first plane purchase

T

truk9889

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
7
Display Name
Display name:
truk9889
Looking to buy my first plane and i'm extremely overwhelmed. Soon I will be opening an office in a fairly nearby town (160nm). The main purpose for the plane will be to ferry myself to and from this office roughly 10 times a month with a 3 hour notice before appointments. My initial thoughts are to find the fastest plane I can in case I need to wait on weather I can still make it without being late. I don't have my multi and I'd like to keep in the single world. I've been looking hard at the Lancair IV/IVps (pressurized not really necessary because I will be staying low for these short hops) I have heard less than stellar reviews about the safety record about these. This brought me to the Legacy which seems to be more forgiving while still offering the high speed cruise. Any input would be great on other aircraft or if I'm being a little too ambitious.
 
It would take a very fast plane to make a difference over a 160 nm trip. Very fast = expensive.
 
Let's do the math. For the sake of argument, let's say 160 nm would take you, what, 2.5 hours to drive.

If you fly, figure 0.75 hours to drive to the airport, preflight and launch. Then 1 hour to fly there in a speedy retract. Then 0.5 hours to taxi in, park, register with the FBO, and get to your office. By my math, that's a pretty hefty pricetag to save 15 minutes.

Obviously these numbers are picked out of a hat, as I don't know where you live or where you're going. Break down your trip into little chunks though and you'll find that on a trip that short, the cruise speed of the airplane will be largely irrelevant.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Let's do the math. For the sake of argument, let's say 160 nm would take you, what, 2.5 hours to drive.

If you fly, figure 0.75 hours to drive to the airport, preflight and launch. Then 1 hour to fly there in a speedy retract. Then 0.5 hours to taxi in, park, register with the FBO, and get to your office. By my math, that's a pretty hefty pricetag to save 15 minutes.

Obviously these numbers are picked out of a hat, as I don't know where you live or where you're going. Break down your trip into little chunks though and you'll find that on a trip that short, the cruise speed of the airplane will be largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

yea getting a hangar closest to the most normal departure end of the runway will probably be more important than getting a faster plane.
 
Just buy something you like. A well rigged 152 would do this job easy. As would a mooney or a lancair. Also, there are pilots in our club who will spend TEN minutes on a run up. And then sit on the runway for a minute or two once lined up. Don't be that guy and you can shave off a lot of time.

Getting a good hangar location and maybe a tug if you need it plus streamlining your preflight/refueling/run up process can make up the difference between 152 and lancair.
 
Last edited:
My house is on the bay and the office is across the street from a large lake. Is amphibious an option?
 
Even the home airport can be important. I very seldom go south or west, both of which would require dealing with the B. For a high percentage of trips, being based in the NE corner of the metroplex is a game-changer.
 
I appreciate the honesty and quick responses.
 
How far in minutes from home to airport and from airport to office?

My first thought was that it sounds like exactly the wrong mission for a small airplane. One that could well lead to rushing and risking. It could work if you have the self-discipline to drive when the weather is iffy and not paint yourself into a box as regards time.
 
5 minutes getting to airport from home. I usually take the golf cart. about 10 minutes from airport to office
 
truk9889 said:
5 minutes getting to airport from home. I usually take the golf cart. about 10 minutes from airport to office
Click to expand...

So that leaves a good two hours for the flight itself (time in the air). A 172 or Cherokee can handle that with ease. You just need an extra car kept at your office in case you can't fly home and the self-discipline to not take risks with the weather.
 
truk9889 said:
5 minutes getting to airport from home. I usually take the golf cart. about 10 minutes from airport to office
Click to expand...

Would be worthwhile to do a test run in another aircraft. Stage a fake appointment notification in the middle of a day (best if you don't know when it's coming, but I get that that's hard with a rental), and time yourself. Remember that since this is somewhat unplanned, you will need time to check the weather, TFRs, NOTAMs, and generally get "in the zone" to make the flight. See how long it takes you to be in the office ready to work, versus just driving.

Also, I think something like a Lancair IV is way overkill for this. Keep in mind that the 160nm will take you (not accounting for climb time) 1:20 at 120 knots in a Cessna 172, or 1:06 in a 145-kt 182, or 0:53 at a screaming 180 knots (not sure how fast that Lancair will go at low altitudes). Is that kind of time savings worth the cost and increased risk of a Lancair? Will you be able to fly it enough to stay proficient in a slippery, unforgiving plane?
 
alfadog said:
So that leaves a good two hours for the flight itself (time in the air). A 172 or Cherokee can handle that with ease. You just need an extra car kept at your office in case you can't fly home and the self-discipline to not take risks with the weather.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. Get a "beater" to leave at the other office, which could still be a perfectly nice $10,000 used Camry if you want, and give yourself that extra option. It's still peanuts compared to the price delta between a 172 and a Lancair or SR22.

Might be worth looking somewhere in the middle. Maybe a relatively recent DA40 that can give you 150kt in a modern airframe with modern avionics?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I did it for 30 years and think it's the perfect mission if you like to fly. OMA, ICT, SUS, DSM and TUL were frequent destinations from OJC and among my favorite trips. Almost any plane will work, it's nice to be able to fly without worrying about grinding along for several hours, and nobody is kidding anybody about how much time you save (you don't) or how much cheaper it is (it isn't) you just get in your plane and go. If the weather is bad you just get in your car a little earlier and go.

alfadog said:
How far in minutes from home to airport and from airport to office?

My first thought was that it sounds like exactly the wrong mission for a small airplane. One that could well lead to rushing and risking. It could work if you have the self-discipline to drive when the weather is iffy and not paint yourself into a box as regards time.
Click to expand...
 
the lancair legacy claims 240kts @ 8,000ft
 
wabower said:
Interesting. I did it for 30 years and think it's the perfect mission if you like to fly. OMA, ICT, SUS, DSM and TUL were frequent destinations from OJC and among my favorite trips. Almost any plane will work, it's nice to be able to fly without worrying about grinding along for several hours, and nobody is kidding anybody about how much time you save (you don't) or how much cheaper it is (it isn't) you just get in your plane and go. If the weather is bad you just get in your car a little earlier and go.
Click to expand...

While I yield to the voice of experience, did you also have the same time considerations? I.e. that making it to the appointment on time was of paramount consideration. That was the feeling that I got from the OP and why I said it did not sound like such a great idea. To have to be somewhere 160nm away in three hours 10x per month.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Not a bad idea. Get a "beater" to leave at the other office, which could still be a perfectly nice $10,000 used Camry if you want, and give yourself that extra option. It's still peanuts compared to the price delta between a 172 and a Lancair or SR22.

Might be worth looking somewhere in the middle. Maybe a relatively recent DA40 that can give you 150kt in a modern airframe with modern avionics?
Click to expand...

To me the logistics are simple. You look at the weather and if not conducive to flying then get in your car and drive. Don't try to wait it out. If can't fly back, take the spare car and swap back next time when the weather is better
 
For once I can say this not in jest

RV, but skip the 10 unless you otherwise need a four seater.

Proximity to the airport is everything, I have been making 19nm trips in 100kt planes and still coming out ahead because I was already at one airport and the destination was another
 
Yes. They were business trips for me, all of which meant a client appointment had been booked by the local rep. If not, I had a much shorter drive to the golf club and no decision to make about the weather.:D

My situation wasn't quite as nice as his, which sounds perfect, but worked nicely. OJC was 5 miles from the house and 6 miles from the office. The golf club was on the way.

alfadog said:
While I yield to the voice of experience, did you also have the same time considerations? I.e. that making it to the appointment on time was of paramount consideration. That was the feeling that I got from the OP and why I said it did not sound like such a great idea. To have to be somewhere 160nm away in three hours 10x per month.
Click to expand...
 
Faster for sure, but you're giving up a lot in terms of ease of handling, straight-forward flight characteristics and creature comforts that are inherent in the fleet of factory-built planes you could consider. For example, do you want air conditioning?

truk9889 said:
I thought faster is better for my mission? It burns 15 gph at that speed.
Click to expand...
 
truk9889 said:
I thought faster is better for my mission? It burns 15 gph at that speed.
Click to expand...

Faster is always better.

The point wayne is trying to make is that for a 160nm trip, a 100kt plane vs a 200kt plane wont make a huge deal.

Say it takes you 1 hour total to: Commute to airport, preflight, taxi, takeoff, turn on course, enter pattern, land, tie down. (Everything but en-route portion where you are at cruise speed)

This number does not change if you have a lancair or a 172. Might even be quicker in a more simple airplane like 172. (shorter preflight, run up, less electronics to fiddle with).

A 115kt 172 will take 1.4 hours to make the flight.

A 240kt lancair about .7 hours to make the flight

So for your troubles the total (referred to as block time FYI) time required to make the trip:

172: 2.4 hours
Lancair 1.7 hours

You haven't really saved that much time.



What I said earlier was to buy what you want. If you really want a Lancair, buy that as long as you know what you are getting into. And by that I mean maintenance, keeping current (sounds like you will) and keeping yourself sharp. It takes a lot more skill, discipline and recurrent training to safely operate a high performance airplane like the Lancair. But if you love the plane, can afford it, and are willing to dedicate extra time to training.. By all means go for it!

What different airplanes have you flown and what did you like/dislike about them?
 
Last edited:
truk9889 said:
I thought faster is better for my mission?
Click to expand...

P-51? L39?

p51Large1.jpg


L-39ZA_2008-1.jpg
 
Ken Ibold said:
Let's do the math. For the sake of argument, let's say 160 nm would take you, what, 2.5 hours to drive.

If you fly, figure 0.75 hours to drive to the airport, preflight and launch. Then 1 hour to fly there in a speedy retract. Then 0.5 hours to taxi in, park, register with the FBO, and get to your office. By my math, that's a pretty hefty pricetag to save 15 minutes.

Obviously these numbers are picked out of a hat, as I don't know where you live or where you're going. Break down your trip into little chunks though and you'll find that on a trip that short, the cruise speed of the airplane will be largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

For me, that is equivalent to a trip from Dallas to Austin and a 3.5 to 4 hour drive with normal traffic. I'd rather fly that trip than drive whenever possible, even if it wasn't for the time savings.

I do agree with the response that cruise speed is not as important. But, maybe more important to take a hard look at real cost of driving vs flying since this sounds like a biz expense ... unless of course you are Jeff Beezos and costs in this case are nothing but a rounding error.
 
ssonixx said:
I do agree with the response that cruise speed is not as important. But, maybe more important to take a hard look at real cost of driving vs flying since this sounds like a biz expense ... unless of course you are Jeff Beezos and costs in this case are nothing but a rounding error.
Click to expand...

True but the OP's time might be worth $150+ per hour and if he saves 2-3 hours on a round trip it makes up for the difference.
 
What I'm not seeing is your budget (both purchase and operating), your experience and qualifications (other than single-engine only), and your payload needs. Let's get those down before we start making suggestions.
 
The Dallas-Austin trip is an even more-interesting case study because SWA is in the mix with hourly departures both ways. So my door-to-door time from North Dallas to the kids house in SW Austin in the plane is slightly less than SWA, and in theory just a bit faster than driving assuming the orange cones and mixmaster don't rise up to smite me on I-35. All of the modes have some inherent risks and aggravations, but on balance the little airplane acquits itself quite well.


ssonixx said:
For me, that is equivalent to a trip from Dallas to Austin and a 3.5 to 4 hour drive with normal traffic. I'd rather fly that trip than drive whenever possible, even if it wasn't for the time savings.

I do agree with the response that cruise speed is not as important. But, maybe more important to take a hard look at real cost of driving vs flying since this sounds like a biz expense ... unless of course you are Jeff Beezos and costs in this case are nothing but a rounding error.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_792962_RUTAN+VARIEZE.html

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_792569_VERI+EZE.html

Gas is going to be one of the major cost factors. Go VariEze. You don't need two big seats, or 4, or anything more than one good seat. This is about as good as it gets. Even if you have to pay someone to maintain it, still far and away the best bang for the solo buck.

If you want to do std AW cert these are good:

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_796760_1969+AA1+Grumman+Yankee+12500.html

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_745374_1969+GRUMMAN+AA-1+YANKEE.html
 
ifr with about 250 hours mostly in 172s thats all thats available around here. budget for the plane is 250k with an annual operating cost of 25k. 90% of the time it will be just myself 6'1 200lbs
 
Last edited:
I think you can find a plane you will be very happy to own for much less than your budget. Alternatively, if you want to find the best candidate in that price range you can have a reeeallly nice plane.

truk9889 said:
ifr with about 250 hours mostly in 172s thats all thats available around here. budget for the plane is 250k with an annual operating cost of 25k. 90% of the time it will be just myself 6'1 200lbs
Click to expand...
 
tonycondon said:
you're being too ambitious.

get a 150.
Click to expand...

acluffpoa said:
It would take a very fast plane to make a difference over a 160 nm trip. Very fast = expensive.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

OP: This one would be perfect for your needs if 80-90% of your trips are solo.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1968/Cessna/150H/1644360.html

Modern Panel. IFR. A good bird to take care of the primary mission of your business, and secondary of building time and getting an IFR certificate.

Easy on the budget to operate and maintain. And a strong market to sell too once you really do need to upgrade.
 
truk9889 said:
ifr with about 250 hours mostly in 172s thats all thats available around here. budget for the plane is 250k with an annual operating cost of 25k. 90% of the time it will be just myself 6'1 200lbs
Click to expand...
Let's see -- 10 times a month is 120 round trips a year, with about 2 hours or a bit more each round trip, or some 240-300 hours a year, depending on speed. Divide that $25K/year by 240-300 hours/year, and that's an operating cost of $80-100/hour. The turbocharged, high performance, pressurized, retractables about which you've been talking cost at least twice, maybe three times that per hour in operating costs.

For an operating budget of $80-100 per hour over 240 hours a year, with $250K to spend on purchase, you're looking at something in the 4-seat, fixed-gear 180-200HP class, like a new or nearly-new Cirrus SR20, Diamond DA40, Piper Archer, or Cessna 172SP. For trip lengths of 160nm, those will give you nearly the same times door-to-door as the fire-breathers about which you have been talking, but within the operating budget you desire. I'd suggest you try to fly the all and see which one makes you happiest. In addition, there are legacy aircraft which would fill the same bill but with less than half the initial investment include the legacy Cessna 172/177, PA28-161/181, Grumman Cheetah/Tiger, and Beech Sundowner -- decide if you want to save some investment money by going that route.
 
The man says he has a budget of 250k for a plane and you guys are going to suggest a 150? Are you kidding? I owned a 150 and had to take it on a 105 nm trip once when my Lancair was down for maintenance. A little headwind combined with climbing over a hill made it a 2 hour trip instead of 40 minutes in the Lancair. No autopilot and a yoke instead of a stick gave my arm a charlie horse. The slower speed amounted to a larger fuel bill for the privilege.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top