Buying a trainer: High elevation, low budget

J

Jason Koiter

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
13
Display Name
Display name:
JayKoit
Hi Everyone,

Back in 2013 I bought a C150L, and got about 20 hours into my training when life happened (new baby - unexpected) and I had to sell and put training on hold. Now I'm ready to pick it up again, and buy another trainer (no need to discuss renting, I'll fly it enough to make it cost effective :))

I've set my budget at 28K. Looking at everything in that range (for tri gear only, I can't spend the kids college fund on tailwheel insurance lol), here's what I'm seeing:

C150 (or tired 152)
Ercoupe
AA1A/AA1B
Piper Tri Pacer
Piper Colt

My question is, can anyone tell me firsthand how any of these models do at higher field elevations? It would be kept at PRC in Prescott AZ - 5400' elev. Clearly the Tri Pacer with an O-320 is the winner, but it's thirstier than the others.

FYI (based on average recorded temps), the DA in Prescott could reach 8700' on the hottest days of the year. Does this disqualify a couple of these planes for year round flying?

Would love some feedback on this - or any other planes I may have missed that would be good candidates, as service ceilings in reality aren't always as they're published...

Thanks!
 
Well, if we’re being realistic here, none of those opinions are good performers at high altitudes. The Tri-Pacer with an O-320? I’m guessing it’s 150hp, so it’s still going to be anemic, especially at the density altitudes that you’re talking about.

In my opinion, it’s going to be tricky to find what you’re looking for in the $28k range and still expect it to be airworthy.
 
Out of that group, I'd go with an O-320 powered Tri-Pacer, and never fill the back seat, provided you can get it out of the sun.

I trained in AA1s, in the southeast in the summer with two in the airplane, we'd see 400 fpm. The AA1 has stubby little wings and doesn't climb at what the book says.

You might also consider a Tomahawk or a Skipper. Ercoupe doesn't have enough power. I can't think of any EAB's that would suit your requirements.
 
Having been to Prescott AZ multiple times, even in August (never again), just fly early or late.
There often is a 30 to 40 degree temperature swing in the summer. You do NOT want to be in the plane when temp is above 80 with that sun aways. You just will not climb to cool air fast enough.

Based on the above, you may want to rethink your criteria.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
Agree with @FormerHangie, with a variation - find a 150/160 hp Tri Pacer that's been converted to tailwheel. I have a friend who flies one out of our Rocky Mountain airport and drops into all sorts of backcountry grass strips and river gravel/sand bars. It's a great little airplane if you fly it light and pretty economical all in, even though it burns more fuel than Cessna 150.

The 150 hp can burn Mogas, the 160 does not have an STC for that to my knowledge. Might be one way to manage costs - but I would be inclined towards the higher hp given your location.

As @tspear said, fly in the cooler parts of the day during the warm weather months.

Here's an example in Idaho, advert posted today. Asking price is darn close to your budget. Planes like this one rarely stay on the market long these days.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1655794-PA-22-20,-160HP-350-SMOH.html?catid=21199

PA-22-20, 160HP. 350 SMOH • $29,500 • FOR SALE BY OWNER • PA-22-20, 160HP. 350 SMOH, Caribbean Pacer, One of the last produced. Life time struts, Maule tailwheel, re-covered in the early 90's. Lycoming 0320 160hp. Older radio works great! A tough fast little 4 place which performs in short strips. 29,500. • located Caldwell, ID United States • Telephone: 360-391-1340 • Posted April 26, 2021

medium_image_1655794_2_1619479992.jpeg
 
Thanks for all the replies. Yeah I figured that most of those planes would be a no-go for that altitude and climate, just needed to hear it :) I was pretty spoiled flying my 150 at sea level all those years ago.

That Caribbean Pacer looks awesome, and I may consider the tailwheel pacer if the insurance isn't too bad...

And thanks FormerHangie, as much as I like the look of AA1's, I heard they were dogs in climb. But the more I look at the Tri Pacer the more I like it - and it would never be flown with more than 2 adults, so I'd keep it light. I'll look into the Tomahawk and Skipper specs too - I've heard the skipper is a great plane.

GRG55 said:
Agree with @FormerHangie, with a variation - find a 150/160 hp Tri Pacer that's been converted to tailwheel. I have a friend who flies one out of our Rocky Mountain airport and drops into all sorts of backcountry grass strips and river gravel/sand bars. It's a great little airplane if you fly it light and pretty economical all in, even though it burns more fuel than Cessna 150.

The 150 hp can burn Mogas, the 160 does not have an STC for that to my knowledge. Might be one way to manage costs - but I would be inclined towards the higher hp given your location.

As @tspear said, fly in the cooler parts of the day during the warm weather months.

Here's an example in Idaho, advert posted today. Asking price is darn close to your budget. Planes like this one rarely stay on the market long these days.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1655794-PA-22-20,-160HP-350-SMOH.html?catid=21199

PA-22-20, 160HP. 350 SMOH • $29,500 • FOR SALE BY OWNER • PA-22-20, 160HP. 350 SMOH, Caribbean Pacer, One of the last produced. Life time struts, Maule tailwheel, re-covered in the early 90's. Lycoming 0320 160hp. Older radio works great! A tough fast little 4 place which performs in short strips. 29,500. • located Caldwell, ID United States • Telephone: 360-391-1340 • Posted April 26, 2021/QUOTE]



This looks awesome, and I may consider the pacer or converted tri-pacer if the insurance isn't too bad...



FormerHangie said:
Out of that group, I'd go with an O-320 powered Tri-Pacer, and never fill the back seat, provided you can get it out of the sun.

I trained in AA1s, in the southeast in the summer with two in the airplane, we'd see 400 fpm. The AA1 has stubby little wings and doesn't climb at what the book says.

You might also consider a Tomahawk or a Skipper. Ercoupe doesn't have enough power. I can't think of any EAB's that would suit your requirements.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
With a $28k budget, your best bet is to find one (or better yet 2) partners and buy a plane that is more like $75k. You’ll get way more airplane, and spend way less on its operating cost. All your bills will be halved or more - a hangar for a $28k plane and a $75k plane cost exactly the same.
 
I base out of an airport at 6000', there are several low powered airplanes on the field and more that stop by now and then. You don't have to have big performance. A low powered plane will teach you how to fly more than one with extra power. Buy what you can afford and learn to fly it.
I have plenty of power in my Wagon, but I do not fly in the afternoons. Early mornings are best, sometimes evenings are good too. I don't like to fly when its hot, and in the mountains its usually pretty rough in the afternoon.
I have a friend learning right now in a 100hp c-150. Not a hot rod, but it gets the job done.
 
Let’s call into action sound risk-management. Rent or club, or do what you need to adjust your budget. Don’t let any of the other stuff get in the way of safety.
 
I find it amazing how snobby we as a group of pilots have become. Why are so many on here saying the OP needs a lot more plane, and he needs it to safe?
People have been flying low powered C150s, Champs and other planes around the Rocky mountains for decades.
If you fly a lower powered plane, actually learn very good energy management, and fundamental airplane skills that many pilots today are not willing to put in the effort to gain.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I find it amazing how snobby we as a group of pilots have become. Why are so many on here saying the OP needs a lot more plane, and he needs it to safe?
People have been flying low powered C150s, Champs and other planes around the Rocky mountains for decades.
If you fly a lower powered plane, actually learn very good energy management, and fundamental airplane skills that many pilots today are not willing to put in the effort to gain.

Tim
Click to expand...
Because it’s easy (and fun) to spend other people’s money!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
tspear said:
I find it amazing how snobby we as a group of pilots have become. Why are so many on here saying the OP needs a lot more plane, and he needs it to safe?
People have been flying low powered C150s, Champs and other planes around the Rocky mountains for decades.
If you fly a lower powered plane, actually learn very good energy management, and fundamental airplane skills that many pilots today are not willing to put in the effort to gain.

Tim
Click to expand...

I hope I didn't come across as snobby. Where can one find a plane in decent enough shape that can fly at that altitude with two people for $28,000 that doesn't require even more money to make it airworthy as a trainer? I found one C 150 for $25k that was recently sold in NJ - but again I'd bet it needs another $10 in work to make it something you'd feel comfortable flying in.

Not snobby - maybe jaded.......
 
Last edited:
I would go the Tri-Pacer rte. I got my Comm (and some of my inst) in them. They ranged from 135 hp to 150 and 160 hp. I found that the 160 would blow past a 172 with all four of my seats filled. I was shopping Tri Pacers a while back and came close to buying one. I recommend the Short Wing Pipers club. They claim that the short wings are the least expensive to own. I knew a FAA safety inspector that owned a Colt that had the TW conversion and was up engined to a 150 HP. Now that was some airplane.
 
tspear said:
I find it amazing how snobby we as a group of pilots have become. Why are so many on here saying the OP needs a lot more plane, and he needs it to safe?
People have been flying low powered C150s, Champs and other planes around the Rocky mountains for decades.
If you fly a lower powered plane, actually learn very good energy management, and fundamental airplane skills that many pilots today are not willing to put in the effort to gain.

Tim
Click to expand...

I didn't see any snobbery in the posts, just realism. Sure, a C150 can fly out of a 5400' elevation. It just won't be fun and will always be a compromise. I was in a club based at KBOI (2872' elev) for over 25 years and during that time two C150's joined the fleet. They both lasted around 6 months because no one would fly them. I thought they were OK pilot only performers and would bore holes in the sky just as effectively. Add another person and not so much.

Still, an airplane is better than no airplane and there are deals to be found. My family sold a structurally sound 150 SMOH C150G for $23K six months ago, so be patient and look for a good deal...
 
I'd have to vote for the Cessna 150, or the TriPacer out of your list of choices. As others have mentioned, either is totally capable of flying from Prescott, albeit with limitations. Get used to getting up early, in summer, the useful (daylight) window for a 150 is dawn to maybe 9 or 10 a.m. The Piper may be a bit better. Or, schedule lessons for late evening, right before sundown, but morning is cooler. It's no fun to be flying in the high desert country at 2pm in anything, unless you can climb to 15-16000 feet, anyway. I learned from a 5600 MSL airport in a 150, years ago. Sure, you'd love to have a 180hp 172 or Archer, but not happening with that budget. The 150, as you'll recall, is very limited in load capacity, so hopefully you've retained your youthful physique over the years! After training, of course, the utility goes way down, the TriPacer might be better if the intention is to keep it for post-license use.
 
A bunch of 150's have been outfitted with more powerful engines. I'd be on the hunt for one of them, though they may bust the OPs budget
 
WDD said:
I hope I didn't come across as snobby. Where can one find a plane in decent enough shape that can fly at that altitude with two people for $28,000 that doesn't require even more money to make it airworthy as a trainer? I found one C 150 for $25k that was recently sold in NJ - but again I'd bet it needs another $10 in work to make it something you'd feel comfortable flying in.

Not snobby - maybe jaded.......
Click to expand...


My 150 is one of the $23K ones and wouldn't need one single thing to make it a comfortable platform. It's been hangared and very well cared for, for the past 14 years that I've owned it.
 
Thanks all, I appreciate the input here. I can see both points, risk management vs energy management and the pilotage of both. And if I have to limit summer flying to early morning or late in the day, that's fine, it would be more comfortable anyway.

I found a flying club that has two Skycatchers, and I'll call them when I have a break at work and talk to them about their performance, since they're O-200 powered LSA machines. While the C150 isn't as light, it can at least give me an idea of a lower powered machine in the area. I do like the idea of a 150/150 and the 150hp AA1 though..
 
I got my ppl in 150s & 152s flying out of Tucson. Yes they climb like crap when it’s hot out and DA is up. So you fly in the AM or evening when DA is much lower. It’s also bumpy as hell and more chance for T-storms during the day. Another reason to fly early or late. Are you under 200lbs? Is your CFI? That’s what really matters.

If we only flew what half the people on here believed was necessary there would only be Turbine powered planes and jets allowed at elevations above 2000’.

If it were me I would look at tri pacers. Have fun.
 
ChemGuy said:
I got my ppl in 150s & 152s flying out of Tucson. Yes they climb like crap when it’s hot out and DA is up. So you fly in the AM or evening when DA is much lower. It’s also bumpy as hell and more chance for T-storms during the day. Another reason to fly early or late. Are you under 200lbs? Is your CFI? That’s what really matters.

If we only flew what half the people on here believed was necessary there would only be Turbine powered planes and jets allowed at elevations above 2000’.

If it were me I would look at tri pacers. Have fun.
Click to expand...

Thanks ChemGuy, yes my CFI and I combined are barely over 300lbs so we could probably make a 150 work if we flew early or late, but yes - I'm keeping my eye on the tri pacers :)
 
tspear said:
I find it amazing how snobby we as a group of pilots have become. Why are so many on here saying the OP needs a lot more plane, and he needs it to safe?
People have been flying low powered C150s, Champs and other planes around the Rocky mountains for decades.
If you fly a lower powered plane, actually learn very good energy management, and fundamental airplane skills that many pilots today are not willing to put in the effort to gain.

Tim
Click to expand...

It’s not snobbery. Look at the improvement in GA safety record over the same decades that you cite. I think what you’re seeing is a newer mindset that is part of the safety improvement.
 
Jason Koiter said:
Hi Everyone,

Back in 2013 I bought a C150L, and got about 20 hours into my training when life happened (new baby - unexpected) and I had to sell and put training on hold. Now I'm ready to pick it up again, and buy another trainer (no need to discuss renting, I'll fly it enough to make it cost effective :))

I've set my budget at 28K. Looking at everything in that range (for tri gear only, I can't spend the kids college fund on tailwheel insurance lol), here's what I'm seeing:

C150 (or tired 152)
Ercoupe
AA1A/AA1B
Piper Tri Pacer
Piper Colt

My question is, can anyone tell me firsthand how any of these models do at higher field elevations? It would be kept at PRC in Prescott AZ - 5400' elev. Clearly the Tri Pacer with an O-320 is the winner, but it's thirstier than the others.

FYI (based on average recorded temps), the DA in Prescott could reach 8700' on the hottest days of the year. Does this disqualify a couple of these planes for year round flying?

Would love some feedback on this - or any other planes I may have missed that would be good candidates, as service ceilings in reality aren't always as they're published...

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the C150. I've flown it in ABQ, which is nearly the same elevation as PRC. It does take more skill because of the lower power, but for training that may be a good thing. If you are going to be carrying passengers or making trips, that is a different matter.
 
Jason Koiter said:
Thanks all, I appreciate the input here. I can see both points, risk management vs energy management and the pilotage of both. And if I have to limit summer flying to early morning or late in the day, that's fine, it would be more comfortable anyway.

I found a flying club that has two Skycatchers, and I'll call them when I have a break at work and talk to them about their performance, since they're O-200 powered LSA machines. While the C150 isn't as light, it can at least give me an idea of a lower powered machine in the area. I do like the idea of a 150/150 and the 150hp AA1 though..
Click to expand...
I’ve climbed a 162 to 10,500. It does ok. Better than a 150 imo
 
<--- looks at his 150hp Cherokee that's flown in and out of Prescott several times in all seasons.


I had no idea I was being so unsafe. :oops:

Manage the weight, the time and temperature of day and the density altitude. You'll be fine.
 
Glad there are people with real world experience to help out - even 150 owners at your altitude.
 
I have flown several 150s, and similarly-powered airplanes like a 7EC Champ that had an O-200 in it, and an Alon Aircoupe (last iteration of the Ercoupe) that had a C-90, giving it the same power-to-weight ratio as a 150. The 150s were easily the worst performers. When Cessna put that back window in it, it lost a bunch of performance and gained weight. It's draggy. The flaps, when retracted, don't have their inboard trailing edges up against the fuselage, so you get vortices off the inboard corners of the flaps as well as the wingtips.

I instructed in the 150s and that Champ, and wondered what the 150 was doing with its 100HP. Even after engine and prop overhauls, neither of the two we had could keep up with the Champ, and the Champ is a draggy airplane, too. I checked all the rigging on both airplanes; nothing wrong anywhere. Static RPMs were normal. On hot days they were really marginal with a full load. That Alon would run circles around the 150.

The Tri-Pacer will outperform the 172 just about every which way. Ugly, but very useable. Watch the fabric condition, though. A new fabric job can cost as much as the airplane.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
It’s not snobbery. Look at the improvement in GA safety record over the same decades that you cite. I think what you’re seeing is a newer mindset that is part of the safety improvement.
Click to expand...
The safety improvement is in avionics, not HP.
The majority of posters were looking down on the small low powered planes and saying they could not do it. So yeah, it is snobbery.
It is much better to say, all planes are a compromise, but at that budget and altitude you are constrained.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
The safety improvement is in avionics, not HP.
The majority of posters were looking down on the small low powered planes and saying they could not do it. So yeah, it is snobbery.
It is much better to say, all planes are a compromise, but at that budget and altitude you are constrained.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This would be an easier conversation over a beer/coffee. I think it’s more complicated than that.

Human factors, root cause analysis, ADM, risk management, and all of the other new fangled safety concepts have at least a little bit to with the evolution of safety in not just aviation, but other disciplines as well.

I’ll give credit to what you call snobbery though (maybe we’re calling the same thing 2 different names). I’ve been in the field of Safety, Health & Enviro for 30 years. But I’ve only been in Aviation 6 years. So I may have gone through my PPL training in a bit of a different mindset/era than those who started in aviation earlier and have been in it much longer than I.
 
I agree about the AA1, wouldn't go there. I did fly a Cheetah out of BJC when I lived there and that works fine. I also flew a Tomahawk out of APA. The caveat there is that the airframe is time-limited so watch that (especially if you get one that was an ex-flight school one).
 
@455 Bravo Uniform

Yes, ADM and many other changes have helped improve the safety in the past couple decades (I did a few hours in 98, but really started my PPL Dec 2009). However, none of that affects the plane itself.
In terms of the aircraft, the safety improvements have almost all been around the avionics. A few examples:
1. Chute (one of the few exceptions)
2. Fuel totalizer
3. TWAS
4. In cockpit weather
5. GPS based Nav (situational awareness)
6. More accurate fuel gauges (retrofit on some planes, much more accurate, and an exception to the avionics)
7. Engine monitoring systems

You will notice, only two items on there are not avionics?

Tim
 
An AA-1A is little different from a C-150 for performance. Load either to gross and they are pretty anemic at high denalts. I trained in a C-152 and owned an AA-1A for 4 years. OK for training if you manage weight and denalt conditions. Not very suitable for traveling with two. A 4-place gives you a little more engine and margins when loaded with two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top