Looking for my first airplane

F9DXER

F9DXER

Well-Known Member
Given the following - which would you choose and why?
Both are IFR equipped and certified (Same make/model/3 years difference in age)

Plane 1 - Upgraded panel, mid time engine, good payload,

Plane 2 - Steam gauges, very low time engine (over 500 hours difference in time), about 80 lbs more payload then #1

I still am looking but right at this point in time, these are the top 2 contenders based on my needs. Prices are with in a couple of K of each other and I could pay cash if I wanted to. I will probably go see one in January

Thanks for any opinion, good or bad.
 
Bit vague.

Largely depends on your mission. I got some sage advice when I bought an airplane: make sure your exit strategy factors into what you buy.

How much do you plan to fly it?
How long do you intend to keep it?
Is the older panel still supported by the manufacturers of the components?
Also - is the lower time engine flown regularly, or does it sit a lot? If it sits a lot I’d have a VERY thorough prebuy done. The mid time engine that flies regularly is likely healthier.
 
There is a lot more to it but apples to apples I'd take plane 1. Avionics upgrades are VERY expensive. Also improve the value of the plane. 500 hours on the engine has book value but so much depends on how much the plane has flown and how it's been maintained. It's possible that the engine with 500 hours less time isn't worth the extra book value. Sitting around is hard on engines. 80 lbs payload isn't much of an advantage, either. Like 13 gals of gas. Once in a while you might have to stop for gas sooner. The general condition and maintenance history is a big deal for each plane and could outweigh the criteria you put fourth between plane one and two. What specific models are you comparing?
 
F9DXER said:
Given the following - which would you choose and why?
Both are IFR equipped and certified (Same make/model/3 years difference in age)

Plane 1 - Upgraded panel, mid time engine, good payload,

Plane 2 - Steam gauges, very low time engine (over 500 hours difference in time), about 80 lbs more payload then #1

I still am looking but right at this point in time, these are the top 2 contenders based on my needs. Prices are with in a couple of K of each other and I could pay cash if I wanted to. I will probably go see one in January

Thanks for any opinion, good or bad.
Click to expand...
1
 
Thank you all for your input. The majority of both on line and those I've talked to, recommend 1. Yes I still need to do more research into the planes history. Plus a ton of other things.
 
F9DXER said:
Given the following - which would you choose and why?
Both are IFR equipped and certified (Same make/model/3 years difference in age)

Plane 1 - Upgraded panel, mid time engine, good payload,

Plane 2 - Steam gauges, very low time engine (over 500 hours difference in time), about 80 lbs more payload then #1
Click to expand...

#1 is my choice, based on a few things. First, avionics upgrades are are incredibly expensive. I would plan on the labor being equal to the cost of whatever being put in is. Second, the engine hours are usually baked into the price of the airplane, so all things being equal, higher time is better. With a lower time engine, you are paying for an unknown - how long will the engine make it before major maintenance? Higher time engine - if it goes longer (which it very well may), you are getting time you already budgeted not to have..

Most of the hours I've flown in my life have been with engines well past TBO. The most concerned I've been flying pistons has been the first break in flight after a new engine was installed.

Depending on the airplane (Beechcraft, cough, Beechcraft), take a close look at the CG numbers too. In my case, they are a bigger limitation than payload most of the time.

Hard to make a good comparison without knowing the specifics, but a recent vintage panel upgrade can cost more than an engine overhaul. There's some personal preference there as well - hopefully you like what they did with new avionics. The age of the engine (and how long and where it has been sitting) matters as much to me as engine hours. I've learned a lot owning an airplane, and I think flying one you own is a lot more fun than the alternatives.

Anyway, my two cents. Hope it helps!
 
How much calendar time is on each engine? Even if you’re worried about TBO, which most private owners aren’t, it’s highly likely you’ll never fly enough to burn up half a TBO before calendar time issues catch up with your engine. All other things equal I’d much rather fly behind an engine with 1000 SMOH in 3 years than one with 500 SMOH in 10 years. Also so many other factors….when they had the engine out did they do all the hoses, accessories, engine mount, etc? How well was the avionics install done? With the high demand for avionics upgrades and the aviation workforce issues there have been a lot of dicey avionics upgrades recently. But the old avionics also isn’t a sure thing, many of those setups were basically afterthoughts and spliced in in dicey ways. Just a few more things to think about…
 
Roger Roger said:
How much calendar time is on each engine? Even if you’re worried about TBO, which most private owners aren’t, it’s highly likely you’ll never fly enough to burn up half a TBO before calendar time issues catch up with your engine. All other things equal I’d much rather fly behind an engine with 1000 SMOH in 3 years than one with 500 SMOH in 10 years. Also so many other factors….when they had the engine out did they do all the hoses, accessories, engine mount, etc? How well was the avionics install done? With the high demand for avionics upgrades and the aviation workforce issues there have been a lot of dicey avionics upgrades recently. But the old avionics also isn’t a sure thing, many of those setups were basically afterthoughts and spliced in in dicey ways. Just a few more things to think about…
Click to expand...
Very true.

Smartest thing Avidyne ever did was make the IFD 440 a drop-in replacement for the Garmin 430. Saved owners thousands of dollars.
 
what kind of engine? avionics may be pricier than a o-320 overhaul but not a tio 550

how long do you plan on keeping it? theres some weird psychological boundary in the market with engines approaching tbo- if you plan on selling it in 3 years the low time engine will probably be better for recouping your purchase price vs flying the mid time to the 1500hr range. avionics add value but its never 1:1, low time engines dont add value, just subtract the closer they get to tbo
 
F9DXER said:
Given the following - which would you choose and why?
Both are IFR equipped and certified (Same make/model/3 years difference in age)

Plane 1 - Upgraded panel, mid time engine, good payload,

Plane 2 - Steam gauges, very low time engine (over 500 hours difference in time), about 80 lbs more payload then #1

I still am looking but right at this point in time, these are the top 2 contenders based on my needs. Prices are with in a couple of K of each other and I could pay cash if I wanted to. I will probably go see one in January

Thanks for any opinion, good or bad.
Click to expand...
I've owned six airplanes over the years, and the most important aspect is being honest with yourself about you mission and your budget (both time and money). It's very common for people to buy a plane thinking they will fly the wings off of it, only to realize they've fallen back into their normal habit patterns after a few months or years. I used to know the AOPA figures on how much an average privately owned airplane flies annually, but I've forgotten. IIRC, it's something like 50 hrs a year. People tend to fly a bunch the first year, then half as much each successive year, until they finally sell it after a long period of disuse.
For example, a guy in the hangar next to me hasn't flown in two years and he's in the process of selling.

There really isn't enough information in your question to give you any sort of useful answer. The factors you listed might be the leading differences between two aircraft, but it isn't fair to assume the airplanes are the same in all other regards. There are many external factors in addition to the airplanes themselves. For example, one that is on your field is worth will have far less acquisition costs than one the other side of the country.

Start with your mission and be honest with yourself. That will help you make a good decision far better than anyone here can.
 
Nihon_Ni said:
I used to know the AOPA figures on how much an average privately owned airplane flies annually, but I've forgotten. IIRC, it's something like 50 hrs a year. People tend to fly a bunch the first year, then half as much each successive year, until they finally sell it after a long period of disuse.
Click to expand...

50 hours/year is about what I've heard as well. My 63 year old airplane, with 3400 airframe hours when I bought it .... had averaged 53 hours/year.

We did about 200 hours last year, which is a lot of flying, when you consider that the average flight is something like 1.3 hours. Works out to being at the airport about every other day of the year.
 
I might know an A/P IA that's considering selling his personal M20C, it's not a project, and it's flown regularly. PM me if you're interested.
 
knot4u said:
I might know an A/P IA that's considering selling his personal M20C, it's not a project, and it's flown regularly. PM me if you're interested.
Click to expand...
Did you ever fly a Mooney with wooden wings? Wondering if there is a noticeable difference in flying qualities.
 
WacoFan said:
Did you ever fly a Mooney with wooden wings? Wondering if there is a noticeable difference in flying qualities.
Click to expand...
I've never been PIC in a Mooney, and although I did fly/fly in my buddies M20C I'm fairly certain it didn't have the wooden spar. Once my friend decided to sell his airplane it was bought almost immediately for a lot more than he paid for it.
 
knot4u said:
I've never been PIC in a Mooney, and although I did fly/fly in my buddies M20C I'm fairly certain it didn't have the wooden spar. Once my friend decided to sell his airplane it was bought almost immediately for a lot more than he paid for it.
Click to expand...
I actually got time in quite a few Mooney's fairly early in my flying. An M20F, which was different than the "C" in that the fuselage was extended 10 inches. Then most of it was in a "new'ish" M20J that had under 50 hours when we got it. I have a small amount of time in a "C". The M20A was the one with wooden wings and tail. After some of the tails fell off they have mostly been replaced with aluminum tails - apparently water pooled and rotted in the tails. The wings were fine though (with the same caveats that applied to Bellanca's and other wooden winged machines). The hanger flyers say the wood wing Mooneys handle turbulence better and are "better flying airplanes" but they also say Luscombe's, Pitts, (insert any tailwheel airplane that scared them) were death traps - so I don't just reflexively believe them.

Mooneys are nice traveling machines. Do they spark orgasmic joy like a Bucker? No. But if you don't carry too much speed on final (most people carry 5 knots too much and they will float forever) they are great and the internal roll cage makes them tough and survivable. You should fly one if you get a chance. A friend picked up a Mooney Mite and is absolutely delighted with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top