Airplane Ownership

[Shirley]

Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.

[Cub Driver]

Not me, but a guy who trained at the same airport with the same
instructor I did, just after I did.

He was I think in his 50s--younger than I was, anyhow. Like me he fell
in love with the Cub and went out and bought one.

Then came his medical. He had (I think it was) high blood pressure and
the FAA sat on his medical cert for a year!

So that's my caution, and my recommendation is that you get your
medical out of the way before you put down your money on the airplane.

On 12 Mar 2004 06:11:36 GMT, (Shirley)
wrote:

>Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
>licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
>suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Shirley]

Cub Driver warbird wrote:

>So that's my caution, and my recommendation
>is that you get your medical out of the way
>before you put down your money on the airplane.

Thanks. Good advice. I have my medical, have taken and passed the written and
have done the initial training and soloed in a Cessna 150. Made the decision to
stop flying that airplane due to unresolved maintenance issues. Still have to
do the x-countries, hood work and finish the solo time. Have independent CFI
friends but no airplane, and not comfortable picking a random school/CFI.

I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice, suggestions,
cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to avoid,
red flags, etc.

[Maule Driver]

I switched from gliders (lot's of racing and cc) to planes about 5-6 years
ago. Always thought I would ultimately like to do both but time and
situation changed... I ended up buying and flying a Maule.

I would suggest not buying yet.

Anything is cheaper than owning. But owning is definitely worth it if you
want the freedom it provides.

Unless the financial commitment is not an issue, it may make sense to fly
more, experience more, and figure out what you really want to do. And
figure out what various a/c have to offer. Then buy.

In my case, I envisioned just punching holes around the residential airpark
we moved too. I was thinking Citabria. My mate said, "where will my bags
go?" I explained that a 2 place is a 1 place + bags and that a 4 place is a
2 place with bags. "Then we need a 4 place". I couldn't envision really
doing that much serious travel but couldn't resist the logic.

Turned out that the combination of living with the a/c, owning, and new
friends 120 road miles away made short distance, frequent travel the main
mission. The Maule fit perfectly. I NEVER go and punch holes, I did go get
an instrument ticket, commercial, etc. Now we are interested in seeing
friends in FL and NY more often so something faster would make sense but the
short trip works so well...

Sold the glider and never regretted it (totally unexpected). Travel a lot
(totally unexpected). Never go to airshows, $100 breakfasts, and such
(totally unexpected). The point is, it took awhile and some collaboration
before the right mount could be chosen.

That's my .02cents.

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
> licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
> suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 12 Mar 2004 13:36:03 GMT, (Shirley)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice, suggestions,
>cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to avoid,
>red flags, etc.

Consider posting your request in the rec.aviation.owning newsgroup.

[Kyler Laird]

(Shirley) writes:

>I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice, suggestions,
>cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to avoid,
>red flags, etc.

Take a look at previous threads on the topic. There are several.

I started my Private with the intention of just boring holes in
the sky when I was a kid. When I finally got serious about it, I
bought a twin and finished. I fly because it allows me to make
trips I couldn't make otherwise. It's very rare that I make a
flight that I could have reasonably made in a "trainer" (or even
in a "step-up" plane like an Arrow or C-182).

I think it's important to decide early whether you're going to
eventually want something more than a "trainer". If so, do you
really want to buy a trainer for your primary instruction? If
you do, think *hard* about resale value and don't go nuts on
avionics. Also consider how your experience is going to look to
an insurer. (It might make more sense to get a low-end
retractable now if you're going to want insurance for a
retractable later.) Long-range insurance planning can make a
*big* difference.

It might be quite a bit better in the long run to go somewhere
else (like an intensive course?) to finish your Private and just
save for the plane you really want. It *could* even work to get
*that* plane for your primary instruction because insurance will
probably require a bunch of dual in it anyway. (You won't hear
many people advising that you get a high-performance retract for
primary training. I'm just saying that you should consider it.)

Bottom line...decide what you're likely to want out of your
plane before you start looking at buying one, then learn about
the possibilities for *your* situation.

--kyler

[Mike Rapoport]

I would rent until you really know what you want. Buying and selling
airplanes can be expensive and you want to do it as few times as possible.
Now that new airplanes are all getting glass cockpits, the days of used
airplane appreciaton are over.

Mike
MU-2

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
> licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
> suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.
>

[Maule Driver]

This sounds like a thread unto itself. I don't have input but would love to
hear others comment....

"Mike Rapoport" >
> ....Now that new airplanes are all getting glass cockpits, the days of
used
> airplane appreciaton are over.
>

[dlevy]

I bought a Musketeer at the exact same time in training. It has worked out
well for me. I finished up my training and still own and enjoy the plane
four years later.

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks. Good advice. I have my medical, have taken and passed the written
and
> have done the initial training and soloed in a Cessna 150. Made the
decision to
> stop flying that airplane due to unresolved maintenance issues. Still have
to
> do the x-countries, hood work and finish the solo time. Have independent
CFI
> friends but no airplane, and not comfortable picking a random school/CFI.
>
> I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice, suggestions,
> cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to
avoid,
> red flags, etc.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that the older
ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the new ones. With the
advent of the glass cockpit, his is no longer true.

Mike
MU-2


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> This sounds like a thread unto itself. I don't have input but would love
to
> hear others comment....
>
> "Mike Rapoport" >
> > ....Now that new airplanes are all getting glass cockpits, the days of
> used
> > airplane appreciaton are over.
> >
>
>

[smackey]

(Shirley) wrote in message >...
> Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
> licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
> suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.

Bought mine one month after getting PPSEL. Then used it for
instrument training. Given the frequent conflicts with weather,
maintenance, other users, it really helped to have my own plane, not
to mention the familiarity with the plane's performance, settings etc
that comes from flying your own plane. That is very nice for
instrument training and flying.

[Dan Luke]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
> the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
> new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
> longer true.

I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.

Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
$50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
of premium for just the pretty boxes.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Mike Rapoport]

Cessna sold out an entire years 182 and 206 production in one hour following
the announcement that they would have the G1000. That tells me that people
desire glass cockpits. You should also know that the glass cockpits are
cheaper than the analog gauges that they replace. I would hate to be the
guy who bought the last non-glass 182.

Mike
MU-2





"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
> > the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
> > new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
> > longer true.
>
> I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
> value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
> experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
> that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
> designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
> the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.
>
> Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
> get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
> command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
> $50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
> of premium for just the pretty boxes.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
> (remove pants to reply by email)
>
>

[Rob Thomas]

Yes, but Cessna also cut their production in half this year. Also, it's the
dealers that are buying these. If you look on the various aircraft for sale
websites, you'll see that the dealers are advertising them as available.
So, it remains to be seen exactly how fast they will be snatched up.
Although, I'd tend to believe that they'll go quickly.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Cessna sold out an entire years 182 and 206 production in one hour
following
> the announcement that they would have the G1000. That tells me that
people
> desire glass cockpits. You should also know that the glass cockpits are
> cheaper than the analog gauges that they replace. I would hate to be the
> guy who bought the last non-glass 182.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
>
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > > I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
> > > the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
> > > new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
> > > longer true.
> >
> > I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
> > value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
> > experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
> > that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
> > designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
> > the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.
> >
> > Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
> > get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
> > command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
> > $50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
> > of premium for just the pretty boxes.
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM
> > (remove pants to reply by email)
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Miller]

Go on......

[Gig Giacona]

"Dan Luke" > wrote
> I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
> value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
> experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
> that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
> designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
> the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.
>
> Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
> get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
> command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
> $50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
> of premium for just the pretty boxes.
> --

It may, in the long run, not matter about "real value." "Perceived value"
might move the market. Think how many times the threads about VORs going the
way of the NDB have been posted in the rec.aviation.* newsgroups.

Gig G

[Blanche]

I bought a cherokee (180hp) after I solo'd (then had to get signed
off and solo again because I'd solo'd in a cessna). Reduced considerably
the four conditions to fly

1) my schedule
2) instructor schedule
3) weather
4) aircraft schedule

One of my big problems in training was the scheduling. With my
own aircraft, #1 and 4 became irrelevant.

As much as I'd like faster or 2 engines, the cherokee is just
fine for 90% of my flying.

[Captain Wubba]

Kyler Laird > wrote in message >...
> (Shirley) writes:
>
> >I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice, suggestions,
> >cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to avoid,
> >red flags, etc.
>
> Take a look at previous threads on the topic. There are several.
>
> I started my Private with the intention of just boring holes in
> the sky when I was a kid. When I finally got serious about it, I
> bought a twin and finished. I fly because it allows me to make
> trips I couldn't make otherwise. It's very rare that I make a
> flight that I could have reasonably made in a "trainer" (or even
> in a "step-up" plane like an Arrow or C-182).
>
> I think it's important to decide early whether you're going to
> eventually want something more than a "trainer". If so, do you
> really want to buy a trainer for your primary instruction? If
> you do, think *hard* about resale value and don't go nuts on
> avionics. Also consider how your experience is going to look to
> an insurer. (It might make more sense to get a low-end
> retractable now if you're going to want insurance for a
> retractable later.) Long-range insurance planning can make a
> *big* difference.


I have to disagree here. The best advice I was given before I
purchased my first airplane was "Buy for the next 5 years...not the
next 30". I know quite a few people around the airport who bought
expensive 'touring' planes (A-36s or Barons) that just sit on the
tarmac because they cost $200 an hour to fly. They bought them with
the intention of flying them on long trips etc., but they almost never
fly them because it sosts too much to bore holes in the sky, and
unless you bore holes in the sky, you aren't current enough to handle
a Bone.

Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
hours, and for these things, an hour in a $30/hour 152 is the same as
an hour in a $150/hr A36.

Since planes like this don't depreciate much (if at all), then all
that will be lost by buying a cheaper, small plane to train in is the
opportunity cost of the money, which right now isn't all that much and
interest expenses, which are more than outweighed by the cost savings
of owning a plane that you fly 125 hours per year.

If I was in this persons shoes, I'd go out and buy a $25,000-$35,000
four seater. A 1960s vintage 172, or a Beech Musketeer. You get much
more functionality out of it that you would a two seater, and the
operating costs are not that much higher. Both of these planes are
inexpensive to operate and own, and will certainly do for training,
local flight and XCs of less than about 400 NM.

This is basically what I did do myself, altho I waited until I
finished my private license to buy it. A couple friends and I bought a
1963 Beech Musketeer for $26,000 and flew the heck out of it. I did my
instrument and commercial training it it, and some of my CFI. Took it
all over...we put over 500 hours on it the first year we owned it. And
it eneded up being *much* cheaper than renting one of the FBOs beater
172s. While they wanted $72 an hour for a 172, the fully loaded costs
of the Musketeer over almost 3 years came out to be right around $47
per hour, wet, including some fairly expensive maintenence items.
Right there, that saved me thousands of dollars.

After you use this plane to get your license, *then* decide if you
need something more. I'm buying another plane like this (sold my
Musketeer to a club for a very tidey profit and a membership in the
club). The Club has a nice touring plane (A Cessna 206) and may be
getting a twin. Given that I need these planes maybe 5 times a year
for longer trips, it makes more sense for me to own a 'cheap' plane
(i.e. a $40 per hour 172 or Musketeer) and fly the club plane (at $80
or $125 an hour) than to own a more expensive plane.

Different strokes for different folks tho, so this is just my two
cents worth :)

Cheers,

Cap


>
> It might be quite a bit better in the long run to go somewhere
> else (like an intensive course?) to finish your Private and just
> save for the plane you really want. It *could* even work to get
> *that* plane for your primary instruction because insurance will
> probably require a bunch of dual in it anyway. (You won't hear
> many people advising that you get a high-performance retract for
> primary training. I'm just saying that you should consider it.)
>
> Bottom line...decide what you're likely to want out of your
> plane before you start looking at buying one, then learn about
> the possibilities for *your* situation.
>
> --kyler

[Soon_To_Fly]

Where did you get your Musketeer? Is there enough of these around still for
second hand purchases?

Richard

"dlevy" > wrote in message
...
> I bought a Musketeer at the exact same time in training. It has worked
out
> well for me. I finished up my training and still own and enjoy the plane
> four years later.
>
> "Shirley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Thanks. Good advice. I have my medical, have taken and passed the
written
> and
> > have done the initial training and soloed in a Cessna 150. Made the
> decision to
> > stop flying that airplane due to unresolved maintenance issues. Still
have
> to
> > do the x-countries, hood work and finish the solo time. Have independent
> CFI
> > friends but no airplane, and not comfortable picking a random
school/CFI.
> >
> > I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice,
suggestions,
> > cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to
> avoid,
> > red flags, etc.
> >
>
>

[Kyler Laird]

(Captain Wubba) writes:

>Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
>the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
>instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
>hours,

How do you know? *I* certainly didn't. Within six months of getting
my Private, I was touring the country with my family in my Aztec. Had
I been limited to putting in hours in some little plane, there's a
good chance I would have given up flying (again). That would have been
a lousy investment.

I think it's silly to pretend that all pilots are going to be
motivated by the desire to "get hours."

--kyler

[Richard Hertz]

That is perceived value - in the end, there is no real added value - I get
the same from my handheld.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Cessna sold out an entire years 182 and 206 production in one hour
following
> the announcement that they would have the G1000. That tells me that
people
> desire glass cockpits. You should also know that the glass cockpits are
> cheaper than the analog gauges that they replace. I would hate to be the
> guy who bought the last non-glass 182.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
>
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > > I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
> > > the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
> > > new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
> > > longer true.
> >
> > I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
> > value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
> > experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
> > that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
> > designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
> > the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.
> >
> > Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
> > get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
> > command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
> > $50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
> > of premium for just the pretty boxes.
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM
> > (remove pants to reply by email)
> >
> >
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Soon_To_Fly wrote:
>
> Where did you get your Musketeer? Is there enough of these around still for
> second hand purchases?

A recent TAP has two listed, one for a bit over 31k.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Richard Hertz]

I bought mine halfway through training. I got tired or the scheduling
issues and thought it would be nice to have my own when I wanted to go on a
weekend trip and not have to pay the minimum times.

I bought a 4 place grumman. Ownership has its benefits and downsides.
Consider a partnership with one/2/3 other people. I would have, but I knew
I was going to move within a year so that didn't work well with a potential
partnership.

I am happy I bought it, but it has cost a lot of money...

Still, it is nice to be able to go to the airport whenever I feel like it
and go flying without having to schedule with anyone.

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
> licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
> suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.
>

[[email protected]]

http://www.aso.com/i.aso/ForSaleListing.jsp

Soon_To_Fly wrote:
> Where did you get your Musketeer? Is there enough of these around still for
> second hand purchases?

[Cub Driver]

>
>Still, it is nice to be able to go to the airport whenever I feel like it
>and go flying without having to schedule with anyone

Perhaps I should tell the rest of the J-3 story. The gent who bought
the plane as a student, and who had such tourble passing his medical,
eventually decided to upgrade it with a bigger engine, new covering,
etc etc, which cost as much as the original purchase. So he asked our
mutual (former) flight instructor if he wanted to split the ownership,
and this happened.

When I did my biennial flight check in January, I asked how this was
working out. The instructor allowed that it was working just fine for
him, but that the partner never seems to fly the aircraft. He's
self-employed, too, so it's not a scheduling problem--he could go if
he wanted to.

So there's another caution: be awfully sure that you will still want
to fly on a regular basis after the initial euphoria of learning to
fly. Otherwise you might end up maintaining an aircraft for somebody
else to enjoy.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Maule Driver]

Well, until I fly a fully integrated electronic cockpit, I'll reserve my
judgement of value. But I'm hoping and thinking that a fully integrated set
of avionics and instrumentation has real value beyond that of the piece
parts.

We can continue to fly 50s vintage equipment with a handheld GPS unit and
complain about how slowly small plane aviation technology advances. I want
to jump on the horse. The Skylane is halfway there. The Cirrus and the
'other one' seem to be the first 21st century light a/c. I think I'm going
to like it a lot and I'd hate to buy the last new steam guage Skylane too.

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
et...
> That is perceived value - in the end, there is no real added value - I get
> the same from my handheld.
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Cessna sold out an entire years 182 and 206 production in one hour
> following
> > the announcement that they would have the G1000. That tells me that
> people
> > desire glass cockpits. You should also know that the glass cockpits are
> > cheaper than the analog gauges that they replace. I would hate to be
the
> > guy who bought the last non-glass 182.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > > > I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
> > > > the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
> > > > new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
> > > > longer true.
> > >
> > > I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
> > > value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
> > > experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
> > > that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than
older
> > > designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs
is
> > > the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.
> > >
> > > Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when
they
> > > get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
> > > command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be
depressed
> > > $50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that
kind
> > > of premium for just the pretty boxes.
> > > --
> > > Dan
> > > C172RG at BFM
> > > (remove pants to reply by email)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Shirley]

Thanks to all for your comments. In response, not looking to choose between
gliders and airplanes ... without a doubt, each have their own challenges and
satisfactions. Right now, I just want to finish up the airplane rating and am
weighing the pros and cons of ownership vs. renting, keeping in mind the
stumbling blocks I have run across so far.

I appreciate the tips and insight, thanks for sharing your experiences.
Shirley

[Maule Driver]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks to all for your comments. In response, not looking to choose
between
> gliders and airplanes ... without a doubt, each have their own challenges
and
> satisfactions.

Believe me, I wasn't suggesting you were or should. It was just my path.
I'm still amazed at being willing and able to walk away from something that
I obsessed about for so many years. I was in as deep as I could get, then
just switched.

Have fun!

[Richard Hertz]

My VOR receivers are functional and so is my Garmin 295. I could have spent
a bunch of money for an MFD and a GPS (ifr certified) and an AP, but that
was waaay too much for the "extra" value that I am getting.

It is nice to see pictures and things in the airplane, but not at that
price. (I also have seen too many people become way too dependent on the
pretty moving map that they have no idea what to do if it is not there. )


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> Well, until I fly a fully integrated electronic cockpit, I'll reserve my
> judgement of value. But I'm hoping and thinking that a fully integrated
set
> of avionics and instrumentation has real value beyond that of the piece
> parts.
>
> We can continue to fly 50s vintage equipment with a handheld GPS unit and
> complain about how slowly small plane aviation technology advances. I
want
> to jump on the horse. The Skylane is halfway there. The Cirrus and the
> 'other one' seem to be the first 21st century light a/c. I think I'm
going
> to like it a lot and I'd hate to buy the last new steam guage Skylane too.
>
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> et...
> > That is perceived value - in the end, there is no real added value - I
get
> > the same from my handheld.
> >
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > Cessna sold out an entire years 182 and 206 production in one hour
> > following
> > > the announcement that they would have the G1000. That tells me that
> > people
> > > desire glass cockpits. You should also know that the glass cockpits
are
> > > cheaper than the analog gauges that they replace. I would hate to be
> the
> > > guy who bought the last non-glass 182.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> > > > > I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
> > > > > the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
> > > > > new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
> > > > > longer true.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of
real
> > > > value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
> > > > experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned
out,
> > > > that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than
> older
> > > > designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs
> is
> > > > the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.
> > > >
> > > > Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when
> they
> > > > get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
> > > > command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be
> depressed
> > > > $50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that
> kind
> > > > of premium for just the pretty boxes.
> > > > --
> > > > Dan
> > > > C172RG at BFM
> > > > (remove pants to reply by email)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[SJC Flying Club]

When the picture includes terrain data to help you get home safely on IFR
days in the mountains, it is pretty indeed.

Your point is well taken, though. Moving map GPS and MFDs can be addictive
and cause one to lose some pilotage and simple radio navigation skills.

--snip--
>
> It is nice to see pictures and things in the airplane, but not at that
> price. (I also have seen too many people become way too dependent on the
> pretty moving map that they have no idea what to do if it is not there. )
>

[Maule Driver]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
et...
> My VOR receivers are functional and so is my Garmin 295. I could have
spent
> a bunch of money for an MFD and a GPS (ifr certified) and an AP, but that
> was waaay too much for the "extra" value that I am getting.
>
> It is nice to see pictures and things in the airplane, but not at that
> price.

Have to agree that the cost/benefit ratio can be pretty lopsided. But I do
celebrate the fact that glass cockpits are available at all in SEL a/c. And
at a reasonable yet high price for new a/c.

At the same time, you couldn't pry my panel mounted ifr certified GPS unit
out of my hands very easily. A very high value item for me.

>(I also have seen too many people become way too dependent on the
> pretty moving map that they have no idea what to do if it is not there. )

Oh poppycock...

[Maule Driver]

Sometimes I think we all just reflexively feel that use of the newest
technology erodes older, somehow more valuable skills. Radio navigation
eroding our pilotage skills, ADFs and VOR eroding LF range skills (whatever
they were), GPS eroding VOR skills, MFDs eroding our eyesight...

I flew 100 to 300 mile glider cross countries for 5+ years exclusively by
pilotage. No radio navigation, no dead reckoning, often over unfamiliar
terrain and at low altitudes. It was challenging, I got very good at it,
and it all disappeared when the first GPS units hit the scene. Didn't miss
it for a second and the sport became even more fun. There's nothing noble
about not using the best technology when operating a machine... and I fly a
tailwheel.

I question how many pilots with an electrical system actually have any
appreciable pilotage skills. Or how many actually practice their dead
reckoning skills. And why is navigating by VOR somehow more meaningful than
by GPS?

I think the real skill gap lies in the fact that too many pilots fly
equipment that they have not fully trained on or are proficient with. Using
a panel mount GPS unit effectively requires more skill, not less.
..
"SJC Flying Club" >
> Your point is well taken, though. Moving map GPS and MFDs can be
addictive
> and cause one to lose some pilotage and simple radio navigation skills.
>
> > It is nice to see pictures and things in the airplane, but not at that
> > price. (I also have seen too many people become way too dependent on
the
> > pretty moving map that they have no idea what to do if it is not
here. )
> >
>
>

[Mitch]

I bought a plane with 13 hrs and 1 hr solo. My wife already had a Private
certificate at the time.

I wouldn't recommend it:
- The learning curve is steep.
- It will take more hours to get your license - fixing airplane problems -
flight checks.
- Mechanic shops will take all your money - especially if you are new to the
business.
- It won't be cheaper than renting.
- insurance is higher for student pilots.

My plane had a good engine and airframe. So far I've upgraded radios twice,
generator to Alternator, fuses to breakers,...

I was an hour drive from any rentals and I wanted to fly, so I paid the
extra cost.

Mitch



"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
> licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
> suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.
>

[Mark Astley]

I have to second Mitch's recommendations (or rather, lack thereof). Your
first year of ownership can be pretty painful. Even if you don't have any
squawks (unlikely), you'll need nerves of steel to resist fixing things that
the previous owner didn't bother with. That being said, after the first
year or two things usually settle down and, as long as you fly a respectible
number of hours, the costs start to make more sense. However, as Mitch
says, it's very difficult to make it cheaper than renting.

I bought my plane just before starting my instrument rating. I flew enough
hours to make it competitive with renting, but I had a painful annual (not
at all unusual for your first year) and a few bits of random maintenance
which put me over the top. I had to cancel lessons at least two times due
to maintenance: one was a failed tach, the other was an alternator. I also
lost about two weeks upgrading the panel.

My advice, wait 'til you finish your PP-ASEL, decide what kind of flying you
think you'll be doing over the next five years, then choose an airplane
which fits that mission (or keep on renting).

best of luck,
mark

"Mitch" > wrote in message
news:x5a5c.23277$m4.16123@okepread03...
> I bought a plane with 13 hrs and 1 hr solo. My wife already had a Private
> certificate at the time.
>
> I wouldn't recommend it:
> - The learning curve is steep.
> - It will take more hours to get your license - fixing airplane problems -
> flight checks.
> - Mechanic shops will take all your money - especially if you are new to
the
> business.
> - It won't be cheaper than renting.
> - insurance is higher for student pilots.
>
> My plane had a good engine and airframe. So far I've upgraded radios
twice,
> generator to Alternator, fuses to breakers,...
>
> I was an hour drive from any rentals and I wanted to fly, so I paid the
> extra cost.
>
> Mitch
>
>
>
> "Shirley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
> > licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
> > suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.
> >
>
>

[Captain Wubba]

Kyler Laird > wrote in message >...
> (Captain Wubba) writes:
>
> >Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
> >the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
> >instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
> >hours,
>
> How do you know? *I* certainly didn't. Within six months of getting
> my Private, I was touring the country with my family in my Aztec. Had
> I been limited to putting in hours in some little plane, there's a
> good chance I would have given up flying (again). That would have been
> a lousy investment.

Well, that is great for you. Of the dozens and dozens of pilots I know
that makes *one* who has done this. The other 95% have spent their
time flyign 150s and 172 and Cherokees, doing some XC flying, but
often working on their IFR tickets and trying to develop their flying
skills. I recommended a 4 seater like a 172 or a Musketeer. One they
can fly *immediately* (Want to guess what it would cost to get a new
private pilot insured in a Bone or an Aztec?) and use for reasonably
useful trips *and* training. Buying a 172 is almost *never* a 'lousy
investment'. You might lose a small amount when you sell it (but
probably not) but you will certainly recoup that amount in decreased
cost if you do a good prebuy on it and fly it a lot.

>
> I think it's silly to pretend that all pilots are going to be
> motivated by the desire to "get hours."

I think it is sillier to assume that your personal experience is more
applicable than that of the 'other' 95% of the new pilot population.
There is *no* chance today that a new private pilot could get insured
in an Aztec (Heck, I'm an instructor with a Multi Commercial, 600
hours total time, and an instrument ticket and *I* Can't get
reasonably priced insurance in a twin). There are reasons planes like
172s make good 'starter' planes. For the first year after getting yout
private ticket, even if you *aren't* looking to build hours per se,
you *are* looking to develop your skills and become a more proficient
pilot.

The original poster asked a simple question. I responded in a way that
took into account the actions of the vast majority of new pilots and
answered accordingly.

Cheers,

Cap


>
> --kyler

[Kyler Laird]

(Captain Wubba) writes:

>One they
>can fly *immediately* (Want to guess what it would cost to get a new
>private pilot insured in a Bone or an Aztec?)

Nope. Are you suggesting that such insurance is mandatory? Do we
need to pull Mike R. into the discussion?

>> I think it's silly to pretend that all pilots are going to be
>> motivated by the desire to "get hours."

>I think it is sillier to assume that your personal experience is more
>applicable than that of the 'other' 95% of the new pilot population.

Fortunately I didn't do that. I only suggested examining long-term
goals and motivations. The sweeping pronouncments were yours.

>There is *no* chance today that a new private pilot could get insured
>in an Aztec

I was told it's cyclical. Look for it to come around again.

>The original poster asked a simple question. I responded in a way that
>took into account the actions of the vast majority of new pilots and
>answered accordingly.

I realize that there are a lot of people who post to rec.aviation.*
who are perfectly happy saying that something is always true despite
counterexamples. I'm not one of them.

Your "disagreement" with my experience doesn't strike me as useful.

--kyler

[Mike Rapoport]

Dat's right! Don't need no stinking insurance!

Mike
MU-2

"Kyler Laird" > wrote in message
...
> (Captain Wubba) writes:
>
> >One they
> >can fly *immediately* (Want to guess what it would cost to get a new
> >private pilot insured in a Bone or an Aztec?)
>
> Nope. Are you suggesting that such insurance is mandatory? Do we
> need to pull Mike R. into the discussion?
>
> >> I think it's silly to pretend that all pilots are going to be
> >> motivated by the desire to "get hours."
>
> >I think it is sillier to assume that your personal experience is more
> >applicable than that of the 'other' 95% of the new pilot population.
>
> Fortunately I didn't do that. I only suggested examining long-term
> goals and motivations. The sweeping pronouncments were yours.
>
> >There is *no* chance today that a new private pilot could get insured
> >in an Aztec
>
> I was told it's cyclical. Look for it to come around again.
>
> >The original poster asked a simple question. I responded in a way that
> >took into account the actions of the vast majority of new pilots and
> >answered accordingly.
>
> I realize that there are a lot of people who post to rec.aviation.*
> who are perfectly happy saying that something is always true despite
> counterexamples. I'm not one of them.
>
> Your "disagreement" with my experience doesn't strike me as useful.
>
> --kyler

[Shirley]

>>I think it's silly to pretend that all pilots are going
>>to be motivated by the desire to "get hours."

>I think it is sillier to assume that your personal
>experience is more applicable than that of the
>'other' 95% of the new pilot population.

Gentlemen, please ... I appreciate all the input, regardless of which point of
view you are contributing.

I don't have huge aspirations regarding airplanes; then again, it wasn't that
long ago that I thought getting a private pilot ticket was a huge aspiration
(still do, actually)! Right now, I don't plan to go on long, cross-country
trips and don't plan on taking two or three passengers or a lot of baggage. Not
necessarily looking for an airplane I would keep forever, but would keep it as
long as it suits my needs, is fun to fly (subjective opinion, I realize), and
isn't a bottomless money pitt.

I don't expect it to be "cheaper than renting", but I would gladly pay the
difference for being in charge of arranging for maintenance myself vs. having
to look for another airplane to rent until some school is good and ready to
have something fixed. An added bonus would be not having to arrange my schedule
based on when the aircraft is available to me.

As for insurance, I have already gotten quotes, so I know it is do-able. Just
wondered what advice/tips people who'd gone this route would give, in
retrospect.

[Captain Wubba]

Kyler Laird > wrote in message >...
> (Captain Wubba) writes:
>
> >One they
> >can fly *immediately* (Want to guess what it would cost to get a new
> >private pilot insured in a Bone or an Aztec?)
>
> Nope. Are you suggesting that such insurance is mandatory? Do we
> need to pull Mike R. into the discussion?

Absolutely not. I'm sure most of the folks asking questions here have
$100,000 in cash lying around to purchase an Aztec so that they don't
need a loan (for which insurance *is* generally mandatory). And I'm
sure those people have *no* other assets that they might wish to try
to protect via insurance. Probably applies to 3/4 of all pilots,
right?

>
> >> I think it's silly to pretend that all pilots are going to be
> >> motivated by the desire to "get hours."
>
> >I think it is sillier to assume that your personal experience is more
> >applicable than that of the 'other' 95% of the new pilot population.
>
> Fortunately I didn't do that. I only suggested examining long-term
> goals and motivations. The sweeping pronouncments were yours.

Really? What were they? I extrapolated what seems to be the course for
the vast majority of new pilots and suggested a reasonable answer to
the poster based on that. As I said in the first post I made, the best
advice I got was to look at a plane purchase as one for the next 5
years, not the next 30. Still the best advice I received.

>
> >There is *no* chance today that a new private pilot could get insured
> >in an Aztec
>
> I was told it's cyclical. Look for it to come around again.

Indeed. I fully expect that in a year or two a 60-hour Private Pilot
can get some top-flight Citation Insurance for $30 a year. Any day
now.

>
> >The original poster asked a simple question. I responded in a way that
> >took into account the actions of the vast majority of new pilots and
> >answered accordingly.
>
> I realize that there are a lot of people who post to rec.aviation.*
> who are perfectly happy saying that something is always true despite
> counterexamples. I'm not one of them.

You have no idea how happy I am for you.

But when did I ever say or imply such a thing myself?

>
> Your "disagreement" with my experience doesn't strike me as useful.

Well, maybe since I was responding to the original poster who asked a
reasonable question demaning a reasonable answer, perhaps that is a
good thing, given your response. Perhaps it isn't useful to you.
Hopefully it was to him.

>
> --kyler

Cap

[Kyler Laird]

(Captain Wubba) writes:

>> >One they
>> >can fly *immediately* (Want to guess what it would cost to get a new
>> >private pilot insured in a Bone or an Aztec?)
>>
>> Nope. Are you suggesting that such insurance is mandatory? Do we
>> need to pull Mike R. into the discussion?

>Absolutely not. I'm sure most of the folks asking questions here have
>$100,000 in cash lying around to purchase an Aztec so that they don't
>need a loan (for which insurance *is* generally mandatory).

Again you're off on "most" (even though a specific person was asking
for help originally). Why not just say "Everyone should get a C-172"
and be done with your sage advice?

>And I'm
>sure those people have *no* other assets that they might wish to try
>to protect via insurance. Probably applies to 3/4 of all pilots,
>right?

Doesn't apply to me. Don't care.

>> Fortunately I didn't do that. I only suggested examining long-term
>> goals and motivations. The sweeping pronouncments were yours.

>Really? What were they?

Oh! You didn't read the part that I quoted in my response. That
does explain some of the confusion.

Here it is again.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ha4ai1-l18.ln1%40snout.lairds.org&output=gplain

>Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
>the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
>instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
>hours,

>> >There is *no* chance today that a new private pilot could get insured
>> >in an Aztec
>>
>> I was told it's cyclical. Look for it to come around again.

>Indeed. I fully expect that in a year or two a 60-hour Private Pilot
>can get some top-flight Citation Insurance for $30 a year. Any day
>now.

Are you implying that it's not cyclical or are you again discounting my
experience of getting insurance for an Aztec as a new Private Pilot?

>> Your "disagreement" with my experience doesn't strike me as useful.

>Well, maybe since I was responding to the original poster who asked a
>reasonable question demaning a reasonable answer, perhaps that is a
>good thing, given your response. Perhaps it isn't useful to you.
>Hopefully it was to him.

Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, it's based on false assumptions.

--kyler

[Captain Wubba]

Sigh. This will be my last response to you in this mini-thread, so
have the last word if it makes you happy.

Kyler Laird > wrote in message >...
> (Captain Wubba) writes:
>
> >> >One they
> >> >can fly *immediately* (Want to guess what it would cost to get a new
> >> >private pilot insured in a Bone or an Aztec?)
> >>
> >> Nope. Are you suggesting that such insurance is mandatory? Do we
> >> need to pull Mike R. into the discussion?
>
> >Absolutely not. I'm sure most of the folks asking questions here have
> >$100,000 in cash lying around to purchase an Aztec so that they don't
> >need a loan (for which insurance *is* generally mandatory).
>
> Again you're off on "most" (even though a specific person was asking
> for help originally). Why not just say "Everyone should get a C-172"
> and be done with your sage advice?

I never said that. The original poster asked *specifically*

"Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before
being
licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance."

That was her question. And I answered it based on my experiences. The
most 'reasonable' choice in an airplane that would allow her to finish
her training, do some reasonably useful stuff after her ticket, and
develop her piloting skills would be something like a 172 or a
Musketeer. Not an Aztec. Something that 'makes sense' for the next
five years. *Very* very few people end up flying an Aztec within 5
years after getting their tickets. Many, many people end up flying a
172.

I told her that the advice I found most useful was 'buy for the next 5
years, not the next 30.' You may disagree with that advice. But that
doesn't change the fact that I found it useful.

I told her about my experience buying a Musketeer shortly after
getting my private license. Your experience is obviously different.
Nothing wrong with letting her see both side...but there is *also*
nothing wrong with pointing out what will be, by far, the most likely
situation within the next couple of years. That scenario (as borne out
by the statistics about who flys what kids of planes, who buys what
kinds of planes, the stuff from the AOPA on pilot flying habits, etc.)
is that she will be developing her skills, possibly adding a couple
additional ratings, and doing some reasonable traveling. That scenario
is best served (IMO) by something like a 172 or Cherokee.


Some of your *own* statements are pretty inconsistent. In one post you
say:

"I think it's important to decide early whether you're going to
eventually want something more than a "trainer". (which I strongly
disagree with, BTW...very few people know where they will be in five
years in terms of flying, especially when they are just training. I
know as many pilots who ended up quitting slying within five years as
who ended up doing any real travelling.)

But then one post later, in response to my statement regarding
continued pilot training you said:

"How do you know? *I* certainly didn't.

So, which is it? Is it 'important' to know what your flying will be in
five years, or is it so 'difficult to know' that you have to ask 'How
can you know'?

Tying that togerther with the original poster, it makes sense to act
in a way that will protect your investment, and give you opportunities
to do things you 'probably' will do. Buying a 172, Musketeer or
Cherokee will do both. You are not taking a huge financial gamble, you
are buying a versatile plane that allows both training and reasonable
touring, and you are putting yourself in a position to (definitely)
make your learning experiences more enjoyable and (probably, if you
fly enough) to save some money. I reiterate my advice from the first
post: buy a plane for the next five years, not the next thirty. When a
student asks me about this, I tell them that if they can afford to
purchase a plane like a 172 or a Musketeer (many good examples of both
are available for under $35,000), then they can make their training
both more enjoyable and more practial buy buying such a plane.

The advice that goes with buying any plane applies, especially the
part about getting a *very* good pre-buy inspection.

)

>
> >And I'm
> >sure those people have *no* other assets that they might wish to try
> >to protect via insurance. Probably applies to 3/4 of all pilots,
> >right?
>
> Doesn't apply to me. Don't care.
>
> >> Fortunately I didn't do that. I only suggested examining long-term
> >> goals and motivations. The sweeping pronouncments were yours.
>
> >Really? What were they?
>
> Oh! You didn't read the part that I quoted in my response. That
> does explain some of the confusion.
>
> Here it is again.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ha4ai1-l18.ln1%40snout.lairds.org&output=gplain
>
> >Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
> >the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
> >instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
> >hours,


Are you this literal on everything? I was suggesting that over the
next few years she would be developing her flying skills, *probably*
picking up an instrument ticket. if the lack of the word 'probably'
bothers you so much, I'm really, really sorry it disturbed you. Sigh.
>
> >> >There is *no* chance today that a new private pilot could get insured
> >> >in an Aztec
> >>
> >> I was told it's cyclical. Look for it to come around again.
>
> >Indeed. I fully expect that in a year or two a 60-hour Private Pilot
> >can get some top-flight Citation Insurance for $30 a year. Any day
> >now.
>
> Are you implying that it's not cyclical or are you again discounting my
> experience of getting insurance for an Aztec as a new Private Pilot?
>

It is cyclincal to some extent (mostly based on bond yields), but I
would be surprised if we saw the kind of insurance that allowed a new
private pilot to fly (unsupervised)something like an Aztec. I'd love
to see that again...but I doubt we will. I'm not discounting your
experience. I am just saying that, today, it is very unlikely that it
would be replicated.

> >> Your "disagreement" with my experience doesn't strike me as useful.
>
> >Well, maybe since I was responding to the original poster who asked a
> >reasonable question demaning a reasonable answer, perhaps that is a
> >good thing, given your response. Perhaps it isn't useful to you.
> >Hopefully it was to him.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, it's based on false assumptions.
>
> --kyler

No. No false assumptions. Sorry you perceived it that way, but either
way, I was just trying to communicate to the original poster some
useful information regarding her original question, and responding to
some points you made.

Cheers,

Cap

[Captain Wubba]

Sigh. This will be my last response to you in this mini-thread, so
have the last word if it makes you happy.

Kyler Laird > wrote in message >...
> (Captain Wubba) writes:
>
> >> >One they
> >> >can fly *immediately* (Want to guess what it would cost to get a new
> >> >private pilot insured in a Bone or an Aztec?)
> >>
> >> Nope. Are you suggesting that such insurance is mandatory? Do we
> >> need to pull Mike R. into the discussion?
>
> >Absolutely not. I'm sure most of the folks asking questions here have
> >$100,000 in cash lying around to purchase an Aztec so that they don't
> >need a loan (for which insurance *is* generally mandatory).
>
> Again you're off on "most" (even though a specific person was asking
> for help originally). Why not just say "Everyone should get a C-172"
> and be done with your sage advice?

I never said that. The original poster asked *specifically*

"Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before
being
licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance."

That was her question. And I answered it based on my experiences. The
most 'reasonable' choice in an airplane that would allow her to finish
her training, do some reasonably useful stuff after her ticket, and
develop her piloting skills would be something like a 172 or a
Musketeer. Not an Aztec. Something that 'makes sense' for the next
five years. *Very* very few people end up flying an Aztec within 5
years after getting their tickets. Many, many people end up flying a
172.

I told her that the advice I found most useful was 'buy for the next 5
years, not the next 30.' You may disagree with that advice. But that
doesn't change the fact that I found it useful.

I told her about my experience buying a Musketeer shortly after
getting my private license. Your experience is obviously different.
Nothing wrong with letting her see both side...but there is *also*
nothing wrong with pointing out what will be, by far, the most likely
situation within the next couple of years. That scenario (as borne out
by the statistics about who flys what kids of planes, who buys what
kinds of planes, the stuff from the AOPA on pilot flying habits, etc.)
is that she will be developing her skills, possibly adding a couple
additional ratings, and doing some reasonable traveling. That scenario
is best served (IMO) by something like a 172 or Cherokee.


Some of your *own* statements are pretty inconsistent. In one post you
say:

"I think it's important to decide early whether you're going to
eventually want something more than a "trainer". (which I strongly
disagree with, BTW...very few people know where they will be in five
years in terms of flying, especially when they are just training. I
know as many pilots who ended up quitting slying within five years as
who ended up doing any real travelling.)

But then one post later, in response to my statement regarding
continued pilot training you said:

"How do you know? *I* certainly didn't.

So, which is it? Is it 'important' to know what your flying will be in
five years, or is it so 'difficult to know' that you have to ask 'How
can you know'?

Tying that togerther with the original poster, it makes sense to act
in a way that will protect your investment, and give you opportunities
to do things you 'probably' will do. Buying a 172, Musketeer or
Cherokee will do both. You are not taking a huge financial gamble, you
are buying a versatile plane that allows both training and reasonable
touring, and you are putting yourself in a position to (definitely)
make your learning experiences more enjoyable and (probably, if you
fly enough) to save some money. I reiterate my advice from the first
post: buy a plane for the next five years, not the next thirty. When a
student asks me about this, I tell them that if they can afford to
purchase a plane like a 172 or a Musketeer (many good examples of both
are available for under $35,000), then they can make their training
both more enjoyable and more practial buy buying such a plane.

The advice that goes with buying any plane applies, especially the
part about getting a *very* good pre-buy inspection.

)

>
> >And I'm
> >sure those people have *no* other assets that they might wish to try
> >to protect via insurance. Probably applies to 3/4 of all pilots,
> >right?
>
> Doesn't apply to me. Don't care.
>
> >> Fortunately I didn't do that. I only suggested examining long-term
> >> goals and motivations. The sweeping pronouncments were yours.
>
> >Really? What were they?
>
> Oh! You didn't read the part that I quoted in my response. That
> does explain some of the confusion.
>
> Here it is again.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ha4ai1-l18.ln1%40snout.lairds.org&output=gplain
>
> >Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
> >the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
> >instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
> >hours,


Are you this literal on everything? I was suggesting that over the
next few years she would be developing her flying skills, *probably*
picking up an instrument ticket. if the lack of the word 'probably'
bothers you so much, I'm really, really sorry it disturbed you. Sigh.
>
> >> >There is *no* chance today that a new private pilot could get insured
> >> >in an Aztec
> >>
> >> I was told it's cyclical. Look for it to come around again.
>
> >Indeed. I fully expect that in a year or two a 60-hour Private Pilot
> >can get some top-flight Citation Insurance for $30 a year. Any day
> >now.
>
> Are you implying that it's not cyclical or are you again discounting my
> experience of getting insurance for an Aztec as a new Private Pilot?
>

It is cyclincal to some extent (mostly based on bond yields), but I
would be surprised if we saw the kind of insurance that allowed a new
private pilot to fly (unsupervised)something like an Aztec. I'd love
to see that again...but I doubt we will. I'm not discounting your
experience. I am just saying that, today, it is very unlikely that it
would be replicated.

> >> Your "disagreement" with my experience doesn't strike me as useful.
>
> >Well, maybe since I was responding to the original poster who asked a
> >reasonable question demaning a reasonable answer, perhaps that is a
> >good thing, given your response. Perhaps it isn't useful to you.
> >Hopefully it was to him.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, it's based on false assumptions.
>
> --kyler

No. No false assumptions. Sorry you perceived it that way, but either
way, I was just trying to communicate to the original poster some
useful information regarding her original question, and responding to
some points you made.

Cheers,

Cap