The local pilot who owns one of these conversions seems to have more fun flying it than anyone else on the field, including the guy with a T-6. So YMMV but I wouldn’t assume anyone who enjoys tail wheel flying wouldn’t enjoy a 150/152 conversion.
Most new Pipers and Cessnas go to flight schools. That's why you see them asking 200+/hr for a 172. They might amortize their investment in 4 years if they're lucky.
Ah, I see. Makes sense. But if that's the case, I wonder why am I paying $196/hr for a 17 yo Cessna 172S with steam gauges (although it does have a GTN750xi)? Even the two 49 yo 172M's rent for $166. But I don't think they are making a killing on these planes even at those prices. Would be nice if they had the cash to upgrade to a newer set of planes (it's not so much the planes themselves, it's the panels).
I haven't really set a limit on my budget, but given my mission I don't want to spend a stupid amount of money. I'm thinking that somewhere in the $130-250K range would probably make sense, but that puts me in planes with panels similar to those in the rental fleet I have access to. To get what I think I want it looks as though planes are in the $350-550K range, which I might be able to finance but which probably wouldn't be sensible given my situation. A bit frustrating.
If the panel is that important, perhaps consider getting yourself an older plane in good condition, and then dropping an avionics upgrade into it. I bought my old Cherokee 180 for $74k with old steam gauges and I've dropped about $45k in avionics upgrades into it. I'll probably drop another $30k for an autopilot and a G3x install, and then I'll have a fully glass panel with excellent IFR capabilities, in a plane I can likely fly for the rest of my life in anything except icing and thunderstorms. It ain't fast, but I'm paying for the pleasure of flying. If I want to get there quickly and reliably, I'll buy an airline ticket.
Thanks. I've thought about doing just that. Might be the best solution. Just not sure if I want to take that on right off the bat.
Fair enough, and totally understand. Playing with avionics is definitely its own kind of fun! The unfortunate reality is that the avionics you're talking about are probably in the region of $100k+ to install, so that coupled with a newer plane is going to really sky-rocket the cost. Not sure where you live, but I wonder if you should explore the possibility of buying into a partnership that has a nicer, better equipped plane. That may be a better way of getting into the sort of plane you're hoping to fly without entirely breaking the bank! Some inquiries at local airports might reveal some opportunities.
That's an interesting idea. I hadn't consider looking for a partnership. I bet most privately owned airplanes with a single owner are sitting unused a substantial percent of the time. Even splitting ownership with one other partner would cut the cost of ownership in half, which would probably bring some pretty nice planes into the affordability range. I will ask the people at my local flight school if they know about anything local. I just joined the EAA and they have a chapter at the airport so maybe I should go over there and introduce myself and see if they know anyone.
I have mine insured for $45K and I find it great fun to fly, and good for building experience. There is a reason to explore some of the more unusual corners of the market, and to question what you think you may ‘need’.
Yes. Exactly something like that.
Very wise and sensible. But SO hard to do. : )
So basically, you want everyone's dream plane. Haha! I'd love one of those too. Never going to happen unless I win the lottery.
I guess so. I'm heading down to the local Quickie Mart right now to get my ticket.
Take me for a ride if you win!
Done deal. Ditto. : )
Absolutely. I'm firmly in the camp that the value is in the experience. Frankly, sometimes I think an aircraft full of modern avionics takes away from the raw experience of flying and navigating. That said, I don't think that it's a situation in which more money buys more enjoyment (unless that enjoyment comes from fine interiors and the newest avionics), but rather capability. That Carbon Cub is simply able to do stuff and allow experiences that my Cherokee can't give me. Personally, I'd probably have just as much fun in that plane with a minimal steam panel, but others really want an autopilot and a full glass cockpit for maximum capability.
You know, as much as I love gadgets, and I also love stick-and-rudder flying, you just made something clear to me.
Yes. Agree. In addition, for me at least, there is another dimension to the new fancy avionics beyond just "getting there" with the least effort. Being new to instrument work and being something of a tech lover, getting the opportunity to learn the new equipment, to learn the instrument procedures and to get good at twiddling the knobs efficiently and effectively would be an additional element of "fun" for me. I imagine that once these new devices were mastered they wouldn't be quite as "fun" to use but the process of getting to that point would bring me significant pleasure. And once the "thrill" was gone, I would still be able to do exactly as you say and use the equipment to get from point A to point B safely and efficiently and then have a "fun" airplane to fly once I got there.
Just checked him out. Impressive skills. Thx.
I agree! I do like making the gadgets dance.
That's not an unreasonable way of teaching at all. By the time someone is working on their instrument rating, they should already be proficient at hand-flying. Now they have to learn to do it with a much larger mental workload. I think it's entirely reasonable to start someone with maximum assistance as they get comfortable with the planning and execution mode, and then slowly pull away the automation until they're hand-flying a partial-panel approach to minimums. Of course, I suspect almost all of us got much more precise in our flying while learning instruments, but that too will come with time. There's perhaps some value in initially learning to do stuff the hardest way first and then allowing automation later, but on balance I think there's a lot of value in making it as easy as possible at the beginning and building up the skills and complexity as the student progresses.