Buying a plane...LSA or not...

steviedeviant

steviedeviant

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
167
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Display Name
Display name:
StevieD
I know there will be no shortage of opinions on this.

I am becoming more interested in the idea of purchasing a plane and have posted in the past that I probably wouldn't buy one (things have changed!) I have been totally turned off by the cost of planes and it kills me to think that I have to buy something made in the 60's or 70's with no newer avionics. As I have done some research, the cost of some LSA are getting my attention for not only their upfront cost, but ongoing operating cost.

This is my situation:
I am a Private Pilot with a class three medical, so not just a sport certificate.
It is just my wife and I. While it would be nice to have a 4 seater, the fact is 99% of the time it would just be us. I would like to do some cross country flying but I say 99% of time less than 300 nm. While I would like to pursue IFR at some point, I realize LSAs dont' generally allow it. The same is true for night flying. I believe 99% of my flying will always be the two of us with good weather. If I want to fly at night, i could just rent from the local FBO, same if I needed more room.
I am looking to spending about $100,000. I am open to any option, LSA or not, but I just can't bring myself to buying something that is older than I am. Really, I don't want some 60's or 70's plane and if that is all I can get, then forget it. I find that any other single engine in that price range doesn't get me too much in "newness" which is frustrating. But at that price, maybe I am just looking in the wrong place.

Don't you think LSA would be a good alternative?

Stephen
 
steviedeviant said:
While I would like to pursue IFR at some point, I realize LSAs dont' generally allow it. The same is true for night flying. I believe 99% of my flying will always be the two of us with good weather.
Click to expand...

While it is true that a Sport Pilot cannot operate at night, the same is not necessarily true of Light Sport Aircraft. There are a number of LSA that can fly at night, as long as the pilot is flying under the appropriate rules.
 
Greg's 34V is the best aircraft you can buy for that money. tail wheel, 4 place, like new
PM greg our management.
 
What about buying something old with less smoh for 60 k and spend the rest on avionics? I understand u won't get all your money back when sell, but u haven't indicated how long u plan to keep it

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
I don't trust planes that haven't been flying for 30yrs. They might not know everything yet. <- that's a joke

From what you've described in price and mission you should look for an RV-9. If you want aerobatics, then you'll want a -7. And if you don't want tailwheel get the A version of either.

Plenty of examples ~100k, mostly glass, do your own maintenance, much faster than LSA allows, day/night if equipped (most are), IFR if equipped (many are, all can be easily)...
 
I think it's an excellent idea. Most run on mogas or 100LL, and burning 5gph at under $3 a gallon is great. Your annuals and parts will also be noticeably less. As Asicer noted, I would buy one night equipped.

This board is made up of mostly legacy aircraft owners, so I'm guessing you'll get pushed in other directions. Go fly a couple and see if you like them.
 
Get thy hindquarters down to SNF and see which one is right for you. Tecnam has a very good line up as well as Remos and CTLS.
 
steviedeviant said:
I know there will be no shortage of opinions on this.

I am becoming more interested in the idea of purchasing a plane and have posted in the past that I probably wouldn't buy one (things have changed!) I have been totally turned off by the cost of planes and it kills me to think that I have to buy something made in the 60's or 70's with no newer avionics. As I have done some research, the cost of some LSA are getting my attention for not only their upfront cost, but ongoing operating cost.

This is my situation:
I am a Private Pilot with a class three medical, so not just a sport certificate.
It is just my wife and I. While it would be nice to have a 4 seater, the fact is 99% of the time it would just be us. I would like to do some cross country flying but I say 99% of time less than 300 nm. While I would like to pursue IFR at some point, I realize LSAs dont' generally allow it. The same is true for night flying. I believe 99% of my flying will always be the two of us with good weather. If I want to fly at night, i could just rent from the local FBO, same if I needed more room.
I am looking to spending about $100,000. I am open to any option, LSA or not, but I just can't bring myself to buying something that is older than I am. Really, I don't want some 60's or 70's plane and if that is all I can get, then forget it. I find that any other single engine in that price range doesn't get me too much in "newness" which is frustrating. But at that price, maybe I am just looking in the wrong place.

Don't you think LSA would be a good alternative?

Stephen
Click to expand...
Also been doing some research either a jabiru 230d or a bristell aircraft with a 914. Most flying will be less than 3 hours. A plane that can cruise 120 knots. Also good for training my kids

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
 
PM Fast Eddie. He's flying an ELSA Sky Arrow and his mission is very similar to yours. I think he's pretty satisfied with it.

Go fly a few, if you've never been in a light sport. They feel quite different from larger GA plans.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Get thy hindquarters down to SNF and see which one is right for you. Tecnam has a very good line up as well as Remos and CTLS.
Click to expand...

This is something I am trying to work out with the wife to do. The great thing about it is that near where my parents live and it gives me an excuse to go down and see them as well (I don't need an excuse to see them, of course :)
 
WannFly said:
What about buying something old with less smoh for 60 k and spend the rest on avionics? I understand u won't get all your money back when sell, but u haven't indicated how long u plan to keep it

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


So this is something I have thought about but no in great detail. I would think it would be something I would keep for several years (I realize that isn't specific). Really if I had something I liked that worked and our family situation remained as is, then I dont't see why it wouldn't be for a long time (more than 10 years, even longer). I don't know the full cost of upgrading avionics, but this is something I will look into. I think I was also comparing the cost of annuals in legacy planes vs. newer types. I guess for a "little more" I could look at an older SR22. This is very early in the learning process.
 
Ravioli said:
I don't trust planes that haven't been flying for 30yrs. They might not know everything yet. <- that's a joke

From what you've described in price and mission you should look for an RV-9. If you want aerobatics, then you'll want a -7. And if you don't want tailwheel get the A version of either.

Plenty of examples ~100k, mostly glass, do your own maintenance, much faster than LSA allows, day/night if equipped (most are), IFR if equipped (many are, all can be easily)...
Click to expand...

That.

Hard to go wrong with a RV, especially a 7
 
Ariel said:
Also been doing some research either a jabiru 230d or a bristell aircraft with a 914. Most flying will be less than 3 hours. A plane that can cruise 120 knots. Also good for training my kids

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I have seen these and I think they appear to be great options. Regarding another comment from

Cluemeister said:
This board is made up of mostly legacy aircraft owners, so I'm guessing you'll get pushed in other directions. Go fly a couple and see if you like them.
Click to expand...

I trained in a legacy plane, cherokee 140 and cessna 172. With some many new options, why wouldn't more people go for these newer, less expensive plans, with, in my cases, newer and better avionics? Sometimes legacy guys don't want to change to newer things and sometimes they are right because the old stuff is just better. But for the cost of ownership, it just seems like new technologies need to work there way into the system. I do read a lot of articles about how GA isn't growing but with changes in certifications of pilots and planes, there may be some changes on the horizon for newer entries to the marketplace.

I love POA because already you all have given me some things to think about in less than about 12 hours of this post being out there!
 
steviedeviant said:
So this is something I have thought about but no in great detail. I would think it would be something I would keep for several years (I realize that isn't specific). Really if I had something I liked that worked and our family situation remained as is, then I dont't see why it wouldn't be for a long time (more than 10 years, even longer). I don't know the full cost of upgrading avionics, but this is something I will look into. I think I was also comparing the cost of annuals in legacy planes vs. newer types. I guess for a "little more" I could look at an older SR22. This is very early in the learning process.
Click to expand...
There are some SR 22, 2004 model on controller at 120k if u want to stretch a little. They have round dials and glass mfd. I have been looking at 172s and I can easily find something with low smoh and 530w at 60 or 70k, adding a good engine monitor and a avadyn pdf with installation shud be less than 30k, depending which model of pdf u wanna go with

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
I paid less than $100K for a new Aerotrek A240. It cruises at 120 mph, holds 50 lbs. of luggage, has a wide comfy cabin, has almost as much range as my old 182, and the smooth Rotax sips 91 octane mogas at a rate of 3.5 gph when I'm just out boring holes in the sky (5 gph when I'm flying XC). The visibility is fantastic, and it's very maneuverable (but not aerobatic). Sure, we'd like more speed and luggage capacity (maybe a CTLS in our future?), but for most of what I use an airplane for, it's perfect. And it's definitely more fun than my old 182.
 
Ride in some LSA's before you decide. They are noticeably smaller and lighter. If that works for you, they can work.
 
I have flown a lot of LSA types, probably more the 2 dozen. These days, when I have to pay to fly it's invariably in a LSA.

I fly 2 different "categories" of LSA:
1. "Low and slow" - Most of these are old iron, Cub, Aeronca, Taylorcraft, Luscombe, Ercoupe.
These are not for "traveling", though I have gone long distances in all of them. Mostly these are for doing exactly what the category implies, having fun, flying low and slow.
2. "Travelers" - These are planes you can fly long distances. They have glass panels, auto pilots, will cruise at 110+ kts at 5 gph.

In order of my personal preference: (all of these are wider than the C-172, just to give you something to compare)
1. Arion LS-1 Lightning. In my opinion, this is the fastest, strongest, most maneuverable of all the planes. It's a hot ship. Not a "real" LSA as they use the same airframe for their, bigger, faster versions. Not as wide as many of the other LSA's, but not cramped by any means.
2. Jabiru J230-D. Same engine as the Lightning, and the best people hauler around. It's the same aircraft as their 4 place, with the rear seats removed. Lots of cargo space. Again, not as wide as some of the others.
3. Tecnam - I have flown a lot of different Tecnams. They are all good at what they do. Lots of shoulder room inside, movable seats, easy to fly, no bad habits.
4. CzechSport\Bristell - I can't decide which I like better. Very comfortable. These are a wide-body, comfortable traveling machine.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Ride in some LSA's before you decide. They are noticeably smaller and lighter. If that works for you, they can work.
Click to expand...

I will do that and I will continue to look at some legacy crafts.

ETres said:
I paid less than $100K for a new Aerotrek A240. It cruises at 120 mph, holds 50 lbs. of luggage, has a wide comfy cabin, has almost as much range as my old 182, and the smooth Rotax sips 91 octane mogas at a rate of 3.5 gph when I'm just out boring holes in the sky (5 gph when I'm flying XC). The visibility is fantastic, and it's very maneuverable (but not aerobatic). Sure, we'd like more speed and luggage capacity (maybe a CTLS in our future?), but for most of what I use an airplane for, it's perfect. And it's definitely more fun than my old 182.
Click to expand...

I think this is what is important for me to think about. I mean, there are two of us and only two of us. I am 40 years old - I plan to keep it a while, I think - I have a flexible budget - I want to look to purchase the aircraft the would suit me most of the time. So many times in life I have "over bought" for the what if situation that rarely comes up.

Thanks for the feedback.
 
steviedeviant said:
I would like to do some cross country flying but I say 99% of time less than 300 nm. ... I am looking to spending about $100,000.
Click to expand...

I'd get a CT with these mission parameters and budget. Since I live out west and I want so spend about half of your budget up front, I had to go with a Mooney, purely for speed and cost.

Do keep in mind that LSAs have a limited useful load. If you and your wife, combined, push 400 lbs, then you hardly have any allowance for baggage and you must plan day trips only.

P.S. Actually, yeah, an RV may be a good option, as long as you are patient and know how to select one. Jay bought a fantastic RV-8 for $112k, but he hired an expert to help with the selection and inspection. Beats pants off any Mooney that I can afford, insurance is cheaper, maintenance is way cheaper. The only downside, it's very hard to find one with BRS, and every CT has one from the factory.

P.P.S. Arion Lightning and J230 are attractive as long as you are okay with flying on the Jabiru power. I wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
Do keep in mind that LSAs have limited useful load. If you and your wife, combined, push 400 lbs, then you hardly have any allowance for baggage and you must plan day trips only.
Click to expand...

Which is a good point. My wife and I aren't ginormous individuals - we weigh about 310 lbs. combined, so we can go with full fuel and luggage and still be well under gross weight in our LSA.
 
Definitely get to Sun N Fun and check out all the different planes, those on display and more importantly those that just flew in and may be in the camping area. Everyone on this board will tell you how they came to their decision.

My List:
-New, factory built, airplane
-Modern avionics
-Parachute
-Easy, fun to fly
-Inexpensive to operate/maintain
-Traveling plane (been to all lower 48 states and from CA/NY 7 times, plus OSH 3x and SNF 1x)
-Can land on grass fields (been airplane camping on Oregon coast, Johnson Creek, ID, and fly-ins like Lee Bottom, IN.)

There was really no option for me except Light Sport. As noted above, a properly equipped LSA (and Private Pilot) can fly at night (I have about 30 night hours in mine.) The one thing I wish my plane could do is fly a little faster, but to do that I'll need to give up some items on my list, which I may do in a year or so.

Please note: an RV, Mooney, Champ, or C-150 might be right for you. I suggest you make your list and bring it to Sun N Fun.

Continue your research:

http://sportpilottalk.com

http://www.bydanjohnson.com

https://www.cirruspilots.org

http://www.vansairforce.com The RV forums are a wealth of information and the people are possibly even nicer than here. They helped me design my panel even though I don't have an RV.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
I'd get a CT with these mission parameters and budget. Since I live out west and I want so spend about half of your budget up front, I had to go with a Mooney, purely for speed and cost.

Do keep in mind that LSAs have limited useful load. If you and your wife, combined, push 400 lbs, then you hardly have any allowance for baggage and you must plan day trips only.
Click to expand...
ETres said:
Which is a good point. My wife and I aren't ginormous individuals - we weigh about 310 lbs. combined, so we can go with full fuel and luggage and still be well under gross weight in our LSA.
Click to expand...

We are the same. I have a tiny wife!
 
Millennials. Geez. PLENTY of planes out there "older than you" flying just fine. There are actually fully functional PILOTS out there from the 60's and 70's!!

If you have$100k to spend there a lot of planes to choose from. And read up on the regs a little. It's the pilot that's restricted, not the plane.
 
I'd recommend flying a LSA before chasing down which LSA you'd prefer. As others have mentioned, turbulence will move them around more, and you'll use rudder a bit more, especially in some models.

Other than that, a LSA makes plenty of sense. Economical to operate, good performance and endurance. I am a partner in a new LSA (Aeropilot L600) which is a 80% scale 182 and it flies very well. One of the partners has flown it from California to Florida, Oshkosh and Phoenix and the PIREP was that the aircraft was comfortable for those journeys.

A lot of LSA are constructed from lightweight composites (carbon fiber, kevlar) which may not be so happy living in a tie-down under the sun. Not a factor if you have a hangar, but if it'll spend its life tied-down, you may want to look at LSAs constructed from metal.
 
JCranford said:
Millennials. Geez. PLENTY of planes out there "older than you" flying just fine. There are actually fully functional PILOTS out there from the 60's and 70's!!

If you have$100k to spend there a lot of planes to choose from. And read up on the regs a little. It's the pilot that's restricted, not the plane.
Click to expand...

Can't help it that I don't want some old plane that is flying just fine. I have not doubt they all fly well - I am just not interested in buying one, particularly with other options out there. Yeah, those youngsters today want faster, cheaper, and it has to look good. - tough group.
 
steviedeviant said:
Can't help it that I don't want some old plane that is flying just fine. I have not doubt they all fly well - I am just not interested in buying one, particularly with other options out there. Yeah, those youngsters today want faster, cheaper, and it has to look good. - tough group.
Click to expand...
The underlying tone of your post tells me you should buy a new aircraft. You'll never be satisfied with a used aircraft.
 
steviedeviant said:
This is something I am trying to work out with the wife to do. The great thing about it is that near where my parents live and it gives me an excuse to go down and see them as well (I don't need an excuse to see them, of course :)
Click to expand...
The Tecnam P2010 - saw it in the flesh at OSH. Be still my beating heart but at $400k :cryin:
 
Tom-D said:
The underlying tone of your post tells me you should buy a new aircraft. You'll never be satisfied with a used aircraft.
Click to expand...

^^ that. Hell, the OVERlying tone of the post says that

And you might get cheaper and better looking but you won't get faster for under 100 in a LSA
 
Tom-D said:
The underlying tone of your post tells me you should buy a new aircraft. You'll never be satisfied with a used aircraft.
Click to expand...

Wow, that escalated quickly. I didn't realize there a tone there. Let's reset here....I am sorry - no tone was intended. I was simply making fun of the fact that the "old" vs. "new" thing just reminds me of the saying, 'they don't make them like they use to.!'

I am open to something older, I just would want something newer than the 60's or 70's.
Nothing wrong with that!

Thanks,
Stephen
 
JCranford said:
^^ that. Hell, the OVERlying tone of the post says that

And you might get cheaper and better looking but you won't get faster for under 100 in a LSA
Click to expand...

I really didn't intend a tone - the newer, better, faster, is a common comment from those young "kids" today.
 
rtk11 said:
I'd recommend flying a LSA before chasing down which LSA you'd prefer. As others have mentioned, turbulence will move them around more, and you'll use rudder a bit more, especially in some models.

Other than that, a LSA makes plenty of sense. Economical to operate, good performance and endurance. I am a partner in a new LSA (Aeropilot L600) which is a 80% scale 182 and it flies very well. One of the partners has flown it from California to Florida, Oshkosh and Phoenix and the PIREP was that the aircraft was comfortable for those journeys.

A lot of LSA are constructed from lightweight composites (carbon fiber, kevlar) which may not be so happy living in a tie-down under the sun. Not a factor if you have a hangar, but if it'll spend its life tied-down, you may want to look at LSAs constructed from metal.
Click to expand...
I agree. I just wish they did not penalize the weight limit for safety equipment and fuel. In an LSA weight limit is the CON. In an old aircraft the frame is the CON plus the new engines are more reliable.
 
steviedeviant said:
Can't help it that I don't want some old plane that is flying just fine. I have not doubt they all fly well - I am just not interested in buying one, particularly with other options out there. Yeah, those youngsters today want faster, cheaper, and it has to look good. - tough group.
Click to expand...

Sadly most of the new one are quite a bit inferior to the "old planes"
 
if @steviedeviant wants to spend 100k for a new plane that goes 120knts max with two bodies max and all the other lovely LSA restrictions on it, that's his choice.

Have fun with it and post lots of pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top