If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Brent Rehmel wrote: "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message I doubt it. It doesn't appreciably outperform a 150 and it costs over twice as much. I see. I guess that would explain the tremendous preference for 25 year old cars, versus newer. And, in fact, people who don't make much money *do* prefer old cars. For exactly those reasons. George Patterson A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I see. I guess that would explain the tremendous preference for 25 year old
cars, versus newer. And, in fact, people who don't make much money *do* prefer old cars. For exactly those reasons. I've gotta add my weight to the "buy used" market segment. Until my/our dreams come true and airplanes start costing $25,000 and $50/year to operate, Aviation will be expensive! Even a 'dream' sport aircraft will be expensive to own and operate. How would you expect to get your 25' wingspan kitplane from the field to your local cheap auto mechanic? Does anyone expect that on-field mechanics are going to be as cheap for an oil change as the jiffy-lube down the street charging $19.95? Back to the used argument. I own, 100%/no financing, a 1997 Toyota Camry that I purchased a year ago. I purchased it because it was relatively safe, decent looking, reasonable on gas, and would get me to and from work/weekend events etc. I went that route, because I want to have enough money someday to own (part of?) a plane. When it comes time to buy a plane, I'll probably go the same route: a used 172 or cherokee for a first plane... why? the depreciation is mostly done (almost all with the airplanes)... The safety records don't show that 2003 Toyotas are significantly better than 1997 ones, and with airplanes this is even more obvious. When a pilot gets disoriented in a cloud, or flies into the earth in IMC, no newfangled Cirrus/Diamond/Kitplane/Cessna/whatever is going to save them and their pax. Most of these airplanes (except the diamond/kitplane) use the same engines that you can get at overhaul - negating a possible argument for better reliability. Finally - there's the tried and true argument I've read many times here... I've also read horror stories about the new Cirrus planes being in the shop for more labor hours than in the air by a factor of 2. Anyhow - if a C152 ever drops in price from the current (guess range) $20k to even $15k, I may just have to buy one! and that's supply and demand... the price isn't going to drop much and I doubt at all... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"noah" wrote in message
I've gotta add my weight to the "buy used" market segment. Until my/our dreams come true and airplanes start costing $25,000 and You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time, about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it does not have to built at an airport. A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Brent Rehmel" wrote in message You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time, about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it The build time for a Zodiac is a big factor. You can build a Zodiac 601 HD from just the plans, shaping and cutting all of the aluminum yourself in less time than it takes to build an RV-4. You can build a Zodiac from scratch in the same amount of time it takes to build the latest prepunched kits, like the RV-8. You can build a Zodiac kit in about 1/4 the time as an RV-8 standard kit, and it will still take 2 1/2 times as long to build the latest RV-8 quickbuild kit. The fastest a standard kit RV has ever been built is 87 days, the fastest a Zodiac has ever been built is 7 days. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for
about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time, about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it does not have to built at an airport. A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000. 1. I don't know much about the Zodiac, and don't know anything about the Sakota. 2. Explain to me how purchasing a fully functioning, on-field C152 with a good low time engine costs more than buying even the kit for a Zodiac? Does the Zodiac at $34K include engine in the kit? (maybe - I'm just asking). You can find good-looking, good spec C152s for well under $25K. 3. Can I fly the Zodiac with pax? Can I put it on leaseback to a flight school? Can I fly it in a busy class Bravo airspace (Oakland/San Francisco, CA) ? 4. Can I build it in my 4th floor walkup (no elevator) apartment in a city, with no garage? - even if I could - it wouldn't fit in my living room, yet alone the fact that it wouldn't be a 'living room' anymore. 5. What is my time worth? You mention 1/5th the build time - let's say 300hrs @ 35/hr = $10,500 - and I have to work more than 40hrs/week as it is! 6. Ok - the wings fold off. I don't have a garage - so what am I supposed to do? purchase a trailer, have my Camry outfitted with a hitch, and move it to the airport? 7. Does the Zodiac need a hangar for rain protection? (just asking - maybe it's fine outdoors)? The local airports have decade long hangar waiting lists. These are just a few of my questions... I have nothing at all against kitplanes - in fact, I have as a *long* term goal a great desire to build something like an RV-6... faster, more fun, bubble canopy, great looking, etc. Maybe one day when I have a house, garage-workspace, and a very supportive family, I'll consider that... for now - I can daydream of a C172 partnership that I *know* will get me off the ground safely and at practically the lowest cost possible. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"noah" wrote in message om... You can get a Zodiac 601 HD flying with basic instruments and radios for about $34,000. This is a good kit because it has very low construction time, about 1/5 of what Van's RV aircraft require. The wings are removable so it does not have to built at an airport. A Rans Sakota can be had for about $24,000. 1. I don't know much about the Zodiac, and don't know anything about the Sakota. 2. Explain to me how purchasing a fully functioning, on-field C152 with a good low time engine costs more than buying even the kit for a Zodiac? Does the Zodiac at $34K include engine in the kit? (maybe - I'm just asking). You can find good-looking, good spec C152s for well under $25K. 3. Can I fly the Zodiac with pax? Can I put it on leaseback to a flight school? Can I fly it in a busy class Bravo airspace (Oakland/San Francisco, CA) ? 4. Can I build it in my 4th floor walkup (no elevator) apartment in a city, with no garage? - even if I could - it wouldn't fit in my living room, yet alone the fact that it wouldn't be a 'living room' anymore. 5. What is my time worth? You mention 1/5th the build time - let's say 300hrs @ 35/hr = $10,500 - and I have to work more than 40hrs/week as it is! 6. Ok - the wings fold off. I don't have a garage - so what am I supposed to do? purchase a trailer, have my Camry outfitted with a hitch, and move it to the airport? 7. Does the Zodiac need a hangar for rain protection? (just asking - maybe it's fine outdoors)? The local airports have decade long hangar waiting lists. These are just a few of my questions... I have nothing at all against kitplanes - in fact, I have as a *long* term goal a great desire to build something like an RV-6... faster, more fun, bubble canopy, great looking, etc. Maybe one day when I have a house, garage-workspace, and a very supportive family, I'll consider that... for now - I can daydream of a C172 partnership that I *know* will get me off the ground safely and at practically the lowest cost possible. Ask him about resale value and insurance cost. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Charles,
The cost of aviating is increasing and made a major increase after 9/11. The result is that most people have had to move down one notch in plane ownership: - Doctors who used to buy new bonanza's are now getting used ones, - (Lawyers are too scared to fly) - Engineers that use to have Mooney's now get Cessna's or cherokees. - Blue collar workers who used to get 182/172's now get 150/2s. Also, more people are looking at total cost of ownership, which favors the lower maintenance cost of single engine, fixed pitch, fixed gear simple planes. The result is: - more demand at the bottom end and solid pricing for 150/2. - Less demand for the older bo's and Mooneys. Mitch - That my $0.02...Businessmen buy jets "Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ... Anyone want to guess the medium term price trends for a C-150? By medium term I mean the next five-ish years. My guess would be "more of the same" meaning increases of a few percent a year with mild year-to-year variations. The only effects I can see are whatever's left of the upward bounce-back from the 9-11 price drops, any price drops that might occur becuase of the current political trends against general aviation, and the possible coming influx of "Sport Light Airplanes". |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:56:47 +0000, Brent Rehmel wrote:
No. You cannot buy a new C 150 for anywhere near that price. It is ridiculous to compare a 25 year old aircraft with one that is brand new. If You can find C150's all the time for 15K - 18K. And they'll be airworthy to boot. It's not ridiculous to compare the two. What major design difference is there now between a metal Zenith vs a 25 year old design? Look closely, you'll find many older designs that are better than the Zenith, and some of the others you mentioned. Not one of them us cutting edge, all they are is just new paint and metal. The Tiger is more revolutionary than the designs you mentioned, as is the Mooney and many others. You must keep in mind that old does not mean bad, I'd rather fly in a T210 than the Zenith in IFR conditions, it's a better plane in every single respect you can list. You also listed planes using tube and fabric, that is very old technology, and yet you belive those are superior to the newer laminar flow wings found on some of the 25 year old certified aircraft. Again, newer does not mean better. We have not come full circle, just branched off is all. you actually add up mainenance costs and avionics upgrade cost, your cheap 150 costs more than a Zodiac, not less. Not hardly, my maintenance is very low. My A&P allows me to assist in things if I choose to, and since the plane is built already I don't need to pay them to install stuff. But in any event, unless you build the plane, you can't work on it without somebody else willing to sign off on things, ala the conditional inspection. I don't know if the new planes will be the same in terms of working on them as current ones are. I don't know where you get your figures from, but you can buy an IFR certified C150 for $25K pretty easy, why would I want to upgrade that? None of your planes used a Garmin 430 or better, or the newer UPS moving map stuff. Don't give me the avionics upgrade hassle, I could imagine every plane out there needing it. I've seen people buy a plane with a 430 in the panel and want to upgrade it. There's always something better no matter what you buy. BTW, was the factory plane you flew in an HD, HDS, or XL model? My guess is It was the 601XL and had the Lycoming o-235 in it. It most definitly did not meet the sport pilot requirements at the time. surprise me a bit if a stock 601 HD with 80 HP would not be faster than a C 150 with 100 HP. A stock 601 HD would easily meet all reqirements for Light If you don't believe me, then look at the matronics list and you'll notice lots of people who've complained that their planes come no where near the specs Zenith claimed for them. but wouldn't be close to the stall requirement. The XL is a heavier version, designed for 100 HP, with more wing area and designed for Light Sport. They claim that now, but I doubt it since the plane existed before the proposal, at least I didn't hear of this NPRM until well after the 601xl debut and shortly after that their adds appeared touting the facts you quote now. In fact, the planes specs changed after that as well as the engine. I liked the o-235, very nice combination in my opinion. I will tell you this, the Zenith 601XL I flew was more stable than my 150, 10 mph faster in cruise, and probably 2400 fpm faster in climb. I have to guess there since the prototype didn't have a VSI in it, so it was seat of the pants stuff. It's stall was benign, easier than the Cessna 150, similar I think to a C172 in characteristics. The stick was pretty easy to get used to, and the only reason I'm not building one now is because at the time they didn't have the manuals for it in print, and in the past Zenith has abandoned a design that was started but never finished. The Gemini for example. They also dropped the aerobatic plane they had, so I was reluctant to plop down money. There was no clock in the plane, I didn't have a watch, so I had no way to do accurate timings for VSI. I am now gearing up to build the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 because my mission profile does not work well with a 2 seater, and I wanted something more capable than my 150, closer to a 172. But I didn't want a certified aircraft. My only requirement is that I fly behind a certified AC engine, no Rotax's or auto conversions. I don't trust them. I don't like Rotax in a plane, and I figure if the Katana dropped them in favor of something else then that proves my point. I don't like their TBO, which is not mandatory for part 91 flying. I've always heard it's great to fly an experimental, but to fly an experimental with an experimental engine is much more work and more dangerous. So for me, it's Continental or Lycoming, or none at all. Now if you want to compare the XL to the HD, or HDS, it goes like this. The HDS is the most stable due to the higher wing loading, then HD, then XL. All are fine flying aircraft. I live but 20 minutes by air from Mexico and so I've been there many times and am very familar with their planes. The 4 place design of theirs is nice, but it's cramped in terms of where to put the feet. I like it however, but have never flown it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:54:05 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:
Ask him about resale value and insurance cost. What resale value, and about that insurance. Mine is cheaper than what I'd pay to fly a Zenith. I think he's got pie in the eye and is missing something. I've known experimental owners to cut them up rather than sell them, or other similar things so that they won't be sued by the next owner when they crash. Not many do stupid things like that however. Sure, you can build a Zenith for the price he's quoting, but I challenge him to make it IFR equipped with a 0 time engine. I say 0 since he's comparing a brand spanking new plane to 25 year old stuff like the older planes are dangerous. He can't do it. Look at what the kit costs, then add in a new engine, and an IFR panel and he's well above what you can buy a 25 year old plane for. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Floridians Are Hit With Price Gouging | X98 | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 04 04:07 PM |
Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware ! | Bill Berle | Home Built | 73 | June 25th 04 04:53 AM |
1977 Cessna 182 Special Price | Bill Davidson | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | June 7th 04 11:25 PM |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |