How much airplane can you get for $1,000 monthly budget?

[FloridaPilot]

I am currently looking to buy a plane in 15k - 25k price range. Initially I was going to pay outright. But I've also been looking at financing. If I went that route and set a budget of $1,000 per month max (this includes payments for the plane, hangar or tie down, insurance, maintenance etc).
How much airplane can I get?

Here are my general requirements:
Mission - 50 - 300 miles
Payload - at least 400 pounds to be able to carry a passenger
Flight rules - VFR. IFR a plus
Performance - Can cruise at least 100 mph on hot days

Thanks!

Mojo,

Just wait until you earn another 1 Mil and you can buy it outright?

 

[easik]

Stall speed on the AA1?

Are you going to be doing backcountry STOL competitions with the plane?

Right. Given an airplane can stall at any speed, but particularly on slow flights, I'm used to flying airplanes that stall up to 10 knots slower than the AA-1. Just a mental note thing for me. That said, please do educate me, as I don't want to pass on good opportunity if my reasoning is flawed. Thanks.

 

[easik]

Lol @ FloridaPilot. Well part of this buying process is to prove that you don't need a million dollars to own/fly your own plane. And this is a much more calculated risk on my end

 

[eman1200]

Just don't stall the plane.

 

[tawood]

Right. Given an airplane can stall at any speed, but particularly on slow flights, I'm used to flying airplanes that stall up to 10 knots slower than the AA-1. Just a mental note thing for me. That said, please do educate me, as I don't want to pass on good opportunity if my reasoning is flawed. Thanks.

I think that was just the original model AA1. Later models, like the lynx, stalled 10 knots slower. A possible bigger issue with the AA1 series is payload. I considered buying one once, until I realized that with just me, and full fuel, I was at gross...and I'm not particularly large (although over the past ten years I've been increasing).

 

[charheep]

I fly a PA32T well equipped. $1k/mo does not get me off the ground. Hangar, insurance, state property tax, annual reserve and a $450 note. Flew 60 hours last year and racked up just over $20k in "bills" that I can actually account for. I just stopped counting. It's easier to gulp down a smaller bill one at a time than look at them annual. I'd probably stop flying if I did that.

Buy a cheap ass airplane, barely legal and fly the snot out of it. Take it from me.........You buy "more" plane than you really need and are on a budget, you will end up not flying more often than you think.

Is that 20k including the ~1K per month you described? Or is that 20k in addition to?

 

[bflynn]

$1K a month is way above the maximum cost of belonging to our club. $60/mo plus tax for the fixed expenses, then hourly rate for the planes. You'd have to fly a bunch to spend $1K/mo. No way do I ever come close. I've been a member for 18 years and can't really justify buying.

I actually compare this on my purchase spreadsheet. My club fees are $65/month and about $125/hour wet...it goes up and down according to the price of fuel. Where the break even point depends on which comparison I make, but somewhere between 5 and 12 hour/month.

Right now I'm looking at a $40,000 plane with 500 hours on the engine. The monthly fixed cost is $720, which includes a loan payment, insurance and a really cheap hangar, one of the advantages of living in the boonies in NC. Variable costs are $72/hour which includes $30/hour for engine replacement and maintenance. You have to pay for this somewhere, better to save for it all along than have something break and scramble for money to fix it.

With this formula, I have to fly at least 13 hours every month to make the airplane cheaper. In the 172 category, it doesn't make sense. If I step up to a faster airplane, it gets more efficient to own, but the break even still only goes down to about 8 hours a month.

Purchase outright, with no loan, and the break even is around 5 hours a month and a cost of $642. That's one weekend a month flying somewhere 2.5 hours away and back, very realistic. If I take away the maintenance, the break even is 3 hours/month at a total cost of $407.

Hope these numbers help some. The only way I can see doing this on $1000/hour is to own the plane outright. Any loan comes in close to half the cost.

Yes, opportunity cost of using the money for an airplane vs investing, it's about $200/month. I don't include this because it's an unknown cost...what rate could you have gotten vs how much will the airplane go up or down.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I have a payment on my plane. And good or bad, I used a home equity line to get the loan so if I fall on hard times, the payment is pennies.
I pay it at a faster rate than the loan but if crap hits the fan, the plane payment will be a nominal concern.

 

[Unit74]

Is that 20k including the ~1K per month you described? Or is that 20k in addition to?

Total.....

 

[TigerGene]

https://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/avo/d/grumman-cheetah-aa5a-airplane/6605534856.html

Here is a Cheetah with a high time engine, asking $28,500. Been for sale for quite a while, might be able to buy for much less than asking price.

Have a mechanic check out the engine really well and fly the wheels off of it. Just be ready for the overhaul in a couple of years. By the way this plane is in Houston, TX and the Grumman expert (FletchAir) is in Fredericksburg, TX not far away. Make a prebuy at Fletchair a condition of purchase. I bought mine out of Houston and Fletchair did my prebuy, easy peasy.

 

[GeorgeC]

Guy I know bought a runout Tiger, had it overhauled, resealed the tanks, and had a bunch of avionics work done. It wasn't cheap, but he ended up with a known quantity. There is value in minimizing risk/unexpected expenses.

 

[fudge80]

That's around what I spend a year with my 172N. The plane I bought was $40,000, I paid 10K, financed 30K for 5 years. I do a yearly payment of around $7000.

My hangar rent is $125/month. Insurance is $850 or so. My annual usually runs about $250 since the plane I bought was very well taken care of and pretty low time.

That means fixed costs of less than $10000 a year. That would leave me $2000 a year for gas and oil barring any major repairs. I need to get my seat rails on the left side replaced before the next annual.

Last year I had to buy a 24v battery that was close to $500, an ELT battery pack and 1 light bulb so not too bad for maintenance costs.

My H2AD has 1200hrs since OH but it was overhauled a very long time ago, it still runs great but my plan is next year when I make my last payment I will turn around and finance an engine overhaul, pay on that for a 2-3 years and the plane should last me another 20 barring any major incidents.

I probably don't fly enough to justify owning a plane though, reading the posts here I am an aviation accident waiting to happen haha.

 

[James331]

Right. Given an airplane can stall at any speed, but particularly on slow flights, I'm used to flying airplanes that stall up to 10 knots slower than the AA-1. Just a mental note thing for me. That said, please do educate me, as I don't want to pass on good opportunity if my reasoning is flawed. Thanks.

I've trained people from the ground up in AA1s, if you're flying from airport to airport it's really not very noticeable.

Also getting a nicer smaller plane if much better than getting involved in partners or trying to find a less nice larger plane for the same price.

 

[chemgeek]

I have to say; I'd never really looked at a Grumman 4 seater until suggested in this thread. That AA-5 is looking very attractive right now. I'd checked out an AA-1 but I'll be passing on that, stall speed's a bit on the high side for me. Thanks guys.

I started with an AA-1A and moved on to an AA-5 Traveler a few years later. Approach speeds in these two aircraft are nearly the same, 75-80 mph. The AA-1A is a pussycat. If you trained in a C-152, learning to fly an AA-1A is easy. The AA-1A comes with a bulletproof O-235-C2C engine burning 6 gph, the AA-5 with the similarly robust O-320-E2G that is a miserly 8 gph. The AA-1A will cruise at 108 kt all day long and will outrun most C-172s; I plan for 115 kt in the Traveler, although with the high compression STC and Sensenich propeller STC it will do 120 kt.

Most 2-seat aircraft (including the AA-1A) can carry two people and a toothbrush with full fuel. It is a great time builder for one and a day-tripper for two. I flew mine all over the NE with friends on day trips. Traveling for 2 with luggage is a bit sporty unless you offload fuel. Most 4-seat aircraft (including the AA-5) will allow travel for 2 and be stuffed with luggage and purchases. Our plane has made many trips from central NY to Portland ME for lobster dinners and shopping at LL Bean. We usually come home with the plane stuffed. A 3 hour flight beats a 9 hour drive in and around Boston traffic any day.

You can purchase a nice AA-5 for quite a bit less than an AA-5A or AA-5B, although they are a bit slower. On a typical mission that means 10-15 minutes, maybe.

If you put 50+ hours a year on your plane, expect operating costs to be about 4X fuel, approximately. If you fly less than that, you should figure fixed costs (hangar, insurance, annual inspections) and then maybe 2X fuel cost. For my Traveler, hangar is $185/mo, insurance about $600-800/yr, and annuals average $1,000. Other costs sneak up on you, like avionics and instrument repairs, unscheduled maintenance. These will average at least $1000 per incident. When you first purchase an aircraft, expect your first two annuals and unscheduled maintenance to be double what you would expect subsequently.

Good luck in your quest. If you can find a way to own an aircraft, you won't regret it. There is nothing like owning a plane for which you know its treatment and history.

 

[chemgeek]

Stall speed on the AA1?

Are you going to be doing backcountry STOL competitions with the plane?

The AA-1A, B, and C and AA-5 have nearly identical Vso, about 60 mph. Faster than a C-152 or C-172, but no problem to fly. Unless you are flying out of 2000 ft strips it's not an issue.

 

[James331]

The AA-1A, B, and C and AA-5 have nearly identical Vso, about 60 mph. Faster than a C-152 or C-172, but no problem to fly. Unless you are flying out of 2000 ft strips it's not an issue.

Even a 2k strip shouldn't be a issue

 

[BrianNC]

I have to say; I'd never really looked at a Grumman 4 seater until suggested in this thread. That AA-5 is looking very attractive right now. I'd checked out an AA-1 but I'll be passing on that, stall speed's a bit on the high side for me. Thanks guys.

Just don't stall the plane.

"Hey doc, it hurts when I do that."

Doc: "Don't do that."

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Here’s my take on stall speed. You’re going to have an approach speed that’s 1.3x Vso or so. If you screw up and stall you’re going to screw up by 0.3. It kinda doesn’t matter what the stall speed is, if you stalled, you missed the envelope. Keep on speed, learn it visually.

Think about this one too. A plane with Vso of 100 vs one of 50. Approach for one is 130 the other is 65. You have 30 knots of screwup leeway with the higher stall vs 15 with the slower. Not sure which is easier to judge or screw up, but a 30 knot cushion seems nice.

All that being said, the above is theoretical. Take internet advice from a 100hr pilot for what it’s worth.

 

[James331]

Here’s my take on stall speed. You’re going to have an approach speed that’s 1.3x Vso or so. If you screw up and stall you’re going to screw up by 0.3. It kinda doesn’t matter what the stall speed is, if you stalled, you missed the envelope. Keep on speed, learn it visually.

Think about this one too. A plane with Vso of 100 vs one of 50. Approach for one is 130 the other is 65. You have 30 knots of screwup leeway with the higher stall vs 15 with the slower. Not sure which is easier to judge or screw up, but a 30 knot cushion seems nice.

All that being said, the above is theoretical. Take internet advice from a 100hr pilot for what it’s worth.

And if you have proper pre solo slow flight, stall, spin and take off and landing training it's all a non event.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

And if you have proper pre solo slow flight, stall, spin and take off and landing training it's all a non event.

It should be. But stall/spin accident stats show otherwise. Maybe the key word is “proper”. Maybe not. Or proficiency.

 

[James331]

It should be. But stall/spin accident stats show otherwise. Maybe the key word is “proper”. Maybe not. Or proficiency.

Just a result of the aviation version of "no child left behind"

It's funny we teach evolution...except when it comes to modern humans

 

[asicer]

Unless you are flying out of 2000 ft strips it's not an issue.

I used to fly an AA5B based at a 2000ft strip. The only time I ever missed the mid-field turn off was during transition training.

 

[Clark1961]

Here’s my take on stall speed. You’re going to have an approach speed that’s 1.3x Vso or so. If you screw up and stall you’re going to screw up by 0.3. It kinda doesn’t matter what the stall speed is, if you stalled, you missed the envelope. Keep on speed, learn it visually.

Think about this one too. A plane with Vso of 100 vs one of 50. Approach for one is 130 the other is 65. You have 30 knots of screwup leeway with the higher stall vs 15 with the slower. Not sure which is easier to judge or screw up, but a 30 knot cushion seems nice.

All that being said, the above is theoretical. Take internet advice from a 100hr pilot for what it’s worth.

That's all very nice I'm sure. There are other considerations which include climb and descent angles for obstacle clearance, energy dissipation, acceleration distances, stopping distances, gear loads, tire wear, etc, etc, etc.

Okay, for most of the aircraft we spam can drivers fly the difference in stall speed usually isn't that big of a deal. That said, if you ever have to make an off-airport landing I suspect you will want the lower stall speed aircraft.

 

[James331]

That's all very nice I'm sure. There are other considerations which include climb and descent angles for obstacle clearance, energy dissipation, acceleration distances, stopping distances, gear loads, tire wear, etc, etc, etc.

Okay, for most of the aircraft we spam can drivers fly the difference in stall speed usually isn't that big of a deal. That said, if you ever have to make an off-airport landing I suspect you will want the lower stall speed aircraft.

Unless you do a good amount of backcountry flying your lack of skill will be the point of failure not a few mph faster stall speed

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Unless you do a good amount of backcountry flying your lack of skill will be the point of failure not a few mph faster stall speed

So true.

My stall speed with flaps is 35. Recommended approach is 55. I have about 35 hours in this plane and am just now getting proficient at 60. When the “ugly” rears it’s head, am I gonna make use of the 35 knot stall speed? Probably not since I’ve been practicing at 60. But I guess the stall cushion is there if I’m not 100% focused in an emergency (shame on me). I may not stall off field but may instead smash head on into an obstacle due to floating...due to lack of skill (proficiency).

Just like anything else, stall speed is not the be-all end-all factor, it’s just one more variable. And it’s one I chose as one of my own primary criteria @easik

 

[N1120A]

Maybe the OP is confusing a Vso in MPH v a Vso in KTS? I doubt an AA1 has a stall speed of 65 kts.

 

[TheFB]

Great point. AA1A stalls at 51 kts and AA1B stalls at 52 kts.

 

[N1120A]

So, the AA1 stalls slower than the DA40NG and about the same as the older DA40. I'd still go with a Cheetah though, in that price range .

 

[denverpilot]

Okay, for most of the aircraft we spam can drivers fly the difference in stall speed usually isn't that big of a deal. That said, if you ever have to make an off-airport landing I suspect you will want the lower stall speed aircraft.

Unless you do a good amount of backcountry flying your lack of skill will be the point of failure not a few mph faster stall speed

That’s not completely true, James. You know that you’d rather put my STOL equipped 182 into a field with a guaranteed smack into something on the roll out, than a non-STOL one, given the choice.

What you’re saying is “stay proficient at landing slow” which I agree with, but it doesn’t have to be “proficient at backcountry flying” to make a huge difference when force and mass meets that whole “squared” thing that brings you to a sudden stop.

If you have to hit something, hit it slow. 43 MPH is way better than 60 MPH because of the physics math.

Now if you can’t get the airplane down to 43 MPH and land it there comfortably, that STOL kit isn’t going to help much. That part I’ll agree with. But it doesn’t have to be every landing on an unimproved strip or bouncing over terrain to make sure you know how to get and stay slow.

It’s the same argument when people say they “land without flaps because I have better control”... no, you just have not practiced maintaining control with larger control deflections at lower speeds and those feel uncomfortable to you compared to the crispness or the controls at cruise speeds... and you’re landing faster for no good reason other than your comfort level with low speeds.

 

[James331]

That’s not completely true, James. You know that you’d rather put my STOL equipped 182 into a field with a guaranteed smack into something on the roll out, than a non-STOL one, given the choice.

What you’re saying is “stay proficient at landing slow” which I agree with, but it doesn’t have to be “proficient at backcountry flying” to make a huge difference when force and mass meets that whole “squared” thing that brings you to a sudden stop.

If you have to hit something, hit it slow. 43 MPH is way better than 60 MPH because of the physics math.

Now if you can’t get the airplane down to 43 MPH and land it there comfortably, that STOL kit isn’t going to help much. That part I’ll agree with. But it doesn’t have to be every landing on an unimproved strip or bouncing over terrain to make sure you know how to get and stay slow.

It’s the same argument when people say they “land without flaps because I have better control”... no, you just have not practiced maintaining control with larger control deflections at lower speeds and those feel uncomfortable to you compared to the crispness or the controls at cruise speeds... and you’re landing faster for no good reason other than your comfort level with low speeds.

Still hardly a reason to rule a AA1 out

 

[chemgeek]

I used to fly an AA5B based at a 2000ft strip. The only time I ever missed the mid-field turn off was during transition training.

Getting in isn't the issue. It's getting out, fully loaded, on a hot day. Depending on obstacles, 2000 feet doesn't leave you much margin. Ground roll will be 1000 feet or more on a hot summer day fully loaded with a primo-functioning airplane with a competent pilot and no exacerbating wind factors. YMMV, but 2000 feet is below my routine comfort level in an AA-5 or AA1X with any kind of obstacles at the end of the runway.

Like you, I rarely miss the first turnout on landing, which is around 1500-1700 feet. You can stop and AA-5 pretty short, even with the puny brakes they have. On a hot day, ground roll on takeoff eats of most of that 1500-1700 feet fully loaded.

 

[texashikergal02]

Late to this conversation, but I bought my AA-5 10 years ago mostly due to the price points between it and the Cheetah. I flew a Cheetah in my primary training, and the differences between the two are almost not worth discussing, they are that small. That being said, neither is a good climber in hot weather, and I don't know that I'd really try to do very short fields in either one. You'll get a lot more bang for the buck buying a later model Traveler than a Cheetah, all things considered.

Now the Tiger? Whole other bird.

Biggest thing with any of the Grummans is finding an A&P that knows them pretty well.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Late to this conversation, but I bought my AA-5 10 years ago mostly due to the price points between it and the Cheetah. I flew a Cheetah in my primary training, and the differences between the two are almost not worth discussing, they are that small. That being said, neither is a good climber in hot weather, and I don't know that I'd really try to do very short fields in either one. You'll get a lot more bang for the buck buying a later model Traveler than a Cheetah, all things considered.

Now the Tiger? Whole other bird.

Biggest thing with any of the Grummans is finding an A&P that knows them pretty well.

^^^^ @texashikergal02 is the reason I own a traveler and I am loving every minute of it (or 71 hours of it in the last 12 months).
Thanks for giving me a ride last year and ruining my bank account

 

[Kritchlow]

I’ve read this thread and I’m confused. It was my reading of the OP that the $1k included the loan payment, yet most of you assumed it didn’t.

That said, perhaps I misread.

 

[texashikergal02]

@texashikergal02 is the reason I own a traveler and I am loving every minute of it (or 71 hours of it in the last 12 months).
Thanks for giving me a ride last year and ruining my bank account

Glad to help devalue your net worth on an honorable airplane. We need to go fly in the Tiger at some point.

 

[denverpilot]

Still hardly a reason to rule a AA1 out

True.

 

[Clark1961]

Unless you do a good amount of backcountry flying your lack of skill will be the point of failure not a few mph faster stall speed

His example was more than a few knots difference in stall speed. I am the one who pointed out that most spam cans have similar stall speeds. Try to keep up.

 

[easik]

Here's ya some grummans.

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1252927_1974+Grumman+AA-1B+.html


https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1370922_1973+Grumman+AA-1B+Yankee.html


https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1056163_1971+GRUMMAN+AA1A+.html


https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1370620_1972+Grumman+Yankee+160hp+conv.html


Dude this is a traveler for 12k
It has no wings. Gary Vought is a grumman guru and just posted in the grumman group that he had a set of traveler wings he isn't using. Free to whoever wants them. A traveler for 12k and a bit of mx....

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1368055_Grumman+AA5.html

You could buy it and flip it.

View attachment 63745

Can you please post a link to the Grumman group or forum? thanks.

 

[Clark1961]

Can you please post a link to the Grumman group or forum? thanks.

Perfect set up for Brian(y)

 

[James331]

His example was more than a few knots difference in stall speed. I am the one who pointed out that most spam cans have similar stall speeds. Try to keep up.

Oh cupcake, if you think the stall speed of a AA1 is enough over that of say a 172 to warrant concern, you probably haven't soloed yet.

#NoWannabePilotLeftBehind