Buying an airplane

KSCessnaDriver said:
Or Rotax. They'll let you run E10, as long as the airframe manufacture approves it. Whatever ends up replacing 100LL is going to cost more and be overkill for 75% of the airplanes out there.
Click to expand...


I was able to talk to the Swiftfuel folks at NBAA and they had a sample of their "biomass" based fuel there. It's a drop in replacement and they believe they can produce it for a price that's comparable to current 100LL prices, my response was "Not cheaper huh? :(" ;)
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I wouldn't put E10 in anything if I had a choice, I doubt any of the big GA makers will ever allow it. It does a number on anything rubber, plastic or composite. Fuel lines swell, and weaken, etc. It's bad crap.

That being said, If you get one thats already ok for mogas, then you prob. won't have to worry about it when 100ll is gone.
Click to expand...

Lot's of airplanes here in Brazil fly on E10, I have seen AVGAS 100 too. Lot's of Agricultural planes run on pure Ethanol.
 
swisspilot said:
Lot's of airplanes here in Brazil fly on E10, I have seen AVGAS 100 too. Lot's of Agricultural planes run on pure Ethanol.
Click to expand...

If you run a plane that has bladders (mooneys, barons, some cessnas etc) it will destroy them. It will also kill rubber impellors on pumps, seals in selector valves, wet wing tank sealent etc. Im not saying you can't, but it is really bad for fuel systems not designed to run it.
 
I'm going to put a +1 on the Cherokee. I have had mine for about 3 years and have put about 350 hours on it. I have had to replace the alternator and a fuel float. That's it. My pickup truck is damn near more expensive to operate. Insurance is cheap (about $700/yr for a non-IR PPL) and everyone can work on them. Decent range, good fuel burn and I can carry a PAX, about 150 pounds of luggage and full fuel out of a 2,000 field. Not too bad for a IR plane I paid about 30K for 3 years ago.

As for the fuel tank SB, not a big deal. Easy to do except for the tank screws. If you aren't renting it and it hasn't been in a salty environment then I wouldn't sweat it too much. I would, however, make sure the latest AD (yoke inspection holes) has been complied with. While pretty remote, it could potentially get VERY expensive!

Like half the other people here...if you have questions, send me a PM.
 
HeyEng said:
I'm going to put a +1 on the Cherokee. I have had mine for about 3 years and have put about 350 hours on it. I have had to replace the alternator and a fuel float. That's it. My pickup truck is damn near more expensive to operate. Insurance is cheap (about $700/yr for a non-IR PPL) and everyone can work on them. Decent range, good fuel burn and I can carry a PAX, about 150 pounds of luggage and full fuel out of a 2,000 field. Not too bad for a IR plane I paid about 30K for 3 years ago.

As for the fuel tank SB, not a big deal. Easy to do except for the tank screws. If you aren't renting it and it hasn't been in a salty environment then I wouldn't sweat it too much. I would, however, make sure the latest AD (yoke inspection holes) has been complied with. While pretty remote, it could potentially get VERY expensive!

Like half the other people here...if you have questions, send me a PM.
Click to expand...

I think I have a few gray hairs from rusty steel fuel tank screws that haven't been removed in 15 years!

The Yoke AD actually really isn't that bad. Although if you actually need to replace the universal joints they cost a decent amount. But we just did all of our Cherokee products and all of them passed the inspection just fine.
 
trafficinsight said:
The Yoke AD actually really isn't that bad. Although if you actually need to replace the universal joints they cost a decent amount. But we just did all of our Cherokee products and all of them passed the inspection just fine.
Click to expand...
Same here. All of ours were well within the spec listed in the AD.
 
Tiger815 said:
The coolest airplane in your category and price point is an AA5A Cheetah.
Click to expand...

Glued together. I say this as someone who in his younger, braver days owned an AA-1. I find the prospect of a 35 or 40 year old airplane that is held together by 35 or 40 year old glue utterly terrifying.

I didn't realize that you were flying it alone most of the time. Here's the answer. If you need to take someone else, rent.

5.jpg
 
Roger said:
Is that a Mooney Mite?
Click to expand...

Indeed it is, my friend. Indeed it is. When I was a kid, I got within a biscuit toss of buying a Mite and flying it (at least) the requisite 200 or so hours from IR to Commercial. Unfortunately, my Better Sense prevailed (it happens, occasionally). That would be in the top 5 of Good Decisions I Wish I Could Take Back.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Indeed it is, my friend. Indeed it is. When I was a kid, I got within a biscuit toss of buying a Mite and flying it (at least) the requisite 200 or so hours from IR to Commercial. Unfortunately, my Better Sense prevailed (it happens, occasionally). That would be in the top 5 of Good Decisions I Wish I Could Take Back.
Click to expand...
Excellent. Looks like a lot of fun. Though, being born in the Age of Metal and Plastic, the thought of working on something made of Wood and Fabric is a little intimidating to me.
 
darrenf said:
Sorry, but that is one fugly airplane.
Click to expand...

The color scheme or the airplane in general?

Here's another shot of the same kind, with different colors. You REALLY think some of the other airplanes mentioned in this thread are better looking than the Cardboard Connie? Like a generic 172 or a Piper (tricycle gear) of some kind?

BellancaCruisemaster.jpg
 
swisspilot said:
Any idea of the costs of owning such an airplane?
Click to expand...

Not specifically, but my rule of thumb is that if you can only afford a $30,000 airplane you probably can't afford a $30,000 airplane. If you think you can afford a $50k airplane, you can probably afford a $30k airplane.
 
z987k said:
Are those numbers real? 187kias on what is probably an 0-320? Really?

I can only think of a few composite experimentals that can compete with that.

edit: looked it up on wikipedia. It lists cruise as 143 on a 150hp franklin. Which one is closer?
Click to expand...

Wiki is closer. They perform well, but not that well.
 
WacoFan said:
The color scheme or the airplane in general?

Here's another shot of the same kind, with different colors. You REALLY think some of the other airplanes mentioned in this thread are better looking than the Cardboard Connie? Like a generic 172 or a Piper (tricycle gear) of some kind?

BellancaCruisemaster.jpg
Click to expand...

No, just the color scheme, though the panel is hideous, but that can be fixed too. Love the model, hate that example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top