Buying an airplane...

[smack300]

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.

Just joking. But I do think the 36 is way better. Tried to convince him by tearing down the other ones ha

 

[killbilly]

I read this thread and I think, "What a perfectly awesome problem to have."

 

[Roger Roger]

I've seen the abuse that a Cherokee 6 can take in the air taxi environment. If you're flying it 91, I would bet you would save 4 figures a year operating that airplane vs. a bonanza. I also bet if you were looking at examples of each aircraft in similar condition you'd come out ahead on purchase price buying the Cherokee.

 

[TC_ABM]

Not a bad idea from a performance perspective....

... 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.

All good points. Now that we know Fox has the RV-8 in his garage, maybe he can work a deal with the local A&P votech. He supplies the stuff, they do the work.

 

[swisspilot]

That's why I brought up the idea of a Cherokee Six rather than a Cessna 206...

There are just as many of each, the 206 has a much bigger market as air taxi/charter/cargo plane while the 6 is more of a personal plane, so the 206 has a much higher price tag. The 6 is a bit cheaper to run and usually can be found with much better and mostly IFR certified avionics, some also have auto pilot and AC...

You can find just as many parts for the 206 then for the 6. The 206 has more STCs.

I have flown both the 206 and the 206T, the only thing the T does better is climbing for the rest not a huge difference, gotta say down low it uses a lot more fuel, on average 3-4 GPH more. The H model can`t compete with the older models, even with floor and seat modification it can`t carry nearly as much as a U, flies maybe 10 knots faster and the engine is a bit cheaper in maintenance..they have an STC for a 200LBS increase MTOW which makes no sense as you are still limited at landing.

I love the 207, but they are pretty hard to find, expensive and usually beat up...there was one in KAPF for sale that was a 10/10...can`t find the link now.

To be honest unless you need to take the plane in rough terrain or have the need to be STOL then a 6 makes more sense.

 

[z987k]

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

Not really. Without known ice and cabin class, a twin doesn't have any more mountain IFR flying capability than a single. Even in the middle of summer, at 16k ft, IMC you're likely to have ice problems. No light twin will deal with that all that well.