Hangar space issue

I just hope that when my time comes (it does for all of us) I have the wherewithal to send the aircraft on its way rather than let it rot.
 
You’d think it would be easy enough just for an airport to require a copy of an airplane’s annual inspection each year stating the plane is flyable. If not - lease expires in 60 days, eviction begins, property auctioned off, etc.
 
I’m about to move. But my first call will be to local airports asking for a hangar. No hangar, I will go to the next location on my list. I’m pretty sure I am not the only one who does this. Their loss.


Tom
 
That’s how you end up in Peoria

BTW. I grew up in Southern Illinois. Peoria is a nice place
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Fewer airports?
And, yea, tiedowns seem to have gone out of favor.
Click to expand...

As they should. For me, it is disturbing to see a nice airplane tied down in the weather to rot. If it were impossible for me to have, at the very least a hail shed, I would not own an airplane.

That said, maybe it’s easy for me to say that because our airport manager won’t put up with non aviation use of a hangar. He won’t even put up with a non airworthy aircraft in a hangar. As a result there is one 150 that is on the ramp and the couple that own it both work for an airline and have very little work right now. I think they choose to put it out there. Our airport manager tries to hangar planes at all cost. When a storm is coming in, he tries to find an empty hanger to use for that 150 until the storm passes.

We don’t have a huge airport, but it’s not small. There is a significant museum full of AIRWORTHY warbirds, a half dozen Citations on the field along with a few King Airs, and probably 70 or 80 nice, fully enclosed T hangars and six 65 x 60 hangars like mine.

Our airport manager is the best! My point is, if all the GA airports were managed like ours, there would probably be enough Hangar space for the airplanes that are actually flown.

BTW, this is a municipal airport!
 
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
As they should. For me, it is disturbing to see a nice airplane tied down in the weather to rot. If it were impossible for me to have, at the very least a hail shed, I would not own an airplane.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not everyone is rich. I can’t afford a hangar or hangar rent. There are three C150s at my airport in hangars, and my C150 outside tied down. Mine has flown 60 times this year. The others have flown 0.

Which one is more disturbing?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Yes, but not everyone is rich. I can’t afford a hangar or hangar rent. There are three C150s at my airport in hangars, and my C150 outside tied down. Mine has flown 60 times this year. The others have flown 0.

Which one is more disturbing?
Click to expand...

What is most disturbing is that your airport is letting airplanes that are flown sit outside while the ones rotting are occupying hangars while doing it. That doesn’t mean I am not disturbed to see any decent plane out in the elements. If airports were properly managed, it would be better for everyone who is actively flying their aircraft.
 
Take care of your own. Want a hangar? Buy one. Build one. Nobody owes you anything. If the other guy wants to tie outside? Not your business.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Local politics can be like that unfortunately. That being said, the FAA regional or national offices are above local politics, and can cut through it. The airport manager or whoever is in charge will get the message when the federal funding not only gets cut off, but also have to repay the last 20 years of grants.

Pretty sure this is the right office

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arp/offices/app/app500/app520/
Click to expand...
similar happened not too far from me. Local government was planning to close the derelict airport. FAA rep was at the meeting. Needless to say, not only is the airport open, but has two brand new hangars, nice FBO, new self serve fuel, fresh repaved runway. Something about untold numbers of dollars to be paid back to the fed, immediately, or be used for what it was intended.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I can see that here, our tie downs are only used for transients anymore. Granted, in our climate zone your airplane would be unusable for months at a time if left outside, not to mention what it does to the plane.
Click to expand...
Here the tiedowns are full, because the hangars are full. Not because folks would rather be tied down outside. We have a taxiway, about 2500 feet long, with space for hangars on each side. No-one is fool enough to build there, as once you build a hangar per the spec. set forth by the airport. It belongs to them.
 
kyleb said:
The reason there are not more t-hangars at "popular" airports is the airport is trying to hold space for the next big-box corporate hangar which will come with jet tenants who buy lots of gas and pay lots of property taxes.

The rabble with their piston rattletraps are not their preferred customers.
Click to expand...
But those folks are not fool enough to give away .5m to the airport, in addition to taxes, and fuel purchase.
 
Stewartb said:
Take care of your own. Want a hangar? Buy one. Build one. Nobody owes you anything. If the other guy wants to tie outside? Not your business.
Click to expand...

Good in principle, but in urban areas, there may be zero options. You wanna rent, build, or buy a hangar within 50 miles of where I live? You'll be on a list for years to rent, none are for sale, and the airports are not granting new land leases.
 
Stewartb said:
Take care of your own. Want a hangar? Buy one. Build one. Nobody owes you anything. If the other guy wants to tie outside? Not your business.
Click to expand...
None for sale. So, must build one. Let's see; ~7k for site work, ~$25k for slab, and apron, $100-$150k for steel hangar, ~$25k+ to get it erected, $10-$25k for water, septic, and electrical. And there's probably another 20k for various, and sundries. So we'll ballpark $250k, plus land lease 5 years up front. And after 10 years the hangar belongs to the airport, and you get to pay them rent on it. That is why there is a 2500' taxiway here, with good level land on each side of it, with nothing on it. The rules don't allow covered tiedowns, and no wood frame construction.
 
So, why the hate towards homebuilders? Hangar next to mine used to be occupied by a guy building a RV something - other than the fact that he was at the airport more than 99.9% of the other owners, why is this a problem? You want a ghost town or a community?
 
Well, much of the "hate" comes from the FAA. They believe grant-taking airports should only be for active aviation activities. Ancillary stuff like actually building aircraft or other encouragement of aviation are interlopers and should be banned. While I understand controlling some stuff that would interfere with the intent of the airport (and grants), some of the restrictions for both on-airport an ttf activities is really too restrictive.
 
flyingron said:
Well, much of the "hate" comes from the FAA. They believe grant-taking airports should only be for active aviation activities. Ancillary stuff like actually building aircraft or other encouragement of aviation are interlopers and should be banned. While I understand controlling some stuff that would interfere with the intent of the airport (and grants), some of the restrictions for both on-airport an ttf activities is really too restrictive.
Click to expand...

it’s my understanding that the FAA has backed off from not including home building an aircraft as an aviation activity. I mean, God forbid that an airplane is built.....at an airport.

I will be moving out of NE Wisconsin soon (not my idea....) and the prospect of finding a hangar capable of housing my RV as well as my Hatz project scares the begeezes out of me, especially since my wife has no idea where she wants to move to, so I have not been able to begin the process.
 
bluerooster said:
None for sale. So, must build one. Let's see; ~7k for site work, ~$25k for slab, and apron, $100-$150k for steel hangar, ~$25k+ to get it erected, $10-$25k for water, septic, and electrical. And there's probably another 20k for various, and sundries. So we'll ballpark $250k, plus land lease 5 years up front. And after 10 years the hangar belongs to the airport, and you get to pay them rent on it. That is why there is a 2500' taxiway here, with good level land on each side of it, with nothing on it. The rules don't allow covered tiedowns, and no wood frame construction.
Click to expand...

I was gonna try and work your home airport's boondoggle into the conversation. A developer convinced the airport it was sitting on a gold mine, and at county/airport expense built a 2500' taxiway with hangar spaces surrounding it.

No hangars haves been built after 10 years because the restrictions, lease rates and terms are so extreme they don't even come close to making sense. I even have friends in the commercial construction industry who have looked at building hangars there for their own use and can't make the numbers work. But the developer was right. The airport is/was a goldmine. For them... (once).
 
I live exactly 30 minutes from three different airports. All 3 have instrument approaches and runways that are at least 6000' long so they are all capable of jet traffic.

  • Airport 1 is a regional airport with Delta and American on one side and an FBO on the other. - Hangar rent is through the roof if you can even get one. Fuel is currently $4.62/ gallon. You have to deal with a tower and security clearance.
  • Airport 2 is a GA airport with a city run FBO - Hangar rent is $400/ month is you can get one. Fuel is currently $3.69/ gallon. No tower.
  • Airport 3 is a GA airport with a city run FBO. - Hangar rent is $250/ month if you can get one. Fuel is currently $3.29/ gallon. No tower.
Airport 3 is experiencing a great deal of growth as is airport 2.


Guess where my plane is...
 
flyingron said:
Well, much of the "hate" comes from the FAA. They believe grant-taking airports should only be for active aviation activities. Ancillary stuff like actually building aircraft or other encouragement of aviation are interlopers and should be banned. While I understand controlling some stuff that would interfere with the intent of the airport (and grants), some of the restrictions for both on-airport an ttf activities is really too restrictive.
Click to expand...

As others have stated, restoration and aircraft construction are now considered "aviation activities". Problem solved. But for 90% of places, the low hanging fruit was always hangars being used for boat storage, car storage, commercial (non-aviation) purposes, etc. All it takes is a little resolve on the part of the Airport Authority.
 
On the broader question by the OP, decades ago every little rural farm center town had an airport. With steady urbanization both the people and the best paying jobs to make money are now in the cities. That's probably concentrating the privately owned GA airplanes too, and putting pressure on the airports near urban centres where the desire to find hangar space is greatest.

I'm at a fairly expensive regional airport. It has steadily gone upscale. In the early 1980s when I first moved there, a Bonanza or turbo Mooney was a top end private airplane. Now a Cirrus is meh, and we've got quite a few privately owned Meridians, TBMs and some jets. I'd move, but I'd have to go to a rural airport that adds 25 minutes to the drive in the other direction, and has very limited services.

Radar Contact said:
At my airport, it’s because people that have nothing to do with aviation have figured out hangars are cheaper than any other space of similar size/door. Just for curiosity I’d love to know the percentage that have planes (flyable or not) vs those that don’t. That being said, I don’t know of anyone looking for a hangar in my area unable to acquire one and the hangar association/airport bills are being paid.
Click to expand...

This is what's happened at my airport. Mostly guys with large car and motorcycle collections. One of these with an exotic car collection has the airframe of a partially completed BD5, without the Honda engine, hanging from his roof trusses and the airport authority lets him get away with it as "qualifying".
 
GRG55 said:
On the broader question by the OP, decades ago every little rural farm center town had an airport. With steady urbanization both the people and the best paying jobs to make money are now in the cities. That's probably concentrating the privately owned GA airplanes too, and putting pressure on the airports near urban centers where the desire to find hangar space is greatest.
Click to expand...

Even worse, the pressure on "open land" near growing cities is resulting in the loss of airports. Here in the Atlanta area, we had fields at Stone Mountain, Mathis, South Fulton, Parkaire, and probably others which have closed during my memory.

So we have fewer GA airports tying to service a municipal area that has grown tremendously. That creates a problem for GA. If you want to go 50 miles from Atlanta, you might find a hangar reasonably quickly.
 
Stewartb said:
Take care of your own. Want a hangar? Buy one. Build one. Nobody owes you anything. If the other guy wants to tie outside? Not your business.
Click to expand...

Correct! It’s none of my business, and I never said it was, but it still disturbs me when I see part of the remaining fleet rotting into the ground in the weather. I still contend that if the airports were properly managed it would be good for everyone.
 
Stewartb said:
Take care of your own. Want a hangar? Buy one. Build one. Nobody owes you anything. If the other guy wants to tie outside? Not your business.
Click to expand...

I would LOVE to build one. There's tons of space at some of the popular airports nearby but the county won't allow any new hangars. Privately owned, operated for rent, etc, no more hangars will ever be built here according to the county.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, why the hate towards homebuilders? Hangar next to mine used to be occupied by a guy building a RV something - other than the fact that he was at the airport more than 99.9% of the other owners, why is this a problem? You want a ghost town or a community?
Click to expand...

Hate towards home builders? I’ve never seen that. Who hates them?
 
Ryanb said:
What kind of changes would you suggest?
Click to expand...

I would suggest simply enforcing the lease agreements. Every lease agreement I’ve signed which includes three different municipal airports had clauses that required that the hangars be used only for aviation purposes and aircraft be airworthy. They varied from requiring the aircraft occupying the hangar be within six to twelve months of current annual.

It’s all too common in most all areas of our society for people to just believe that rules apply to everyone else, but not to themselves.
 
Ryanb said:
What kind of changes would you suggest?
Click to expand...

I would suggest simply enforcing the lease agreements. Every lease agreement I’ve signed which includes three different municipal airports had clauses that required that the hangars be used only for aviation purposes and aircraft be airworthy. They varied from requiring the aircraft occupying the hangar be within six to twelve months of current annual.

It’s all too common in most all areas of our society for people to just believe that rules apply to everyone else, but not to themselves.
 
As a side note if anyone on here is near KMUT, we just finished building 3 new hangars. Insulated with electric and natural gas. I don't remember if there is water.
2 - 45x35 (1 taken) and a 50x70. Main rwy is 5500x100 with ILS.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
I was gonna try and work your home airport's boondoggle into the conversation. A developer convinced the airport it was sitting on a gold mine, and at county/airport expense built a 2500' taxiway with hangar spaces surrounding it.

No hangars haves been built after 10 years because the restrictions, lease rates and terms are so extreme they don't even come close to making sense. I even have friends in the commercial construction industry who have looked at building hangars there for their own use and can't make the numbers work. But the developer was right. The airport is/was a goldmine. For them... (once).
Click to expand...
What's really the kicker is that the airport recently built 2 more rows of T hangars, next to the existing t hangars. They had to flatten the hill to do it. Why they didn't build next to the taxiway on flat ground, is beyond me.

And the airport could still be a gold mine. But they have to get over the Stupid stuff, and get right with their priorities. While the land lease is not too bad, the restrictions, and handing it over to the county for free is a deal breaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top