Cost of ownership question

[Slip'er]

I am going to put a lot of constraints on this question, bear with me. How
much does the size of the engine and airframe contribute to cost of
ownership? I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck in
the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
THIS.....repeat. Somethings are obvious, CS prop more maintenance than
fixed prop. Retrac more maintenance than fixed, etc. But, other than fuel,
is a 180hp much more expensive to maintain than a 160hp or a 115 hp? How
about Continental vs Lycoming vs Franklin vs Ranger radial? I have some
flexibility regarding purchase price. What is more likely to burn me later
on is month to month expenses This is what a need an sensitivity analysis
on.

Thanks.

[Helen Woods]

Take a look through the center fold of trade-a-plane and you can get a
basic idea of overhaul cost on individual engines. Overhaul is the main
cost of engine care. Cost of engine overhaul for a give type of engine
will also give you some idea of cost of individual cylinder overhaul
since you'll probably need to pull a jug or two and maybe even do a top
overhaul before TBO. A lot of that depends on how you or the previous
owner have been running the engine, how good the last overhaul was, and
what type of cylinders were used.

Aside from that, you'll need to have some specific engine models in mind
to get an idea of quirks associated with that type of engine. Some
engine types are prone to going through cylinders at greater rates than
others, etc. Horse power and manufacturer don't have as much to do with
that as just the individual model of engine.

You might want to put some queries about specific engines out on this
newsgroup and get some feed back from owners of those. When you get
narrowed down to a speciic plane manufacture - say Cessna - join the
type club and talk to those folks too.

Helen

[Marco Leon]

You'll need to analyze your requirements from the airframe (speed vs. useful
load) with the engine. My Warrior fits my mission with the ability to carry
three adults (sometimes 4) and one of the cheaper engines to
maintain/overhaul. In comparison, a friend of mine has a Cherokee 6 300 hp,
cruises 5 knots more than me, and has an engine costing over twice as much
to overhaul ($14K vs $29K). However, he really wants the spacious cabin.

Do what Helen said and check out the overhaul prices. I don't think
Airpower's ad in Trade-A-Plane lists prices anymore so you may need to check
an older copy. Then analyze your mission requirements and crunch some
numbers. Getting a good plane--like having a good marriage--is about
compromising effectively.

Marco Leon

"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03...
>I am going to put a lot of constraints on this question, bear with me. How
> much does the size of the engine and airframe contribute to cost of
> ownership? I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck
> in
> the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
> look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
> THIS.....repeat. Somethings are obvious, CS prop more maintenance than
> fixed prop. Retrac more maintenance than fixed, etc. But, other than
> fuel,
> is a 180hp much more expensive to maintain than a 160hp or a 115 hp? How
> about Continental vs Lycoming vs Franklin vs Ranger radial? I have some
> flexibility regarding purchase price. What is more likely to burn me
> later
> on is month to month expenses This is what a need an sensitivity analysis
> on.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Difficult question to answer. There are two issues. The first is the
obvious increased overhaul cost and increased fuel consumption of the larger
engine. The second is that airplanes with larger engines tend to have more
"stuff".

The best approach is probably to decide what you are realisticaly going to
do and then find a suitable airplane.

Mike
MU-2


"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03...
>I am going to put a lot of constraints on this question, bear with me. How
> much does the size of the engine and airframe contribute to cost of
> ownership? I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck
> in
> the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
> look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
> THIS.....repeat. Somethings are obvious, CS prop more maintenance than
> fixed prop. Retrac more maintenance than fixed, etc. But, other than
> fuel,
> is a 180hp much more expensive to maintain than a 160hp or a 115 hp? How
> about Continental vs Lycoming vs Franklin vs Ranger radial? I have some
> flexibility regarding purchase price. What is more likely to burn me
> later
> on is month to month expenses This is what a need an sensitivity analysis
> on.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

[[email protected]]

The 6 cylinder engines tend to be quite a bit more expensive to
maintain than the 4s. - 50% more things to go wrong, extra plugs, etc.
Both Lycoming and Continental have had more recent problems with their
6 cylinder models than on the 4s. Within 4 cylinder models, depending
on where you live parts availability may be an issue for Franklins and
Rangers. Whether it's a 180 or 200 hp Lycoming matters little, though
you will appreciate the extra 200 hp climbing and you can always
throttle back in cruise to control fuel consumption. So for sheer
practicality, I like the 4 cylinder models if they will provide the
performance you need.

Having said that, a 6 cylinder engine with a 3 blade prop provides more
power and speed with less vibration.

[Dude]

"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03...
>I am going to put a lot of constraints on this question, bear with me. How
> much does the size of the engine and airframe contribute to cost of
> ownership? I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck
> in
> the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
> look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
> THIS.....repeat. Somethings are obvious, CS prop more maintenance than
> fixed prop. Retrac more maintenance than fixed, etc. But, other than
> fuel,
> is a 180hp much more expensive to maintain than a 160hp or a 115 hp? How
> about Continental vs Lycoming vs Franklin vs Ranger radial? I have some
> flexibility regarding purchase price. What is more likely to burn me
> later
> on is month to month expenses This is what a need an sensitivity analysis
> on.
>
> Thanks.
>

There is a 3 times the cost of fuel rule that works pretty well. In other
words, your cost to operate a plane is pretty much 3 times the hourly fuel
burn times the number of hours you fly it. Its just a rule of thumb though.

Unless you know someone that is happy to work on a particular engine type,
stick with Lycoming or Continental. Nothing is wrong with the others, just
you want to know an AP before you buy one.

Several folks here will give you good advice on choosing a plane if you tell
us more about your mission and budget.

[PaulaJay1]

In article <MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03>, "Slip'er" >
writes:

>I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck in
>the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
>look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
>THIS.....repeat.

Careful. You can get into the "Paralysis by analysis". (Maybe you are already
in it.) My advise is to fly some planes that are in your area and are plus or
minus what you think you want. Try to go for a plane that fits 90 % of your
"needs". When you find one and fall "in love" just go for it. It's not rocket
science and you are predicting the future so you can never lock it in. I did
this with an Archer 9 years ago and we have been happy ever since.

Chuck

[Helen Woods]

In defense of 6 cylinders, many are older low compression ones like mine
which means one can burn auto fuel. Asuming one has an airport with
auto fuel available the cost difference is about $1/gallon which at 9g/h
leads to a savings of $16,200 over an 1800h TBO period. This pays for
the cost of the overhaul.

Helen

[[email protected]]

On 29-Dec-2004, Helen Woods > wrote:

> In defense of 6 cylinders, many are older low compression ones like mine
> which means one can burn auto fuel. Asuming one has an airport with
> auto fuel available the cost difference is about $1/gallon which at 9g/h
> leads to a savings of $16,200 over an 1800h TBO period. This pays for
> the cost of the overhaul.

But then again, most 6 cyl engines (with the exception of the old Cont.
O-300) burn a lot more than 9 gph at typical cruise settings. Also, most
low compression engines are carbureted, with lower efficiency than injected
engines of similar power. For example, hourly fuel burn of a Lyc. O-360
(180 hp carbureted) is very close to that of their IO-360 (200 hp injected)
at equal percentage power settings.

Helen's main point is a good one, though. With fuel prices soaring,
efficiency, or possibly the ability to use cheaper autogas, is a big issue
for total operating cost. This is particularly true for well-utilized
airplanes where fixed costs (insurance, hangar/tiedown rental, etc) are a
smaller fraction of total cost.

Another factor in relative efficiency is retractable vs fixed gear. A 200
hp 4-place retractable will have about the same speed as a 240 hp 4-place
fixed gear plane. Think Arrow vs Dakota or Cardinal RG vs C-182. In
cruise, the RG will probably burn about 3 gph less than the FG. At 150
hours/year and $3.00/gal, that's $1,350/year. Much, much more than the
extra cost of maintenance likely required for the RG and possibly slightly
higher insurance premiums. So you end up saving money with the RG, as long
as you remember to lower the gear for landing!

--
-Elliott Drucker

[C Kingsbury]

> wrote in message
news:3aJAd.24094$h.20346@trnddc04...
> On 29-Dec-2004, Helen Woods > wrote:
>
> Another factor in relative efficiency is retractable vs fixed gear. A 200
> hp 4-place retractable will have about the same speed as a 240 hp 4-place
> fixed gear plane. Think Arrow vs Dakota or Cardinal RG vs C-182. In
> cruise, the RG will probably burn about 3 gph less than the FG. At 150
> hours/year and $3.00/gal, that's $1,350/year. Much, much more than the
> extra cost of maintenance likely required for the RG and possibly slightly
> higher insurance premiums. So you end up saving money with the RG, as
long
> as you remember to lower the gear for landing!

All true, but when it comes to hauling a load, there's no substitute for
horsepower. A Dakota or 182 are fill-the-seats-and-tanks airplanes, which
the Arrow and Cardinal RG are certainly not.

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

If it's your first plane, the simpler/more common, the better. You have a
whole load of things to learn about and there's nothing better to learn on
than something like a 172, 182, Cherokee, or Arrow. Every mechanic knows how
to work on them and annuals won't break the kids' college fund. Avionics are
flukey and problems in the stack can drive you batty, OTOH if your autopilot
goes TU you can usually just placard it INOP until you feel like paying the
piper. Not so much an option when the engine starts coughing.

IMHO it's hard to do much better than a 180HP 172 for a first plane, though
a good case can be made for the 182 or Arrow class for a more-experienced
pilot who knows he'll get the benefit of the higher cruise speeds or useful
load.

-cwk.

"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03...
> I am going to put a lot of constraints on this question, bear with me.
How
> much does the size of the engine and airframe contribute to cost of
> ownership? I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck
in
> the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
> look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
> THIS.....repeat. Somethings are obvious, CS prop more maintenance than
> fixed prop. Retrac more maintenance than fixed, etc. But, other than
fuel,
> is a 180hp much more expensive to maintain than a 160hp or a 115 hp? How
> about Continental vs Lycoming vs Franklin vs Ranger radial? I have some
> flexibility regarding purchase price. What is more likely to burn me
later
> on is month to month expenses This is what a need an sensitivity analysis
> on.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 29-Dec-2004, "C Kingsbury" > wrote:

> All true, but when it comes to hauling a load, there's no substitute for
> horsepower. A Dakota or 182 are fill-the-seats-and-tanks airplanes, which
> the Arrow and Cardinal RG are certainly not.

True to an extent. But, when fueled for a given mission the difference in
payload is not quite as big because of the much larger fuel load required
for the thirstier big engine. However, your point is valid in that someone
needing a load hauler will generally be looking for a plane with a bigger
engine. (The Dakota is particularly adept in this regard.) If efficiency
and range are primary considerations (with comfort, cabin size, and
performance being equal) it's hard to beat a later model Arrow.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Slip'er]

All great feedback so far. Keep it coming. I have made a few posts about
my efforts to select a plane. I am definitely caught in analysis paralysis.
I am also caught up with fear of selling my stock when it is doing so well.
I sold 500 shares to buy Christmas presents, two weeks after I sold them
those 500 shares were worth an additional $3500. I know this matters little
in the big scheme, you can't time the market...etc. But I'm still planning
to hold out until the fall and review my plans. Back to the plane.

I have only flown Citabrias and Decathalons with a little bit of Piper
PA-140 / PA-180 and a PT-23. I love the Citabria/Decathalon but am luke
warm at best about the Archer/172/etc. This bird will be parked outside,
most likely.

I started my quest thinking that a Champ or a Luscombe would fit the bill
for a first plane. But I get caught up in the "a 7ECA isn't that much more
and I get aerobatics and a bigger engine" which is true but, " a 150hp
Citabria isn't much more and I love the extra power" and "wow there are a
few nice examples of 8KCABs out there with a CS prop which is nice for
aerobatics and cruise, AND they don't cost much more..." So this is my main
dilema aside from purchase price, what is the difference in relative
maintenance from each of this family when comparing models of similar
condition. They typically don't have a lot of "extras" which is fine for
me. I am VFR only and don't plan to get instrument rated. (although I have
done and will continue to do a bit of training in my friends plane for a
margin of safety should I need it someday) If I buy into this group I'd
really like to get the metal spar and heavy lift struts.

Then more skitzophrenai...Should I really hold fast to taildraggers and
stick? Yes! I dream about bush flying all of the time and with my own
plane, 3-4 day weekend trips will actually be possible. (ever try to rent a
Citabria for a 3 day weekend? Good luck!) Wait, if I go for a faster
plane, I have access to more places. If I had say a Long-Eze or other
slippery plane in my price range I could really explore America.

Wait, I have kids. How often will I be able to realistically take off for
3-4 day trips. That probably isn't a good selection criteria. Best to
stick with day trips, again though speed is distance. Hmm, I love the
tandem seating but, my kids would really like to be up front and that would
be nice for them to learn more and enjoy each others company.

OMG, Look at that Great Lakes! No, wait, later! Wait until the kids are in
College. That cannot be a good idea right now.

So, I really think I'll be looking at a Citabria type aircraft. It seems
to be where my "comfort" zone is, probably because I soloed in a 7ECA and
most of my time is in Citabrias. The question is, should I buy the absolute
minimum aircraft that meets my "needs" or buy what I can afford for maximum
fun? One thing is true with Motorcycles, Cars, Boats, and Airplanes....you
can never have too much horse power.

Part of me says buy the minimum plane ie 7ECA for two reasons. Put the
minimum money at risk and use this first purchase as a learning experience.
This will increase reserves in case I really screw up and said reserves can
also hide some of the real expense from my wife who supports me in this but
is also an accountant...and I hear about my excessive hobbies. But if say a
150 HP Citabria is about the same to maintain...why not spend a little extra
money?

When I really think about it, this wouldn't be such a difficult decision if
I were single. The real pain I feel is that buying a plane feels so
selfish! This is a huge, expensive hobby for ME. Yes, my kids will enjoy
it but I doubt my wife will fly with me until the kids are out of the house.
My kids have flown with me and enjoy it but truth be told...they'd rather
have a boat (my wife would too). Which clearly means...this is for me. But
darn it, I have wanted this all of my life. They just "want" a boat because
I brought it up one day when I took them sailing on a friends 28 ft
sailboat.

Time for my medication...

[Stealth Pilot]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:38:56 -0800, "Slip'er" >
wrote:


>This bird will be parked outside,
>most likely.
>

I'm an aircraft owner so dont be offended when I say that that is a
truely dumb decision.
lets hope I can get you to reconsider before the dollars are spent.

a year is typically 24 hours times 365 days long which is 8.760 hours.
you fly, say, 100 hours a year.
so that is 8,660 hours per year your aircraft just sits outside.

4,380hours are nighttime so the aircraft sits there accumulating dew
for an astonishing time.
say 3 hours of a morning are spent in the sun evaporating that dew
which amounts to just over a thousand hours spent warm and wet.
is it any wonder then that corrosion is the main cause of maintenance
problems in aircraft sitting outside.

I live in a mediterranian climate so I'm not bothered by snow or
cyclones which must add considerably to deterioration rates.

my homebuilt sits in a hangar. it has areas of the tube fuselage
around the cockpit that are missing paint. it has no corrosion
problems.
my annual maintenance is typically a few hundred dollars a year. (not
quite as low as Wanttaja's experience with N500F but pretty close.)

no kidding, your first decision as an intending aircraft owner should
ALWAYS be "where am I going to hangar it?"

just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
restoration.

hangarage will save you thousands of dollars over the life of an
aircraft.
Stealth Pilot
Australia.

[Matt Whiting]

C Kingsbury wrote:
> > wrote in message
> news:3aJAd.24094$h.20346@trnddc04...
>
>>On 29-Dec-2004, Helen Woods > wrote:
>>
>>Another factor in relative efficiency is retractable vs fixed gear. A 200
>>hp 4-place retractable will have about the same speed as a 240 hp 4-place
>>fixed gear plane. Think Arrow vs Dakota or Cardinal RG vs C-182. In
>>cruise, the RG will probably burn about 3 gph less than the FG. At 150
>>hours/year and $3.00/gal, that's $1,350/year. Much, much more than the
>>extra cost of maintenance likely required for the RG and possibly slightly
>>higher insurance premiums. So you end up saving money with the RG, as
>
> long
>
>>as you remember to lower the gear for landing!
>
>
> All true, but when it comes to hauling a load, there's no substitute for
> horsepower. A Dakota or 182 are fill-the-seats-and-tanks airplanes, which
> the Arrow and Cardinal RG are certainly not.

Actually, the Arrow I now fly in a club has a greater full fuel useful
load than did my 182. Now its full fuel is 50 gallons rather than 84
(or was it 88, I forgot for the 182 with LR tanks), but it still carries
a surprising amount. The downside is that the 180 HP is really
noticeable at gross weight. It climbs about like a C-150. I really
miss the 182 on TO and climb. The Arrow is marginally faster in cruise,
but not by much. The win is that it burns about 9 GPH at 125 knots
rather than 12.


Matt

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:38:56 -0800, "Slip'er" >
wrote:

>All great feedback so far. Keep it coming. I have made a few posts about
>my efforts to select a plane. I am definitely caught in analysis paralysis.
>I am also caught up with fear of selling my stock when it is doing so well.
>I sold 500 shares to buy Christmas presents, two weeks after I sold them
>those 500 shares were worth an additional $3500. I know this matters little
>in the big scheme, you can't time the market...etc. But I'm still planning
>to hold out until the fall and review my plans. Back to the plane.

If you could accurately predict the future value of your stock,
finances would not be an issue... Until you sell it, the stock is
essentially worthless.

>I have only flown Citabrias and Decathalons with a little bit of Piper
>PA-140 / PA-180 and a PT-23. I love the Citabria/Decathalon but am luke
>warm at best about the Archer/172/etc. This bird will be parked outside,
>most likely.

In my opinion, parking a plane outside is false economy. You save a
little each month, but pay for it in other ways:
-Increased insurance rates
-Stong winds can damage control surfaces
-Plane will need new paint sooner (sandblasting effect and paint
oxidation)
-Tires wear out sooner
-Plane will continuously need a wash (washing a plane = major time
sink)
-Excessive heat/cold not good for gyros and radios
-Control surfaces are flying 8760hrs a year = worn out hinges and
cables. This is true even if you use a control lock, as the controls
still move a slight amount.
-Worrying every time a storm pulls thru
-It is a hell of a lot easier to conduct routine maintenance in a
hangar.
-A hangar gives you a place to store the massive piles of aviation
related crap that an aircraft owner ends up collecting.

Also, if you live in a cold weather climate, you will pat yourself on
the back when you get preheat and then pull the plane out of a heated
hangar.

Finally, I believe the Citabria's have fabric wings, which is not a
good choice for a permanent outdoor enviroment.

>When I really think about it, this wouldn't be such a difficult decision if
>I were single. The real pain I feel is that buying a plane feels so
>selfish! This is a huge, expensive hobby for ME.
> Yes, my kids will enjoy
>it but I doubt my wife will fly with me until the kids are out of the house.
>My kids have flown with me and enjoy it but truth be told...they'd rather
>have a boat (my wife would too). Which clearly means...this is for me.

Flying is a luxury item for most of us, and at a minimum it is costly.
Catch a run of bad luck, and it can be ridiculously expensive. Flying
is one of the most amazing experiences in the world, and can add value
to your family (weekend vacations with the family, in and out business
trips vs. overnight stays) but it can also destroy a marriage if the
costs get out of hand and the family gets (or feels) shortchanged just
so the plane can keep flying. This can also work the other way - if
money is tight, most of us would make the correct decision of spending
the money on the family. However, that may mean an expensive airplane
sitting unused in the hangar, along with the fixed monthly costs of
insurance, hangar, and the eventual annual inspection looming.

If there is a possibility that finances could be tight in the future,
pilots are much better off renting or joining a flying club... That
greatly reduces if not eliminates the risk of having a massive one
time expense, and it also allows a graceful (and no cost) exit if
postponement of flying should be required.

-Nathan

[Dave Butler]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

>
> just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
> between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
> 5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
> pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
> restoration.

At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.

[Nathan Young]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:36:08 GMT, Nathan Young
> wrote:

>If there is a possibility that finances could be tight in the future,
>pilots are much better off renting or joining a flying club... That
>greatly reduces if not eliminates the risk of having a massive one
>time expense, and it also allows a graceful (and no cost) exit if
>postponement of flying should be required.

Another benefit of renting/joining a flying club... You would get a
chance to fly several different aircraft types. This would help you
narrow in your choices for purchasing an aircraft.

[Stealth Pilot]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:37:57 -0500, Dave Butler > wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>>
>> just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
>> between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
>> 5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
>> pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
>> restoration.
>
>At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
>difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
>pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.

then get a big enough hangar so that a few (lots) of you can share the
costs or find a cheaper airport.

the implicit assumption in your post is that an aircraft just prior to
restoration will be enjoyable and safe to fly. will it?

aircraft are unique in that they are designed with carefully
considered minimal margins of strength. corrosion will not always be
seen and can add considerably to the maintenance costs at each annual.
it doesnt take much corrosion in the wrong spot to ruin an otherwise
serviceable part.

but yes I'm talking from my appreciation of other peoples aircraft
maintenance issues. I hangar mine and at 20 years it is still in worry
free condition and nowhere near needing a restoration effort.
ymmv
Stealth Pilot

[Darrel Toepfer]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> then get a big enough hangar so that a few (lots) of you can share the
> costs or find a cheaper airport.

We've had 2 planes damaged, and nobody to fess up to it, from shared
hanger space...

[Maule Driver]

I chose a tail dragging Maule:
- choosing a 4 seater over a 2 seater was the best decision. 95% of the
time, it is 2 of us flying for a 1 to 5 day trip of aprox 250miles
roundtrip. A 2 placer is good for 1 person traveling. 2 people require
a 4 placer.
- Simple has paid off in reasonably predictable and moderate
maintenance; no CS prop, 180 4 cyl, relatively new
- Hangaring; I would not be willing to own something that sat out. Not
after being in a hangar.
- I love the tailwheel - keeps it interesting and different. Makes me
feel good. No practical value whatsoever.
- Wish it was faster. But having flown only 60 hours this year vs 125
to 150 the past 5 - I appreciate the simplicity and low maintenance.

I'd suggest some more exploring of clubs or partnerships

Slip'er wrote:
> All great feedback so far. Keep it coming. I have made a few posts about
> my efforts to select a plane. I am definitely caught in analysis paralysis.
> I am also caught up with fear of selling my stock when it is doing so well.
> I sold 500 shares to buy Christmas presents, two weeks after I sold them
> those 500 shares were worth an additional $3500. I know this matters little
> in the big scheme, you can't time the market...etc. But I'm still planning
> to hold out until the fall and review my plans. Back to the plane.
>
> I have only flown Citabrias and Decathalons with a little bit of Piper
> PA-140 / PA-180 and a PT-23. I love the Citabria/Decathalon but am luke
> warm at best about the Archer/172/etc. This bird will be parked outside,
> most likely.
>
> I started my quest thinking that a Champ or a Luscombe would fit the bill
> for a first plane. But I get caught up in the "a 7ECA isn't that much more
> and I get aerobatics and a bigger engine" which is true but, " a 150hp
> Citabria isn't much more and I love the extra power" and "wow there are a
> few nice examples of 8KCABs out there with a CS prop which is nice for
> aerobatics and cruise, AND they don't cost much more..." So this is my main
> dilema aside from purchase price, what is the difference in relative
> maintenance from each of this family when comparing models of similar
> condition. They typically don't have a lot of "extras" which is fine for
> me. I am VFR only and don't plan to get instrument rated. (although I have
> done and will continue to do a bit of training in my friends plane for a
> margin of safety should I need it someday) If I buy into this group I'd
> really like to get the metal spar and heavy lift struts.
>
> Then more skitzophrenai...Should I really hold fast to taildraggers and
> stick? Yes! I dream about bush flying all of the time and with my own
> plane, 3-4 day weekend trips will actually be possible. (ever try to rent a
> Citabria for a 3 day weekend? Good luck!) Wait, if I go for a faster
> plane, I have access to more places. If I had say a Long-Eze or other
> slippery plane in my price range I could really explore America.
>
> Wait, I have kids. How often will I be able to realistically take off for
> 3-4 day trips. That probably isn't a good selection criteria. Best to
> stick with day trips, again though speed is distance. Hmm, I love the
> tandem seating but, my kids would really like to be up front and that would
> be nice for them to learn more and enjoy each others company.
>
> OMG, Look at that Great Lakes! No, wait, later! Wait until the kids are in
> College. That cannot be a good idea right now.
>
> So, I really think I'll be looking at a Citabria type aircraft. It seems
> to be where my "comfort" zone is, probably because I soloed in a 7ECA and
> most of my time is in Citabrias. The question is, should I buy the absolute
> minimum aircraft that meets my "needs" or buy what I can afford for maximum
> fun? One thing is true with Motorcycles, Cars, Boats, and Airplanes....you
> can never have too much horse power.
>
> Part of me says buy the minimum plane ie 7ECA for two reasons. Put the
> minimum money at risk and use this first purchase as a learning experience.
> This will increase reserves in case I really screw up and said reserves can
> also hide some of the real expense from my wife who supports me in this but
> is also an accountant...and I hear about my excessive hobbies. But if say a
> 150 HP Citabria is about the same to maintain...why not spend a little extra
> money?
>
> When I really think about it, this wouldn't be such a difficult decision if
> I were single. The real pain I feel is that buying a plane feels so
> selfish! This is a huge, expensive hobby for ME. Yes, my kids will enjoy
> it but I doubt my wife will fly with me until the kids are out of the house.
> My kids have flown with me and enjoy it but truth be told...they'd rather
> have a boat (my wife would too). Which clearly means...this is for me. But
> darn it, I have wanted this all of my life. They just "want" a boat because
> I brought it up one day when I took them sailing on a friends 28 ft
> sailboat.
>
> Time for my medication...
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article <1104417758.851483@sj-nntpcache-3>, Dave Butler > wrote:
>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
>difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
>pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.

In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that. You'll
manage to spend some of the rest on higher insurance premiums, new
plexiglass from UV crazing, extra sets of tires, maintenance or loss of
value due to corrosion, ... Meanwhile you put up with the inconvenience
of operating from a tiedown, like washing the plane more often, messing
with tiedowns, covers (oh, I hate covers), ice and snow, mud, etc...

There's probably some small financial savings to be had at airports where
hangars are a lot more that tiedowns, but it's not nearly as much as the
straight difference in price.

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

[Dave Butler]

This may be one of those religious issues like high vs low wing. I doubt anyone
is going to be swayed one way or the other. But anyway...

Ben Jackson wrote:

> In article <1104417758.851483@sj-nntpcache-3>, Dave Butler > wrote:
>>At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
>>difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
>>pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.

> In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that. You'll

That would truly be a first-class paint job. If you're going to be spending that
kind of money on paint, no wonder you want to spend even more on hangars to
protect your investment. I'm not that much into paint.

> manage to spend some of the rest on higher insurance premiums, new

my insurance premiums didn't change when I moved out of the hangar.

> plexiglass from UV crazing,

that's what the cabin cover is for.

> extra sets of tires,

I wear out my tires, they don't have time to deteriorate due to exposure.

> maintenance or loss of value due to corrosion,

OK, I'll give you a small point on that one.

>... Meanwhile you put up with the inconvenience
> of operating from a tiedown,

Inconvenience? You taxi in, shutdown, and walk away. No tugs, no hangar doors.
Same thing when you depart. You start up and taxi out, no tugs, no hangar doors.

The fuel truck comes to the tiedown and fuels you before you get there or after
you're gone. At my airport, if you have a hangar, you have to pull the plane out
of the hangar to have it fueled. That means you have to personally be there and
wait for the fuel truck (yes, of course, there are other reasons for personally
supervising fueling).

> like washing the plane more often,

Yeah, OK, but it's not that bad (for me). Depends on how fussy you are, I suppose.

> messing with tiedowns,

What messing?

> covers (oh, I hate covers),

I hate tugs and hangar doors.

> ice and snow, mud, etc...

OK, I'll give you another point. Not too bad in my climate (NC), the biggest
problem is early morning departures in wintertime frost on the airframe. I don't
do very many of those, and when I need to, I can get an overnight hangar for
$15, or point it into the sun and wait an hour and it will melt on its own.

>
> There's probably some small financial savings to be had at airports where
> hangars are a lot more that tiedowns, but it's not nearly as much as the
> straight difference in price.

Take out the "nearly" and I'll agree with you.

I think the main difference between the hangar zealots and the cheapouts is how
anal they are about having a showpiece vs. the people who just like to fly. The
hangar crowd are the same ones who drive Escalades and spend their weekends
washing and waxing them.

There, that ought to liven up the conversation... ;-)

Dave

[[email protected]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
<snip>
> the implicit assumption in your post is that an aircraft just prior
to
> restoration will be enjoyable and safe to fly. will it?
>

A lot depends on the local environment. I live in the desert and
most of the airplanes around here are tied down outside. My plane has
been sitting outside for the better part of 25 years and it has no
corrosion problems. Neither did my previous plane. After 25 years of
outside storage, my plane is quite enjoyable and safe to fly. In the
last 10 yrs. I've saved $27,600US over the cost of a hangar (assuming
one was available).

The waiting list for hangars at my local airport has surpassed 10
yrs. Availablility is not much better at any of the other local
aiports. I could buy one of the private hangars that are being built
locally, but the cost would be approximately double what my plane is
worth.

To hangar or not to hangar is one of those questions that will depend
on the local environment and the airplane. I might worry about tying
down a fabric covered plane, for fear of deterioration from UV rays,
but I have no qualms about leaving my aluminum bird sitting on the
ramp.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Aaron Coolidge]

Stealth Pilot > wrote:
: On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:38:56 -0800, "Slip'er" >
: wrote:
:>This bird will be parked outside,
:>most likely.
: I'm an aircraft owner so dont be offended when I say that that is a
: truely dumb decision.

I'm an aircraft owner so don't be offended when I tell you that we cannot
all live in that perfect world.

In the 4 years that I have had my airplane I have "saved" $10,320 over
having the plane hangered. There is still a 12-year waiting list for
hangers - they say that a few will be built next year (all are already
allocated). You cannot build your own hanger. There is one for sale
at a nearby airport for $35,000 which is 61% of the value of my airplane.
It has neither heat nor electricity.
There are a few nice hangers for sale in southern New Hampshire in the
$100,000 range.
I find that my cabin cover and wing covers do a fine job of keeping the
paint in good shape. In 4 more years when it needs to be repainted I will
have more than $20,000 in "savings" that can be applied to a nice paint
job.
I have a series built aluminum airplane, so the potential problems of
having it sit outside are well known. If you've got a rare, or fabric covered,
or very expensive airplane by all means hanger it if you can.
--
Aaron C.

[Slip'er]

> I'm an aircraft owner so dont be offended when I say that that is a
> truely dumb decision.

There must be a lot of dumb people out there because there are a ton of
airplanes tied-down on ramps all over the country.

> no kidding, your first decision as an intending aircraft owner should
> ALWAYS be "where am I going to hangar it?"

Well, my local airport OKB has about 26 hangars. About 6 of those are not
rentable due to lack of structural integrety. The others hav broken doors
and blue tarps on the roof with tires holding it down. These hangars go for
$400 per month. They stopped taking names when the waiting list for a
hanger reached 100 people. The airport is building 21 additional hangers
which with any luck will be done in 2005. When this happens, the rent on
ALL hangers will be $500+ per month (T-hanger). I have no hope of getting a
hanger here for a long long long time. But, parking it outside might be
possible. The monthly tie-down is about $100 per month so I save $400 per
month parking outside. The next closest airport is L18 with what I believe
to be similar hanger rates ( I do need to check) CRQ is third closest but
expect to pay $600 - $900 for a hanger here and there is nothing available.
Not to mention that CRQ is pushing out small GA for jet centers.

Now F70 could be an option and I believe that I might be able to get a hange
for about $300/mo if my memory is correct BUT, now my plane is over an hour
away.

One of my engineering contractors has a Pitts hangered in NC for $120/month.
Of course, in many parts of the country the question should be where am I
going to hanger my plane. But here in Southern California the difference is
likely $5,000+ per year and then only if you are lucky enough to get into
one. I know pilots who have been on waiting lists for 6 years.

> just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
> between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
> 5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
> pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
> restoration.

Weather takes its toll but here in SoCal it isn't too bad although I am
quite close to the coast. OKB is only 2 miles from the beach and gets quite
a marine layer for a few months of the year.

> hangarage will save you thousands of dollars over the life of an
> aircraft.

Heck, as I mentioned, I can save "thousands" of dollars every year parking
it outside. Taking the example to the extreme... A used 7ECA with about
1000 hrs TBO can be had for $35K. Assume I save $5k/year in Tie-down. That
means in 7 years I have saved enough money to buy another 7ECA. --So fly
the plane about 140 hours per year sell it for $10,000 with a runout engine
and bad fabric and go buy a new plane every 7 years. Heck, I even saved
enough money to pay for my fuel.

Slip'er

[Slip'er]

> In my opinion, parking a plane outside is false economy. You save a
> little each month, but pay for it in other ways:

See my previous reply to false economy. Many of your examples are valid
points but SoCal is a very expensive place to hanger an aircraft and the
case may not hold up for this local area.

> -Plane will continuously need a wash (washing a plane = major time
> sink)

ROFL!!! This is California. Many airports won't let you wash your plane.
Water = Runoff = Ecological disaster!

> -Worrying every time a storm pulls thru

Up until a few days ago, I would have said this isn't a big issue in San
Diego.

> Finally, I believe the Citabria's have fabric wings, which is not a
> good choice for a permanent outdoor enviroment.

I have seen Citabrias parked outside around here for years. Fabric holds up
"pretty" well and these are rental planes that are never cleaned or have UV
protectant on them. I would probably clean my plane much more and
definitely apply UV protectant a few times a year.

> If there is a possibility that finances could be tight in the future,
> pilots are much better off renting or joining a flying club...

There is ALWAYS a chance that finances could be tight in the future. That
is one of the reasons for my 5 year vacation from flying. The new plane
will be a cash purchase with a healthy reserve account for *most* unexpected
events. Very few clubs rent Citabrias. Try to schedule one for a weekend
and they laugh, that is when the rent them for aerobatics instruction.
Scheduling issues just drove me nuts so I decided to quit flying until I
could buy my own. Plus, a few times the aircraft came back with squaks that
weren't logged that I found during preflight. A couple of them made me
cancel the flight for safety...another reason I decided to quit renting
until I could buy.

Slip'er

[ohfuk24]

I want to touch on your point about renting and being grounded.

I started flying early 2003. But before I did, I took a lot of time doing
tons of research on what would be best for me as far as owning or renting.
After I made the decision to rent, I then took an equally intesive search
for where. I visited all of the FBOs withing a two hour drive of me, I live
in Northern Cal, Bay Area, so that is a lot of flight schools to visit. The
whole purpose of this was to find the school that had the best aircraft, the
best maintenance program, the best instructors, etc. My thought was I
didn't wanna fly anything substandard and put my welfare in jeopardy. Well,
I finally made a decision on the flight school and have stuck with them ever
since I started close to 2 years ago (2 year anniversary Feb '05).

I guess my point is your woes about renting can be overcome if you do your
diligence and get yourself a great FBO. I have never been grounded for
surprise squaks, they have enough airplanes to handle their full load of
students and regular renters. They have an immaculate maintenance program.
And yes, most of their planes live outside.


"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:8f0Bd.20478$8e5.16655@fed1read07...
>> In my opinion, parking a plane outside is false economy. You save a
>> little each month, but pay for it in other ways:
>
> See my previous reply to false economy. Many of your examples are valid
> points but SoCal is a very expensive place to hanger an aircraft and the
> case may not hold up for this local area.
>
>> -Plane will continuously need a wash (washing a plane = major time
>> sink)
>
> ROFL!!! This is California. Many airports won't let you wash your plane.
> Water = Runoff = Ecological disaster!
>
>> -Worrying every time a storm pulls thru
>
> Up until a few days ago, I would have said this isn't a big issue in San
> Diego.
>
>> Finally, I believe the Citabria's have fabric wings, which is not a
>> good choice for a permanent outdoor enviroment.
>
> I have seen Citabrias parked outside around here for years. Fabric holds
> up
> "pretty" well and these are rental planes that are never cleaned or have
> UV
> protectant on them. I would probably clean my plane much more and
> definitely apply UV protectant a few times a year.
>
>> If there is a possibility that finances could be tight in the future,
>> pilots are much better off renting or joining a flying club...
>
> There is ALWAYS a chance that finances could be tight in the future. That
> is one of the reasons for my 5 year vacation from flying. The new plane
> will be a cash purchase with a healthy reserve account for *most*
> unexpected
> events. Very few clubs rent Citabrias. Try to schedule one for a weekend
> and they laugh, that is when the rent them for aerobatics instruction.
> Scheduling issues just drove me nuts so I decided to quit flying until I
> could buy my own. Plus, a few times the aircraft came back with squaks
> that
> weren't logged that I found during preflight. A couple of them made me
> cancel the flight for safety...another reason I decided to quit renting
> until I could buy.
>
> Slip'er
>
>

[[email protected]]

>for where. I visited all of the FBOs withing a two hour drive of me, I live
>in Northern Cal, Bay Area, so that is a lot of flight schools to visit. The
>whole purpose of this was to find the school that had the best aircraft, the
>best maintenance program, the best instructors, etc. My thought was I
>didn't wanna fly anything substandard and put my welfare in jeopardy. Well,
>I finally made a decision on the flight school and have stuck with them ever
>since I started close to 2 years ago (2 year anniversary Feb '05).

I live in the bay area, and I'm did a similar search. I curious, which
flying club did you settle on?

I live in Hayward, and chose California Airways at KHWD.

[Shane O]

I changed my name ... I didn't think "ohfuk24" was appropriate.

Actually, I too live in Hayward. Maybe we should get together sometime and
share stories. All the schools at HWD left a bad taste in my mouth. Along
with the problem of being smack dab in the midde of OAKs charlie airspace I
decided to go with a school at Livermore (LVK). The school is Ahart
Aviation and I would probably recommend them to anyone.

You can get them at their website at http://www.ahart.com

Please feel free to email me personally anytime and maybe we can start up a
new friendship.


> wrote in message
news:1104454261.e35b32eb4f2ab8273010637f85d424ee@t eranews...
>
>>for where. I visited all of the FBOs withing a two hour drive of me, I
>>live
>>in Northern Cal, Bay Area, so that is a lot of flight schools to visit.
>>The
>>whole purpose of this was to find the school that had the best aircraft,
>>the
>>best maintenance program, the best instructors, etc. My thought was I
>>didn't wanna fly anything substandard and put my welfare in jeopardy.
>>Well,
>>I finally made a decision on the flight school and have stuck with them
>>ever
>>since I started close to 2 years ago (2 year anniversary Feb '05).
>
> I live in the bay area, and I'm did a similar search. I curious, which
> flying club did you settle on?
>
> I live in Hayward, and chose California Airways at KHWD.
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> In article <1104417758.851483@sj-nntpcache-3>, Dave Butler > wrote:
> >Stealth Pilot wrote:
> >
> >At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
> >difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
> >pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.
>
> In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that.

Get real. A complete recover job on my Maule is less than that -- at Maule.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:56:45 GMT, "Shane O" >
wrote:

>I changed my name ... I didn't think "ohfuk24" was appropriate.
>
>Actually, I too live in Hayward. Maybe we should get together sometime and

Sounds good. If nothing else, I plan to start IFR training soon, so I
could use a safety pilot.

>share stories. All the schools at HWD left a bad taste in my mouth. Along

Really? I'm happy with Cal Airways. At least they have a Skylane, and
I've been flying it exclusively.

>with the problem of being smack dab in the midde of OAKs charlie airspace I
>decided to go with a school at Livermore (LVK). The school is Ahart
>Aviation and I would probably recommend them to anyone.

Yeah, all the airspace around Hayward is a pain in the ass. Oakland
Class C, SFO class B, SJC class C, it's like flying through a giant
jigsaw puzzle.

I always try to get flight following, and when you do, they normally
do your clearances automatically for you, as well as let you know
about other traffic, most of which I'd never see if they didn't tell
me about them.

>
>You can get them at their website at http://www.ahart.com

It looks like a nice club, but I didn't want to have to drive a half
hour or more to fly. Hayward airport is a 10 minute drive.
>
>Please feel free to email me personally anytime and maybe we can start up a
>new friendship.

Sounds good. My email address displayed here is incomplete for spam
protection. It's add "dsl" after "fiero" to email me.

[Slip'er]

> I visited all of the FBOs withing a two hour drive of me, I live
> in Northern Cal, Bay Area, so that is a lot of flight schools to visit.

Wow, that's serious research. My limit is about a 1 hour drive which gives
me 5 airports only 3 of which have FBOs. One of the big problems that I
have is that I am 99% interested in renting Citabrias / Decathalons and
about 1% interested in everything else. Very few clubs have taildraggers
and those that do usually only have 1 or 2 on the flight line. This isn't a
big pool for the aerobatic / tailwheel students. As such, scheduling is
always cumbersome especially for all-day or multi-day rentals.

Slip'er

[Shane O]

Well I do believe that I missed your point about the type of plane you are
looking to rent. And yes, I agree they are few and far between and when
found, hard to schedule.

Shane O



"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:YF2Bd.20809$8e5.3027@fed1read07...
>> I visited all of the FBOs withing a two hour drive of me, I live
>> in Northern Cal, Bay Area, so that is a lot of flight schools to visit.
>
> Wow, that's serious research. My limit is about a 1 hour drive which
> gives
> me 5 airports only 3 of which have FBOs. One of the big problems that I
> have is that I am 99% interested in renting Citabrias / Decathalons and
> about 1% interested in everything else. Very few clubs have taildraggers
> and those that do usually only have 1 or 2 on the flight line. This isn't
> a
> big pool for the aerobatic / tailwheel students. As such, scheduling is
> always cumbersome especially for all-day or multi-day rentals.
>
> Slip'er
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 30-Dec-2004, Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Actually, the Arrow I now fly in a club has a greater full fuel useful
> load than did my 182. Now its full fuel is 50 gallons rather than 84
> (or was it 88, I forgot for the 182 with LR tanks), but it still carries
> a surprising amount. The downside is that the 180 HP is really
> noticeable at gross weight. It climbs about like a C-150. I really
> miss the 182 on TO and climb. The Arrow is marginally faster in cruise,
> but not by much. The win is that it burns about 9 GPH at 125 knots
> rather than 12.


My Arrow IV has a useful load of 980 lbs. With full tanks (72 gal usable)
VFR range (1 hr reserve) is about 900 nm. With fuel limited to 50 gal
usable payload is a solid 680 lbs. I get 135 kts on 9.4 gph at 65% cruise
(at 9000 ft.) There is a big efficiency difference between the 200 hp and
180 hp engines.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
>>
>> In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that.
>
>Get real. A complete recover job on my Maule is less than that -- at Maule.

In... ten... years...

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

[nuke]

<< In the 4 years that I have had my airplane I have "saved" $10,320 over
having the plane hangered. There is still a 12-year waiting list for
hangers - they say that a few will be built next year (all are already
>><BR><BR>


Where I live, the smallest t-hanger is $550(US) a month. The waiting list goes
back well over a decade. The average size t-hanger on the field goes for $700.
Box hangers $1200 and up.

$6600/yr for a hanger.

Cost of a pretty decent single engine plane every 10 years.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

corrosion will not always be
> seen and can add considerably to the maintenance costs at each annual.
> it doesnt take much corrosion in the wrong spot to ruin an otherwise
> serviceable part.
>

I'm afraid most of this is BS. My husband's Luscombe 8A was parked outside
for nearly all of its 60 years. His last wing covering lasted over 20 years.
He has a hangar now because someone at our airport died. No amount of money
or influence can get you a hangar where none exist.

My airplane has been parked outside for the past 10 years. It has no paint
on it, and I have no corrosion. It just passed another extensive annual just
this past week. My only squawk was a worn brake pulley.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:37:57 -0500, Dave Butler > wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
>>> between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
>>> 5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
>>> pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
>>> restoration.
>>
>>At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
>>difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
>>pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.
>
> then get a big enough hangar so that a few (lots) of you can share the
> costs or find a cheaper airport.
>
> the implicit assumption in your post is that an aircraft just prior to
> restoration will be enjoyable and safe to fly. will it?
>
> but yes I'm talking from my appreciation of other peoples aircraft
> maintenance issues. I hangar mine and at 20 years it is still in worry
> free condition and nowhere near needing a restoration effort.
> ymmv
> Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:22:39 -0800, "Slip'er" >
wrote:

all right you guys, I surrender. Leave them out in the weather and
throw dirt on them every time you have finsihed flying :-)

what you guys have proven to me is that our little airfield 50km south
of Perth in Western Australia is even more special than I had
believed.

we maintain and develop the field ourselves. we have a peppercorn
lease on the property (free) and the costs are club dues plus a few
days occasionally spent on the tractor and slasher mowing the flat
open areas of the airfield.(which is good clean fun)

if we were subject to the costs you put up with not one of us could
afford to be flying. my hangarage costs are about $600 per year.
in fact my overheads are no more than $2000 per year with flying
costing $20-25 per hour.

I'll leave you guys to slash wrists, bay at the moon in frustration,
and I'll just go back to my little piece of heaven.

Stealth Pilot

[Slip'er]

> I'll leave you guys to slash wrists, bay at the moon in frustration,
> and I'll just go back to my little piece of heaven.

I wouldn't mind a little piece of your heaven. Oh wait, I would be an
"illegal alien" there and Australia is a lot smarter than the US on that
issue...you'd throw me out.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> In article >,
> G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
> >>
> >> In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that.
> >
> >Get real. A complete recover job on my Maule is less than that -- at Maule.
>
> In... ten... years...

Yes, Madame Ruth.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[[email protected]]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
> what you guys have proven to me is that our little airfield 50km
south
> of Perth in Western Australia is even more special than I had
> believed.
>

It is special indeed. Believe me, if I could hangar at a reasonable
cost, it would certainly be one of the 1st items of business after
buying a plane. Consider yourself a lucky man.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 08:48:38 -0800, "Slip'er" >
wrote:

>> I'll leave you guys to slash wrists, bay at the moon in frustration,
>> and I'll just go back to my little piece of heaven.
>
>I wouldn't mind a little piece of your heaven. Oh wait, I would be an
>"illegal alien" there and Australia is a lot smarter than the US on that
>issue...you'd throw me out.
>
if you promise to bring your Pitts, the Learjet and that C5a gallaxy
you nicked from the marines, and you let us fly them, I'm sure we'll
hide you in various hangars untill the feds forget about you :-)

Stealth Pilot

[Slip'er]

> if you promise to bring your Pitts, the Learjet and that C5a gallaxy
> you nicked from the marines, and you let us fly them, I'm sure we'll
> hide you in various hangars untill the feds forget about you :-)

Can't get the learjet for you BUT, I have my guys putting the Pitts, Aprilia
Falco, and my pickup inside the C5a Galaxy as we speak. My guys tell me
that there is room for plenty more contraband Any special requests?
Otherwise I'm filling every nook and cranny with beer and wine.

[Slip'er]

You succeeded in getting me looking at Maule's. A 160 or 180 might be the
best compromise for me although I will surely miss having a stick.

Slip'er

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
om...
> I chose a tail dragging Maule:
> - choosing a 4 seater over a 2 seater was the best decision. 95% of the
> time, it is 2 of us flying for a 1 to 5 day trip of aprox 250miles
> roundtrip. A 2 placer is good for 1 person traveling. 2 people require
> a 4 placer.
> - Simple has paid off in reasonably predictable and moderate
> maintenance; no CS prop, 180 4 cyl, relatively new
> - Hangaring; I would not be willing to own something that sat out. Not
> after being in a hangar.
> - I love the tailwheel - keeps it interesting and different. Makes me
> feel good. No practical value whatsoever.
> - Wish it was faster. But having flown only 60 hours this year vs 125
> to 150 the past 5 - I appreciate the simplicity and low maintenance.
>
> I'd suggest some more exploring of clubs or partnerships
>
> Slip'er wrote:
> > All great feedback so far. Keep it coming. I have made a few posts
about
> > my efforts to select a plane. I am definitely caught in analysis
paralysis.
> > I am also caught up with fear of selling my stock when it is doing so
well.
> > I sold 500 shares to buy Christmas presents, two weeks after I sold them
> > those 500 shares were worth an additional $3500. I know this matters
little
> > in the big scheme, you can't time the market...etc. But I'm still
planning
> > to hold out until the fall and review my plans. Back to the plane.
> >
> > I have only flown Citabrias and Decathalons with a little bit of Piper
> > PA-140 / PA-180 and a PT-23. I love the Citabria/Decathalon but am luke
> > warm at best about the Archer/172/etc. This bird will be parked
outside,
> > most likely.
> >
> > I started my quest thinking that a Champ or a Luscombe would fit the
bill
> > for a first plane. But I get caught up in the "a 7ECA isn't that much
more
> > and I get aerobatics and a bigger engine" which is true but, " a 150hp
> > Citabria isn't much more and I love the extra power" and "wow there are
a
> > few nice examples of 8KCABs out there with a CS prop which is nice for
> > aerobatics and cruise, AND they don't cost much more..." So this is my
main
> > dilema aside from purchase price, what is the difference in relative
> > maintenance from each of this family when comparing models of similar
> > condition. They typically don't have a lot of "extras" which is fine
for
> > me. I am VFR only and don't plan to get instrument rated. (although I
have
> > done and will continue to do a bit of training in my friends plane for a
> > margin of safety should I need it someday) If I buy into this group I'd
> > really like to get the metal spar and heavy lift struts.
> >
> > Then more skitzophrenai...Should I really hold fast to taildraggers and
> > stick? Yes! I dream about bush flying all of the time and with my own
> > plane, 3-4 day weekend trips will actually be possible. (ever try to
rent a
> > Citabria for a 3 day weekend? Good luck!) Wait, if I go for a faster
> > plane, I have access to more places. If I had say a Long-Eze or other
> > slippery plane in my price range I could really explore America.
> >
> > Wait, I have kids. How often will I be able to realistically take off
for
> > 3-4 day trips. That probably isn't a good selection criteria. Best to
> > stick with day trips, again though speed is distance. Hmm, I love the
> > tandem seating but, my kids would really like to be up front and that
would
> > be nice for them to learn more and enjoy each others company.
> >
> > OMG, Look at that Great Lakes! No, wait, later! Wait until the kids
are in
> > College. That cannot be a good idea right now.
> >
> > So, I really think I'll be looking at a Citabria type aircraft. It
seems
> > to be where my "comfort" zone is, probably because I soloed in a 7ECA
and
> > most of my time is in Citabrias. The question is, should I buy the
absolute
> > minimum aircraft that meets my "needs" or buy what I can afford for
maximum
> > fun? One thing is true with Motorcycles, Cars, Boats, and
Airplanes....you
> > can never have too much horse power.
> >
> > Part of me says buy the minimum plane ie 7ECA for two reasons. Put the
> > minimum money at risk and use this first purchase as a learning
experience.
> > This will increase reserves in case I really screw up and said reserves
can
> > also hide some of the real expense from my wife who supports me in this
but
> > is also an accountant...and I hear about my excessive hobbies. But if
say a
> > 150 HP Citabria is about the same to maintain...why not spend a little
extra
> > money?
> >
> > When I really think about it, this wouldn't be such a difficult decision
if
> > I were single. The real pain I feel is that buying a plane feels so
> > selfish! This is a huge, expensive hobby for ME. Yes, my kids will
enjoy
> > it but I doubt my wife will fly with me until the kids are out of the
house.
> > My kids have flown with me and enjoy it but truth be told...they'd
rather
> > have a boat (my wife would too). Which clearly means...this is for me.
But
> > darn it, I have wanted this all of my life. They just "want" a boat
because
> > I brought it up one day when I took them sailing on a friends 28 ft
> > sailboat.
> >
> > Time for my medication...
> >
> >

[G.R. Patterson III]

Slip'er wrote:
>
> Otherwise I'm filling every nook and cranny with beer and wine.

You're taking *American* beer and wine to *Australia*???? Talk about coals to
Newcastle!

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Slip'er wrote:
>
> You succeeded in getting me looking at Maule's. A 160 or 180 might be the
> best compromise for me although I will surely miss having a stick.

My 160 is for sale if you get a little futher than just looking.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Slip'er]

I don't want to bother you just tire kicking but contact me off line and let
me know the particulars or a link if you have anything posted on the web.

carl dot hixon at cox dot net

> George Patterson
> The desire for safety stands against every great and noble
enterprise.