Buying an airplane...
- Thread starter 🦈💜
- Start date
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
My top five favorite airplanes are piston multis. Is it possible to put a price tag on the act of chasing what you love?
Dollars aren't my raison d'être, but I don't make anywhere near enough to be completely cost-agnostic, so I'm looking for a balance. You are almost certainly right on operating costs, and I'm sure that you're right about resale value... If I purchased a Baron, I would consider it an "asset" that would experience 100% depreciation.
There are many factors I'm trying to weigh, which is one reason that I'm "crowdsourcing" *cough* my decision-making process a bit, in the hopes that people come up with something I haven't considered.
*Earperks!*
PRESENT! Right here. You called? ;>
The issue is less whether I'll be bored with it and more whether I'll be able to own, operate and maintain a Pitts while meeting my other flying goals. And that's a big if.
Consider for a moment that I'm looking for an S2 instead of a bargain-basement S1. Part of my joy is sharing aerobatics with others... and that's a gift that keeps on giving.
I have some Cherokee 6 time. Great airplane, but the market thinks so, too. If I could fit my motorcycle into the back through those big doors, I could carry it. It's rare, though, that I need that mission profile. I wasn't entirely certain that maintenance costs would legitimately be much lower than a Bonanza -- what information do you base that on? -- but for the fuel burn I'd take a tremendous hit in speed... and the market is currently much "prouder" of Cherokee 6es and Saratogas than it is of Bonanzas and Barons. I could buy two mediocre barons for the cost of one decent Cherokee six. For the cost of a nice turbo saratoga, I could almost buy 3 $55k BE55s. That's a significant difference. (I'm not looking at $55k BE55s for this purchase -- I'm looking in the $90-$120k range)
Nothing at all wrong with 182s... I have a decent amount of time in them, and I really don't like them very much. Respectable as hell.. especially the straight legs.. but I just don't like them. I have some time in an older 210 (D model) which I enjoyed quite a lot more.
Thank you! And thanks a bunch for taking the time to give me your thoughts. It's greatly appreciated, and they won't go unheeded.
-Fox
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
That's... not really the same league. 402s are amazing airplanes, but if I'm going to fly an airplane like that, someone else (Cape air, maybe?) is going to own it.
-Fox
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Ever since hammering HS-810 to a 6° angle with a mallet, I've been largely disinclined to fly in someone else's homebuilt. My own RV-8 project is shelved indefinitely, because I decided I'd rather fly than build. I had guessed that such would be the outcome before I began the project, and sure enough it was.
-Fox
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Both. Fortunately, not at the same time.
The other operative question is -- which can I rent?
I can rent a Bonanza. It's a little expensive, but I'd be deluding myself if I assumed ownership would cost me any less. The availability isn't wide open, but it is generally available.
I can't rent a Baron. There are none available for rent. There was a 58P theoretically online at a local flight school, but they wanted $700/hr for it, had very high rental requirements, and if I had to guess I'd guess it was on line not to be rented, but for tax purposes.
I can rent a Pitts S2C, but it's a long drive to get there, and I'm not entirely sure they rent it solo unless they know you -really- well. Effectively, "I can't rent a Pitts".
A Super Decathlon, perhaps? Ixnay on the .. er.. ee-geer-skay?
Oh what do I know?
-Fox
jrh
Well-Known Member
That's cool, nothing wrong with looking at it that way. It's just rare for me to meet anyone who is essentially saying they know they're throwing away $100k for the love of aviation and want to do it anyway.
I don't have any hard numbers in front of me, but I know the Six is a much simpler airplane, primarily because of the fixed gear, and that will usually translate into lower operating costs by itself. I've also heard Six parts have better prices/availability than Bonanza parts, but I might just be spreading rumors. Maybe a mechanic could enlighten us.
Also, I wasn't speaking strictly to maintenance costs...insurance will also be a factor. How much of one, I don't know, but a Bonanza will almost certainly cost more to insure than a Six.
If I were you, I'd ignore speed. Seriously. Unless you're looking at planes which are crazy slow, like my Cessna 140, or crazy fast, like a Cessna Corvalis, you're probably talking about a difference of 30 minutes on a 500 mile trip. There are lots of pilots who decide not to fly because they can't fit their load in the plane, or can't afford to operate the plane, but very few opt not to fly because they can't spare the extra 30 minutes.
I'd also like to point out that you generally get what you pay for with any aircraft. If a certain type of plane is priced higher, it's because it's worth more. It might not be readily obvious why, but there's always something to it...resale value, maintenance costs, etc. There are always dollars and cents reasons behind the pricing. It's never a fluffy reason like one plane is prettier or more popular.
Fair enough. Don't buy something you don't like.
Remember though the 182RG is a different animal from the older straight leg 182. The RG has an extra 100-200 pounds in useful load and 10-15 knot cruise speed, depending on which 182 you compare it to.
Take a look at the specs before you rule them out. You might find them to be more in line with the 210 you enjoy than the 182 you didn't.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Cherokee 6. I've got about 1000hrs in one, it is bar-none, the most useful, load hauling airplane for the level of complexity it offers. It's simpler than the 206 (Manual Flaps and No sub-floor) - which is saying a lot. Additionally, if it'll fit through the door the airplane will fly. A turbo-Saratoga, or a Turbo Cherokee 6 or Lance (if you were worried about the extra couple of knots). They are "vanilla" to fly, but they can zip through mountain passes and run down beaches just fine (I can attest to this). It was not uncommon to put 5 passengers and all the stuff they brought and still be in CG and under weight with fuel on a 3hr trip. The PA32 is cheap to maintain, easy to fly, and is definitely a good buy for the money. I don't think there's much else that carries 1200lbs or more on 18GPH at 130kts or more. The stabilator is "weird" at first, the airplane can be remarkably pitch sensitive for obvious reasons, but it's a great instrument platform, and super-stable when loaded within limits (as you creep towards the back of the CG range...well, it gets noticeably unstable in pitch).
Similarly, a 206/207 is a good choice for this mission. Also, these airplanes do great in mountainous terrain, if they didn't, you wouldn't see 207s and Cherokees flying all over Alaska. If you're going to use them where DenAlt is a factor, get the turbo-charged version and you'll be A-OK. Personally, the 206 is my favorite airplane for beach-combing, shortfield work, or just generally screwing around, if I could afford one, that'd be the family airplane I would get.
Roger Roger
Capt. Chaos
-Your thoughts?
Similarly, a 206/207 is a good choice for this mission. Also, these airplanes do great in mountainous terrain, if they didn't, you wouldn't see 207s and Cherokees flying all over Alaska. If you're going to use them where DenAlt is a factor, get the turbo-charged version and you'll be A-OK. Personally, the 206 is my favorite airplane for beach-combing, shortfield work, or just generally screwing around, if I could afford one, that'd be the family airplane I would get.
Roger Roger
Capt. Chaos
-Your thoughts?
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
Flying is the reason I make money. I wouldn't look at it as throwing away that $100k so much as "spending" it. In the end, I don't get nothing for it -- I get a beautiful airplane. (One that hopefully doesn't become a hangar queen and more of a money pit than it otherwise would be...)
All seems reasonable, but how much difference would it be in the end?
I don't have access to an insurance agent willing to give me usable quotes on specific types ... but I do have AOPAIA's quick quote system. The difference from even a Baron to a Citabria is only a few thousand dollars a year, if that tool is even remotely close to accurate.
You're most probably right overall, although the difference on a trip I've taken is fairly significant. The Cherokee 6 from Palo Alto to Renton airport (616nm) takes almost five hours, and realistically a fuel stop (Which I'm not adding in here, time/fuel-wise). The same flight in the Bonanza I rent is about 3:42, and the Bonanza will burn a little over twenty gallons less fuel, arriving with no refueling stop needed. At $6.30/gal, I save $144 and over an hour. The Bonanza I rent can pack in 770lbs or so with full tanks... or me, my flight bag, three 'FAA passengers' and a hundred pounds of baggage*. The Cherokee six could probably haul another person, maybe even two... but that's way outside my mission profile, and I'm giving up a fair bit for it.
Absolutely. I will point out, however, just like above ... most people have different value propositions for aviation than I. If I could buy a Douglas A-26, live on ramen, and somehow scrape together enough to fly it ... I would in a heartbeat.
We have a TR-182 at our club... I've been meaning to try it out, but it hasn't been high on my list.
It's not the specs that I don't like... it's the airplane. I can't think of any way to explain it. I don't dislike it, and I like it a WHOLE LOT better than 172s—which I despise—but I just never really liked it. I don't know...
-Fox
jrh
Well-Known Member
I see the logic to what you're saying. As I said earlier, a Bonanza isn't a bad choice.
With whatever decision you make, I'd suggest going for as "practical" of an airplane as possible. Pick a simple, super clean airplane over an older, more worn, fancier design...get a plane with the avionics you want already installed...if choosing between speed and payload, choose payload....if choosing between pushing to the limits of your budget or having money to spare, go for the cheaper option...that sort of thing. I see owners all the time who fly the wings off their new bird for a year, then reality hits them and the price, lack of payload, or whatever, hits them and their flying dramatically tapers off.
Have fun with it! Buying my plane turned in to one of the best (and most expensive!) choices I've ever made. No regrets here.
With whatever decision you make, I'd suggest going for as "practical" of an airplane as possible. Pick a simple, super clean airplane over an older, more worn, fancier design...get a plane with the avionics you want already installed...if choosing between speed and payload, choose payload....if choosing between pushing to the limits of your budget or having money to spare, go for the cheaper option...that sort of thing. I see owners all the time who fly the wings off their new bird for a year, then reality hits them and the price, lack of payload, or whatever, hits them and their flying dramatically tapers off.
Have fun with it! Buying my plane turned in to one of the best (and most expensive!) choices I've ever made. No regrets here.
EIR
It's 5 o'clock somewhere
Huh? What's wrong with the 35 series?
The ultimate traveling machine is an A36TN with some tips. You are also able to take 3-4 ppl and all your gear.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Mooney? Commander 114/115? You can get a known ice equipped Mooney, which would sure be nice to have in the back pocket if you needed it.
EIR
It's 5 o'clock somewhere
Haha...You have some serious misconceptions about GA. I do believe 'that guy' you're referring to would be jumping into his personal CJ or TBM not a '70 or '80 35B. And, I would gladly be that guy.
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
The Cherokee 6, or a 206 would be my choices, in that order. Actually going anyplace, payload is always my number one concern. Speed is a far, far, less important consideration. Worst case, I can always stop for fuel. If I can't get everyone I want to take on, well, even fuel stops aren't an option.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
If you had a bit more money to spend and no aversion to going experimental, I'd say look into an Aerocomp Comp Air 10XL.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
"Other."
Model C50. People freak about geared engines, but as long as you don't yard the power off in a descent, they're just fine...
Model C50. People freak about geared engines, but as long as you don't yard the power off in a descent, they're just fine...
fholbert
Mod's - Please don't edit my posts!
AcroFox,
Have you owned an airplane before? The operating cost on a 58P may be bumping $500 an hour assuming it's flown less than 100 hours a year.
My io-520k burns 30gph on takeoff, not really an efficient airplane below 8000'. My mission was and still is cross country trips. The wife and I enjoy Yosemite for brunch, hiking in Catalina, Hearst Castle at Christmas, Grand Canyon in the winter and one long range multi night trip each year. I rarely put someone in the back seat. My plane comes out of the hangar 3 to 4 times a month. I typically fly 80 to 120 hours a year and don't want to know my operating cost. If the hangar remains locked, the plane isn't flown, my costs is about $700 a month. You really need to do the math before you buy.
When you buy an airplane you need to decide what your mission is. If it's to buzz a lake and do touch and goes a Bo isn't your airplane. Even a Pitts would be pricy for that.
My friend bought a really nice Cherokee 6 so there was room for his friends... Really bad reasoning. Of course I've taken my friends to lunch, round trip I burned about 60 gallons. He wanted to split the $40 lunch with me.
A Pitts sounds cool but after a year of doing acro, I'd think it would get really boring.
Have you owned an airplane before? The operating cost on a 58P may be bumping $500 an hour assuming it's flown less than 100 hours a year.
My io-520k burns 30gph on takeoff, not really an efficient airplane below 8000'. My mission was and still is cross country trips. The wife and I enjoy Yosemite for brunch, hiking in Catalina, Hearst Castle at Christmas, Grand Canyon in the winter and one long range multi night trip each year. I rarely put someone in the back seat. My plane comes out of the hangar 3 to 4 times a month. I typically fly 80 to 120 hours a year and don't want to know my operating cost. If the hangar remains locked, the plane isn't flown, my costs is about $700 a month. You really need to do the math before you buy.
When you buy an airplane you need to decide what your mission is. If it's to buzz a lake and do touch and goes a Bo isn't your airplane. Even a Pitts would be pricy for that.
My friend bought a really nice Cherokee 6 so there was room for his friends... Really bad reasoning. Of course I've taken my friends to lunch, round trip I burned about 60 gallons. He wanted to split the $40 lunch with me.
A Pitts sounds cool but after a year of doing acro, I'd think it would get really boring.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Quoted for truth. The biggest mistake people make buying airplanes is buying too much airplane due to fantasies about what they 'might do'. During the reasoning process it seems "smart" to pay for a little more capability, but every little bump up in capability comes with increased maintenance, insurance, and operating costs (which seem to be closer to exponential than linear).
Look at the type of flying you do now, buy the most appealing airplane (to you) that will do that role. At most, step up 1 level (172 to 182, Cherokee 235 to Cheroke 6, etc).
Be conservative and you'll probably be happier and get more use from your airplane, based 100% on what I've personally witnessed.
