park the plane.If yes to any of these then it might work out
> OK

MY interpretation would be that the lifts are free standing and are not
improvements. The FBO and airport manager seem to disagree. Of course,
some unscrupulous person(s) could *steal* them towards the end of the
lease.... ;-)

As far as the Kitfox goes, the wings probably fold fairly easily, but if we
went that route, the owner would probably (rightfully) ask for a discount,
which throws more of the cost back on the other tenants...

[Newps]

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:03:04 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone have experience with a 60x60 hangar? Our EAA chapter may have the
>>opportunity to lease one, and the economics will be driven by the number of
>>aircraft we can store. We'll have a mix of types - figure 25% RV's, 25%
>>kitfoxes, 25% C-172's, and 25% Cherokees.
>>
>>Any thoughts on the number of aircraft we can store in that size hangar
>>assuming the mix of aircraft is roughly as listed?
>>
>>My guess is that 6 will fit easily, and 8, maybe more, will be possible.

I rented a 60x60 for 2 years before I bought my T hangar. We had three
in the hangar. With a 50 foot door you can park two in the front and
not have to move the other front airplane. A buddy owns a 60x60 and
puts 5 in there, two cubs, a Cessna 180, a Luscombe 8A, and a Debonair.
Way too many for my tastes. Seems like every plane is an inch from
every other plane. No way do you get 8 planes in a 60x60 unless you are
folding wings. With 6 planes you won't go two weeks before somebody has
hanagr rash, plus the guys in the back have to move every plane to get
out. That gets old in about 2 seconds. The best way to run a 60x60 is
to have a door on the front as well as the back. The thing that causes
the high turnover rate is the constant moving of airplanes and the
constant hangar rash.

[Montblack]

("Newps" wrote)
> With 6 planes you won't go two weeks before somebody has
> hanagr rash, plus the guys in the back have to move every plane to get
> out. That gets old in about 2 seconds. The best way to run a 60x60 is
> to have a door on the front as well as the back. The thing that causes
> the high turnover rate is the constant moving of airplanes and the
> constant hangar rash.


I thought "hangar rash" was something akin to rot and rust and mice and
birds. Does the term
"hangar rash" cover dings too?

Montblack

[Tom S.]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone have experience with a 60x60 hangar? Our EAA chapter may have the
> opportunity to lease one, and the economics will be driven by the number
of
> aircraft we can store. We'll have a mix of types - figure 25% RV's, 25%
> kitfoxes, 25% C-172's, and 25% Cherokees.
>
> Any thoughts on the number of aircraft we can store in that size hangar
> assuming the mix of aircraft is roughly as listed?
>
> My guess is that 6 will fit easily, and 8, maybe more, will be possible.
>
Well, what I fly, it'll fit...one!! (52ft wingspan, 43ft length)

[Newps]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>
>>With 6 planes you won't go two weeks before somebody has
>>hanagr rash, plus the guys in the back have to move every plane to get
>>out. That gets old in about 2 seconds. The best way to run a 60x60 is
>>to have a door on the front as well as the back. The thing that causes
>>the high turnover rate is the constant moving of airplanes and the
>>constant hangar rash.
>
>
>
> I thought "hangar rash" was something akin to rot and rust and mice and
> birds. Does the term
> "hangar rash" cover dings too?

I thought that's all it was.

[Nathan Young]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:43:20 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Newps" wrote)
>> With 6 planes you won't go two weeks before somebody has
>> hanagr rash, plus the guys in the back have to move every plane to get
>> out. That gets old in about 2 seconds. The best way to run a 60x60 is
>> to have a door on the front as well as the back. The thing that causes
>> the high turnover rate is the constant moving of airplanes and the
>> constant hangar rash.
>
>
>I thought "hangar rash" was something akin to rot and rust and mice and
>birds. Does the term
>"hangar rash" cover dings too?

Yep. Dings and scratched fiberglass from moving the planes in the
hangar.

[Montblack]

("Gene Kearns" wrote)
<...snip>
> Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. If your's is facing the
> side wall at the back of the hangar, you are going to have to move out
> and back in about 3 aircraft.... depending on the way X amount of
> other owners left their aircraft. Then, there is that problem about
> "who done what and when" if somebody's airplane gets dinged.
> Heretofore extremely intelligent people become totally ignorant.


Found it!

http://www.carouselhangars.com/

(From their web site)
This is a Group Hangar, but with one exception, No Hangar Rash!


Montblack

[G. Burkhart]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Found it!
>
> http://www.carouselhangars.com/
>
> (From their web site)
> This is a Group Hangar, but with one exception, No Hangar Rash!

There is a hangar that has a 'lazy susan' turntable at the Webster City, IA
airport (EBS). I saw it a few months ago, IIRC, it was set up to hold 4
plane real nicely. Just push the button to move the turntable took about a
minute or so to get the back plane up to the front door.