Buying an airplane...

Which airplane should the fox attempt to acquire?

  • Total voters
    35
🦈💜

🦈💜

Well-Known Member
I'm looking to buy an airplane. Financed, 90-125k. Operating budget up to $4200/mo.

I may only have the chance in my life to purchase one airplane. I currently have a rental fleet at my disposal, including a 7ECA and a lovely V35A. No (traveling) twins, and no (serious) aerobats.

My "missions" in aviation tend to fall into three categories:
- Travel to a destination 500+nm away
- Ski trips with one or two (maybe three) other people and ski gear. (I'm 155 soaking wet... foxes are light)
- Acro

I can get a hangar, I've found.

Now, I'd love something that would look good on a resume, but that's not the primary criteria. The primary criteria is that I want an airplane that will allow me to share my love with the sky on my terms. ^.^

Not just the Spanish Main, love. The entire ocean. The entire wo'ld. Wherever we want to go, we'll go. That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what [it] really is ... is freedom.
Click to expand...

-Fox

Not just the Spanish Main, love. The entire ocean. The entire wo'ld. Wherever we want to go, we'll go. That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom.
 
As awesome as it would be to own the Pitts, its not going to be a travel/snow trip machine. I voted on the A36.
 
Dallen said:
As awesome as it would be to own the Pitts, its not going to be a travel/snow trip machine. I voted on the A36.
Click to expand...

The reason that the Pitts is in my list is that while it's not a travel/snow trip machine, I can rent that V35A, which trues at 174 @ 12.5gph LOP and has 778lbs of loadability after full fuel. It's also ~$300/hr. But it's not a twin, so I give up some mountainability.

So many wonderful airplanes out there :\ Only the money for one.

-Fox
 
Acrofox said:
The reason that the Pitts is in my list is that while it's not a travel/snow trip machine, I can rent that V35A, which trues at 174 @ 12.5gph LOP and has 778lbs of loadability after full fuel. It's also ~$300/hr. But it's not a twin, so I give up some mountainability.

So many wonderful airplanes out there :\ Only the money for one.

-Fox
Click to expand...
I hear that. I guess my next question would be how often you see yourself taking those kinds of trips. If its a few times a year and you see yourself flying the Pitts every weekend, then I would probably go with the fun airplane and rent when you need the payload and seats. I know you want the S2, your name is acrofox!
 
The real question is "How much do you do each mission?" If you take a trip a quarter, and then spend every weekend morning inverted, the choice is the Pitts. If you're on the slopes every weekend from Thanksgiving to Easter, the go for a Bo. I don't see the Baron (or really any light twin) as worth the extra operational costs.
 
hook_dupin said:
The real question is "How much do you do each mission?" If you take a trip a quarter, and then spend every weekend morning inverted, the choice is the Pitts. If you're on the slopes every weekend from Thanksgiving to Easter, the go for a Bo. I don't see the Baron (or really any light twin) as worth the extra operational costs.
Click to expand...

A very good question. Something I'll be thinking about for the next few days.

The issue is that I don't do either presently. I would like to, but I don't. When I go skiing, I sometimes take the V-tail, I sometimes take Southwest. It's not always easy to schedule the airplane when I want it, keep it for as long as I want it, or stay as current as I'd like ... and that goes for the acro planes I fly and the V-tail.

The twin is tempting for the fighting chance it gives me should an engine fail, and the stability of it as a platform for instrument work... the extra power available, the bit of extra speed, and the fact that purchase costs on them is so depressed at the moment. Of course, that is offset by the fact that should an engine fail I'm looking at a drift-down scenario in the mountains, by the fact that I'm doubling my chances of engine failure, the fact that the extra carrying capacity and speed comes at more than double the operating costs (maintenance factored) of a single, and that the purchase prices are depressed because gas is $6.30/gal.

-Fox
 
Roger Roger said:
Buy a nice Pacer for $30k and spend the rest on gas.
Click to expand...

Let me start by saying that there's nothing at all wrong with a pacer. Nothing. But if I'm going to buy a tailwheel, it's going to be an aerobat and not a classic. (Unless it's a Beech 18, which I legitimately can't afford to operate but would love to...)

Still, I have a friend of mine who kinda wants to sell me his Citabria, which is in a similar price ballpark. The problem is that I can currently rent a Citabria for $112/hr, and while I'm going for the pride and love of ownership, I'm sorry to say that a Pacer wouldn't really do it for me. A Citabria might, but it doesn't gain me anything I don't have access to already.

It's a difficult decision for me.

-Fox
 
Acrofox said:
Wait, what's wrong with 35s? :> And who is "that guy"? I don't want to be a "that guy", I want to be a fox!

-Fox
Click to expand...
That guy.. The dude who shows up in his yellow Porsche 911, dead bear coat, and wants to fly the V tail cuz its cool.
 
I voted "Other."

The Baron will eat you alive in both operating costs and resale value down the road. Piston twins are really going the way of the dodo. They're cheap now, but they'll be worthless in a few years. Unless you have a specific reason why you *must* have a twin, I doubt it will be worth it.

The Bonanzas aren't bad, but I think you can do better with other airframes which I'll explain in a minute.

The Pitts is super cool, but unless you're a die-hard aerobatic nut, I think you'll get bored with it a year from now. It's a very very mission-specific airplane and you have broad flying goals.

If I were you, I'd look at the Cherokee Six line. A bit slow, and a bit boring to fly, but super cheap/easy to maintain, insure, and resell, at least relative to other aircraft. You can afford to fly the wings off one with your budget. Cabin is spacious for loading it up with ski gear and they generally have great useful loads. They're a very stable instrument platform as well.

If you don't mind spending a little more on insurance/maintenance and going with a four seater, look at a nice 182RG, or even better for the mountains, a turbo'd 182RG. Awesome useful load, cruise fast, and are also a stable instrument platform. Cabin might be a little cramped with three sets of skis, but still doable I think.

Good luck in your search!
 
jrh said:
I voted "Other."

The Baron will eat you alive in both operating costs and resale value down the road. Piston twins are really going the way of the dodo. They're cheap now, but they'll be worthless in a few years. Unless you have a specific reason why you *must* have a twin, I doubt it will be worth it.

The Bonanzas aren't bad, but I think you can do better with other airframes which I'll explain in a minute.

The Pitts is super cool, but unless you're a die-hard aerobatic nut, I think you'll get bored with it a year from now. It's a very very mission-specific airplane and you have broad flying goals.

If I were you, I'd look at the Cherokee Six line. A bit slow, and a bit boring to fly, but super cheap/easy to maintain, insure, and resell, at least relative to other aircraft. You can afford to fly the wings off one with your budget. Cabin is spacious for loading it up with ski gear and they generally have great useful loads. They're a very stable instrument platform as well.

If you don't mind spending a little more on insurance/maintenance and going with a four seater, look at a nice 182RG, or even better for the mountains, a turbo'd 182RG. Awesome useful load, cruise fast, and are also a stable instrument platform. Cabin might be a little cramped with three sets of skis, but still doable I think.

Good luck in your search!
Click to expand...

I vote for the Six also, if you have the extra money maybe a 206T
 
Acrofox said:
The twin is tempting for the fighting chance it gives me should an engine fail, and the stability of it as a platform for instrument work... the extra power available, the bit of extra speed, and the fact that purchase costs on them is so depressed at the moment. Of course, that is offset by the fact that should an engine fail I'm looking at a drift-down scenario in the mountains, by the fact that I'm doubling my chances of engine failure, the fact that the extra carrying capacity and speed comes at more than double the operating costs (maintenance factored) of a single, and that the purchase prices are depressed because gas is $6.30/gal.

-Fox
Click to expand...
What about a Cessna 402?
 
Other. RV-10. Fills most of the mission, rent for acro. Or, RV-8 and rent for the threeup missions.
 
TC_ABM said:
Other. RV-10. Fills most of the mission, rent for acro. Or, RV-8 and rent for the threeup missions.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea from a performance perspective, but lining up financing on an experimental is going to be more difficult, as well as reselling it in the future. It also limits the shops willing to work on it, parts availability, and so on.

My general philosophy, across the board, is that a person's first airplane should be a very common, accepted, well known type. There should be lots of them still on the market. That's why I brought up the idea of a Cherokee Six rather than a Cessna 206...take a look at how many of each are on the market right now. Those numbers directly translate into how easy it will be to work with the plane.

Any time a person starts dealing with a niche airplane, there are all kinds of hassles to pop up unless the person really knows what they're doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top