Help me choose too

J

Jim Logajan

En-Route
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
4,024
Display Name
Display name:
.
Looked through the "Help me choose" thread and while there were some interesting planes mentioned, my desired characteristics don't quite match the original criteria. I'm looking for something that meets the following:

Just 2 seats; ideally side-by-side.
Pilot and passenger weigh no more than 340 lbs together.
Baggage to 100 lbs.
Cruises at 120 kts+ @ <6000 ft for at least 4 hrs (i.e. range 480+ nm) with above stated baggage and people on board.

The problem is actually one of narrowing down the possibilities since the criteria are met by too many planes - and I have knowledge of only a small number of models. Naturally expense should be as low as safely possible (i.e. it'll be "pre-owned".) Experimentals are OK too. No preference for high or low wing - but should have a nose gear.

Replies that contain only make and model that meet the criteria would be quite all right - I should be able to take it from there - so long as I can find more info on the web using that ID info.

Actually if anyone knows of a web site where you can plug the above criteria into search fields and have it pop out a list of aircraft models that meet the requested criteria that would be great!
 
Jim Logajan said:
Looked through the "Help me choose" thread and while there were some interesting planes mentioned, my desired characteristics don't quite match the original criteria. I'm looking for something that meets the following:

Just 2 seats; ideally side-by-side.
Pilot and passenger weigh no more than 340 lbs together.
Baggage to 100 lbs.
Cruises at 120 kts+ @ <6000 ft for at least 4 hrs (i.e. range 480+ nm) with above stated baggage and people on board.

[snip]
Click to expand...

I think a grumman tiger would meet your criteria, except for
the "just 2 seats". However, just don't fill them or, if you like,
take out the backseats (and tell your insurance company).
 
Two-seaters are relatively rare in the GA fleet, and most function in a training capacity and don't go fast or far. Globe swifts, Liberty XL2's, Diamonds and Symphony aircraft all meet your criteria. The former are rare vintage aircraft with their own issues, the latter are all new and quite pricey. If you're wedded to two seats with the speed and range, then you will want to look in the experimental market, as that is likely to deliver more bang for the buck.

That said, there are plenty of four-seat GA aircraft that can easily match your criteria, and there are plenty of examples to be had. Like Bob said, you can always leave them empty. My back seats don't fit much beyond midgets anyway.
 
Lancair 235, 320, or 360. Just make sure to get the proper training in how to fly it.
 
RVs, Lanceairs, Glastars, Glasairs, Tangos, Mustangs, the list goes on. Experimental aircraft designs abound in two seat designs that fly like a bat out of hell. I myself would not recommend one for a first ownership experience, though. There is a raft of issues involved in ownership, and another with experimental aircraft ownership. I myself would recommend a certificated design for your first ownership experience. Even if it doesn't meet all your parameters, it will meet enough to be worthwhile. Experimental aircraft have numerous advantages, some of which are evident from today's crop of posts.
 
You don't need a Tiger -- Grumman Cheetahs will do it. TAS ranges from about 118 knots down low to about 122 knots at 8000 feeet on 8.5 gph, and will give you 120 knots at 6000 comfortably. You can fold the back seat flat and carry 150 lb of stuff with two people up front and six hours of fuel (four hours cruise plus a long alternate plus reserve).

Grumman AA-1's will not do it, even with the big engine. They'll give you the speed, but not the payload or range requested. They only carry 22 gallons standard, and even with the available aux tanks, 32 gallons, which is barely four hours flying on an O-320 engine running at power levels necessary to give 120 KTAS, no less reserve/alternate fuel. "Mean" Gene Plazak down at DMA SpeedMods in Houston has been working on a gross weight increase for the STC-modified O-320-powered AA-1's, and that would solve most of those problems, but he's been working on that for quite a while with no results yet, and there's no expansion of fuel capacity, just a payload increase.

I've got about 20 hours in the XL2, and I don't remember it being quite as fast as 120 KTAS (although close -- 115-118, IIRC). In addition, with just two of us (weighing about 340 lb) plus nav bags (maybe 30 lb baggage), we had to short-fuel it (about 17 gallons total, IIRC) to stay under MGW. Book useful load is 588 lb, and when you take out 440 lb of payload, that leaves only 148 lb of fuel, which is 24 gallons. That's only about four hours of flying with no reserve, and doesn't account for any optional equipment (like the wheel fairings you need to go that fast).

All in all, you're not going to get what you want from any "standard" production 2-seater. They design them to be economical trainers, not XC haulers, and just don't put enough power in them (100-125 HP) to haul that much load that fast that far. However, an O-320-powered 4-seater can do just what you want, and give you more room for your 100 lb of baggage plus the ability to haul another person (or two kids) or more baggage when desired.

Obviously, if you go RG, you can get more speed from the same power, but that also costs more to buy, insure, and maintain. Also, if you want to dig into the Experimental-Amateur Built market, your options expand rapidly, but then you run into other issues, starting with "Who built this thing and how well did s/he build it?"
 
Last edited:
I would further point out that a Cherokee 180 in proper trim will do the speed and has the legs. The pre 70's models don't even have much of a back seat.
 
steingar said:
I would further point out that a Cherokee 180 in proper trim will do the speed and has the legs. The pre 70's models don't even have much of a back seat.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. The club's 1969 Arrow has never seen anyone in the back seat when I've flown it. Nobody I like that little has ever flown with me. :D
 
I routinely put people in the back seat, but they usually sit behind me, since I am quite vertically challenged. I've had the seats full of adults, but three of us were of minimal mass. But a Cherokee will do what the OP wants, and they're a lot cheaper than the equivalent Grummans too.
 
Thanks so far for the many replies - much appreciated. Some clarifications:

Recommendations for airplane having more than 2 seats is fine, but the expectation is that more seats means more cost, hence the 2 seat minimum. Thankfully no one has suggested a Boeing 747, which technically meets all but one of the criteria (fails the "expense should be as low as safely possible" criteria by a hefty margin.)

So while an RV-6A, 7A, and 9A (and possibly the 12A) and fast-glass airplanes all meet the requirements, I believe that tend to exceed them enough that even the least expensive used ones go for $50k and up.

Price is always a consideration - the trick seems to be finding the airplane that meets the criteria with the least cost. I hadn't previously known anything about the various Grumman models, so that information has been helpful.
 
Jim Logajan said:
So while an RV-6A, 7A, and 9A (and possibly the 12A) and fast-glass airplanes all meet the requirements, I believe that tend to exceed them enough that even the least expensive used ones go for $50k and up.

Price is always a consideration - the trick seems to be finding the airplane that meets the criteria with the least cost. I hadn't previously known anything about the various Grumman models, so that information has been helpful.
Click to expand...
I believe that a T-18 will give you better speed for the $ than the glass stuff. But, you said you wanted an airplane with the tailwheel on the wrong end :dunno:.

:D
 
Last edited:
I went through this myself. The Cherokee 180 will be the greatest bang for the least buck in terms of cost to get to 120, although one out of trim and poorly cared for won't even do that. But if you want the most speed for the least buck, I'd say the Mooney M20C or E. You have to do the retractable thing, but manual gear and hydraulic flaps keep the failure rate down and the maintenance cheap. But the looks are extreme, and they don't fit big people very well at all.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Looked through the "Help me choose" thread and while there were some interesting planes mentioned, my desired characteristics don't quite match the original criteria. I'm looking for something that meets the following:

Just 2 seats; ideally side-by-side.
Pilot and passenger weigh no more than 340 lbs together.
Baggage to 100 lbs.
Cruises at 120 kts+ @ <6000 ft for at least 4 hrs (i.e. range 480+ nm) with above stated baggage and people on board.

The problem is actually one of narrowing down the possibilities since the criteria are met by too many planes - and I have knowledge of only a small number of models. Naturally expense should be as low as safely possible (i.e. it'll be "pre-owned".) Experimentals are OK too. No preference for high or low wing - but should have a nose gear.

Replies that contain only make and model that meet the criteria would be quite all right - I should be able to take it from there - so long as I can find more info on the web using that ID info.

Actually if anyone knows of a web site where you can plug the above criteria into search fields and have it pop out a list of aircraft models that meet the requested criteria that would be great!
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you need to supply more criteria to get a good match. First of all, why only two seats? As someone else pointed out, "modern" non-LSA certified two seaters are fairly rare because the market is very small except for dedicated trainers. And most "four seaters" are really two person airplanes when loaded with full fuel and some baggage. Finally there's very little penalty, cost wise (purchase and operational) between a two seat plane and one with four seats if they both have about the same payload. There are some "classic" two seat designs that meet most of your stated criteria except for the tricycle gear. Finally there are plenty of 2 seat LSAs out there but since most if not all are of recent manufacture, you aren't likely to find any "inexpensive" ones today.

In the homebuilt world, there are a lot more choices for airplanes with only two seats, almost in complete opposite ratios as the certified choices. The most popular by far are the various RVs, and particularly the RV-7 with side by side seating and a nosewheel. There are some significant cost benefits of going with a homebuilt although IME most of the better built ones command prices similar to the LSAs, e.g. not what I would call "inexpensive". And a low price might mean some build quality issues that you wouldn't want to tangle with.

In the homebuilt arena you'd also have to choose between aluminum and plastic construction. Typically plastic offers both better performance/economy and better opportunities for hidden defects and/or excess weight. Personally, I'd much prefer to purchase a metal homebuilt than a plastic one unless I was intimately familiar with it's construction, but would rather fly a plastic one due to the performance advantages. Homebuilts also give you greater opportunities WRT owner maintenance (more savings) as well as a multitude of affordable choices for avionics that can't be installed in a certified airplane.

Do you have a specific purchase and hourly operating cost in mind?

Are you dead set against a taildragger?

Does cabin width and/or height pose any concerns?

Would you want to perform as much of the maintenance yourself as possible to save money?

What climate will you normally be operating in?
 
Jim Logajan said:
Just 2 seats; ideally side-by-side.
Pilot and passenger weigh no more than 340 lbs together.
Baggage to 100 lbs.
Cruises at 120 kts+ @ <6000 ft for at least 4 hrs (i.e. range 480+ nm) with above stated baggage and people on board.

Naturally expense should be as low as safely possible (i.e. it'll be "pre-owned".) Experimentals are OK too. No preference for high or low wing - but should have a nose gear.
Click to expand...

Here you go:

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=1174664

2004 Diamond DA20 for $63,900. It'll haul the load, cruise at 130, range 500+. It's fixed gear, burns 5.5 gph and is certified.

As long as you don't want to go IFR, it sounds like your perfect airplane!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
2004 Diamond DA20 for $63,900. It'll haul the load, cruise at 130, range 500+. It's fixed gear, burns 5.5 gph and is certified.
Click to expand...
I've heard such claims of the DA20 before, but am still waiting to actually see one do it. If anyone has a DA20 that can carry a 440 lb payload 500nm at 130 KTAS starting with full tanks and burning only 22 gallons of fuel, I'd really like to see that. But even if it can, the 2 gallons remaining of the 24 gallons usable is only 22 minutes of fuel, so you don't even have VFR reserves, no less IFR.
 
gismo said:
I'm afraid you need to supply more criteria to get a good match. First of all, why only two seats?
Click to expand...

I worded the criteria wrong - I intended to mean that 2 seats was the minimum required, but no more than 2 would likely ever be occupied. So 4 seats would be OK so long as they didn't come at a premium. Based on your answer and that of others 4 seats is the norm.

As someone else pointed out, "modern" non-LSA certified two seaters are fairly rare because the market is very small except for dedicated trainers. And most "four seaters" are really two person airplanes when loaded with full fuel and some baggage. Finally there's very little penalty, cost wise (purchase and operational) between a two seat plane and one with four seats if they both have about the same payload. There are some "classic" two seat designs that meet most of your stated criteria except for the tricycle gear. Finally there are plenty of 2 seat LSAs out there but since most if not all are of recent manufacture, you aren't likely to find any "inexpensive" ones today.
Click to expand...
Ironically I'm somewhat more familiar with what is available in the experimental world (I thought someday of building my own - but eventually concluded would rather fly than build) and as you note (and I hadn't really known,) 2-seaters are more common among homebuilts than among certified.

In the homebuilt world, there are a lot more choices for airplanes with only two seats, almost in complete opposite ratios as the certified choices. The most popular by far are the various RVs, and particularly the RV-7 with side by side seating and a nosewheel. There are some significant cost benefits of going with a homebuilt although IME most of the better built ones command prices similar to the LSAs, e.g. not what I would call "inexpensive". And a low price might mean some build quality issues that you wouldn't want to tangle with.

In the homebuilt arena you'd also have to choose between aluminum and plastic construction. Typically plastic offers both better performance/economy and better opportunities for hidden defects and/or excess weight. Personally, I'd much prefer to purchase a metal homebuilt than a plastic one unless I was intimately familiar with it's construction, but would rather fly a plastic one due to the performance advantages. Homebuilts also give you greater opportunities WRT owner maintenance (more savings) as well as a multitude of affordable choices for avionics that can't be installed in a certified airplane.

Do you have a specific purchase and hourly operating cost in mind?
Click to expand...
Purchase price under $35k, if that is possible within my criteria. Given rents in my area, operating costs well under about $80/hr. A wild guess of my own likely flying would be on the order of 80 to 120 hours a year (borderline for a purchase, if I understand correctly. But superior availability over rentals might be key decider. Probably would overnight more often than not.)

Are you dead set against a taildragger?
Click to expand...
Long answer to a simple question: I'm still a student pilot with only about 6 hours of power as of this evening (C-152; e.g. I just got done a couple hours ago of practicing stalls) and 13 hours of glider time (SGS 2-33A a couple years back). If I do purchase, it would likely be within the next year or so. Naturally I'm getting ahead of myself by asking now! But I'm already finding myself booking commercial flights of under 1000 nm once or twice a month. (E.g. Central Oregon to SF Bay area.) If it wasn't for the projected travel to business meetings I wouldn't even be considering a purchase. Also, I'd probably opt for getting an IFR rating before a taildragger endorsement - unless there was a compelling reason to reverse that priority.

Speaking of IFR: I suppose I could include IFR equipped as a criteria but I suppose I'd have to up the amount I'd be willing to spend - correct?

Does cabin width and/or height pose any concerns?
Click to expand...
I'm 5' 9" and 170 lbs and my wife is even smaller, so I don't think there should be any height (or weight!) issues. (The 340 lbs was being pessimistic - I swear! :wink2:) The C-152 seems a bit cozy, so anything wider than that would be preferred.

Would you want to perform as much of the maintenance yourself as possible to save money?
Click to expand...
That would be nice, and would be a reason to include homebuilts. But not essential.

What climate will you normally be operating in?
Click to expand...
I'm in Oregon, so Pacific northwest/west coast (i.e. northern Washington to southern California, with occasional forays elsewhere in the west to about the Rockies. Be neat to use it to visit relatives in Minnesota and Illinois once or twice a year.)
 
Hmm - $35k already seems optimistic based on some of the suggested options. If it costs more than $45k to meet what I thought was modest criteria, then I may scrub the idea and rent as needed.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Cruises at 120 kts+ @ <6000 ft for at least 4 hrs (i.e. range 480+ nm) with above stated baggage and people on board.
Click to expand...

Just FYI: my 4 hrs is with no reserve. Call it 3 hrs plus a generous 1 hr VFR reserve.

Typical example: I know it takes me 10+ hours to drive from Creswell Oregon to San Jose California. It would be nice to spend less than 3.5 hours flying to the same destination (about 400 nm straightline distance) with a refueling stop in there somewhere. Probably 4 to 5 hours door-to-door, which I estimate is less than the time it recently took me for a commercial flight from door to door (probably closer to 6 for commercial!) Hence the 120 kt criteria.

Also, the commercial flight cost about $450 - but I had to drive 2 hrs to Portland to catch it - and another 2 hr drive return. Assuming ~7 hrs round trip via GA, amortized cost factor would have to be at or around ~$64/hr.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Hmm - $35k already seems optimistic based on some of the suggested options. If it costs more than $45k to meet what I thought was modest criteria, then I may scrub the idea and rent as needed.
Click to expand...

If and when you do purchase, you're likely to find that the acquisition cost is but small potatoes compared to owning and operating costs and both of those vary considerably with make/model, location, and experience. I hate to be discouraging to anyone just getting into aviation but more often than not owning an airplane, especially one suitable for business travel is actually more expensive than renting. And because of that, for those who actually keep track of their flying costs, ownership desires/needs are often truly driven by intangibles like availability, customization, and status/pride (of ownership). And while this might not apply to you, in most cases folks who are barely into their PPL training will have significantly different ideas about what kind of airplane they want/need by the time they've passed their checkride and have flown several real cross country trips.

So have you looked into how the cost of hangaring, insurance, maintenance, recurrent training, and fuel will affect your ability to afford flying the trips you have in mind? A common thumb rule is to take the fuel cost and multiply by a factor of three to come up with a ballpark hourly cost for flying 100 hrs per year, excluding the cost of the airplane purchase itself. And if you live in a high cost of living area you might use a factor of four.

I think you'll also find that a 120 Kt airplane is a bit on the slow side to compete with other forms of travel unless your destinations are actually airports. Some reasons for that are the preparation, preflight, and taxi time that's unique to aviation plus the time and expense of local ground transport. And specifically related to airspeed is the issue of winds and altitude restrictions that can reduce your 120 Kt cruise speed to less than 80 over the ground (e.g. bumpy or ice laden clouds keeping you below 6000 MSL and a 30+ Kt headwind). A faster, more capable airplane is less affected by such issues but the operating costs will be higher. Now if you're trip schedules are reasonably flexible the occasional flights where you're being passed by the cars on the freeway below won't matter as much except for the frustration.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've heard such claims of the DA20 before, but am still waiting to actually see one do it. If anyone has a DA20 that can carry a 440 lb payload 500nm at 130 KTAS starting with full tanks and burning only 22 gallons of fuel, I'd really like to see that. But even if it can, the 2 gallons remaining of the 24 gallons usable is only 22 minutes of fuel, so you don't even have VFR reserves, no less IFR.
Click to expand...
I have a fair amount of XC time in them and it'd be close. I don't think I'd plan a 500 mile leg without tailwinds. The fuel would be way too close.

130 knots at 6ish GPH in them is realistic.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Purchase price under $35k, if that is possible within my criteria. Given rents in my area, operating costs well under about $80/hr. A wild guess of my own likely flying would be on the order of 80 to 120 hours a year (borderline for a purchase, if I understand correctly. But superior availability over rentals might be key decider. Probably would overnight more often than not.)

Long answer to a simple question: I'm still a student pilot with only about 6 hours of power as of this evening (C-152; e.g. I just got done a couple hours ago of practicing stalls) and 13 hours of glider time (SGS 2-33A a couple years back). If I do purchase, it would likely be within the next year or so. Naturally I'm getting ahead of myself by asking now! But I'm already finding myself booking commercial flights of under 1000 nm once or twice a month. (E.g. Central Oregon to SF Bay area.) If it wasn't for the projected travel to business meetings I wouldn't even be considering a purchase.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't be considering purchase really. Most GA aircraft, and all the ones you are considering and in the budget you are looking are not capable of being used as reliable business transportation when schedules count. While you can go non deice and VFR some of the year on that route, you cannot do it for all of the year. If you need reliable business transport with a high dispatch reliability on that route, you are talking about at least $120,000 airplane and at least $350hr in operating expenses.

The lower end of the GA economic scale isn't really feasible for BA (Business Aviation). While depending on your geographic region you can use lower end GA planes for business travel, you need to be able to leave a three day window on either end of the trip, and typically, business travel doesn't allow for that.

Probably the most economically viable aircraft that you can use in a business mission is going to be a Known Ice equipped Seneca II, and to get a copy of one that isn't going to eat a new a-hole in your maintenance budget the day-year after you buy it, you're gonna spend over a $100k. Figure in a business roll on your route, the vast majority of your flights will contain at least take off or landing if not the entire route in IMC, and MEAs that will have you in icing.
 
Henning said:
Then you shouldn't be considering purchase really. Most GA aircraft, and all the ones you are considering and in the budget you are looking are not capable of being used as reliable business transportation when schedules count. While you can go non deice and VFR some of the year on that route, you cannot do it for all of the year. If you need reliable business transport with a high dispatch reliability on that route, you are talking about at least $120,000 airplane and at least $350hr in operating expenses.

The lower end of the GA economic scale isn't really feasible for BA (Business Aviation). While depending on your geographic region you can use lower end GA planes for business travel, you need to be able to leave a three day window on either end of the trip, and typically, business travel doesn't allow for that.

Probably the most economically viable aircraft that you can use in a business mission is going to be a Known Ice equipped Seneca II, and to get a copy of one that isn't going to eat a new a-hole in your maintenance budget the day-year after you buy it, you're gonna spend over a $100k. Figure in a business roll on your route, the vast majority of your flights will contain at least take off or landing if not the entire route in IMC, and MEAs that will have you in icing.
Click to expand...
I agree with Henning's analysis of the situation, based on the additional info you've supplied. Your equation requires you to consider far more variables than just cruise speed and range. Weather and terrain will be major concerns on your route.
 
Yeah, your mission is expensive, no doubt. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You really don't want to be on a super fixed schedule when you fly. Might tempt you to do something your shouldn't, and that's a really good way to wind up dead. I use my aircraft to go on holiday all the time, but take aluminum tubes for business.
 
On the other hand though, if these business trips are serving mostly to rationalize buying an airplane because you really want an airplane, and if you can manage to pull off 25% of your trips and be happy with that number as justification for that rationalization, then find a nice plane and enjoy the heck out of it, because you ought to be able to do it. It can be done on a $35k budget, but not particularly well. The way the market is, there are some interesting deals in older planes, especially twins and high performance singles. I just scored a pretty sweet deal on an excellent 310D airframe with a bonus of it being in flying condition. It's my favorite model of the 310 with the tuna tanks and swept tail. Hopefully the engines will last long enough to be able to put a pair of diesels in it when I need engines. I'll probably spend over $300,000 upgrading it in the next 3 years if the diesels become available. I've already spent what will turn into $45,000 upgrading the panel which is more than I spent on the plane (I bought it within your purchase budget, but even a very minimalistic budget will put that plane at $245 an hour in operating expenses.

I do this all so that when I have time off, I'll have a plane I actually want to fly, and if I have the diesels and TKS (it'll be a stretch, but I'm going to try) or de ice boots and gear on the plane, I can fly anywhere in the world (which is really what I want a plane for) on my 90-180 days off a year.

What is my rationalization? I have none. "I want it, I like it, I can afford this toy", that's it. Straight honesty. Aviation demands honesty like nothing else, and the most import person to be honest with is yourself. The base issue with rationalization is you are being dishonest with yourself and that's not good. Rationalization of your purchase puts you on the peak of multiple slippery slopes. Will you be dishonest about the weather conditions and/or your abilities to safely manage the plane through them? (Autopilots have their positive qualities and their drawbacks in this regards) when you are needing to justify the plane to someone or even yourself? How about when you need to make a deadline or appointment? Worse yet are you going to look for the rosy scenario decision in the face of an emergency that will be either "plane undamaged everyone walks or everyone dies" when the odds are long against the walking when you could have taken the best honest option and sacraficed the plane and a couple people ended up in the hospital but at the end of it, everyone ended up at home.

Every decision you make in aviation, you always need to double check if you are being honest with yourself.

If you eliminate the rationalization of business trips though, eliminate the side by side restriction and consider tandem (and maybe pack small), there are quite a few basic VFR small 2 seat experimentals out there that fall nicely in your budget and are a bunch of fun to fly local and while not the optimum for a travelling machine, are capable to do so if you're willing. A Starduster Too comes to mind, cool little, actually mid sized, aerobatic biplane. With a canopy, a good portable GPS and an AirGizmo and ANR headsets, you and a significant other in the size range you indicated, could indeed have very enjoyable weekend and long weekend "spur of the moment" (weather forecasting is currently good for three days and you just leave it open till Friday) trips throughout your region and longer trips on vacation. You can also just grab the plane during lunch or an evening during the week and take it up for some aerobatics or just to watch the sunset.

Personal enjoyment is what the lower end of GA is all about. Just accept "I own an airplane because it makes me smile" as a valid reason for owning an airplane. You really don't need anything else as it is as, if not more, valid as any other reason one can come up with. To me at least, there are few things as satisfying as owning an airplane. As was told me the other day in Reno by a guy who owns and maintains a Beech 18 because "I love to just start her up and those engines sitting there popping farting and smoking, then you push the throttles up, It's good for the soul." This is a working guy, turns wrenches for a living.

The real advantage to owning a plane is two fold, you fly much more often and you get to fly a plane that makes you smile just when you look at her. I've never smiled at a rental plane. I've never had a good relationship with a rental.

Planes are much the same as women which is why we refer to them as she. One aspect is that you can own or rent either. Renting is almost always going to be cheaper (a corollary to that is the sexier and more desirable they are, the more expensive they are), but you're not going to get as much action, you won't enjoy it as much, and you'll never develop a meaningful relationship. Ending your relationships is also pretty much the same, it's either "Till death do we part" or the parting will cost you money.

So, if you want an airplane and are willing/able to justify for the reasons that GA honestly offers, then jump in, the water is fine and the deals are out there right now.
 
Last edited:
You're not going to get what you want in a production airplane for $35K. Unless you want an E-AB, find a partner, or join a club, or start saving more money.
 
If the timing of your business meetings is flexible and you can accept delays on either side of them (by going earlier or coming home later) you can probably accomplish a higher percentage of trips than Henning suggested. You should acknowledge, however that the time spent waiting for acceptable weather could (and probably will) exceed the time required for any other mode of transportation.
 
Henning said:
While depending on your geographic region you can use lower end GA planes for business travel, you need to be able to leave a three day window on either end of the trip, and typically, business travel doesn't allow for that.
Click to expand...

Ah - I don't believe my business travel is "typical":

There often would be considerable flexibility in the travel. I do on-site training for existing customers and occasion demos to prospects (I currently do a lot of Internet Webex presentations from the comfort of a home office, but a surprisingly large number of prospects want an on-site demo, even though it is primarily a software product sold to internet equipment vendors - go figure!) The travel is generally arranged on a mutually agreeable schedule, so a day or two delay for VFR isn't a killer.

While commercial flying would be the only option for well under 50% of the travel, the only issue is whether the remaining 50%+ GA-possible travel would make a purchase worthwhile. The 80 hrs/year estimate would cover the business-only flying that might happen when weather and distance coincide to make it possible. That's assuming 20+ flights/year and that I could only use a private plane for half of them.

None of that may change a determination that a purchase for business reasons is not justified, but I wanted to correct some of the (otherwise reasonable) assumptions being made.

Lastly, I didn't really have a fixed upper limit in mind for purchase price, but used $35k as an ideal. What I really need to first know are what kinds of makes and models meet the criteria and are considered worthwhile airplanes - then estimate the cost of owning. Then I can compare to not owning over a usage period of about 4 years. But it is hard to even begin the estimation if I don't have some concrete basis to start.
 
A quick glance at Trade-a-plane reveals several Cherokee 180s within your price range. I cannot attest to condition, however.
 
Henning said:
Then you shouldn't be considering purchase really. Most GA aircraft, and all the ones you are considering and in the budget you are looking are not capable of being used as reliable business transportation when schedules count. While you can go non deice and VFR some of the year on that route, you cannot do it for all of the year. If you need reliable business transport with a high dispatch reliability on that route, you are talking about at least $120,000 airplane and at least $350hr in operating expenses.

The lower end of the GA economic scale isn't really feasible for BA (Business Aviation).
Click to expand...

OK, I've gotta call bull****. Not on you Henning, the way you worded it is technically correct - "Reliable" business transportation - But to say that "low-end" GA is worthless for any business transportation is just not true.

The key: You must have some level of schedule flexibility depending on your equipment, and a backup plan.

I would estimate that I complete better than 95% of my trips, as planned and on schedule, in a normally aspirated piston single. There is NO form of transportation that is 100% reliable. None. Sometimes GA is more reliable, sometimes it's faster, sometimes it's not.

However, going from 95% dispatch reliability to 99% dispatch reliability is going to cost AT LEAST 4x as much in both purchase and operating costs. So, if you can live with 95%, go ahead and buy a GA airplane and use it for business travel!

Caveat: You won't get 95% the first day you own the airplane or the first day you get your ticket. You do need to build up your experience at a reasonable rate. As I like to say, "To become a better pilot, you must push the envelope - But only push it one corner at a time."

Now, I don't think you're going to get a true 120-knot airplane for $35K. 115 knots, sure. More money, easily. For a higher purchase price, the DA20 would fit the parameters, but it is NOT IFR certified. If you're going to do business travel, you're going to want to be able to go IFR eventually.

Now that we have the rest of the story, I've gotta say - Look at a Cessna 182. 130 knots will get you places at a reasonable speed. It's got a big comfortable cabin for those long trips. It's a great, stable flyer which is nice on long trips and in IMC. You'll be insurable in it at your level of experience.

It's not fast for the fuel burn. It's not sexy. But it's built like a tank, will do practically anything you ever need it to do, it has the additional performance to give you a safety factor in the terrain you'll be flying in, and it's a good way to learn about aircraft ownership without breaking the bank. Once you've got your instrument rating and some good cross country time in in the 182, then maybe you'll be ready to move up or over to something different, and by that point you'll know what you need to know, and it'll be easy to re-sell at that point.

Plan on spending north of $50K for a good one, $70K is probably a better target. Also plan on spending in the neighborhood of $120/hour including reserves (and that's NOT counting the fixed costs).
 
The OP is in Portland and wants to fly to the City. I recall a bunch of mountains with lots of icing between where he is and where he wants to go. What works in the Midwest don't work everywhere.
 
[snip]

Henning, this is one of the best, if not _the_ best, written explanations of aircraft ownership I have ever read! Thanks for this thoughtful, accurate and insightful post.

John
 
flyingcheesehead said:
OK, I've gotta call bull****. Not on you Henning, the way you worded it is technically correct - "Reliable" business transportation - But to say that "low-end" GA is worthless for any business transportation is just not true.

The key: You must have some level of schedule flexibility depending on your equipment, and a backup plan.

I would estimate that I complete better than 95% of my trips, as planned and on schedule, in a normally aspirated piston single. There is NO form of transportation that is 100% reliable. None. Sometimes GA is more reliable, sometimes it's faster, sometimes it's not.
Click to expand...

Oregon to SF in winter is not a route to be taken lightly in a non deiced airframe. If the as he indicates he has the scheduling flexibility to wait for VFR days, fine. If he has a bedgetary ability greater than $35k fine. Then I would be looking at a Lancair 360. 200 on 8gph 2 place side by side cheap to keep airplane.

One thing though, it's not only the business end of things that have an influence on the viability but also the home front when you're stuck away from home for an extra two days here and three days there and you keep missing events the missus had planned... That's one I see reasonably frequently.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't "gotta be smarter than what you're working with" apply to airplanes too? Have they eliminated weather from the PPL syllabus? You're really gonna put a newb in a Lancair?

Henning said:
Oregon to SF in winter is not a route to be taken lightly in a non deiced airframe. If the as he indicates he has the scheduling flexibility to wait for VFR days, fine. If he has a bedgetary ability greater than $35k fine. Then I would be looking at a Lancair 360. 200 on 8gph 2 place side by side cheap to keep airplane.

One thing though, it's not only the business end of things that have an influence on the viability but also the home front when you're stuck away from home for an extra two days here and three days there and you keep missing events the missus had planned... That's one I see reasonably frequently.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Doesn't "gotta be smarter than what you're working with" apply to airplanes too? Have they eliminated weather from the PPL syllabus? You're really gonna put a newb in a Lancair?
Click to expand...


Yep, I'll put a newb in pert'near anything. He may need more training off the bat going direct into one, but he'll learn it better and in less overall training time than if he steps up to it in 3 100hr incremental aircraft. Look what the military uses for their Ab Initio training, it's not impossible, it just requires a committed student and an apt instructor. It never ceases to amaze me the low standards of ability the pilot community holds forth.

If you start someones training in a Lanceair 360 and train them to PTS proficiency in 70 hrs vs 40 hrs (and I don't want to hear how 40 hrs isn't realistic, because it is very realistic, the majority of PPL certificates are issued to pilots who had 40-41hrs in their log books) in a 152 then spending the next 200 hrs getting proficient in subsequentially higher performance aircraft until he is finally PTS proficient in the Lancair 360, how would they be worse off? Learning IFR as well, you already have 70 hrs in type, you know the airplane, you can concentrate on the procedures rather than learning the airplane (and unlearning habits instilled in slower planes). You're also learning at a faster speed which pays off down the road as well as during training because you can do more training procedures in a given amount of time. Maybe it takes you a few more hours to get to PTS standards. In the end though, you can be a competent and insurable PP-IR pilot in a Lancair 360 in 120 hrs if you start there ab initio. Always remember the rule of primacy, what you learn first, you learn best, so start in your last airplane first. There are only a scant few recip SE airplanes that are truly "High Performance". Real high performance starts when you cruise faster than five miles a minute and can't go slower than two. Three miles a minute is not that difficult to learn to deal with nor are minimums of less than one and a half.
 
Henning said:
Oregon to SF in winter is not a route to be taken lightly in a non deiced airframe. If the as he indicates he has the scheduling flexibility to wait for VFR days, fine. If he has a bedgetary ability greater than $35k fine. Then I would be looking at a Lancair 360. 200 on 8gph 2 place side by side cheap to keep airplane.
Click to expand...
That's true. Not only is it not to be taken lightly, you won't be able to fly to Oregon (well, north of Redding really) more than 50% out of a year without a seriously capable airplane. $35k won't do it, $100k won't do it, and $85/hour definitely doesn't come close - a Seneca II is still marginal unless you're comfortable flying it (and I wouldn't be comfortable with that) in moderate icing that exists all the way to the ground over mountainous terrain. The MEAs in that area can go up to 14,000'. That's what most days from October - April look like there.

In the "winter", you'll see lots and lots of PIREPS for moderate icing on 737s and larger airplanes and SIGMETs for icing, which is a big gamble in a Seneca. The icing in this area is not like the icing in the Midwest. When there's icing, you can almost always bet that there's a lot of moisture in the atmosphere at pretty much all altitudes below 30,000'.

Another point that I don't think has been raised yet - it's very difficult to find airplanes that could deal with this for rent. By difficult I mean almost impossible. I can think of 2 Seneca IIs in the Bay Area for rent right now - maybe there's a few more, but they aren't easy to come by. And they're generally only available for dual instruction.

I've been though this myself. First I rented for quite a while, but I quickly became disillusioned with the availability of X/C rentals. Then I bought into a non-deiced fast single - which was great for 1/2 of the year, but I still couldn't get out of the Bay Area most days in the winter. Then I got very close to getting into a partnership in a pretty good deiced travel airplane - keep in mind though that there aren't many of these around and the operating cost are in the $400/hr range. That didn't work out, so now I'm back looking at TC fast singles. Most of these aren't deiced, though, so unless you get very lucky to find a good deal on a nice twin (and in your case get >500 hrs and >100 twin time), you'll realize sooner or later that finding a business travel airplane is almost a full-time job.

With all that, though - you can still get some utility out of a nice non-deiced single. Just realize that for 1/2 out of 365 days you won't really be able to use it to fly to the Pacific Northwest....

Edit: Just to provide some context - the LE and Sectional charts for the area just north of Redding KRDD.
 

Attachments

  • ifr.jpg
    ifr.jpg
    50 KB · Views: 12
  • vfr.jpg
    vfr.jpg
    149.5 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
sba55 said:
The MEAs in that area can go up to 14,000'.
Click to expand...

I easily found a route that can be flown at 7,000. It's going to add 72nm to the trip, but it still beats the hell out of driving.

77S EUG OTH V27 ENI ENI.PYE1

All it takes is some planning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top