What would you buy with a 50k budget?

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.

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

"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

"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

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.

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.

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

"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

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.

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.