Aircraft as mobile homes

[Mxsmanic]

I was thinking today, first about independent truck drivers, then about those
people who sell (almost) all they own and buy a huge RV. In the case of truck
drivers, they often have expensive, fancy rigs complete with bed, television,
and other amenities that make their trucks a kind of home away from home--or
perhaps even their primary domicile, if they really enjoy driving around the
country. In the case of the RV owners, they give up a fixed residence and
live directly in the comfort of their RVs, as they roll around the nation,
constantly visiting new places.

Then I thought to myself: Why can't an airplane be used the same way? Suppose
you sold your house and various other goods, and bought yourself a really nice
aircraft. Suppose you outfitted it with RV-style amenities (as space
permits), such as a bed, TV, tiny stove or microwave, refrigerator, PC, and so
on. In theory, with the right kind of aircraft (obviously something larger
than a Piper Cub, but it need not necessarily be a Boeing Business Jet), you
could live out of it, flying periodically from place to place and visiting the
country from above (rather than from the highway). You could sleep over at an
airport right in your aircraft, then start out the next day for a new
destination.

Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?

I know that if you have a really large aircraft, such as your own 737 or 747,
you obviously can live out of it, if you want, but I wonder if this would also
be true for smaller aircraft--the kind many people might be able to afford if
they were committed to using an aircraft as their domicile.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[JohnT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking today, first about independent truck drivers, then about
>those
> people who sell (almost) all they own and buy a huge RV. In the case of
> truck
> drivers, they often have expensive, fancy rigs complete with bed,
> television,
> and other amenities that make their trucks a kind of home away from
> home--or
> perhaps even their primary domicile, if they really enjoy driving around
> the
> country. In the case of the RV owners, they give up a fixed residence and
> live directly in the comfort of their RVs, as they roll around the nation,
> constantly visiting new places.
>
> Then I thought to myself: Why can't an airplane be used the same way?
> Suppose
> you sold your house and various other goods, and bought yourself a really
> nice
> aircraft. Suppose you outfitted it with RV-style amenities (as space
> permits), such as a bed, TV, tiny stove or microwave, refrigerator, PC,
> and so
> on. In theory, with the right kind of aircraft (obviously something
> larger
> than a Piper Cub, but it need not necessarily be a Boeing Business Jet),
> you
> could live out of it, flying periodically from place to place and visiting
> the
> country from above (rather than from the highway). You could sleep over
> at an
> airport right in your aircraft, then start out the next day for a new
> destination.
>
> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?
>
> I know that if you have a really large aircraft, such as your own 737 or
> 747,
> you obviously can live out of it, if you want, but I wonder if this would
> also
> be true for smaller aircraft--the kind many people might be able to afford
> if
> they were committed to using an aircraft as their domicile.
>

Are you absolutely sure that you aren't taking noxious substances?

JohnT

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking today, first about independent truck drivers, then about
>those
> people who sell (almost) all they own and buy a huge RV. In the case of
> truck
> drivers, they often have expensive, fancy rigs complete with bed,
> television,
> and other amenities that make their trucks a kind of home away from
> home--or
> perhaps even their primary domicile, if they really enjoy driving around
> the
> country. In the case of the RV owners, they give up a fixed residence and
> live directly in the comfort of their RVs, as they roll around the nation,
> constantly visiting new places.
>
> Then I thought to myself: Why can't an airplane be used the same way?
> Suppose
> you sold your house and various other goods, and bought yourself a really
> nice
> aircraft. Suppose you outfitted it with RV-style amenities (as space
> permits), such as a bed, TV, tiny stove or microwave, refrigerator, PC,
> and so
> on. In theory, with the right kind of aircraft (obviously something
> larger
> than a Piper Cub, but it need not necessarily be a Boeing Business Jet),
> you
> could live out of it, flying periodically from place to place and visiting
> the
> country from above (rather than from the highway). You could sleep over
> at an
> airport right in your aircraft, then start out the next day for a new
> destination.
>
> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?
>
> I know that if you have a really large aircraft, such as your own 737 or
> 747,
> you obviously can live out of it, if you want, but I wonder if this would
> also
> be true for smaller aircraft--the kind many people might be able to afford
> if
> they were committed to using an aircraft as their domicile.
>
> --

Just like most things in the world it has been done. I remember seeing one
of the old flying boats featured on a television program a few years ago. It
was purchased by singer Jimmy Buffett, and converted to a island hopping RV.
It think it was a PBY. Very cool project and beats the heck out of a small
sailboat.

I could only guess the only reason you don't see more of it, is that most
people that have the budget to afford it, don't have the desire to travel
that sparsely. If you think one of the old inefficient RVs gets poor gas
mileage, compare it's operation cost to something like a DC3. Not to mention
the initial conversion cost and referb.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 24, 11:45 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> Just like most things in the world it has been done. I remember seeing one
> of the old flying boats featured on a television program a few years ago. It
> was purchased by singer Jimmy Buffett, and converted to a island hopping RV.
> It think it was a PBY. Very cool project and beats the heck out of a small
> sailboat.

Is that the aircraft parked at Universal Studios in Florida?

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 24, 11:45 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> Just like most things in the world it has been done. I remember seeing
>> one
>> of the old flying boats featured on a television program a few years ago.
>> It
>> was purchased by singer Jimmy Buffett, and converted to a island hopping
>> RV.
>> It think it was a PBY. Very cool project and beats the heck out of a
>> small
>> sailboat.
>
> Is that the aircraft parked at Universal Studios in Florida?
>

I don't know, I haven't heard anything about it since. I just remember it
was a restored twin engine flying boat, that had been outfitted much like a
custom van of the last 60s and early 70s. In good weather it would make a
great island hopper. Just didn't seem very practical unless you had a LOT of
optional income, and a love of flying and the islands. Probably had a frozen
Margarita machine in there somewhere.

I did a quick search on Google and got tons of hits, but most just seemed to
be selling tee shirts, so I didn't spend much time on it. But I would like
to see it featured again. It was probably something I saw on Discovery
Wings.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Why, your own trailer wearing out?

Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Why, your own trailer wearing out?
>
> Bertie
>
>

Probably wants to get out of his simulated apartment.

[Kev]

On Mar 24, 11:45 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> > Then I thought to myself: Why can't an airplane be used the same way? [...]
>
> Just like most things in the world it has been done. I remember seeing one
> of the old flying boats featured on a television program a few years ago. It
> was purchased by singer Jimmy Buffett, and converted to a island hopping RV.
> It think it was a PBY. Very cool project and beats the heck out of a small
> sailboat.

I remember that one, it was also written up in lots of magazines. I
had a friend who was really into PBYs and dreamed of owning such a
"sky RV".

Didn't Popular Science used to also have future-prediction articles on
their cover about large helicopters outfitted as motor homes?

Not to mention, the old Piper ads from the 60's showing a shiny new
plane parked on a grass strip next to a river, with several happy-
looking fisherman / pilots fly-casting in hip boots :-)

Cheers, Kev

[Sylvain]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?

I thought about something like that: aircraft big enough to carry a
motorbike and be self sufficient; then I ran the numbers:
turns out to be a heck of a lot cheaper to get the smaller aircraft
that fits your travelling needs, and rent a car/bike and a hotel
room at each destination (and you'll be a lot more confortable
overall). Actually, I wonder if the same holds true for the large
RV as well.

--Sylvain

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Not to mention, the old Piper ads from the 60's showing a shiny new
> plane parked on a grass strip next to a river, with several happy-
> looking fisherman / pilots fly-casting in hip boots :-)

Sounds like they had it backwards. I can see someone wanting to fly and using
a $100 hamburger as an excuse to do so, but wanting to fish and getting a
private pilot's license just to get to the lake? I don't think so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sylvain writes:

> I thought about something like that: aircraft big enough to carry a
> motorbike and be self sufficient; then I ran the numbers:
> turns out to be a heck of a lot cheaper to get the smaller aircraft
> that fits your travelling needs, and rent a car/bike and a hotel
> room at each destination (and you'll be a lot more confortable
> overall). Actually, I wonder if the same holds true for the large
> RV as well.

If many FBOs offer courtesy cars or you can get rentals at a decent rate, you
wouldn't need a land vehicle.

This all presumes that you'd be _extremely_ fond of flying, enough to want to
fly practically every day. But given that, it seems like it might be
practical. An RV-sized aircraft would probably be a lot more expensive than
an RV new, but an older aircraft refitted to behave like an RV might be more
affordable.

I'd want a decent bathroom and shower and a galley, but I don't know how
practical that would be unless one had a great deal of money and quite a large
aircraft (the BBJ2 would be great for that).

I recall the rich guy in _Contact_ living out of an aircraft (a 727?), but I
can't remember if anyone is doing it for real. Lots of people have offices
aloft, but it isn't normally their primary residence.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kev writes:
>
>> Not to mention, the old Piper ads from the 60's showing a shiny new
>> plane parked on a grass strip next to a river, with several happy-
>> looking fisherman / pilots fly-casting in hip boots :-)
>
> Sounds like they had it backwards. I can see someone wanting to fly and
> using
> a $100 hamburger as an excuse to do so, but wanting to fish and getting a
> private pilot's license just to get to the lake? I don't think so.
>
> --

Well don't tell that to the folks in Alaska. They would have to retire a
whole bunch of world class aircraft.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain writes:
>
>> I thought about something like that: aircraft big enough to carry a
>> motorbike and be self sufficient; then I ran the numbers:
>> turns out to be a heck of a lot cheaper to get the smaller aircraft
>> that fits your travelling needs, and rent a car/bike and a hotel
>> room at each destination (and you'll be a lot more confortable
>> overall). Actually, I wonder if the same holds true for the large
>> RV as well.
>
> If many FBOs offer courtesy cars or you can get rentals at a decent rate,
> you
> wouldn't need a land vehicle.
>
> This all presumes that you'd be _extremely_ fond of flying, enough to want
> to
> fly practically every day. But given that, it seems like it might be
> practical. An RV-sized aircraft would probably be a lot more expensive
> than
> an RV new, but an older aircraft refitted to behave like an RV might be
> more
> affordable.
>
> I'd want a decent bathroom and shower and a galley, but I don't know how
> practical that would be unless one had a great deal of money and quite a
> large
> aircraft (the BBJ2 would be great for that).
>
> I recall the rich guy in _Contact_ living out of an aircraft (a 727?), but
> I
> can't remember if anyone is doing it for real. Lots of people have
> offices
> aloft, but it isn't normally their primary residence.
>
> --

No way. The operating cost of any aircraft large enough to compare to the
smallest RV, far out weigh benefit of having sleeping and eating quarters
when you get there. Sylvain is right, it just doesn't ad up. Besides, their
are dozens if not hundreds of excellet vacationa fly-n spots in the US that
don't require ground tranportation when you get there.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Well don't tell that to the folks in Alaska. They would have to retire a
> whole bunch of world class aircraft.

Alaska is a special case. Even there, I don't think anyone learns to fly or
buys and airplane _only_ to go fishing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

On Mar 24, 7:26 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > Well don't tell that to the folks in Alaska. They would have to retire a
> > whole bunch of world class aircraft.
>
> Alaska is a special case. Even there, I don't think anyone learns to fly or
> buys and airplane _only_ to go fishing.

Dunno about that :-)

Besides, no one said it was 'only'. That's like seeing an ad for a
car next to a beach and thinking people only learn to drive to get
near the ocean. But I can think of better aircraft than a low-wing to
get to un-improved grassy clearings in the woods. Not that the Piper
can't do it, but... (ducking responses from Cherokee owners).

Kev

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 24, 10:07 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kev writes:
> > Not to mention, the old Piper ads from the 60's showing a shiny new
> > plane parked on a grass strip next to a river, with several happy-
> > looking fisherman / pilots fly-casting in hip boots :-)
>
> Sounds like they had it backwards. I can see someone wanting to fly and using
> a $100 hamburger as an excuse to do so, but wanting to fish and getting a
> private pilot's license just to get to the lake? I don't think so.
>

Clueless ****.



Bertie

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Kev writes:
>
>
>>Not to mention, the old Piper ads from the 60's showing a shiny new
>>plane parked on a grass strip next to a river, with several happy-
>>looking fisherman / pilots fly-casting in hip boots :-)
>
>
> Sounds like they had it backwards. I can see someone wanting to fly and using
> a $100 hamburger as an excuse to do so, but wanting to fish and getting a
> private pilot's license just to get to the lake? I don't think so.
>

On the contrary - that is a far better and far more common reason than
to buy hamburgers.

[Tim]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I was thinking today, first about independent truck drivers, then about those
> people who sell (almost) all they own and buy a huge RV. In the case of truck
> drivers, they often have expensive, fancy rigs complete with bed, television,
> and other amenities that make their trucks a kind of home away from home--or
> perhaps even their primary domicile, if they really enjoy driving around the
> country. In the case of the RV owners, they give up a fixed residence and
> live directly in the comfort of their RVs, as they roll around the nation,
> constantly visiting new places.
>
> Then I thought to myself: Why can't an airplane be used the same way? Suppose
> you sold your house and various other goods, and bought yourself a really nice
> aircraft. Suppose you outfitted it with RV-style amenities (as space
> permits), such as a bed, TV, tiny stove or microwave, refrigerator, PC, and so
> on. In theory, with the right kind of aircraft (obviously something larger
> than a Piper Cub, but it need not necessarily be a Boeing Business Jet), you
> could live out of it, flying periodically from place to place and visiting the
> country from above (rather than from the highway). You could sleep over at an
> airport right in your aircraft, then start out the next day for a new
> destination.
>
> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?
>
> I know that if you have a really large aircraft, such as your own 737 or 747,
> you obviously can live out of it, if you want, but I wonder if this would also
> be true for smaller aircraft--the kind many people might be able to afford if
> they were committed to using an aircraft as their domicile.
>


I know of at least one case of a couple using a plane for travelling the
world - like a flying RV.

[TMOliver]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Kev writes:
>
>> Not to mention, the old Piper ads from the 60's showing a shiny new
>> plane parked on a grass strip next to a river, with several happy-
>> looking fisherman / pilots fly-casting in hip boots :-)
>
> Sounds like they had it backwards. I can see someone wanting to fly and
> using
> a $100 hamburger as an excuse to do so, but wanting to fish and getting a
> private pilot's license just to get to the lake? I don't think so.
>

From the "bad" old days and maybe still.....

The bank at Rio Vista, Texas (SW of Fort Worth) had its own airstrip and the
occasional fly-in customer (but no fly in/drive by window service.

Back in the early 60s, there was a well known steakhouse near San Angelo,
Texas, at the tiny crossroads of Lowicky (sp?), which had its own strip (and
all sorts of diners from across West Texas, long distances and much general
aviation, who flew in for lunch and dinner.

The old Texas Power and Light, now TXU, power generating plants all had
cooling lakes, all pretty good fishing because of warm winter water (warmed
as it cooled the generating systems and recondensed used steam). Brown &
Root, now KBR, a part of Halliburton, built most of the newer plants, and
included a runway and "clubhouse" in the deal, grand and near secret "fly
in" weekend fishing/drinking/gambling/unmentionable etc. spots for company
execs plus state and local politicians. The one at "Trading House Creek" is
3,000' or so, paved and long enough for most light twins.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sylvain writes:
>
>> I thought about something like that: aircraft big enough to carry a
>> motorbike and be self sufficient; then I ran the numbers:
>> turns out to be a heck of a lot cheaper to get the smaller aircraft
>> that fits your travelling needs, and rent a car/bike and a hotel
>> room at each destination (and you'll be a lot more confortable
>> overall). Actually, I wonder if the same holds true for the large
>> RV as well.
>
> If many FBOs offer courtesy cars or you can get rentals at a decent
> rate, you wouldn't need a land vehicle.
>


Why would you need one? Can't you just levitate yourself around in
fantasy land?

bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in news:2pfNh.12619$Ng1.1178
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> Why, your own trailer wearing out?
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Probably wants to get out of his simulated apartment.
>

Snort!



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Why would you need one?

Presumably even the most fanatical aviator would still want to stray outside
the airfield from time to time, to see places inaccessible by plane.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Why would you need one?
>
> Presumably even the most fanatical aviator would still want to stray
> outside the airfield from time to time, to see places inaccessible by
> plane.

Airfield? You wouldn't know what to do on one, fjukkwit.

Berti e

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-24 13:42:00 -0700, Sylvain > said:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
>> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?
>
> I thought about something like that: aircraft big enough to carry a
> motorbike and be self sufficient; then I ran the numbers:
> turns out to be a heck of a lot cheaper to get the smaller aircraft
> that fits your travelling needs, and rent a car/bike and a hotel
> room at each destination (and you'll be a lot more confortable
> overall). Actually, I wonder if the same holds true for the large
> RV as well.
>
> --Sylvain

I have heard of a Caravan with an interior by Winnebago. Mind, even the
Caravan doesn't really have enough room to stand up comfortably.

I have also seen a couple homebuilt amphibians that were supposed to at
least have sleeping quarters on board, but I can't remember what they
were.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Darryl]

On Mar 24, 6:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Then I thought to myself: Why can't an airplane be used the same way? Suppose
> you sold your house and various other goods, and bought yourself a really nice
> aircraft. Suppose you outfitted it with RV-style amenities (as space
> permits), such as a bed, TV, tiny stove or microwave, refrigerator, PC, and so
> on. In theory, with the right kind of aircraft (obviously something larger
> than a Piper Cub, but it need not necessarily be a Boeing Business Jet), you
> could live out of it, flying periodically from place to place and visiting the
> country from above (rather than from the highway). You could sleep over at an
> airport right in your aircraft, then start out the next day for a new
> destination.
>
> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?

A couple of thoughts on that:

1) Would airports really let passengers, even if they arrived on their
own plane, hang around all day and night outside the terminal but
inside the airport perimeter, basically unsupervised?

2) Getting electricity and water in and sewage out (while parked away
from a gate) would be a little trickier than it would be with RVs.
Less infrastructure to support it.

3) Sleeping in an aircraft at an airport...well, it's hard to think of
a worse place to try and sleep. The good news: lots of white noise.
Bad news: it's at 100 db.

The reason this isn't done often is like someone already said: if you
can afford your own plane, then the cost of a hotel room isn't going
to break you. People who buy big RVs love RV campgrounds and the RV
lifestyle. Hardly anyone loves airports.

[Mxsmanic]

Darryl writes:

> 1) Would airports really let passengers, even if they arrived on their
> own plane, hang around all day and night outside the terminal but
> inside the airport perimeter, basically unsupervised?

I don't know--would they? Large airports seem fairly paranoid, but what about
smaller GA airports? And while there may be security to keep people out of
the airside portion of the airport, what security is there once they are on
that side?

I think airports are unnecessarily paranoid, anyway.

Your other points are good as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sylvain]

Darryl wrote:

> A couple of thoughts on that:
>
> 1) Would airports really let passengers, even if they arrived on their
> own plane, hang around all day and night outside the terminal but
> inside the airport perimeter, basically unsupervised?

you might eventually get the same problem you see with marinas: it is
difficult enough to find a place to park your boat, but try finding a
place that'll let you live in it...

Ok, there are still quite a few small airports, that will let you
camp near your aircraft; so if you really want to be self sufficient,
it might be even easier to pack some camping gear in your aircraft;

When I was a wee lad hanging around gliding clubs in France and
its viscinity, I have seen some folks doing things like that,
i.e., traveling along with camping gear in the back seat of their
Jodel (or even gliders!... it can be done with good planning and
if you live in a place with a good enough density of gliding clubs
capable of launching you back to your next stop); a nice way
to spend a vacation...

--Sylvain

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
>I have heard of a Caravan with an interior by Winnebago. Mind, even the
>Caravan doesn't really have enough room to stand up comfortably.
>
>I have also seen a couple homebuilt amphibians that were supposed to at
>least have sleeping quarters on board, but I can't remember what they
>were.

I think I've seen that Caravan up in the mountains.

I think you'd need a pretty big plane to live comfortably. A couple of
weeks ago I saw an Antonov AN-2 that was fitted out with a comfortable living
area inside. By far the most impressive was a Grumman Albatross at a
backcountry airstrip that was fitted with a luxurious RV-like interior.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Ken Finney]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Darryl wrote:
>
>> A couple of thoughts on that:
>>
>> 1) Would airports really let passengers, even if they arrived on their
>> own plane, hang around all day and night outside the terminal but
>> inside the airport perimeter, basically unsupervised?
>
> you might eventually get the same problem you see with marinas: it is
> difficult enough to find a place to park your boat, but try finding a
> place that'll let you live in it...
>
> Ok, there are still quite a few small airports, that will let you
> camp near your aircraft; so if you really want to be self sufficient,
> it might be even easier to pack some camping gear in your aircraft;
>
> When I was a wee lad hanging around gliding clubs in France and
> its viscinity, I have seen some folks doing things like that,
> i.e., traveling along with camping gear in the back seat of their
> Jodel (or even gliders!... it can be done with good planning and
> if you live in a place with a good enough density of gliding clubs
> capable of launching you back to your next stop); a nice way
> to spend a vacation...
>
> --Sylvain

Maybe we need more places like this, a State Park with its own airstrip:

http://www.ferrycounty.com/curlewlakestatepark/index.html

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Darryl writes:
>
>> 1) Would airports really let passengers, even if they arrived on
>> their own plane, hang around all day and night outside the terminal
>> but inside the airport perimeter, basically unsupervised?
>
> I don't know--would they? Large airports seem fairly paranoid, but
> what about smaller GA airports? And while there may be security to
> keep people out of the airside portion of the airport, what security
> is there once they are on that side?
>
> I think airports are unnecessarily paranoid, anyway.

Yeah, I'm sure that the people of New York would agree with you
fjukkktard


bertie

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:47:10 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>On 2007-03-24 13:42:00 -0700, Sylvain > said:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
>>> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?
>>
>> I thought about something like that: aircraft big enough to carry a
>> motorbike and be self sufficient; then I ran the numbers:
>> turns out to be a heck of a lot cheaper to get the smaller aircraft
>> that fits your travelling needs, and rent a car/bike and a hotel
>> room at each destination (and you'll be a lot more confortable
>> overall). Actually, I wonder if the same holds true for the large
>> RV as well.
>>
>> --Sylvain
>
>I have heard of a Caravan with an interior by Winnebago. Mind, even the
>Caravan doesn't really have enough room to stand up comfortably.
>
>I have also seen a couple homebuilt amphibians that were supposed to at
>least have sleeping quarters on board, but I can't remember what they
>were.


I've seen an old Grumman Goose (or equivalent) that was used by a
couple as a camper/mobole home..they had converted the entire interior
so live in..they'd fly in to some remote lake, beach the plane and set
up housekeeping.

They were looking to sell the plane though as fuel and maintenace
costs were taking most of the fun out of that lifestyle alas.

Long time ago someone else took the fuselage of a DC-3 and converted
it into a road-going camper/mobile home...I've seen film of it driving
the L.A. highways and shots of the interior...sure gets drivers'
attention when *that* nose pokes around a corner at an
intersection..grin.

Jim P.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Yeah, I'm sure that the people of New York would agree with you

I don't see why the people of New York would be special.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yeah, I'm sure that the people of New York would agree with you
>
> I don't see why the people of New York would be special.

I know you can't, God love you. It's what makes you "special"


bertie

[Nobody]

In the documentary "Contact", the rich millionaire is said to live in his
private jet. (It is a one with a pair of engines each side of the tail).

And in the documentary "Spaceballs", they have a flying mobile home. (the
reverse of using a plane as a mobile home).

The ultimate would be an AN-124 where you can litterally drive your mobile home
onto the plane and then fly away. (and the neat thing is that this is a RORO
concept since you can enter the plane from the back and leave from the front).

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Nobody wrote:
> In the documentary "Contact", the rich millionaire is said to live in
> his private jet. (It is a one with a pair of engines each side of the
> tail).
> And in the documentary "Spaceballs", they have a flying mobile home.
> (the reverse of using a plane as a mobile home).
>
> The ultimate would be an AN-124 where you can litterally drive your
> mobile home onto the plane and then fly away. (and the neat thing is
> that this is a RORO concept since you can enter the plane from the
> back and leave from the front).

There was also a TV show back in the early 70's called "The Magician." Bill
Bixby played the title roll and used his skills to help people. He had what
I think was a jet (might have been a 727) that was not only where he lived
but was also the garage for his Corvette.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> There was also a TV show back in the early 70's called "The Magician." Bill
> Bixby played the title roll and used his skills to help people. He had what
> I think was a jet (might have been a 727) that was not only where he lived
> but was also the garage for his Corvette.

Then there was Johnny Quest, who had an aircraft the size of a B-52 that could
hold only four people and a dog.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[doylflier]

I always thought it was a great idea, but saw a crime story on TV
about a doctor with a twin who got into the habit of sleeping on a
foldout cot under the wing in his hangar, but then a few months later
murdered his wifed. Not sure if there is a cause-and-effect there? Any
thoughts? There's at least one hangar in KHTO with its own built-in
bar, heads, etc. So it's not so far to go, except for the wife thing.

[Sylvain]

Nobody wrote:
> The ultimate would be an AN-124 where you can litterally drive your mobile
> home onto the plane and then fly away. (and the neat thing is that this is
> a RORO concept since you can enter the plane from the back and leave from
> the front).

this is interesting: we do not have the same concept of ultimate luxury :-)
For me, the ultimate luxury would be to travel wherever I want with nothing
more than the clothes I am wearing and a credit card (traveling first class
everywhere, fancy hotels, etc.); now if I want to fly myself, may be
a nice Falcon (but still staying in fancy hotels); camping out is really
not something I would want to do when/if I reach this point :-))

--Sylvain

[Maxwell]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Nobody wrote:
>> The ultimate would be an AN-124 where you can litterally drive your
>> mobile
>> home onto the plane and then fly away. (and the neat thing is that this
>> is
>> a RORO concept since you can enter the plane from the back and leave from
>> the front).
>
> this is interesting: we do not have the same concept of ultimate luxury
> :-)
> For me, the ultimate luxury would be to travel wherever I want with
> nothing
> more than the clothes I am wearing and a credit card (traveling first
> class
> everywhere, fancy hotels, etc.); now if I want to fly myself, may be
> a nice Falcon (but still staying in fancy hotels); camping out is really
> not something I would want to do when/if I reach this point :-))
>
> --Sylvain
>

I think that's why we see so few of these projects. If someone can afford
and operate an aircraft that expensive, they are going to opt for more
luxury when they get there. I certainly would.

Someone else had a good point also. You would have to have a shower and lav
for any kind of comfort on overnight visits, and most airports small enough
to welcome this type of visit would probably be ill equipped to offload the
waste.

[Mike Hunt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>
>>There was also a TV show back in the early 70's called "The Magician." Bill
>>Bixby played the title roll and used his skills to help people. He had what
>>I think was a jet (might have been a 727) that was not only where he lived
>>but was also the garage for his Corvette.
>
>
> Then there was Johnny Quest, who had an aircraft the size of a B-52 that could
> hold only four people and a dog.
>

Most big SUVs I see on the road seem to only hold one person.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> There was also a TV show back in the early 70's called "The
>> Magician." Bill Bixby played the title roll and used his skills to
>> help people. He had what I think was a jet (might have been a 727)
>> that was not only where he lived but was also the garage for his
>> Corvette.
>
> Then there was Johnny Quest, who had an aircraft the size of a B-52
> that could hold only four people and a dog.

You really realy need to adjust your dosage..


Bertie

[qansett]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>I was thinking today, first about independent truck drivers, then about
>those
> people who sell (almost) all they own and buy a huge RV. In the case of
> truck
> drivers, they often have expensive, fancy rigs complete with bed,
> television,
> and other amenities that make their trucks a kind of home away from
> home--or
> perhaps even their primary domicile, if they really enjoy driving around
> the
> country. In the case of the RV owners, they give up a fixed residence and
> live directly in the comfort of their RVs, as they roll around the nation,
> constantly visiting new places.
>
> Then I thought to myself: Why can't an airplane be used the same way?
> Suppose
> you sold your house and various other goods, and bought yourself a really
> nice
> aircraft. Suppose you outfitted it with RV-style amenities (as space
> permits), such as a bed, TV, tiny stove or microwave, refrigerator, PC,
> and so
> on. In theory, with the right kind of aircraft (obviously something
> larger
> than a Piper Cub, but it need not necessarily be a Boeing Business Jet),
> you
> could live out of it, flying periodically from place to place and visiting
> the
> country from above (rather than from the highway). You could sleep over
> at an
> airport right in your aircraft, then start out the next day for a new
> destination.
>
> Has anyone done this? Is it a practical project, or are there things that
> make it impractical or impossible to use an aircraft as a camper or RV?
>
> I know that if you have a really large aircraft, such as your own 737 or
> 747,
> you obviously can live out of it, if you want, but I wonder if this would
> also
> be true for smaller aircraft--the kind many people might be able to afford
> if
> they were committed to using an aircraft as their domicile.
>

why dont you ask Johnny Travolta???
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

qansett writes:

> why dont you ask Johnny Travolta???

He doesn't live in his aging 707, as far as I know. He does park it outside
the house, though.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> qansett writes:
>
>> why dont you ask Johnny Travolta???
>
> He doesn't live in his aging 707, as far as I know. He does park it
> outside the house, though.

All airplanes are aging, you idiot.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.

The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was built in
1964.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ken Finney]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
>
> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was built in
> 1964.
>

And the AWACS 707s are going to be in service post 2037.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
>
> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was built
in
> 1964.

Flow older, lots older.


And so what?


Fjukktard

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
>>
>> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was
>> built in 1964.
>>
>
> And the AWACS 707s are going to be in service post 2037.
>

They'r enot actually 707's. They look a bit like them, but they're
substantially different airplanes.. Boeing's own designation for them
was 717, in fact.


Bertie

[Ken Finney]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>
>>>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
>>>
>>> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was
>>> built in 1964.
>>>
>>
>> And the AWACS 707s are going to be in service post 2037.
>>
>
> They'r enot actually 707's. They look a bit like them, but they're
> substantially different airplanes.. Boeing's own designation for them
> was 717, in fact.
>
>

The predecessor of the 707 was the KC-135, the 717. The AWACS 707s are
indeed militarized commercial 707s.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Ken Finney" > wrote in news:JFq444.Lr6
@news.boeing.com:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .130...
>> "Ken Finney" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>
>>>>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
>>>>
>>>> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was
>>>> built in 1964.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the AWACS 707s are going to be in service post 2037.
>>>
>>
>> They'r enot actually 707's. They look a bit like them, but they're
>> substantially different airplanes.. Boeing's own designation for them
>> was 717, in fact.
>>
>>
>
> The predecessor of the 707 was the KC-135, the 717. The AWACS 707s
are
> indeed militarized commercial 707s.
>
Oops, you're dead right!

Bertie

[Ken Finney]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>> >>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
>> >>>
>> >>> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was
>> >>> built in 1964.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> And the AWACS 707s are going to be in service post 2037.
>> >>
>> >
>> > They'r enot actually 707's. They look a bit like them, but they're
>> > substantially different airplanes.. Boeing's own designation for them
>> > was 717, in fact.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The predecessor of the 707 was the KC-135, the 717. The AWACS 707s are
>> indeed militarized commercial 707s.
>>
>>
> That's interesting, since the current Boeing redition of the DC-9/MD-80 is
> also designated as 717.
>
> There was also a Boeing 720, in the bad-old-days, but I didn't bother to
> look any of this up...
>

Details are available on
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/deriv.html

"The KC/C-135 series was initially designated within The Boeing Company as
the model 717. In January 1998, the 717 model number was reassigned to the
commercial line for the 717-200 regional jetliner.
Additionally, three 707-120s plus two 707-320Bs, designated VC-137s, were
delivered to the Military Airlift Command for transporting high government
officials. These 707s transported the President for more than 30 years until
replaced in 1990 by two 747-200s designated as VC-25s.

Recent military applications of the 707 are the E-3 Airborne Warning and
Control System or AWACS (used by the U.S. Air Force, NATO, the Saudi
government and the French and British air forces for airborne surveillance,
command and control) and the E-6 used by the U.S. Navy for submarine
communications.

When the 707 production line was closed at the end of May 1991, Boeing had
sold 1,010 of all types (not counting the KC-135 series). "

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>> >>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
>> >>>
>> >>> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was
>> >>> built in 1964.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> And the AWACS 707s are going to be in service post 2037.
>> >>
>> >
>> > They'r enot actually 707's. They look a bit like them, but they're
>> > substantially different airplanes.. Boeing's own designation for
>> > them was 717, in fact.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The predecessor of the 707 was the KC-135, the 717. The AWACS 707s
>> are indeed militarized commercial 707s.
>>
>>
> That's interesting, since the current Boeing redition of the
> DC-9/MD-80 is also designated as 717.
>
> There was also a Boeing 720, in the bad-old-days, but I didn't bother
> to look any of this up...
>

Bad old days? Those were magnificent airplanes. Even today they would
hold up wel in just about anything but fuel consumption.. The 720 in
particular.


Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

> >>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> >>>
> >>>> All airplanes are aging, you idiot.
> >>>
> >>> The 707 has been doing it longer than most. John Travolta's was
> >>> built in 1964.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And the AWACS 707s are going to be in service post 2037.
> >>
> >
> > They'r enot actually 707's. They look a bit like them, but they're
> > substantially different airplanes.. Boeing's own designation for them
> > was 717, in fact.
> >
> >
>
> The predecessor of the 707 was the KC-135, the 717. The AWACS 707s are
> indeed militarized commercial 707s.
>
>
That's interesting, since the current Boeing redition of the DC-9/MD-80 is
also designated as 717.

There was also a Boeing 720, in the bad-old-days, but I didn't bother to
look any of this up...

[Dana M. Hague]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:45:41 -0500, "Maxwell" >
wrote:

>Just like most things in the world it has been done. I remember seeing one
>of the old flying boats featured on a television program a few years ago. It
>was purchased by singer Jimmy Buffett, and converted to a island hopping RV.
>It think it was a PBY. Very cool project and beats the heck out of a small
>sailboat.

Buffett's plane was a Grumman Albatross, big and expensive. Also
since retired since even he couldn't afford to keep it airworthy, what
a shame. Do a search for "Hemisphere Dancer".

Years ago I saw pictures of a converted PBY, though, and since then
I've lusted after one. They had soft window seats in what used to be
the mid fuselage gun blisters.

Somebody was also converting old Sikorsky S-56 helicopters into the
"Heli-Home" back in the 1970's.

A DC-3 might be nice, too...

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

[Peter Dohm]

> >>
> >> The predecessor of the 707 was the KC-135, the 717. The AWACS 707s
are
> >> indeed militarized commercial 707s.
> >>
> >>
> > That's interesting, since the current Boeing redition of the DC-9/MD-80
is
> > also designated as 717.
> >
> > There was also a Boeing 720, in the bad-old-days, but I didn't bother to
> > look any of this up...
> >
>
> Details are available on
> http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/deriv.html
>
> "The KC/C-135 series was initially designated within The Boeing Company as
> the model 717. In January 1998, the 717 model number was reassigned to the
> commercial line for the 717-200 regional jetliner.
> Additionally, three 707-120s plus two 707-320Bs, designated VC-137s, were
> delivered to the Military Airlift Command for transporting high government
> officials. These 707s transported the President for more than 30 years
until
> replaced in 1990 by two 747-200s designated as VC-25s.
>
> Recent military applications of the 707 are the E-3 Airborne Warning and
> Control System or AWACS (used by the U.S. Air Force, NATO, the Saudi
> government and the French and British air forces for airborne
surveillance,
> command and control) and the E-6 used by the U.S. Navy for submarine
> communications.
>
> When the 707 production line was closed at the end of May 1991, Boeing had
> sold 1,010 of all types (not counting the KC-135 series). "
>
>
Thanks.

[cjcampbell]

On Mar 27, 1:22 pm, "Darryl" > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:51 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>

>
> A couple of thoughts on that:
>
> 1) Would airports really let passengers, even if they arrived on their
> own plane, hang around all day and night outside the terminal but
> inside the airport perimeter, basically unsupervised?
>

Many airports allow camping on the airport. I have camped at some of
them. I have also known pilots who sleep in their planes or in a local
FBO. Most airports do not have a 'terminal.' In fact, many airports
have no buildings, fences, or any other structures located at the
airport.

> 2) Getting electricity and water in and sewage out (while parked away
> from a gate) would be a little trickier than it would be with RVs.
> Less infrastructure to support it.
>

Depends on what you think you need. Some airports provide rest rooms,
showers, etc. Others nothing at all, or maybe just an open pit
latrine.

> 3) Sleeping in an aircraft at an airport...well, it's hard to think of
> a worse place to try and sleep. The good news: lots of white noise.
> Bad news: it's at 100 db.
>

Nonsense. Only at a very large airport. The vast majority of airports
are quiet at night.

> The reason this isn't done often is like someone already said: if you
> can afford your own plane, then the cost of a hotel room isn't going
> to break you. People who buy big RVs love RV campgrounds and the RV
> lifestyle. Hardly anyone loves airports.

There are groups of flyer campers who regularly meet and camp at
airports around the country. I know of few people that actually sleep
inside the plane -- airplanes are usually poorly insulated and too
cramped -- but I have seen it done in Piper Seminoles (very small
twins) and smaller planes. My Stationair would not have been a problem
at all and I seriously considered it. The seats were already modified
with Caravan style mounting clips so you could just take them all out
and fold them, stuffing them in the far back of the plane. Still
plenty of room for a couple sleeping bags and mattresses on the floor,
which was perfectly flat. But, usually you bring a tent and other
camping gear. You can get air camping tents that you can throw over a
wing and camp under the wing. I saw one of these on a Caravan at
Arlington one year. It was very nice. A Caravan is a single engine
turboprop that can seat up to twelve, so there is plenty of room for
camping gear in there. Cessna calls it "The Ultimate RV," a not
inaccurate description. Even a used one easily can set you back more
than $1 million, so the guys who buy these things are not poor. I have
seen Caravans stuffed with mountain bikes, motorbikes, ATVs, camping
gear of all kinds, even canoes and rubber rafts. If you get floats,
the floats have compartments for things like fly rods and wells to
hold your catch. So do the floats on most other airplanes. Just the
thing for the outdoorsman who has everything.

Even a Caravan, though, has limited headroom. It is never going to be
as comfortable as a Winnebago, despite the fact that you can put a
kitchen in it, right next to the fax machine and the TV, aft of the
hide-a-bed. But it does fly, quite well. And there are a lot of
airports where they are welcome.