What would you buy with a 50k budget?

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

A fellow pilot/friend and I have been knocking around the idea of
doing a 2-way partnership on an aircraft next summer. I have had my
ticket since 1998 although I have only 150 some odd hours total. My
friend has about half that. Relatively speaking we still consider
ourselves newbie "students" but have this overwhelming desire to
become the best pilots possible and that requires lots of practice.

To that end we think that the best way is to have an aircraft that is
ready on a moments notice for us. We live in northern Florida and what
is particularly difficult for us as VFR only pilots is caused by the
whims of the weather. If we rent, we don't have the flexibility to
wake up one morning, see that it's not raining or threatening to and
be able to make the decision then and there to go flying. That's a
benefit we can't get from the flight school we normally rent from
which in in our recent experience has been in the Archer III.

So we are going to be looking for a plane that will fit a 50k budget.
We know we can find a decent 150 or 152 for less than that, and have
talked about a two seater being adequate for us to gain experience and
build time. But we also have dreams of doing some cross country flying
like from JAX to the Keys or we have even dicussed how awesome it
would be to be able to fly to central Texas where we both have
relatives to visit. For that, I am thinking a 4-seater would be best,
and besides there might be some times when we want to go get that $100
burger with another friend or 2. I think we'd like to go for something
not any older than say 30 or 32 years..circa 1976 - 1978 or newer.

So we have begun our journey which will hopefully culminate next
summer with us being able to say we are aircraft owners.

But to the question as indicated in the subject line. What would you
buy if all you had was 50k and what criteria would you apply to base
that decision? I know there will be many opinions and that's fine. It
will be interesting to see what we might be able to afford with that
budget.

Thanks



Kirk Ellis
PPL-ASEL

[Lou]

What would you
> buy if all you had was 50k and what criteria would you apply to base
> that decision?


A kit.
Lou

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 5:51*am, Lou > wrote:
> What would you
>
> > buy if all you had was 50k and what criteria would you apply to base
> > that decision?
>
> A kit.
> *Lou

I will second that... No AD's. your are your own A&P so annual bills
are greatly reduced,,, and the satisfaction of flying a plane you
built is "PRICELESS "


Ben
www.haaspowerair.com

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On May 17, 5:51*am, Lou > wrote:
>> What would you
>>
>> > buy if all you had was 50k and what criteria would you apply to base
>> > that decision?
>>
>> A kit.
>> *Lou
>
>I will second that... No AD's. your are your own A&P so annual bills
>are greatly reduced,,, and the satisfaction of flying a plane you
>built is "PRICELESS "
>
>
>Ben
>www.haaspowerair.com


I've thought about that many times, but I don't have a big enough
garage attached to the side of my house and I am not sure there is any
facility in this city to rent where I could do such work. Besides, at
55 I really don't want to have to wait a year for my financing to work
out and then spend another 2 years building before I can fly. By that
time I will be just a couple of years shy of 60 and who knows how much
time will be left for flying. Time is ticking....

[Vaughn Simon]

<Kirk Ellis> wrote in message ...
>

Before you buy any 2-seater, you and your friend need to step on the scale
and then weigh your flight bags, and then take a hard look at useful loads.
Unless you are both svelte, you may be surprised.

You will probably find that your choices will narrow down to a Warrier or a
172. To have an honest 2 or 3 seat aircraft, you normally need to buy four
seats.

Vaughn

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:50:14 -0500, Grumman 46U wrote:


>
>Kirk--
>
>Take a look at the Grummans out there. You might be able to get a
>good, minimally equipped '76-'78 Cheetah for $50K or thereabouts.
>You'd be getting 120KTAS @ 8.5 GPH and four seats. The whole series of
>aircraft--Traveler, Cheetah, Tiger--is easy to fly, much more
>responsive than a 172 or Warrior (and faster), very economical to
>operate as an owner, and the visibility is fantastic.
>
>There is also a very active owners' group that is ready and willing to
>help you with ANY problem you might encounter.
>
>
>Michael
>

I have been reading up on both the Cheetahs and the Tigers. There are
pros and cons to both but that can be said about every other aircraft.
But those 2 Grummans are definitely on our list although a nice Tiger
might run more than our budget.

[Mike Isaksen]

<Kirk Ellis> wrote ...
> ....if all you had was 50k and what criteria would you apply
> to base that decision?

You did a good job of defining your mission (short notice pleasure flights,
one or two long x-counrty trips a year where you'll park the plane for a few
days, mostly two souls on board, sometimes with room for baggage or another
pax). I'd say this is the mission definition for 95% of all recreational
pilots.

This can be met by almost any 4 seater (150-180hp), fixed pitch, fixed gear.
Your "low time" will not scare any insurance co, and your operating costs
will be managable.

Beware of "ego driven mission creep", where a little voice says you really
need a turbo to get above the weather or a gas sucking heavy hauler for that
"imaginary once in a lifetime" trip to Oshkosh with all your hanger buddies
on board.

If you are flexible on plane brand, a craft for your mission can easily be
had within an hour's flight of your homebase (northern FL?). Start telling
everyone, especially A&Ps, that your beginning your search. The number of
planes seen by IAs at annual with under 20 hours is now the norm, and most
of those owners are thinking about selling.

Remember also that the real money issue is seldom the buy-in. A $40k cash
offer with additional ($1k for pre-buy inpection and title search, $2k
insurance, $4-6k first year maint/annual) will keep you in your $50k range.
But you need to look at your "cash flow" as well. I think this is the more
important issue for most pilots and determines if the owning experience is a
happy one, or not.

Most pilots I know experience anywhere from $2k to $12k per year average
flying expenses. For most of us recreational flyers who don't shelter the
plane in a business, this comes as after tax money (expense). Figure out
what yours has been for the last 5 or 6 years. If you were renting and you
have about 150 hrs since 1998, then I'm guessing your cash flow was about
$2k-3k per year at most. Get ready for minimum out flows of $5-7k per person
per year in a partnership of two. This is at the minimum end of the cost
range, assumes you'll each fly about 50hrs per year and have no major
breakdowns or decide to do a $20k interior and paint job (see how expensive
ego can be?)

> ....Besides, at 55 I really don't want to have to wait a year
> for my financing to work out....

Oh,...you don't have enough disposable ($25k) right now for your half of the
partnership? That is a warning sign (not a stop sign, but certainly time to
rerun the checklist).

> By that time I will be just a couple of years shy of 60 and
> who knows how much time will be left for flying.

You are doing the right things now to give yourself a better shot at a
"happy ownership experience". Don't go "all in" or get upside down. It's
your first plane and you can't get out as fast as you think. Looks to me to
me like you are heading in the right direction. Good hunting and good luck.

PS, do a google search in r.a.o. for a post I did a few weeks back with a
subject title:
snapshot of SEL market
It shows, IMHO, the impact on resale value of one plane over the last year.
It's a buyers market out there.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:25:35 -0400, Kirk Ellis wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2008 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:
>
>>On May 17, 5:51*am, Lou > wrote:
>>> What would you
>>>
>>> > buy if all you had was 50k and what criteria would you apply to base
>>> > that decision?
>>>
>>> A kit.
>>> *Lou
>>
>>I will second that... No AD's. your are your own A&P so annual bills
>>are greatly reduced,,, and the satisfaction of flying a plane you
>>built is "PRICELESS "
>>
>>
>>Ben
>>www.haaspowerair.com
>
>
>I've thought about that many times, but I don't have a big enough
>garage attached to the side of my house and I am not sure there is any
>facility in this city to rent where I could do such work. Besides, at
>55 I really don't want to have to wait a year for my financing to work
>out and then spend another 2 years building before I can fly. By that
>time I will be just a couple of years shy of 60 and who knows how much
>time will be left for flying. Time is ticking....

Then buy one that's already built and flying. For 50k you can get a
decent rv4 or 6

[RST Engineering]

This is a good time to buy, the airplane market being somewhat depressed.
Whatever you buy, you need to be sure that it is either STCd or can be STCd
for autogas. Believe what you will, the world has exactly ONE supplier for
a critical component of 100/100LL. The ethanol thing will shake itself out
as the world braces for a sharp increase in the price of dinogas. There
will be a solution. THere always has been. Necessity, as somebody noted,
is a mother.

Skyhawk or Cherokee, whichever suits your fancy. Parts are a little easier
to get for the 172; the PA28 is a little roomier. Buy the airplane in the
WINTER. Summer prices are 10-20% higher.

You need two critical things right off the crack of the bat. One is an
A&P-IA that is a mean son of a bitch but will work with you to let you do
95% of the work on the airplane. Ply him or her with beer, (wo)men,
whatever to keep him or her around. The second is a set-aside of the
purchase money for a COMPLETE set of tools that is dedicated to the airplane
and not trucked to and from the airport from home.

Have your IA go over your intended with a fine tooth comb looking for
"stuff" that will have to be done to keep the bird birdworthy. There will
always be something ... tires, a cracked flap panel, burned out landing
light, all that stuff. Set your bidding price accordingly. If it means an
airline ticket for your IA and a day's wages to send him/her to the
airplane, cheap price to pay for finding a crack in the spar that will cost
thousands to replace.

Having said that, and being partial to Cessna for several reasons, I'd find
an ancient 172 with a mid time engine and crappy paint, lousy interior, and
terrible radios. Spend half your nut on the airframe itself and put the
other half in the bank. Fly the sucker for a hundred hours or so with rips
in the seats, crackly radios, and the "laughing stock" of the airport bums
for looks. To hell with them.

If your budget can afford it, a hangar is one of the best investments you
can make. It will pay for itself in allowing you to do 95% of the work on
the airplane in a semblance of comfort.

Do the radios/instruments first. You will have your filthy shoes on the
carpet and seats while you struggle with that one last nut on the tray on
the top of the stack and if you've done the interior first, you will kick
yourself silly for tracking crap all over your fine looking upholstery job.
I'm partial to used radios for a couple of reasons, not the least of which
you will spend half or less on a used radio than a new one. Don't fall for
the "yellow tag" trap. All that stupid yellow tag tells you is that some
radio shop puke ran it through its paces on the bench and it met certain
minimum standards. Will it crap out when the engine shakes the airplane?
Who knows. And don't fall for the "working when removed" line either. No
matter who you buy it from or where it came from, buy it with an ironclad
ten day or two week no questions asked money back (except for shipping)
return guarantee. As with your IA, make friends with your radio shop. TELL
them that you are doing your own work, but are more than willing to pay shop
labor to shake, rattle, and roll your prospective radio and find out if
there is anything that isn't up to snuff and back up their labor rate with
some sort of guarantee. The BEST guarantee, if you can find a radio shop
willing to do it, is a six month guarantee that if it breaks you will pay
actual parts cost and HALF the normal labor rate for repair during the
guarantee period.

Personally? I've got a pair of KX-170Bs with the associated nav heads. Old
radios? Sure, but there is a guy in Trade-A-Plane that specializes in this
particular model. They've never crapped out, but if they do, I know where
to get them fixed.

One last word on radios...make absolutely sure that ALL the connectors come
with the radios. If the connectors come with wires cut about six to twelve
inches from the connector, you may just wish to check out the various "hot
radio" lists to make sure yours wasn't "inadvertently removed" at midnight
somewhere.

Oh, notice all that yellowed cotton fabric insulation on the wiring that is
cracking? Hmmm...surplus stores nationwide have brand new mil-spec aviation
wire for pennies on the dollar. Might just as well do the wiring while you
are doing the radios. Hint ... use some sort of clear shrink sleeving and
color code the end of each wire as you replace it. Makes troubleshooting a
whole bunch easier. Hint #2. Download an old copy of Circuitmaker and
Traxmaker and become familiar with making your own schematic diagrams.
Again, makes troubleshooting a lot easier. Hint #3. Barrier strips and
crimp terminals are your friends. Again, again, makes troubleshooting...

At the same time you are doing your radios, pull all the instruments and
send them out for overhaul. (Nobody said this was going to be cheap.) I
personally prefer the Gyro House down in Auburn CA, but then again, I have
worked with them for thirty years or so. Get advice in this ng as to folks
who have had good results from the various overhaul shops around the
country.

Now your radio stack, wiring, and instruments are top notch. Give yourself
a year's flying with them. Enjoy.

Now do the upholstery. Tear the old stuff off right down to bare metal.
Prime the bare metal. Paint it with the best rattlecan paint you can find.
Go to Airtex and look at their catalog. They make, in my opinion, some of
the best upholstery stuff in the world. Or, you can do what Jay Honeck did
and find a local upholsterer that is doing a BIG leather job and have him do
your seats from the leather scraps from his big job. You will still need
carpet, side panels, and headliner from Airtex to match your seat color(s).

Fly the airplane for a year. Enjoy.

If you need any of the glass replaced, now is the time to do it. If you
don't, drilling rivets out of a new paint job will make you cry. Don't do
the windshield yourself. It is a lousy, dirty, messy job. Have somebody
else crack the new windshield and have to replace it out of their pocket.

Want a personal N-Number? Now is the time to do it. My airplane was
factory-christened N 5151 D. In '90 it became (ham radio operators note) N
73 CQ.

Now find a good paint shop and have them do the painting including the new
N-number.

Oh, did you keep a logbook of all this stuff? I don't mean the airplane
logs. I mean your personal logs. Any time you spend on the airplane
(including research and drawing schematics on the computer) is loggable
towards your A&P. YOu need 30 months of experience (35 hour weeks, as I
recall) just to sit for the exam, and after that (except for annuals) you
can sign your own work off. What's that? 5000 hours or so? Hell, you'll
have that halfway through the upholstery. Your IA can sign off verifying
your time. This is not an absolute requirement, but the local FSDO isn't
going to run you through the crap mill if you get the signature.

And what has all this bought you? Not only pilot time, but knowing the
airplane inside out. Knowing FOR SURE that when you flip the switch, the
lights will come on. And you can't buy that experience for love nor money.

Jim

(Oh, one last thing. You DID start your engine fund when you bought the
airplane, yes? By now it is probably a couple of hundred hours past TBO and
you might want to start looking at engine parts. You DO want to do the
engine yourself, don't you? {;-)

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


<Kirk Ellis> wrote in message
...
>
>
> A fellow pilot/friend and I have been knocking around the idea of
> doing a 2-way partnership on an aircraft next summer. I have had my
> ticket since 1998 although I have only 150 some odd hours total. My
> friend has about half that. Relatively speaking we still consider
> ourselves newbie "students" but have this overwhelming desire to
> become the best pilots possible and that requires lots of practice.

[[email protected]]

Kirk wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:50:14 -0500, Grumman 46U wrote:


> >
> >Kirk--
> >
> >Take a look at the Grummans out there. You might be able to get a
> >good, minimally equipped '76-'78 Cheetah for $50K or thereabouts.
> >You'd be getting 120KTAS @ 8.5 GPH and four seats. The whole series of
> >aircraft--Traveler, Cheetah, Tiger--is easy to fly, much more
> >responsive than a 172 or Warrior (and faster), very economical to
> >operate as an owner, and the visibility is fantastic.
> >
> >There is also a very active owners' group that is ready and willing to
> >help you with ANY problem you might encounter.
> >
> >
> >Michael
> >

> I have been reading up on both the Cheetahs and the Tigers. There are
> pros and cons to both but that can be said about every other aircraft.
> But those 2 Grummans are definitely on our list although a nice Tiger
> might run more than our budget.

I own a Tiger and concur it is much more fun to fly than the Cessnas
and Pipers and the visibility is outstanding. Cruiseing at just
under 140 knots is a plus.

Right now the price of all used airplanes is depressed and really
nice Tigers with newish paint and interiors are going for an asking
price of around $65K. Not so new paint and interiors are a bit less.

Save your lunch money, up your budget a bit, and go for the Tiger.

If the $50K is a hard limit, go for the Cheetah which can be had
right now for that.

The smaller engine of the Cheetah puts the performance at about the
172 level.

I'm in a high and hot area so I really need the bigger engine, you
may not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Lou]

> I've thought about that many times, but I don't have a big enough
> garage attached to the side of my house and I am not sure there is any
> facility in this city to rent where I could do such work. Besides, at
> 55 I really don't want to have to wait a year for my financing to work
> out and then spend another 2 years building before I can fly. By that
> time I will be just a couple of years shy of 60 and who knows how much
> time will be left for flying. Time is ticking....


In that case I would seriously look at a Zenair CH2000
You could pick up a 10 year old plane with a mid timed
engine for somewhere in that neighborhood instead of
a 40 year old plane thats been rebuilt 10 times.
Lou

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-17, Lou > wrote:
> In that case I would seriously look at a Zenair CH2000
> You could pick up a 10 year old plane with a mid timed
> engine for somewhere in that neighborhood instead of
> a 40 year old plane thats been rebuilt 10 times.

The CH2000 looks like a nice airplane, but it's a bit on the slow side: 75%
cruise is 99 knots.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Paul M. Anton]

Piper PA 22 you can get a VERY nice one for 30K or less AND have money left
to maintain and run it.

A 150HP Tri-Pacer will do as well or better than a 172 and is an easy to fly
fun little plane.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
KPLU

[Lou]

> The CH2000 looks like a nice airplane, but it's a bit on the slow side: 75%
> cruise is 99 knots.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

I agree, the speed would be an issue. I've alway wondered if you could
upgrade the engine for speed. If you look at the Zenith 640 kit, it's
a 4 seater
that has a cruise of 150 but they pride themselves on using the exact
same airframe
as the ch2000. Does that mean you should be able to get 150 out of the
CH2000?
Lou

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-17, Lou > wrote:
> I agree, the speed would be an issue. I've alway wondered if you could
> upgrade the engine for speed. If you look at the Zenith 640 kit, it's a 4
> seater that has a cruise of 150 but they pride themselves on using the
> exact same airframe as the ch2000. Does that mean you should be able to
> get 150 out of the CH2000?

Good question...it'd take an STC, since the Alarus is a Part 23 airplane,
but if the airframe is the same, it should work, at least that far.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Mike Spera]

>
> .stuff snipped.
>What would you
> buy if all you had was 50k...?
> .other stuff snipped.

Others have chimed in with various options. My reply is a bit more
pessimistic.

$50k ain't gonna do it for a certificated beast. Kitplanes have their
own economics but I am not going there in this analysis.

Sure, you can buy an older tin can for that price, but may not be able
to fly it long. The various expenses will likely cost you enough to
double that figure in several years. Experiences vary, but you could pay
lots in the near future for unseen problems (or ADs). Or, you may pay
that out over 5-7 years IF you get lucky and don't fly a lot.

10GPH X $5.00/gal once a week is $2600 annually. Fly 2 hours a week and
double that. $800-$1200 for insurance. $800-$3000 annually for cheap tie
down on up to basic hangar. Throw in $2k for annual. Another $2k for odd
repairs and you can see how the bill mounts. On the low end, that adds
up to $8200 a year. In 6 years you paid another $50k to operate the
beast. Florida? I would strongly consider weather detection. Add another
$2k one time expense for the Garmin and $360 a year for the subscription.

Many on this group scoff at these prices and boast about how "they did
it cheaper". The ones who could not afford it don't pipe up about how
the expenses swamped them into selling. Sure, IF you have the tools, and
IF you have the hangar to work in, and IF you have the one in a hundred
mechanic that will let you do the work, and IF you have the know how,
and IF you have the time, and IF you can search for cheap parts, and IF
your wrench will let you use them, etc. things can be cheaper. You got
those? Many don't. Most pay "retail" as I estimated above.

So, I say that $50k is a good start. If you have the $8k - $10k in
annual expenses also figured into the budget, you may make it work.

By the way, make sure you have $15k or so lying around just in case the
engine decides to go out to lunch.

Good Luck,
Mike

[Lou]

>
> So, I say that $50k is a good start. If you have the $8k - $10k in
> annual expenses also figured into the budget, you may make it work.
> Good Luck,
> Mike

Mike I couldn't agree more. However isn't that why you and your
partner
would sit down and make a budget and agree to both, an hourly rate and
a monthly rate to be paid into an account that would need both
signatures
to write a check to pay these expenses? I don't belive the OP is going
into
this blindly ( or maybe they are), but at least they have realistic
numbers
to start with rather than asking what the best plane $15000 could buy.
Going on how your post reads, these two should buy something like a
piper 140 at $35000 and have a reserve of $15000 for repairs. Can't
disagree
with that either. In fact that is just the advice they are looking
for. But
if it where you, what would you buy?
Lou

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 09:00:10 -0500, Mike Spera >
wrote:

>
>>
>> .stuff snipped.
>>What would you
>> buy if all you had was 50k...?
>> .other stuff snipped.
>
>Others have chimed in with various options. My reply is a bit more
>pessimistic.
>
>$50k ain't gonna do it for a certificated beast. Kitplanes have their
>own economics but I am not going there in this analysis.
>
>Sure, you can buy an older tin can for that price, but may not be able
>to fly it long. The various expenses will likely cost you enough to
>double that figure in several years. Experiences vary, but you could pay
>lots in the near future for unseen problems (or ADs). Or, you may pay
>that out over 5-7 years IF you get lucky and don't fly a lot.
>
>10GPH X $5.00/gal once a week is $2600 annually. Fly 2 hours a week and
>double that. $800-$1200 for insurance. $800-$3000 annually for cheap tie
>down on up to basic hangar. Throw in $2k for annual. Another $2k for odd
>repairs and you can see how the bill mounts. On the low end, that adds
>up to $8200 a year. In 6 years you paid another $50k to operate the
>beast. Florida? I would strongly consider weather detection. Add another
>$2k one time expense for the Garmin and $360 a year for the subscription.
>
>Many on this group scoff at these prices and boast about how "they did
>it cheaper". The ones who could not afford it don't pipe up about how
>the expenses swamped them into selling. Sure, IF you have the tools, and
>IF you have the hangar to work in, and IF you have the one in a hundred
>mechanic that will let you do the work, and IF you have the know how,
>and IF you have the time, and IF you can search for cheap parts, and IF
>your wrench will let you use them, etc. things can be cheaper. You got
>those? Many don't. Most pay "retail" as I estimated above.
>
>So, I say that $50k is a good start. If you have the $8k - $10k in
>annual expenses also figured into the budget, you may make it work.
>
>By the way, make sure you have $15k or so lying around just in case the
>engine decides to go out to lunch.
>
>Good Luck,
>Mike

Mike,

Thanks to you and to the others who have responded. I have to say that
your comments mirror the thoughts that have been going through my mind
since I woke up this morning. What I have learned over the course of
the last few days, is that the professional degree I obtained 20 years
ago has me stuck in a career that does not give me the financial means
to fuflill this passion I have had for 40 years. I was able to get my
ticket in 1998 and thought that I would be able to accumulate time and
afford the hours to become a proficient pilot. I even looked into
getting an instrument rating, but that expense was far above my means
then as it is now.

As far as VFR flying was concerned, things looked hopeful but flying
only 15 or so hours a year is not going to satisfy my quest to become
a proficient aviator. I thought that perhaps just tooling around the
neighborhood in a little 152 or so would satisfy the urge, but in the
pathetic 150 hours I have amassed over the last ten years I am already
beyond that. Confining myself to local hops around the pattern does
not hold much appeal any longer if I cannot mix it up with some good
XC's every so often. The thought of taking those relatively longer XC
flights to places further than 100 miles from the home base are part
of what motivated me to obtain that license. But, sadly, the longest
XC I have ever flown in that time is the one required for the PPL.

Of course you all know that to become a good aviator requires XC
flights that will expose a pilot to many different situations. (A
totally obvious statement I know.) But that experience I crave
requires flights that I cannot begin to fund either in renting or
owning. Even though some posters have mentioned rentals over owning,
the rental market at the FBO's near me is really not a valid option
due to the limited availabilty of the aircraft. A club could be an
option in the right locales, but for some reason clubs are almost
nonexistent in northern Florida.

The only way to acheive the lofty goal of becoming an experienced
pilot, would require an aircraft in the 80k to 100k price range. Add
to that the cash reserves for the gotchas and the typical operating
costs and let's just say I will have to wait until I win the lotto to
see this dream come true.

In the meantime, I have decided to push this long standing, all
consuming passion out the door. It will be difficult to turn in my
wings, but necessary.

Cheers
Kirk

[Lou]

Good going Mike.

[[email protected]]

Kirk wrote:

<snip>

> The only way to acheive the lofty goal of becoming an experienced
> pilot, would require an aircraft in the 80k to 100k price range. Add
> to that the cash reserves for the gotchas and the typical operating
> costs and let's just say I will have to wait until I win the lotto to
> see this dream come true.

Nonsense.

There are lots of simple aircraft out there for well under $80k at
todays prices that won't eat you alive with gas, insurance and
maintenance more than capable of 100+ mile cross countries.

I took that attitude and screwed around until I was 60 to buy an
airplane.

That is one of the major mistakes of my life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Kirk Ellis wrote:

> The only way to acheive the lofty goal of becoming an experienced
> pilot, would require an aircraft in the 80k to 100k price range. Add
> to that the cash reserves for the gotchas and the typical operating
> costs and let's just say I will have to wait until I win the lotto to
> see this dream come true.

Look at older aircraft that aren't quite as expensive to purchase as
"newer" aircraft. If you limit yourself to a 30 year old aircraft, you
are going to pass on older cherokee 140 and cherokee 160 aircraft.
These can have the useful load to carry 3 and you don't have to
spend $80,000 to buy one. They also are more likely to be able
to run autogas.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[RST Engineering]

Horsefeathers. I just looked in the latest Trade-A-Plane with its somewhat
inflated prices and you can get a '56 172 with a 700 hour engine for $27.5
and that's the ASKING price. A '59 for $29.5. A '59 Tripacer for $27. A
'53 for $19.5. A '64 Cherokee 140 for for $24.9 and another one for $24.9.

My hit on it is that you wanted a reason to stop flying and the idiots in
this ng gave you that reason.

Jim



>
> In the meantime, I have decided to push this long standing, all
> consuming passion out the door. It will be difficult to turn in my
> wings, but necessary.
>
> Cheers
> Kirk

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 12:27*pm, "RST Engineering" >
wrote:
> Horsefeathers. *I just looked in the latest Trade-A-Plane with its somewhat
> inflated prices and you can get a '56 172 with a 700 hour engine for $27.5
> and that's the ASKING price. *A '59 for $29.5. *A '59 Tripacer for $27.. *A
> '53 for $19.5. *A '64 Cherokee 140 for for $24.9 and another one for $24..9.
>
> My hit on it is that you wanted a reason to stop flying and the idiots in
> this ng gave you that reason.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> > In the meantime, I have decided to push this long standing, all
> > consuming passion out the door. It will be difficult to turn in my
> > wings, but necessary.
>
> > Cheers
> > Kirk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am with Jim on this.. If there is a will, there is a way... You have
lost your will...

Ben.......

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:27:48 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Horsefeathers. I just looked in the latest Trade-A-Plane with its somewhat
>inflated prices and you can get a '56 172 with a 700 hour engine for $27.5
>and that's the ASKING price. A '59 for $29.5. A '59 Tripacer for $27. A
>'53 for $19.5. A '64 Cherokee 140 for for $24.9 and another one for $24.9.

I have seen those ads, but from the reading I have done I am getting
the impression that we would need perhaps 15k to 20k in cash lying
around for any used airplane that we purchase plus the down payment.
On a monthly basis we could easily afford the payments on a ten year
note for a 50k aircraft and be able to afford the fuel, but that
reserve cash for those never ending maintenance items is not readily
available to us and is the deal breaker right now. One or our
considerations is to take out signature loans of about 8k to 10k each
but not sure yet if that is really an option. I think the best thing
right now is to quit renting / flying for the next two years and put
as much as I can afford each month into a purchase fund. Perhaps then,
I can treat myself to a 1/2 partnership in a reasonably sound XC
aircraft when I turn 57. All the while though we will keep our medical
current... FAA willing.

>My hit on it is that you wanted a reason to stop flying and the idiots in
>this ng gave you that reason.
>
>Jim

I have never wanted to stop flying, ask my wife. She is tired of
hearing about it constantly, but she doesn't understand what it means
to me. All she wants is the boat and couldn't care less about flying
in a single engine spam can. Next year the boat will be paid for. Then
I can put a few more dollars away for another year. After that it will
be MY turn. But there are so many variables that can pop up over a 2
year period that we have no control over. Just gotta keep our fingers
crossed.

But two years go by very quickly at this age. My pilot friend and I
only hope we will be able still fly into our eighties (if we make it
that far) as Bob Hoover was able to do. Maybe then we will consider
ourselves adequate pilots.

Kirk

[RST Engineering]

In the immortal words of a very dear old friend who passed away a few years
ago:

"I had a wife like that once." (G.Baxter)

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


> I have never wanted to stop flying, ask my wife. She is tired of
> hearing about it constantly, but she doesn't understand what it means
> to me. All she wants is the boat and couldn't care less about flying
> in a single engine spam can.

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:54:03 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>In the immortal words of a very dear old friend who passed away a few years
>ago:
>
>"I had a wife like that once." (G.Baxter)
>
>Jim

Great line that I vaguely recall seening somewhere before...

And from a rather well known author....

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea."
-- Robert Heinlein

[Newps]

Kirk Ellis wrote:

>
> I have seen those ads, but from the reading I have done I am getting
> the impression that we would need perhaps 15k to 20k in cash lying
> around for any used airplane that we purchase plus the down payment.
> On a monthly basis we could easily afford the payments on a ten year
> note for a 50k aircraft and be able to afford the fuel,


$50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
maintenence outside the annual. You don't need any cash "laying
around", that's a foolish way to keep an asset like that anyways. You
just need access to cash if you should happen to need it, no need for
there to be instant access. Get a home equity line of credit but never
tap it.

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:29:18 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>$50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
>fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
>8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
>basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
>maintenence outside the annual. You don't need any cash "laying
>around", that's a foolish way to keep an asset like that anyways. You
>just need access to cash if you should happen to need it, no need for
>there to be instant access. Get a home equity line of credit but never
>tap it.

Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

The point about the cash is well taken. I may be able to work that
out....of course the "partner" I share the boat with will have
something to say about the equity line of credit.

[[email protected]]

I have had my mid-fifties Bo for three years and love it.I trust it
with my families lives. I don't fly it much but the guy I bought it
from was putting over 200hrs a year on it.
As long as it has been well maintained and has no corrosion problems,
there is nothing scary about a 50 year old airplane.
Robert


On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:41:16 -0400, Kirk Ellis wrote:

>On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:29:18 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>$50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
>>fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
>>8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
>>basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
>>maintenence outside the annual. You don't need any cash "laying
>>around", that's a foolish way to keep an asset like that anyways. You
>>just need access to cash if you should happen to need it, no need for
>>there to be instant access. Get a home equity line of credit but never
>>tap it.
>
>Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
>buying something that is almost as old as I am.
>
>The point about the cash is well taken. I may be able to work that
>out....of course the "partner" I share the boat with will have
>something to say about the equity line of credit.

[RST Engineering]

In 1967, I bought my first airplane, a 1947 Cessna 120. Flew the sucker for
a half a thousand hours from San Diego to Lake Tahoe a dozen times, St.
Louis twice, and Boston once...not a lick of problems. Swapped that one for
a 1948 Cessna 170 in 1969 for 1500 hours. Flew that one from San Diego to
Oshkosh half a dozen times, no sweat. When I started teaching, I swapped
that one for a 1964 172 in 1975. Flew that one from San Diego and Grass
Valley from '64 to '98 to Oshkosh every year, up and down the coast a few
dozen times, 3000 hours, but finally had a "character building experience"
that totalled the airplane but not a scratch on me or my passengers. Took
the insurance money from that one and bought a derelict '58 182 that I found
in a farmer's henhouse (literally) down in Fresno for $4500, completely
steamcleaned the chicken **** out of it, completely stripped every wire,
nut, and screw off of it, replaced everything with all new wiring and
hardware, did a "new" used radio stack, had all the instruments overhauled,
upholstered, painted, and still had cash left over in the bank from the 172
insurance payoff. For all intents and purposes, since 1990 it has been a
"new" airplane (except for motor, and we've done a pristine top about 200
hours ago), it's been all over the western USA and Oshkosh more than a dozen
times, with around 1500 hours and only one minor glitch.

Ask anybody that has seen it - Jay, Jack, Bob, Montblack, Dan, Mike, and
all the rest of the Oshkosh Mafia. It isn't a "show" airplane, but it is
right up there with anything the factory has ever put out.

So, no, I have nothing but good to say about older airplanes. After all,
they've been "proven" for half a century and most of the nastys have been
taken care of. Fatigue is a factor, but not as much as you might think.
Clyde Cessna built one hell of a machine back in those days. So did Bill
Piper.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


>
> Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
> buying something that is almost as old as I am.

[Newps]

Kirk Ellis wrote:

>
> Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
> buying something that is almost as old as I am.

And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't
look at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then
inevitably they pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are
inefficient. They have their missions but cross country isn't one
they're good at.

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Newps > wrote:

>
> $50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
> fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
> 8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
> basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
> maintenence outside the annual.

Well, Scott, as the owner of a '49 Bonanza, I'm not so sure I'm so sanguine.

Performance wise, I usually figure 155 MPH on 9.5 GPH so I won't quibble
with you there. But I really think the maintenence between my A model
is can be signifantly different from your S model. Parts for the E-series
engine are becoming difficult. Better hope you don't need parts for the
electric prop or the Hartzel for that matter. Very expensive, if you can
find them at all.

It really also doen't take much to blow the $1000-$1500 in non-annual
maintenace. Priced out a cabin door hinge? Six years ago I spent $500
for a SALVAGED one. An and older plane is just going to have had more
time for things to wear out.

Good thing I've been in love with this hunk of metal for the past 15 years.
It would be tough to justify at this point.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Howard]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kirk Ellis wrote:
>
>>
>> Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
>> buying something that is almost as old as I am.
>
> And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't look
> at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then inevitably they
> pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are inefficient. They
> have their missions but cross country isn't one they're good at.

Yeh

C182. Just a terrible cross country machine. :)

Sometimes Usenet just astounds me.

Howard

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "KE" == Kirk <Ellis> writes:

KE> As far as VFR flying was concerned, things looked hopeful but
KE> flying only 15 or so hours a year is not going to satisfy my
KE> quest to become a proficient aviator. I thought that perhaps
KE> just tooling around the neighborhood in a little 152 or so
KE> would satisfy the urge, but in the pathetic 150 hours I have
KE> amassed over the last ten years I am already beyond
KE> that. Confining myself to local hops around the pattern does
KE> not hold much appeal any longer if I cannot mix it up with
KE> some good XC's every so often. The thought of taking those
KE> relatively longer XC flights to places further than 100 miles
KE> from the home base are part of what motivated me to obtain
KE> that license. But, sadly, the longest XC I have ever flown in
KE> that time is the one required for the PPL.

You describe a situation similar to mine a few years ago. I lived 3
miles from a very good club with taildraggers, Cessnas, and even a
Bonanza, but then the club moved one way, I moved another, and my
flying dropped to no more than 20 hours/year. Like you, I wanted to
fly long, multi-day cross-country flights. Finally I realized I
needed to either buy my own airplane or quit.

I ended up buying an Aircoupe, performance not greatly different than
the ubiquitous C-150. The first year I put on well over 100 hours and
I've flown it from N. California to Arizona, Seattle, Oshkosh, SoCal,
and of course all over N. California.

I cite my experience to point out that one does not need a $100K
airplane to fly cross country. I joke at the airport that I can get
to the same place as the Mooney/Bonanza/C206 guys, I just have to
start yesterday. So what? Neither does one need the IFR rating to
fly X-C, just judgement and vacation time. Read Rinker Buck's "Flight
of Passage" to see how it's done.

Consider a lesser airplane than your dream airplane. It will hold
value and you can sell it in a few years and get your capital cost
back. That's what I plan to do. The Coupe whetted my appetite for
faster cross countries so I started building an RV-9A. I'll sell the
Coupe in a year or two to pay for the engine.
--
Truth is for the minority.
~ Baltasar Gracián

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:40:57 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't
>look at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then
>inevitably they pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are
>inefficient.

A terrific point.

GPH is only half of the equation when actually going places.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:56:20 -0700, "Howard" >
>
>C182. Just a terrible cross country machine. :)
>
>Sometimes Usenet just astounds me.
>

That's not how I read it at all. He said "efficiency".

Lots of folks only look at GPH, and don't give airspeed or the typical
load, proper attention.

There are airplanes that are a lot faster for just a tad more fuel,
especially with a light load. In reality, more efficient.

[Margy Natalie]

Kirk Ellis wrote:
..
>
>
> Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
> buying something that is almost as old as I am.
>

Never fly anything younger than you are, someone has to have experience :-)

More to the point a well maintained older airplane is just fine. Mines
a 1950 and until the engine swallowed a valve it was just fine. We had
an odd-ball engine (GO-435) and decided to reengine, then we just kept
going, but if the budget had been tighter we really didn't have to all
the stuff we did to the plane (new just about everything). I like Jim's
idea of buying a decent, but ragged out plane and fixing something every
year (if you have the time to work on it without negatively impacting
flying time too much). Ideally a nice long "vacation" period that goes
to the airplane is great.

Margy

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "KE" == Kirk <Ellis> writes:

KE> On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:27:48 -0700, "RST Engineering"
KE> > wrote:

>> My hit on it is that you wanted a reason to stop flying and the
>> idiots in this ng gave you that reason.

KE> I have never wanted to stop flying, ask my wife. She is tired
KE> of hearing about it constantly, but she doesn't understand
KE> what it means to me. All she wants is the boat and couldn't
KE> care less about flying in a single engine spam can. Next year
KE> the boat will be paid for.

Jim is right, you just don't know it yet. The vast majority of people
do not want advice even when they ask for it. They want to be
affirmed with a decision already made. You've decided to quit. But
you don't want the burden of that decision so you're placing it on
this ng, on price, cost, your wife, your boat, whatever.

KE> But two years go by very quickly at this age. My pilot friend
KE> and I only hope we will be able still fly into our eighties
KE> (if we make it that far) as Bob Hoover was able to do. Maybe
KE> then we will consider ourselves adequate pilots.

Quit whining. Sell the damn boat if that's really the obstacle, you
can buy another when you can't fly. You're gonna reach age 70 still
day-dreaming and complaining how you couldn't quite do the airplane
thing. It was the boat. My wife. Not enough cash on hand. Had to allow
for repairs at half the purchase price. Yada. Yada.

We made do with one car for years, packed lunches, didn't go out. Now
we have one 17 year old car, a 7 year car, and a 43 year airplane. We
all talk about what we want, but our actions show what is really
important.
--
We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.
~ Kurt Vonnegut

[Newps]

B A R R Y wrote:

>
> That's not how I read it at all. He said "efficiency".

Exactly.


>
> Lots of folks only look at GPH, and don't give airspeed or the typical
> load, proper attention.
>
> There are airplanes that are a lot faster for just a tad more fuel,
> especially with a light load. In reality, more efficient.

To compare apples to apples you have to do MPG. I had a 67 182, at top
of the green, 23"/2450, it would indicate about 135 MPH in the summer
and about 140 in the winter at 4500 feet(11 mpg). That's burning about
12 to 12.5. In the Bo I indicate 145-150 MPH at 8.5 GPH at my 45%
setting of 19"/2100(17.5 mpg). At 75% like the 182 the mpg drops to 13
but your going 55 mph faster.

[Newps]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> $50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
>> fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
>> 8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
>> basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
>> maintenence outside the annual.
>
> Well, Scott, as the owner of a '49 Bonanza, I'm not so sure I'm so sanguine.
>
> Performance wise, I usually figure 155 MPH on 9.5 GPH so I won't quibble
> with you there. But I really think the maintenence between my A model
> is can be signifantly different from your S model. Parts for the E-series
> engine are becoming difficult. Better hope you don't need parts for the
> electric prop or the Hartzel for that matter. Very expensive, if you can
> find them at all.

Right, I wouldn't touch an A model(1949) with a 10 foot pole. Stick to
the late 50's or newer like I said and you get at least an IO-470 and no
prop issues. Same basic engine and prop that's in a 182.

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:34:28 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote:

> The vast majority of people
>do not want advice even when they ask for it. They want to be
>affirmed with a decision already made. You've decided to quit. But
>you don't want the burden of that decision so you're placing it on
>this ng, on price, cost, your wife, your boat, whatever.
>
Hmmmm.....without my wife I would not be in a position to even
entertain the thought of owning an airplane. Even the idea of
searching online to gain insight into the financial feasibility of
such an endeavor would have been ludicrous. But the information I've
gleamed recently has shown what options are available and what path to
take. For now, she comes first because it's all about compromise.
Thanks for your wisdom and for the advice, opinions and the sharing of
experience by all of those who have posted in response to my question.

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Newps > wrote:
>
> Right, I wouldn't touch an A model(1949) with a 10 foot pole. Stick to
> the late 50's or newer like I said and you get at least an IO-470 and no
> prop issues. Same basic engine and prop that's in a 182.

Just to add a few more tedious details...

The H model came out in '57 with an odd O-470-G (I'm not sure its used in
airframe) that was carbed. The J model came out in '58 with a more common
injected IO-470-C.

So how much can you spend on a J model Bonanza? I dunno for sure, as I
don't pay too much attention generally. However, I did a 2 minute glance
around the 'net and the cheapest asking price I could find was $55,000.
Given the current market, one could probably could find something cheaper,
but somehow I don't think it would be a lot cheaper.

Besides the very early models (35,A35,B35) are the best flying Bonanzas.
I know because Old Bob told me so ;-) (its an inside joke).

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Sorry post posting proof-reading:

Frank Stutzman > wrote:

> The H model came out in '57 with an odd O-470-G (I'm not sure its used in
> airframe) that was carbed. The J model came out in '58 with a more common
> injected IO-470-C.

Should read:

> The H model came out in '57 with an odd O-470-G (I'm not sure its used in
> ANOTHER airframe) that was carbed. The J model came out in '58 with a
> more common injected IO-470-C.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[dave]

RST Engineering wrote:
> This is a good time to buy, the airplane market being somewhat depressed.
> Whatever you buy, you need to be sure that it is either STCd or can be STCd
> for autogas. Believe what you will, the world has exactly ONE supplier for
> a critical component of 100/100LL. The ethanol thing will shake itself out
> as the world braces for a sharp increase in the price of dinogas. There
> will be a solution. THere always has been. Necessity, as somebody noted,
> is a mother.
>
> Skyhawk or Cherokee, whichever suits your fancy. Parts are a little easier
> to get for the 172; the PA28 is a little roomier. Buy the airplane in the
> WINTER. Summer prices are 10-20% higher.
>
> You need two critical things right off the crack of the bat. One is an
> A&P-IA that is a mean son of a bitch but will work with you to let you do
> 95% of the work on the airplane. Ply him or her with beer, (wo)men,
> whatever to keep him or her around. The second is a set-aside of the
> purchase money for a COMPLETE set of tools that is dedicated to the airplane
> and not trucked to and from the airport from home.
>
> Have your IA go over your intended with a fine tooth comb looking for
> "stuff" that will have to be done to keep the bird birdworthy. There will
> always be something ... tires, a cracked flap panel, burned out landing
> light, all that stuff. Set your bidding price accordingly. If it means an
> airline ticket for your IA and a day's wages to send him/her to the
> airplane, cheap price to pay for finding a crack in the spar that will cost
> thousands to replace.
>
> Having said that, and being partial to Cessna for several reasons, I'd find
> an ancient 172 with a mid time engine and crappy paint, lousy interior, and
> terrible radios. Spend half your nut on the airframe itself and put the
> other half in the bank. Fly the sucker for a hundred hours or so with rips
> in the seats, crackly radios, and the "laughing stock" of the airport bums
> for looks. To hell with them.
>
> If your budget can afford it, a hangar is one of the best investments you
> can make. It will pay for itself in allowing you to do 95% of the work on
> the airplane in a semblance of comfort.
>
> Do the radios/instruments first. You will have your filthy shoes on the
> carpet and seats while you struggle with that one last nut on the tray on
> the top of the stack and if you've done the interior first, you will kick
> yourself silly for tracking crap all over your fine looking upholstery job.
> I'm partial to used radios for a couple of reasons, not the least of which
> you will spend half or less on a used radio than a new one. Don't fall for
> the "yellow tag" trap. All that stupid yellow tag tells you is that some
> radio shop puke ran it through its paces on the bench and it met certain
> minimum standards. Will it crap out when the engine shakes the airplane?
> Who knows. And don't fall for the "working when removed" line either. No
> matter who you buy it from or where it came from, buy it with an ironclad
> ten day or two week no questions asked money back (except for shipping)
> return guarantee. As with your IA, make friends with your radio shop. TELL
> them that you are doing your own work, but are more than willing to pay shop
> labor to shake, rattle, and roll your prospective radio and find out if
> there is anything that isn't up to snuff and back up their labor rate with
> some sort of guarantee. The BEST guarantee, if you can find a radio shop
> willing to do it, is a six month guarantee that if it breaks you will pay
> actual parts cost and HALF the normal labor rate for repair during the
> guarantee period.
>
> Personally? I've got a pair of KX-170Bs with the associated nav heads. Old
> radios? Sure, but there is a guy in Trade-A-Plane that specializes in this
> particular model. They've never crapped out, but if they do, I know where
> to get them fixed.
>
> One last word on radios...make absolutely sure that ALL the connectors come
> with the radios. If the connectors come with wires cut about six to twelve
> inches from the connector, you may just wish to check out the various "hot
> radio" lists to make sure yours wasn't "inadvertently removed" at midnight
> somewhere.
>
> Oh, notice all that yellowed cotton fabric insulation on the wiring that is
> cracking? Hmmm...surplus stores nationwide have brand new mil-spec aviation
> wire for pennies on the dollar. Might just as well do the wiring while you
> are doing the radios. Hint ... use some sort of clear shrink sleeving and
> color code the end of each wire as you replace it. Makes troubleshooting a
> whole bunch easier. Hint #2. Download an old copy of Circuitmaker and
> Traxmaker and become familiar with making your own schematic diagrams.
> Again, makes troubleshooting a lot easier. Hint #3. Barrier strips and
> crimp terminals are your friends. Again, again, makes troubleshooting...
>
> At the same time you are doing your radios, pull all the instruments and
> send them out for overhaul. (Nobody said this was going to be cheap.) I
> personally prefer the Gyro House down in Auburn CA, but then again, I have
> worked with them for thirty years or so. Get advice in this ng as to folks
> who have had good results from the various overhaul shops around the
> country.
>
> Now your radio stack, wiring, and instruments are top notch. Give yourself
> a year's flying with them. Enjoy.
>
> Now do the upholstery. Tear the old stuff off right down to bare metal.
> Prime the bare metal. Paint it with the best rattlecan paint you can find.
> Go to Airtex and look at their catalog. They make, in my opinion, some of
> the best upholstery stuff in the world. Or, you can do what Jay Honeck did
> and find a local upholsterer that is doing a BIG leather job and have him do
> your seats from the leather scraps from his big job. You will still need
> carpet, side panels, and headliner from Airtex to match your seat color(s).
>
> Fly the airplane for a year. Enjoy.
>
> If you need any of the glass replaced, now is the time to do it. If you
> don't, drilling rivets out of a new paint job will make you cry. Don't do
> the windshield yourself. It is a lousy, dirty, messy job. Have somebody
> else crack the new windshield and have to replace it out of their pocket.
>
> Want a personal N-Number? Now is the time to do it. My airplane was
> factory-christened N 5151 D. In '90 it became (ham radio operators note) N
> 73 CQ.
>
> Now find a good paint shop and have them do the painting including the new
> N-number.
>
> Oh, did you keep a logbook of all this stuff? I don't mean the airplane
> logs. I mean your personal logs. Any time you spend on the airplane
> (including research and drawing schematics on the computer) is loggable
> towards your A&P. YOu need 30 months of experience (35 hour weeks, as I
> recall) just to sit for the exam, and after that (except for annuals) you
> can sign your own work off. What's that? 5000 hours or so? Hell, you'll
> have that halfway through the upholstery. Your IA can sign off verifying
> your time. This is not an absolute requirement, but the local FSDO isn't
> going to run you through the crap mill if you get the signature.
>
> And what has all this bought you? Not only pilot time, but knowing the
> airplane inside out. Knowing FOR SURE that when you flip the switch, the
> lights will come on. And you can't buy that experience for love nor money.
>
> Jim
>
> (Oh, one last thing. You DID start your engine fund when you bought the
> airplane, yes? By now it is probably a couple of hundred hours past TBO and
> you might want to start looking at engine parts. You DO want to do the
> engine yourself, don't you? {;-)
>
Jim,

As much as your an arrogant SOB at times you do make sense quite often.
I got my ap/ia in much the same way as you described.

It mostly started with my first airplane a PA22-150 and worked into a
Bonanza.

Airplane ownership is more than just flying an aircraft for less than
renting. Its making what you have better than the original and doing it
because you want to make it better and because you understand why it works.
Airplanes are not rocket science, that's why they are so reliable.
And an annual doesn't need to be as expensive as most IA's make it to be.
You fly because you love it, and you work on your own aircraft for the
same reason.

It's more than just dollars and cents, its a passion.

Dave

[Mike Isaksen]

<Kirk Ellis> wrote ...
> Hmmmm.....without my wife I would not be in a position to
> even entertain the thought of owning an airplane. Even the
> idea of searching online to gain insight into the financial
> feasibility of such an endeavor would have been ludicrous.
> But the information I've gleamed recently has shown what
> options are available and what path to take. For now, she
> comes first because it's all about compromise. Thanks for
> your wisdom and for the advice, opinions and the sharing of
> experience by all of those who have posted in response to
> my question.

OK Kirk, reality check time: The owner of Pilots Haven (Academy of Aviation
dot com) KFRG recently told me that not a single "middle class person" who
was a recreational pilot or pilot wannabe has walked thru his doors in the
last eight months. Yet he's busier than ever renting G1000 Skyhawks to upper
crusties and major airline pilot wannabes working thru to the comm ticket in
TAAs. No matter how much people rationalize that "in real dollars against
inflation it's no more expensive to fly blah blah blah", the truth is it has
gotten pretty tough for Joe Average!

So what'dya wanna do, take a timeout or fly?

If you have 150hr in 10 years, and you probably spent half that in the first
two years getting your ticket, you spend less than 10 hours a year flying.
If most of that was $100 burger flights, you are probably so out of practice
on the basics that it scares you to think "what if?". So here you are.

Now here forward are the options:
1. Run
2. Rent
3. Buy needs (as in meets), not want.

If you Run you'll never return, that's just the stats.
If you Rent you'll continue on the 10hr/yr road which leads to Run.
If you decide you're not a commie pinko thru the fence looking wannabe; then
here's your road to happy financially manageable ownership:
a. Get together with your partner (wife, not flying partner) and tell her
you really really really need to do this. If you can't get at least a
reluctant buyin, go back to option #1. If you get the green light, from that
moment on NEVER NEVER NEVER mention aviation costs in her presence again
EVER!
b. Now go have a beer with your real partner (flying partner) and agree that
a simple 2 seater like a Tomahawk or C150/2 would probably meet 90% of your
NEEDS, and a Cherokee 140 would be the limit (you can always rent if you
need more). If after 20 minutes the discussion has moved on to Bonanzas or
Mooneys, go back to option #1.
c. You've now reached a magic moment, here's where you agree with your
partner to visit an accountant to form a Del Corp, establish a Corp checking
acct with $20000 ($10K each), and spend the next 3 months renting a plane to
go kick some airplane tires.
d. You both agressively research everything AOPA has about partnership
agreements, perspective owner info, and the purchasing process on their
website.
e. Then go and ask every airplane owner you meet who his A&P is (write down
the name and number), then visit that guy and tell him you are looking for
an entry level plane for around 20 to 25K (he will add another 10k in his
head, so stay low. No one knows why this happens, but it works the same way
with weddings). Even if the A&P route comes up dry (which it almost never
does), you'll probably use one of these guys for your PreBuy inspection. If
the distance is too far for him, he'll probably know an A&P nearby where you
find your plane.
f. Look in ASO and Controller and Trade-a-Plane and AOPA and the half dozen
other free classified sites on the net.
g. Use the $20K as a starting number, remember that nobody pays ASKING
price, and plan on using a Bank Loan to finance about half the plane. The
bank will tend to slow the process a bit (a day or two), but they are your
friend in this process to make sure you get a clean title. AOPA is kind of a
one stop shop for both insur and loan, and since your numbers are low end
you don't really need to shop around.
h. Any more advice and you'll have to pay me.

Mike Spera's post was a bit pessimistic, but his numbers were dead on for a
single owner 180hp 4-seat plane. Re read my post in this thread that
mentions "ego driven mission creep" and stick with a 2-seater that from
Northern FL will easily make the trip to Key West (with a fuel stop of
course). Then plan on using some of the money I saved you (from the $50K)
and get some hours in the plane, it's back to basics time!!!

Good Luck.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Kirk Ellis wrote:

> Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
> buying something that is almost as old as I am.

Mines 55. '53 Pacer that starts getting all new skin this week. Thats
not a pricey as a new engine, but it sure ain't cheap either. New sealed
struts (kills a repetative AD), new windshield, avionics upgrades, also
new wheels, brakes, tires and a paint job when its all done. Then I'll
consider a topend (135hp Lycosaurus)...

My wing internals look brand new, as does the airframe. Geauxing through
the logbooks, lots of stuff (tailwheels, pulleys, cables, wiring,
instruments, never a complete fabric job though) has been replaced
during those 55 years thats kept it in the good shape its still in.
Course its easy to see everything when its naked. Pretty tough to do
with the average spamcan...

> The point about the cash is well taken. I may be able to work that
> out....of course the "partner" I share the boat with will have
> something to say about the equity line of credit.

If I had to rethink it, probably a partnership in a decent retractable
single engined Beech spamcan (just like Newps) or a flying club (ours
had shutdown, had an old Cardinal). I've been in the Lancair's and
flying faster than 240 mph (on 17 gph @ 18k') sure is nice when from
here to there is a far piece (crossing 4 or more states, especially one
like Texas)...

[RST Engineering]

>
> As much as your an arrogant SOB at times

That's "you're"

From your arrogant SOB. Learn English.

Jim

[Denny]

A Cessna 150... There is a very clean and well maintained one on my
field for $17K... (KHYX)
Kepp the remainder of the money for gas, oil, and annuals..

denny

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>I am with Jim on this.. If there is a will, there is a way... You have
>lost your will...

Amen. I am in the process of buying an old Ercoupe in a new flying club
that I'm starting with two other guys. Our entire investment will be
$18,000 -- divided three ways.

I paid $6000 for a motorcycle in 1988. Flying *can* be affordable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 03:15:20 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> wrote:

>.... reality check time: <snip> the truth is it has
>gotten pretty tough for Joe Average!
>
>So what'dya wanna do, take a timeout or fly?
>
>Good Luck.
>

The attrition rate for recreational pilots will only grow. Wages this
year are falling behind inflation and will continue to do so. For
many, recreational flying is no longer an affordable luxury / hobby
that it was ten years ago. It's becoming a much more elite fraternity.

Being a part of that fraternity would definitely be a great adventure
but the amount of cash required to join that club is problematic for
Joe Average.

It's time for a timeout...for it's quite sobering to see how much cash
is required.

And thanks for your advice. Where do I send the fee?

[John T[_4_]]

Kirk,

One way to lay out your decision tree is to consider which engine you'd
want first. I'd suggest the Lycoming O-235, O-320, O-360 or the
Continental O-200. I think the Continental is the least desirable of
these four, but talk to some local mechanics.

You don't say how lithe you are, but I'm a similar age and don't enjoy
popping in and out of a Cherokee. Having two doors is very nice,
especially for short flights with a co-pilot.

For someone who enjoys flying and is approaching retirement, I say 'why
fly fast?' I generally fly a C-172, an Arrow and a Bonanza and flying
the 172 is just as fun as flying the others, unless I'm in weather or at
a very busy airport.

Have you considered a third partner? Fuel is expensive, but fixed costs
are high, too, including avionics. A third partner would knock down
these costs a bit. I don't think a fourth is worth the trouble. You
could also add the Powerflow exhaust to a C-172 and fly it enough with
three to make it pay. I would think the added climb performance would
be nice in Florida.

For the production planes, I would look at a Musketeer class, a Warrior,
a Cherokee 180, a Cheetah and a C-172. I think the economy of a C-152
is negated by its small size, unless your proportions are quite modest.

The Musketeers are said to be quite comfortable, but they are slow and
some say landing can be tricky at first. The Cherokee 180 is perhaps
the most performance for the money, but I don't like crawling in and
out. It's possibly the only plane with the O-360 that you might find
for under $50k, though.

Some say the Cheetah is hard to steer with its castoring nosewheel, but
I thought it was completely a non-issue when I flew a Tiger.

I recently read through the NTSB accident reports on the Tiger and was
surprised to find a number of carb ice crashes. I don't know if the
Cheetah is the same. I would think using a carb temp gauge would
prevent most accidents.

If money is a major consideration, I would never consider a retractable,
unless the plane is flown cross-country for hundreds of hours per year.

Another option is just to make friends with someone who already owns a
plane and fly with him. Don't know if that would scratch your itch or not.

Anyway, these are my thoughts.

Good luck.

-John

Kirk Ellis wrote:
>
> A fellow pilot/friend and I have been knocking around the idea of
> doing a 2-way partnership on an aircraft next summer. I have had my
> ticket since 1998 although I have only 150 some odd hours total. My
> friend has about half that. Relatively speaking we still consider
> ourselves newbie "students" but have this overwhelming desire to
> become the best pilots possible and that requires lots of practice.
>
> To that end we think that the best way is to have an aircraft that is
> ready on a moments notice for us. We live in northern Florida and what
> is particularly difficult for us as VFR only pilots is caused by the
> whims of the weather. If we rent, we don't have the flexibility to
> wake up one morning, see that it's not raining or threatening to and
> be able to make the decision then and there to go flying. That's a
> benefit we can't get from the flight school we normally rent from
> which in in our recent experience has been in the Archer III.
>
> So we are going to be looking for a plane that will fit a 50k budget.
> We know we can find a decent 150 or 152 for less than that, and have
> talked about a two seater being adequate for us to gain experience and
> build time. But we also have dreams of doing some cross country flying
> like from JAX to the Keys or we have even dicussed how awesome it
> would be to be able to fly to central Texas where we both have
> relatives to visit. For that, I am thinking a 4-seater would be best,
> and besides there might be some times when we want to go get that $100
> burger with another friend or 2. I think we'd like to go for something
> not any older than say 30 or 32 years..circa 1976 - 1978 or newer.
>
> So we have begun our journey which will hopefully culminate next
> summer with us being able to say we are aircraft owners.
>
> But to the question as indicated in the subject line. What would you
> buy if all you had was 50k and what criteria would you apply to base
> that decision? I know there will be many opinions and that's fine. It
> will be interesting to see what we might be able to afford with that
> budget.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Kirk Ellis
> PPL-ASEL
>

[Blanche]

What would I do with $50K?

pay off the remaining balance of the cherokee, replace the 30 yr old
linoleum in the kitchen, buy a new washing machine (that's almost
30 yr old, too!)

But then, it's a gender thing...

[[email protected]]

I have a hunch that the market is bad enough that you will be able to
get a much better plane for $50K than many are suggesting.

I think they would be really hard to sell right about now.

So many of the planes that seem to be too expensive for you will
still be sale when you are flying around in yours! Their owners
haven't
grasped what is going on. I'll bet you could buy one for about 60-70%
of
what you are expecting if you were patient; and it wouldn't be a heap.

So I'd pick the airplane that would meet your needs that you could
get a really good deal on. It wouldn't matter a lot what brand it
was.

I have seen project airplanes suggested. Only buy one of those
if you want a project.

And, BTW, I wouldn't buy a Bonanza older than H-35. Too many
speciality problems to know about. They can be a great deal if you
are really expert; otherwise, you could drown in AMUs spent.

Bill Hale



On May 17, 5:24*am, Kirk Ellis wrote:
> A fellow pilot/friend and I have been knocking around the idea of
> doing a 2-way partnership on an aircraft next summer. I have had my
> ticket since 1998 although I have only 150 some odd hours total. My
> friend has about half that. Relatively speaking we still consider
> ourselves newbie "students" but have this overwhelming desire to
> become the best pilots possible and that requires lots of practice.
>

[Mike Spera]

As you can see from the responses, opinions vary quite a bit.

Anyway, it comes down to how badly you want it and how much you are
willing to risk going in with a limited budget. Sure, you can buy a
cheap bird from Trade-a-Plane. Sure, you can buy something from before
the Kennedy administration. It might fly around for a while, might not.
Choose newer and/or well maintained (pricier) equipment and the risk
tends to go down along with the unexpected "surprises".

You have got to be a little nuts to tackle flying in the first place.
The arcane FAA rules, the weather, the instructors, scheduling, the
cost. All formidable hurdles.

I've seen pilots like you from time to time. They get a license by
overcoming all the obstacles only to say "now what" when they finally
get their ticket. Renting is too limiting for some and the great leap of
faith to owning seems insurmountable.

Too bad you cannot locate a club. It seems like a good fit for what you
are trying to accomplish. Keep looking. Maybe a 3 way partnership if you
all want to get 80 or so hours a year out of it.

The other posters had some great points to consider also. Some even made
their points without being too big of jerks in the process. Ah, progress...

Good Luck,
Mike

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:54:03 -0500, Mike Spera >
wrote:

>
>
>As you can see from the responses, opinions vary quite a bit.
>
<snip>
>Choose newer and/or well maintained (pricier) equipment and the risk
>tends to go down along with the unexpected "surprises".
>
>You have got to be a little nuts to tackle flying in the first place.
>The arcane FAA rules, the weather, the instructors, scheduling, the
>cost. All formidable hurdles.

Colleagues, friends and family all think my flying partner and I are
bonkers to even be discussing the purchase of an airplane. It's an
insane, irrational, idiotic, and plain dumb idea to them. What ARE we
thinking???!!!

But our rationale has been exactly what you mentioned above; that a
newer plane will not require all the up front cash for repairs and
upgrades and what we will initially need is the cash outlay for the
down payment.Then during the course of the next couple of years we can
put aside some $$$ for every hour flown to cover maintenance issues
that will come up later. Or is this just a totally insane, irrational,
idiotic and just plain dumb rationization?

We could only do this if we purchase an almost new LSA. We checked out
many of them at SNF and saw a couple of possibilities like the
Sportcruiser, the Toxo and the one from Flightdesign. We think we
could find something around the 125k range. We could each afford half
of the monthly payments on a 125K with a 10 year note, but we don't
believe we can get the loan unless we each have the ability to make
the total monthly payment independently.

So there's the rub with the LSA purchase and the main reason why I
asked about the 50K budget. If a loan institution will indeed only
loan as much as what each of us separately could cover then that means
we'd have to purchase an older aircraft and come up with cash to
"fix-er-up" and likely spend a good portion of our time on a project
giving us less flying opportunities.

<snip>
> Renting is too limiting for some and the great leap of
>faith to owning seems insurmountable.

So the biggest obstacle to surmount would be the loan requirements if
we go the LSA route. We are not sure yet if there is any way around
it. I may have an idea about that but have not fleshed it out yet.

>Too bad you cannot locate a club. It seems like a good fit for what you
>are trying to accomplish. Keep looking. Maybe a 3 way partnership if you
>all want to get 80 or so hours a year out of it.

Clubs are pretty much extinct in this part of the country. But if we
decide to purchase and continue this wacky endeavor called flying, it
wiill take us at least a year to get all of our ducks in line
financially. In that time it could be wise for us to look for a third
partner, if we can find one interested in the LSA idea. It may take a
while.

>
>The other posters had some great points to consider also. Some even made
>their points without being too big of jerks in the process. Ah, progress...

Many good recommendations... and much food for thought. Thanks to all.

Kirk

[Lou]

> Colleagues, friends and family all think my flying partner and I are
> bonkers to even be discussing the purchase of an airplane. It's an
> insane, irrational, idiotic, and plain dumb idea to them. What ARE we
> thinking???!!!

Get new friends.

Lou

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:11:08 -0700 (PDT), Lou >
wrote:

>> Colleagues, friends and family all think my flying partner and I are
>> bonkers to even be discussing the purchase of an airplane. It's an
>> insane, irrational, idiotic, and plain dumb idea to them. What ARE we
>> thinking???!!!
>
>Get new friends.
>
> Lou

A textbook example of lateral thinking.

Kirk

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>>Get new friends.
>>
>> Lou
>
> A textbook example of lateral thinking.

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less true...

:-)

BTW: I'm in the process of starting a new flying club in Iowa City. It's not
hard to do, although it helps to know a bunch of pilots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RST Engineering]

I'm just sort of curious, Mike. What is there on a 1958 airplane that is
going to break after 500 hours flying it that isn't going to break on a 2008
airplane after 500 hours flying it. No handwaving. Point to parts.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


>
> Anyway, it comes down to how badly you want it and how much you are
> willing to risk going in with a limited budget. Sure, you can buy a cheap
> bird from Trade-a-Plane. Sure, you can buy something from before the
> Kennedy administration. It might fly around for a while, might not. Choose
> newer and/or well maintained (pricier) equipment and the risk tends to go
> down along with the unexpected "surprises".

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:03:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>>Get new friends.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>> A textbook example of lateral thinking.
>
>Yes, but that doesn't make it any less true...
>
>:-)
>
>BTW: I'm in the process of starting a new flying club in Iowa City. It's not
>hard to do, although it helps to know a bunch of pilots.


This area needs a flying club and it would be fun to start one here.
But if an idea or a product does not exist it's either because no one
has thought of it or made the effort, or someone has tried and
discovered that it isn't viable due to market forces.

Kirk

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

RST Engineering wrote:
>This is a good time to buy, the airplane market being somewhat depressed.

>valuable wisdom clipped.

That has got to be the best dang post I have ever seen here.

Thanks for your time, Jim.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Kirk Ellis wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:03:51 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> Get new friends.
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>> A textbook example of lateral thinking.
>> Yes, but that doesn't make it any less true...
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> BTW: I'm in the process of starting a new flying club in Iowa City. It's not
>> hard to do, although it helps to know a bunch of pilots.
>
>
> This area needs a flying club and it would be fun to start one here.
> But if an idea or a product does not exist it's either because no one
> has thought of it or made the effort, or someone has tried and
> discovered that it isn't viable due to market forces.
>
> Kirk

There is a third reason.

Change in the market. In this case there may be a lot of pilots that
would love to fly a little but either they have airplanes that are great
for one type of flying but not for another.

El Dorado Arkansas is a perfect example of this. There are hangers full
of 182s and larger Cessnas, Pipers and Bo & Barons. They are mostly
owned by older oil guys that can well afford to fly them all they want
and do fly them to Colorado and Florida for vacation and on the
occasional trip to visit the grand or great grand kids.

What they do the rest of the time is come out to the airport, sit in the
old Lazy-Boys that their wives long ago made them take out of the house
and bitch about how it just isn't fun to fly anymore. Which they don't
really believe because they come down to the hanger where I'm building
my 601XL and all they can talk about is how much fun it will be to fly.
Add to that almost all of them live in fear of their next medical
because at any given time about half won't pass.

What they need to do is to get together and sell all but one or two of
the big planes and take that one or two and sell or lease it to a newly
formed club and take some of the money they make from the other sales
and buy an Ercoupe, Cub or one of the new LSAs.

This would have the side benefit of having a club that new and student
pilots could join and learn to fly which is El Dorado doesn't have now
as we also don't have FBO that rents or teaches.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

RST Engineering wrote:
>I'm just sort of curious, Mike. What is there on a 1958 airplane that is
>going to break after 500 hours flying it that isn't going to break on a 2008
>airplane after 500 hours flying it. No handwaving. Point to parts.
>

This is a good point. 18 years of ownership have taught me that airplanes
from the 70s/80s have about the same maintenance requirements as planes from
the 50s/60s. Once a plane is more than a decade old with a few thousand
hours on the clock, maintenance requirements are more affected by how it has
been treated, rather than its chronological age.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

[[email protected]]

For example, I just heard of a guy buying this plane:

Cherokee Archer II 3000TT 0 SMOH, nice condition.

Garmin stack including 430. $60K. Not quite in your price range.

Hang in there. You can get a better plane than is being proposed.

BH


On May 20, 12:43*pm, " >
wrote:
> I have a hunch that the market is bad enough that you will be able to
> get a much better plane for $50K than many are suggesting.
>
> I think they would be really hard to sell right about now.
>
> So many of the planes that seem to be too expensive for you will
> still be sale when you are flying around in yours! Their owners
> haven't
> grasped what is going on. *I'll bet you could buy one for about 60-70%
> of
> what you are expecting if you were patient; and it wouldn't be a heap.
>
> So I'd pick the airplane that would meet your needs that you could
> get a really good deal on. *It wouldn't matter a lot what brand it
> was.
>
> I have seen project airplanes suggested. *Only buy one of those
> if you want a project.
>
> And, BTW, I wouldn't buy a Bonanza older than H-35. *Too many
> speciality problems to know about. *They can be a great deal if you
> are really expert; otherwise, you could drown in AMUs spent.
>
> Bill Hale
>
> On May 17, 5:24*am, Kirk Ellis wrote:
>
>
>
> > A fellow pilot/friend and I have been knocking around the idea of
> > doing a 2-way partnership on an aircraft next summer. I have had my
> > ticket since 1998 although I have only 150 some odd hours total. My
> > friend has about half that. Relatively speaking we still consider
> > ourselves newbie "students" but have this overwhelming desire to
> > become the best pilots possible and that requires lots of practice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:34:28 -0700, Bob Fry wrote:

> Jim is right, you just don't know it yet. The vast majority of people
> do not want advice even when they ask for it. They want to be
> affirmed with a decision already made. You've decided to quit. But
> you don't want the burden of that decision so you're placing it on
> this ng, on price, cost, your wife, your boat, whatever.

Brother, have you got that right. The first time someone asks my
opinion, and I know that I am right, get ignored, it's the last time i
make any effort with that person. they can take their friggin games
playing and waste someone else's time.

These people play on egos, they know that they will get responses and
they don't give a **** about you or your time or your response.

[Christoph Zierhut]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 11:43:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> I have a hunch that the market is bad enough that you will be able to
> get a much better plane for $50K than many are suggesting.
>
> I think they would be really hard to sell right about now.

Your partner might just be that plane seller too. Ask, many could still
aford 1/2 0r 1/3rd
--
Tel (239) 732-8660
Toll Free 1-888-732-8660
Christoph A. Zierhut, Real Estate Broker ABR®

[Wing Flap[_2_]]

JGalban via AviationKB.com blithered dramatically whilst picking the
gonad hairs from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded
son :
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> I'm just sort of curious, Mike. What is there on a 1958 airplane that is
>> going to break after 500 hours flying it that isn't going to break on a 2008
>> airplane after 500 hours flying it. No handwaving. Point to parts.
>>

> This is a good point. 18 years of ownership have taught me that airplanes
> from the 70s/80s have about the same maintenance requirements as planes from
> the 50s/60s. Once a plane is more than a decade old with a few thousand
> hours on the clock, maintenance requirements are more affected by how it has
> been treated, rather than its chronological age.

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

Much too sweeping of a statement. Age of avionics, any other
electromechanical device, consider age related metal fatigue/failures,
quality of rebuilds........the older the greater thechance for misuse.

[clint]

TROLL ALERT !! TROLL ALERT !!
Kirk Ellis explained on 5/18/2008 :
> I have seen those ads,

[clint]

Kirk Ellis explained :
> NewsReader : Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
> Newsgroups : rec.aviation.owning

TROLL TROLLTROLL

[clint]

fLY WITH A SENIOUR HE KNOWS HOW TO STAY ALIVE!Margy Natalie brought
next idea :
> Never fly anything younger than you are, someone has to have experience :-)

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Wing Flap wrote:

>
>Much too sweeping of a statement. Age of avionics, any other
>electromechanical device, consider age related metal fatigue/failures,
>quality of rebuilds........the older the greater thechance for misuse.

Age of avionics is independent of the airframe age. These tend to be
updated over the years.

Metal fatigue is more related to the number and quality of hours on the
airframe (I'm talking about non-pressurized GA) than chronological age.

>the older the greater thechance for misuse.

This is much too sweeping of a statement. Some of the most abused
aircraft belong to FBOs and tend to be of the newer variety. One of my
neighborhood FBOs has several PA28 trainers from the 80s that are pushing 15,
000 hrs. on the airframes.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

[dlevy]

Lol. I'm glad I never listened to their opinion.

<Kirk Ellis> wrote in message
...
>
> Colleagues, friends and family all think my flying partner and I are
> bonkers to even be discussing the purchase of an airplane. It's an
> insane, irrational, idiotic, and plain dumb idea to them. What ARE we
> thinking???!!!
><snip>
> Kirk

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I am in the process of buying an old Ercoupe in a new flying club
> that I'm starting with two other guys. Our entire investment will be
> $18,000 -- divided three ways.

Some thoughts:

Spar issues, make sure it has all the extra inspection holes underneath...

Not all models are "Light Sport" compliant...

Looks bigger than it actually is. For + sized people...

Did you tell Montblack about this?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> I am in the process of buying an old Ercoupe in a new flying club
>> that I'm starting with two other guys. Our entire investment will be
>> $18,000 -- divided three ways.
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> Spar issues, make sure it has all the extra inspection holes underneath...

Check.

> Not all models are "Light Sport" compliant...

Yep. We ended up getting a '48 "E" model, which is NOT light sport. It
does, however, have an extra 180 pounds of useful load.

> Looks bigger than it actually is. For + sized people...

It's "cozy"...

;-)

> Did you tell Montblack about this?

Yep. He was actually the guy that got us looking at buying an Ercoupe in
the first place, and was an early partner in this venture. We stopped
looking for light sport models after he backed out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"