Looking for a trainer
- Thread starter jaysuwan
- Start date
I've never flown in one and I'm no expert. But from my research and reading in forums. What I gather is they get bad rep from people who never flown it and people seems to want to train in a more "forgiving"(easy to fly) airplane like the cessna. Just my speculation. nothing more.
And I almost bought one. The guy I bought my DC headset from told me he was selling one for 14k, mid time engine. Was about to wait to go take a look at it but he changed his mind.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
Winner, winner, chicken dinner! There is little value in dumping lots of avionics money into a plane you don't want to own long term.
flyer770
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 265
- Display Name
Display name:
Flyer770
Mogas must be ethanol free, which is harder to find than regular car gas. Cost is $1.50 per horsepower, so for the types of planes you’re looking at would come out to $150-225. Mostly a paperwork conversion. Petersen Aviation and EAA have them available. Some airports have mogas on field. Otherwise you can find dealers and use gas cans to take fuel to the airport.
denverpilot
Tied Down
The downside of doing it piecemeal is EVERYTHING “touches” the audio panel harness. Paying multiple times to re-do the audio panel harness labor is no good. Pre-plan with your avionics guy or gal exactly what you’re going to “put in later” and have them build the harness with connectors lengthened to the right locations and coil them up and tie them off in those locations for the later additions. Plug and play. Pay once for that, not three times.
flyer770
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2017
- Messages
- 265
- Display Name
Display name:
Flyer770
The 152 is the same airframe as late 150s, being a bit wider than the early 150 models. Sometimes the extra power of the 152 is good to have as well. That and the 28 volt system are the big differences. Not sure offhand if the 152 can run on mogas though.
mscard88
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes. 152 has 10 more hp and 30* flaps, while 150 has 40* flaps. But not a lot of difference as far as handling.
But who uses them? (flaps like this) I went thru this mess a year ago. Glad I bowed out of the buying madness. Observed a pre-buy of a bonanza today, what a joke. Everyone left happy and no-one died during this event at the ramp. @Walbro is everywhere it seems! heheh.
sounds like a plan
"the only dumb question is the one not asked." heard it somewhere in a far far galaxy
Kansas Flyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
Its just unleaded ethanol free car gas. I use it for 90%+ of my flying as its usually anywhere from $1 - $1.5 cheaper per gallon than 100LL.
The big downside is that it can be hard to find in some locations. http://www.flyunleaded.com/mapusairports.html doesn't show any airports that have it in socal so you'd have to haul it from a local gas station if you can find one that sells no ethanol gas.
If that is the only down side and it can save me a few thousands a year. I'll haul it over everyday if I have to
Tomahawks with the two stall strips on the leading edges seemed OK to me - I have some time in those. Seemed roomier than the 150/152s from my youth. The AA1C was fun, but too twitchy for IFR training, IMHO.
You might find a Beech Skipper - looks a lot like a Tomahawk. . .
You might find a Beech Skipper - looks a lot like a Tomahawk. . .
I found a few skipper that cost about 30k. Wayyyyy over my budget. They look nice though.
If you guys have to pick 1 choice out of these 2 what would you choose?assuming these are the same plane at the same price.
1. A plane that is equipped with everything you need and engine either passed TBO or almost there(high time)
2. low- mid time engine plane but you might have to do some upgrade on the panel to get it ifr capable.
1. A plane that is equipped with everything you need and engine either passed TBO or almost there(high time)
2. low- mid time engine plane but you might have to do some upgrade on the panel to get it ifr capable.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’d go with the runout engine.
Almost any avionics shop can install the boxes, but I’d prefer having more say in WHO does the engine.
good point
Kansas Flyer
Pre-takeoff checklist
Option 1 for me.
Look at when those hours took place on a high time engine. If the plane sat for a couple of years without being flown or with only a few hours in the past few years I would be wary. The worst thing you can do to an airplane (other than wreck it) is let it sit. If it flew regularly I would be a lot less concerned. I know of several low compression lycomings that went 3k or more hours and the common theme with all of them is they never sat for long periods.
j1b3h0
Line Up and Wait
I have instructed in most of the airplanes mentioned. At your price point, there are lots of good primary trainers - good for PPL training. If you want an airplane with a suitable panel in which to do instrument training that’s more money. ‘Nother thing, if you are looking at purchasing a popular airplane, say, Cessna or Piper, try to buy one locally - they’re all over the country. Hasn’t been mentioned (probably because it’s too expensive) is my favorite primary trainer: 7ECA Citabria.
A good instructor can make a good pilot in any of them but if you really want to learn to fly, stick with a taildragger (pun intended). If you only want to fly Cessnas, learn in a Cessna: with few exceptions they all fly the same. Ditto for Pipers and Beeches (tail wheels notwithstanding). One other thing, if you buy a nice little airplane, and take care of it, you’all probably be able to sell it for close to the price you paid.
A good instructor can make a good pilot in any of them but if you really want to learn to fly, stick with a taildragger (pun intended). If you only want to fly Cessnas, learn in a Cessna: with few exceptions they all fly the same. Ditto for Pipers and Beeches (tail wheels notwithstanding). One other thing, if you buy a nice little airplane, and take care of it, you’all probably be able to sell it for close to the price you paid.
Eric Gleason
Pre-takeoff checklist
Option 3: Pass and find something more suitable.
You're going to lose a lot of money if you do any significant work to your trainer. You want something that's pretty much ready to go and can be sold easily when it's time for you to move up. You'll recoup less than half of the upgrade investment when it's time to sell.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
The Pa140 is the best bet for the OPs mission. Simple enough for the private, and they can be had inexpensively with enough equipment to do the IR (and the commercial). Isn't a simpler or more easily maintained airframe. Only an idiot does a major avionics upgrade on an aircraft they don't intend to keep for a long time. Better yet, find flight school and rent their aircraft. Probably the most cost effective strategy in this thread.
From the tone of this thread I think the OP is going to ignore all the good advice he's been given and go off and do whatever it is he decided to do in the first place.
From the tone of this thread I think the OP is going to ignore all the good advice he's been given and go off and do whatever it is he decided to do in the first place.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
I agree. A 2-place is suitable only for primary training and solo time-building, and hardly worth a major panel investment, unless that is what you want to eventually own and fly. But most 2-place airplanes will at most carry two people and a toothbrush with full fuel. A 4-place is more likely to come with a panel that is suitable for both PP and IR work, or could be upgraded relatively inexpensively. Plus, a 4-place could also be an eventual ownership target worth investing in the panel if it fits the typical owner mission. A PA28-140 would be among the least expensive 4-place options, although there might be affordable AA-5 models out there: they are typically a lot less expensive than the AA-5A. A good C172 might be more expensive, but will probably hold its resale value if not run out.
I think the OP believes that it is possible to get a 2-place trainer at low cost that has enough panel and payload to be a practical IR trainer and XC aircraft. This is not a likely successful strategy. Personally, if you cant afford to purchase and maintain a mid-time 4-place with an IFR-capable panel, you are better off renting until you know more. There is just no way to make owning a plane inexpensive!
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
Neither option is appealing if I'm not buying to own long-term. In either case, you are looking at a potentially very expensive upgrade, either panel or engine. I always bought mid-time planes with panels that were already serviceable for my purposes. That way, I benefited from much of the depreciation of the engine, while having enough time to sell before it was a runout, or gaining plenty of time to decide if I wanted to keep the aircraft and invest in panel upgrades and engine overhaul.
Seems like I got misunderstood a little bit along the way so let me start over.
1. The reason I'm setting a low budget is because I don't want to spend all my cash in a plane and have no back up for if something happen right at the beginning.
2. I will have 30k cash coming in soon,either this month or next. I can go out and buy a 27k plane no problem but I wouldn't be left with any emergency money.
3. The reason for 2 place trainer thought is because of the initial cost.
4. The reason I'm trying to buy instead of rent is because I am planning to use this beyond just getting my ratings. My plan is to keep the plane to build time along with the CFI thing. So if I plan on 300 hours within the first year(flying often with lots of xcountry) it would've save a lot of money, and even if it doesn't it shouldn't exceed the cost of renting and I would have my own plane to fly when I want and know it's condition since I will be the only one flying it.
At the beginning I was looking only at only 4 seaters but the ones with mid time engine and IR panel and ion decent shape seems to run around 25-30k. Hence the reason for me trying to look for 2 seaters. Now, I realize that it might not work too well for what I needed to use it for after talking and reading a lot so I am back to trying to find 4 seaters. Cessna seems to be out of my price range, the only thing I've seen are the PA140.
The reason I asked the question about the engine time is because all(maybe most) of them at around 20k will have high engine time and most of the time it is passed TBO. So, I asked just to get an idea of where I should put a higher priority on the check list, is it mid time engine or panel that have everything I need. Because at this price point it seems to be a trade off. Either I have all the equipments with high time or I have mid time engine and I would have to put something in the plane to make it meet what I need.
The reason I say I don't mind putting some avionics in is because I plan on keeping the plane at least a few years and maybe more.
One of the first plane I looked at I found a '65 m20c for 28k with 800 hours and everything that I need. Has decent interior but will need a paint job real soon since it looks like the previous owner somewhat strip and prep most of the paint getting it ready already. But if I buy it I would have to use all my savings on it. I will have more money coming in from work along the way for day to day expenses but if I needed, say 4000 to do something I wouldn't have it.
I found a PA140/160 with nice garmin equipment for 19k but has 2400 on the engine with 900 hrs on 2 cylinder and 300 on another one. That's why I asked about engine vs avoinics stuff. since all the PA 140 at this range seems to be like that.
And I wouldn't want to own a tailwheel either, not for what I want to use it for right now at least. Would love to train and get my endorsement and maybe own it later on in life.
Sorry, it's a little long
1. The reason I'm setting a low budget is because I don't want to spend all my cash in a plane and have no back up for if something happen right at the beginning.
2. I will have 30k cash coming in soon,either this month or next. I can go out and buy a 27k plane no problem but I wouldn't be left with any emergency money.
3. The reason for 2 place trainer thought is because of the initial cost.
4. The reason I'm trying to buy instead of rent is because I am planning to use this beyond just getting my ratings. My plan is to keep the plane to build time along with the CFI thing. So if I plan on 300 hours within the first year(flying often with lots of xcountry) it would've save a lot of money, and even if it doesn't it shouldn't exceed the cost of renting and I would have my own plane to fly when I want and know it's condition since I will be the only one flying it.
At the beginning I was looking only at only 4 seaters but the ones with mid time engine and IR panel and ion decent shape seems to run around 25-30k. Hence the reason for me trying to look for 2 seaters. Now, I realize that it might not work too well for what I needed to use it for after talking and reading a lot so I am back to trying to find 4 seaters. Cessna seems to be out of my price range, the only thing I've seen are the PA140.
The reason I asked the question about the engine time is because all(maybe most) of them at around 20k will have high engine time and most of the time it is passed TBO. So, I asked just to get an idea of where I should put a higher priority on the check list, is it mid time engine or panel that have everything I need. Because at this price point it seems to be a trade off. Either I have all the equipments with high time or I have mid time engine and I would have to put something in the plane to make it meet what I need.
The reason I say I don't mind putting some avionics in is because I plan on keeping the plane at least a few years and maybe more.
One of the first plane I looked at I found a '65 m20c for 28k with 800 hours and everything that I need. Has decent interior but will need a paint job real soon since it looks like the previous owner somewhat strip and prep most of the paint getting it ready already. But if I buy it I would have to use all my savings on it. I will have more money coming in from work along the way for day to day expenses but if I needed, say 4000 to do something I wouldn't have it.
I found a PA140/160 with nice garmin equipment for 19k but has 2400 on the engine with 900 hrs on 2 cylinder and 300 on another one. That's why I asked about engine vs avoinics stuff. since all the PA 140 at this range seems to be like that.
And I wouldn't want to own a tailwheel either, not for what I want to use it for right now at least. Would love to train and get my endorsement and maybe own it later on in life.
Sorry, it's a little long
Last edited:
mtuomi
En-Route
If you fly enough, a two seat trainer is less than half the cost per hour than rentals. $50 vs $100, roughly.
My 150 was $54/hr all in (including FBO fees and such). Nothing available in ATL area for less than $100, and rentals are hobbs time, not tach. So easy 15-20% difference there.
That's part of the reason I was looking for a 2 seaters too. Operating cost is wayyyy cheaper. Only thing is it's a little hard finding one with IR equipped. and the useful load is awful.
What do you guys think about musketeer? I found a couple that looks pretty good.
1.TT5,000 Engine 2,008(2,000 TBO) looks like I wouldn't need to put anything else in. this goes for 18k
2.TT3000 Engine 73 smoh. this one has an extra nav com but its going for 24k
1.TT5,000 Engine 2,008(2,000 TBO) looks like I wouldn't need to put anything else in. this goes for 18k
2.TT3000 Engine 73 smoh. this one has an extra nav com but its going for 24k
denverpilot
Tied Down
I agree. What most people aren’t honest about is how much they’re going to fly.
104 hours a year is two hours every week. People talk about 100 hours being the “magic” number where most people should own rather than rent.
Not saying that number is perfect, but it’s a commonly announced and known discussion starting point.
So, to get say “double the value” out of a personally owned aircraft let’s just double the number. 208 hours a year. That’s 4 hours a week and not super duper hard to hit, but you have to fly more than four hours a week when the aircraft isn’t down for regular or unscheduled maintenance.
Throw that in and you’re essentially hitting numbers that mean you need half a day of flying per week to really get high value out of ownership.
Then we have to talk about cash flow. The major depreciation number on any aircraft is the time flown off of the engine. So as you fly it off, the airplane is becoming worth less and less.
There’s some elasticity there and some “break points” that prices cluster around... new to about 200 hours on the engine is about the same price. 200 to mid-TBO tends to stick about the same. And half past TBO until maybe 200 hours until the end of TBO another tier. And 200 left to TBO and beyond, another.
So there’s a stair step depreciation thing in the pricing. But it’s still on a downward trend line until a new infusion of cash and a new engine.
So that factors in, too. Fly it more and sooner? You’re sucking away the value of the aircraft.
Those you do fiscally pretty well with the “Buy, fly the crap out of it fast, and sell” methodology, usually didn’t cross one of those “psychological barrier” numbers like “half of TBO” or similar.
If you can dedicate to flying 4-5 hours a week, you can save some bucks by buying and not renting, but you have to have the time and actually go do it.
chemgeek
En-Route
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,103
- Display Name
Display name:
chemgeek
I personally wouldn't buy a run out engine if I were planning on flying a lot and had no money to do a proper MOH in the near future.
First question you need to ask is are you keeping the plane long term or just using it for obtaining ratings? That would color you decision about what kind of plane you could tolerate. Second question is can you afford operational costs? That means about $100-120 per hour for 100 hours a year on a mid or low time engine if you are being honest about engine reserve. Third, can you afford the necessary investments to bring the avionics up to speed? Fourth, are you prepared to drop $1000-$5000 on a major unexpected repair? Even the simple stuff like magnetos, muffler, bad cylinder, etc are expensive.You can run all the spreadsheets and rosy scenarios you want but when a jug starts pumping oil, or the nav is out of tolerance, etc., you gotta deal with it.
One little dirty secret about ownership: the first couple of years are pretty expensive fixing maintenance issues the previous owner deferred.
First question you need to ask is are you keeping the plane long term or just using it for obtaining ratings? That would color you decision about what kind of plane you could tolerate. Second question is can you afford operational costs? That means about $100-120 per hour for 100 hours a year on a mid or low time engine if you are being honest about engine reserve. Third, can you afford the necessary investments to bring the avionics up to speed? Fourth, are you prepared to drop $1000-$5000 on a major unexpected repair? Even the simple stuff like magnetos, muffler, bad cylinder, etc are expensive.You can run all the spreadsheets and rosy scenarios you want but when a jug starts pumping oil, or the nav is out of tolerance, etc., you gotta deal with it.
One little dirty secret about ownership: the first couple of years are pretty expensive fixing maintenance issues the previous owner deferred.
mtuomi
En-Route
I agree. What most people aren’t honest about is how much they’re going to fly.
104 hours a year is two hours every week. People talk about 100 hours being the “magic” number where most people should own rather than rent.
Not saying that number is perfect, but it’s a commonly announced and known discussion starting point.
So, to get say “double the value” out of a personally owned aircraft let’s just double the number. 208 hours a year. That’s 4 hours a week and not super duper hard to hit, but you have to fly more than four hours a week when the aircraft isn’t down for regular or unscheduled maintenance.
Throw that in and you’re essentially hitting numbers that mean you need half a day of flying per week to really get high value out of ownership.
Then we have to talk about cash flow. The major depreciation number on any aircraft is the time flown off of the engine. So as you fly it off, the airplane is becoming worth less and less.
There’s some elasticity there and some “break points” that prices cluster around... new to about 200 hours on the engine is about the same price. 200 to mid-TBO tends to stick about the same. And half past TBO until maybe 200 hours until the end of TBO another tier. And 200 left to TBO and beyond, another.
So there’s a stair step depreciation thing in the pricing. But it’s still on a downward trend line until a new infusion of cash and a new engine.
So that factors in, too. Fly it more and sooner? You’re sucking away the value of the aircraft.
Those you do fiscally pretty well with the “Buy, fly the crap out of it fast, and sell” methodology, usually didn’t cross one of those “psychological barrier” numbers like “half of TBO” or similar.
If you can dedicate to flying 4-5 hours a week, you can save some bucks by buying and not renting, but you have to have the time and actually go do it.
Yeah, my example was pretty extreme, I flew 400 hours in 6 months
I also bought a plane with a fresh overhaul so I took the risk of infant mortality, but that way when I sold it, it was a "prime" engine to sell (400ish SMOH within the past 12 months).
The thing about owning is, that you start doing missions that you just cannot do in a rental. Overnight rentals are often very restricted, especially in trainer airplanes.
j1b3h0
Line Up and Wait
Well, you should reconsider the Citabria, if for no other reason than after 100hrs in it you’ll be a lot better pilot. Did you say you would like to make a living from this flying thing? Learn your craft!
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Any good pilot.
Landing faster than you need to makes zero sense.
As an old AG pilot I worked with once told me, if you're going to crash, crash slow.
Last edited:
If I get the right plane Then around 6 hours a week is no problem. Both time wise and operational cost wise. That’s what I plan to do at the minimum anyway.I agree. What most people aren’t honest about is how much they’re going to fly.
104 hours a year is two hours every week. People talk about 100 hours being the “magic” number where most people should own rather than rent.
Not saying that number is perfect, but it’s a commonly announced and known discussion starting point.
So, to get say “double the value” out of a personally owned aircraft let’s just double the number. 208 hours a year. That’s 4 hours a week and not super duper hard to hit, but you have to fly more than four hours a week when the aircraft isn’t down for regular or unscheduled maintenance.
Throw that in and you’re essentially hitting numbers that mean you need half a day of flying per week to really get high value out of ownership.
Then we have to talk about cash flow. The major depreciation number on any aircraft is the time flown off of the engine. So as you fly it off, the airplane is becoming worth less and less.
There’s some elasticity there and some “break points” that prices cluster around... new to about 200 hours on the engine is about the same price. 200 to mid-TBO tends to stick about the same. And half past TBO until maybe 200 hours until the end of TBO another tier. And 200 left to TBO and beyond, another.
So there’s a stair step depreciation thing in the pricing. But it’s still on a downward trend line until a new infusion of cash and a new engine.
So that factors in, too. Fly it more and sooner? You’re sucking away the value of the aircraft.
Those you do fiscally pretty well with the “Buy, fly the crap out of it fast, and sell” methodology, usually didn’t cross one of those “psychological barrier” numbers like “half of TBO” or similar.
If you can dedicate to flying 4-5 hours a week, you can save some bucks by buying and not renting, but you have to have the time and actually go do it.
That’s why I am budgeting my cost for the plane real low so I have reserve for if something happen right as soon as I sign the paper. I could get a low time plane but I would have no reserve for emergency. If something happen I’d have to wait a couple months before I can get it up and running again.
Operational cost is no problem. Depending on what I’m getting I plan on putting 15-20 reserve each hour. I know it’s more than I have to but it’s better to have excess than not enough
Man I plan to fly a lot but 16 hours a week would be hard even for me lol. Planning for6-10/week which is good amount for me.Yeah, my example was pretty extreme, I flew 400 hours in 6 months
I also bought a plane with a fresh overhaul so I took the risk of infant mortality, but that way when I sold it, it was a "prime" engine to sell (400ish SMOH within the past 12 months).
The thing about owning is, that you start doing missions that you just cannot do in a rental. Overnight rentals are often very restricted, especially in trainer airplanes.
mtuomi
En-Route
I had a number in mind that I wanted to hit. It worked out perfectly. I got my first flying job less than a week from my commercial checkride.
Even if I plan on getting a tail wheel, citabria would be way out of budget. The reason I don’t want to buy tw is because most of them comes with vfr panel and if I buy them I can only use it for my ppl and time building.
Right now I’m about to solo so I don’t see much send into buying one now since I won’t be able to use it for my ifr and commercial so I would have to keep renting even if I buy a tw plane.
That’s just what I think but I don’t know much about this world yet so please correct me if I’m wrong.
My cfi have no tailwheel time so if I do I’d have to find a new cfi. I feel like it would be better for me to wait til I have my ppl then do tw training. Does it make sense to keep renting and buy a tw plane just to build time?