Biggest Bang for the Buck?

[benyflyguy]

Cirrus and SETP planes killed the used piston twin market. After the wedding is paid for, I may try to tell my bride that we can abandon the airlines altogether if we buy a FIKI-capable Baron

That what I tell my wife. Gotta fly smaller planes to fly bigger planes. 5 year plan is for a light twin. But now seems like the time to buy. Don’t think the piston twins can get cheaper then they are now but there can be some serious max costs. Always had 340 in mind but they can be a bear I read. The 31o’s Are nice and decent speed vs fuel consumption. The Navajos are gas guzzlers but cheap to find as well.

 

[wilkersk]

go on.....

I assume he is talking about his Sonerai II.

Yeah, I was sick of the whole rental hassle. I was paying $140/hr to go fly 2 or 3 hours a month. And, that was when I could get an airplane. Half the time, I'd show up and find the airplane I'd scheduled (and all the others) were suddenly not available. All I was able to do was a few touch&goes and the occasional short hop for a burger somewhere.

So, when I found the Sonerai II for sale from a name I'd seen around before and believed to be pretty reliable, I had to go check it out. I've logged over 100 hours in it in the past year, relatively trouble free. And, its nearly paid for itself!

 

[ktup-flyer]

For you, probably a DA40.

 

[unsafervguy]

Not sure I concur. I own an experimental, purchased flying, and there's no real difference in my maintenance. The A&P comes over, I tell him what's happening, he addresses it, and I pay him.

Biggest differences? Parts don't cost as much and are much easier to procure.[/QUOT
But that is just your method. For those that have the basic skills there is only the need for an a&p once a year. That can make a huge difference to the bottom line.

 

[Ravioli]

@unsafervguy said: But that is just your method. For those that have the basic skills there is only the need for an a&p once a year. That can make a huge difference to the bottom line.

I was responding to Bill's assertion that owning an experimental required more of me than owning certificated. I disagree because I am only required to write checks. You are correct that if I wasn't mechanically inept I could write fewer checks, but that would be true on a lot of owner maintenance items on certificated as well. I do think that owning experimental causes SOME smaller checks to be written.

 

[Skyrys62]

I do think that owning experimental causes SOME smaller checks to be written.

Indeed, (as mentioned) particularly in the case of repairing/replacing/adding avionics, etc.

 

[kgruber]

Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee 180.

The least expensive airplanes that barely do the job.

 

[Bill Watson]

Not sure I concur. I own an experimental, purchased flying, and there's no real difference in my maintenance. The A&P comes over, I tell him what's happening, he addresses it, and I pay him.

Biggest differences? Parts don't cost as much and are much easier to procure.

That’s what people say and so I have to stand corrected.

I didn’t feel that way when purchasing my first plane back in ‘96. The RVs and other kit planes were out there but I knew little of them. I didn’t consider them because I didn’t feel comfortable evaluating them. By the same token I opted to do little to no owner maintenance on the first plane despite having owned and extensively worked on 2 experimental sailplanes. Lacked both the time and confidence.

I built my current plane and I now get it. Now it’s 100% owner maintained and much cheaper to own and operate.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ravioli]

I built my current plane and I now get it. Now it’s 100% owner maintained and much cheaper to own and operate.

She's a 10! [And I don't mean RV-10]
Mine is about an 7 exterior and 9 interior. But my checkbook is working on improving those numbers.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Do you plan on hauling around friends/family? If so, the Mooney starts to lose a bit of its bang.

yup.....It's time for the PC-12....cause you know that's where you'll end up.

 

[woodchucker]

Yup.

I’m half Italian and I have the nose and I strongly identify with that old Kentucky Fried Movie harvesting oil off of Italian combs.

 

[pigpenracing]

Best bang for the buck for a 4 seat fast traveling airplane.... Bellanca Super Viking.
Best bang for the buck for a fun airplane... Pitts S1C.

 

[Bill Watson]

She's a 10! [And I don't mean RV-10]
Mine is about an 7 exterior and 9 interior. But my checkbook is working on improving those numbers.

Thanks!

A dark night with the just the right light helps this first time painter’s work look pretty good.... at 50’

But while looks are satisfying, performance is what counts. Under just the right conditions seeing 163 knots true @10gph is what makes me happy. It never cruises @ less that 155 and I can get it up over 170 by pouring more fuel through it, but rarely ever do. I will burn twice that for a robust climb to get me up and over an icy cloud deck.

We have sweet performing 4 place cruisers we do, and they are still just fun to fly!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bill Watson]

Best bang for the buck for a 4 seat fast traveling airplane.... Bellanca Super Viking.
Best bang for the buck for a fun airplane... Pitts S1C.

When I was first thinking of an upgrade to my Maule, the Bellanca was in my sights. I had the hangar, it had the performance, and it had that slightly rare quality that distinguishes it from every CessPipeBeecMoon on the ramp. That was one of the things I liked about the Maule. Many otherwise aviation knowledgeable people couldn’t figure out what it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Finnelly]

I was looking at Mooney earlier this year and then I sat in a Bonanza, game over...

Dan

 

[eman1200]

Laundry basket.