Owners: did you overbuy for your original expected mission?

A

allPrimes

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
230
Location
Montana
Display Name
Display name:
allPrimes
I've read here and elsewhere that many aspiring first-time pilot-owners think that they'll either be flying a lot more than reality bears out or that they'll have a need for more plane than they end up needing. For the aircraft owners here, how did you define your original mission (i.e., before you bought your first plane for personal use) and after your first purchase, how accurate was your originally-defined mission to the reality you saw?

I'm a long way from buying anything but even in the few months that I've been thinking about "missions," my focus has gone from Mooneys and Bonanzas to early C182s and the like.

Edit: for bonus points, how did you define your first mission and what did you buy?
 
Last edited:
Ditto. I understood my mission pretty well and my purchase of the 180 arrow was about right. Doesn't mean I wouldn't kick an extra 20 knots out of bed, but for what it's worth, it works.
What I UNDERESTIMATED however was the dated panel and the work I put into updating it. I am now careful to update it but not OVER-update it. No need for a 100k dollar panel in a little arrow.
 
My budget kept me in check (no pun). I absolutely wanted more airplane, but the dollars were a problem.

A few years after I bought me airplane, it was down for maintenance and I borrowed a friend's aircraft. I realized that I actually liked flying my airplane...and decided I made the correct decision (if you ignore the aviation addition)
 
Too many seats (max filled 3 of 4 to date),

Not enough speed (who complains they have enough and would refuse more, all else being equal).
 
I think a lot of pilots actually under buy in that they think the 4 place aircraft they bought will fulfill their mission. In reality, the 4 place aircraft they bought is really a true 3 place. Then they find out the fam doesn’t really like flying in turbulence for hours at a time doing 130 kts either.
 
I have too much plane....but moving along at 200 for lunch is priceless. :D
 

Attachments

  • AFABFDB8-69A6-42C3-B285-790E42687DEA.jpeg
    AFABFDB8-69A6-42C3-B285-790E42687DEA.jpeg
    188.9 KB · Views: 74
I wanted a 4 place aircraft that could really seat 4 adults and bags flying over 130 knots with the range to cross a few states. That led me to my Piper Dakota, and I’m happy.

I could have settled for a 172, Cherokee 180 or Archer by rationalizing that I’d only want to fly 4 adults once per year or that most of my cross countries would be less than 150nm. However, having the added capabilities of my plane has led to a few amazing trips that would not have happened otherwise. So, my advice is buy the plane you want plus 20%.
 
My old broom tail 172 With STOL wings is exactly what this old man wanted.
I'm still a "student" but my flight mission is local . Have no where to go .
Dirt roads and grass strips are good enough.
At age 80 it's the final item in the bucket .
But , who knows . :)
 
allPrimes said:
...For the aircraft owners here, how did you define your original mission (i.e., before you bought your first plane for personal use) and after your first purchase, how accurate was your originally-defined mission to the reality you saw?..

...Edit: for bonus points, how did you define your first mission and what did you buy?
Click to expand...

schmookeeg said:
There is no overbuying, there is only under-funding.
Click to expand...

^^^This!

There wasn't any mission definition for the first plane. I was just tired of renting and got a chance to buy a ratty looking but mechanically sound Piper Cherokee for about what a good used Toyota sedan cost at the time. That was the sole criteria...could I pay cash for the plane and still eat.
I installed a PS Engineering audio panel (with a music input for my Sony Walkman - such luxury! :D ), a new King 155 radio and a used KT-76 transponder and after a few local flights for pancakes I headed to Oshkosh on a 2400 nm round trip to attend the airshow and camp for the week.

Checkout_my_Six said:
I have too much plane....but moving along at 200 for lunch is priceless. :D
Click to expand...

I thought you were bringing crab cake lunch back home with you?
 
I may have underbought. A lot of trips could have been done with a turbo that were otherwise canceled.

I bought based on grass strip capability, speed, cabin comfort, range, and useful load.

1300 useful 1000nm and can put four 6'+ adults in it without seat staggering.
 
Last edited:
allPrimes said:
Hmm... It appears as though in this community there is no such thing as "too much plane."
Click to expand...

:D

For your bonus question -- I was searching for a 200kt airplane with 1000# payload over 3 hours of endurance. I wanted my expected annual dry budget to be under $25K for 100 hours. I also did not want turbos unless the plane was also pressurized.

I looked at all manner of oddball planes trying to wriggle into this mission, finally found "the right mix" in my current one, a Beech D55.

To your overbuying point -- most days I only fly it around 185kt since the difference in fuel burn is considerable, and I've only had 3 people in it twice. It has six seats and payload to fill them.

Silly, probably, but you can't take the toys and cash with you. I still want a turbine, but can't do it on THAT budget without partners.
 
GRG55 said:
I thought you were bringing crab cake lunch back home with you?
Click to expand...
Shhhush.....Mrs C requires her prompt live blue crab delivery. That’s my story... and I’m stink’n to it. ;)
 

Attachments

  • 87602279-0C98-46FD-9CED-E15B23837623.jpeg
    87602279-0C98-46FD-9CED-E15B23837623.jpeg
    198.4 KB · Views: 59
  • 8ED4FB38-4864-4CD2-BDAD-B44E1DE49050.jpeg
    8ED4FB38-4864-4CD2-BDAD-B44E1DE49050.jpeg
    105.1 KB · Views: 56
EdFred said:
I may have underbought. A lot of trips could have been done with a turbo that were otherwise canceled.

I bought based on grass strip capability, speed, cabin comfort, range, and useful load.

1300 useful 1000nm and can put four 6'+ adults in it without seat staggering.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on this? I am debating on buying with or without a turbo and was leaning toward no. Not planning on cross the Rockies all that often from here in Midwest. And higher just seemed like a good chance to find some ice half the year here.
 
masloki said:
Can you expand on this? I am debating on buying with or without a turbo and was leaning toward no. Not planning on cross the Rockies all that often from here in Midwest. And higher just seemed like a good chance to find some ice half the year here.
Click to expand...

There's been a number of times where its been fine where I am and fine at destination, but icy IMC or embedded TS where if I could get up to the high teens FL200 in between me and there where I could make the trip if I had turbo and could get up over the ice or get above the embedded and dodge the TCUs.


Edit: I also want a manual wastegate.
 
My 182P Turbo-normalized met my mission objectives and carries 4 people plus bags and fuel. Would I like to have something faster than 135kts down low and 165kts up high? sure.

Other than that the 182 is nearly ideal. High density altitude take-off and all round performance is straightforward with the turbos and Robertson STOL kit.

My Mission profile:
  • Up to 4 people
  • Heavy hauler
  • 700-800 Nm range
  • Least 130 kts cruise
  • High density alt performer
  • Easy availability of parts and experienced mechanics
  • Reasonable cost to insurance
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
There's been a number of times where its been fine where I am and fine at destination, but icy IMC or embedded TS where if I could get up to the high teens FL200 in between me and there where I could make the trip if I had turbo and could get up over the ice or get above the embedded and dodge the TCUs.


Edit: I also want a manual wastegate.
Click to expand...
The two I am looking at, one with Ray Jay turbo and not much else in the panel, and the other at least has a few instrument upgrades knocked out but no IFR GPS are about the same price-wise. Adding a turbo after is not gonna happen, but they seem to be decent once dialed in with a touch more maintenance, at least according to my internet research.
 
masloki said:
The two I am looking at, one with Ray Jay turbo and not much else in the panel, and the other at least has a few instrument upgrades knocked out but no IFR GPS are about the same price-wise. Adding a turbo after is not gonna happen, but they seem to be decent once dialed in with a touch more maintenance, at least according to my internet research.
Click to expand...

Are you ok with what seems to be essentially no IFR capability? It is probably cheaper to buy the plane with everything installed than it is to do it yourself. On the other hand, if you are willing to spend the money you can make everything just the way you want.
 
So far, my RV-9A fits my mission exactly as I envisioned it. Fast, economical two place cruiser that is instrument-capable, will fly at 10,000 to 15,000 feet, and that I can maintain (pretty much). It needs to accommodate 200-500 mile trips carrying me, or my wife and me, and carry-on baggage.
 
Aviator305 said:
Are you ok with what seems to be essentially no IFR capability? It is probably cheaper to buy the plane with everything installed than it is to do it yourself. On the other hand, if you are willing to spend the money you can make everything just the way you want.
Click to expand...
Ideally, no, but that is a $10k or less problem, whereas a turbo isn't going to happen for less than 50k.
 
masloki said:
The two I am looking at, one with Ray Jay turbo and not much else in the panel, and the other at least has a few instrument upgrades knocked out but no IFR GPS are about the same price-wise. Adding a turbo after is not gonna happen, but they seem to be decent once dialed in with a touch more maintenance, at least according to my internet research.
Click to expand...

My 182P has the Rajay twin turbo-normalized set-up. Posted above: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...riginal-expected-mission.128754/#post-2990776

Love the set-up, but would not run it without an engine analyzer. The beauty of the Rajay set-up is the system is 100% off-line and flies like a standard O-470R until the waste gates are closed. Local flights below 8000' they system is not often engaged.

A fixed gear 182 turbo is incredibly flexible. High density altitudes while heavy is nearly a non-issue.

I think I've shared the story before of flying from Wyoming to SF Bay Area at 16,500 MSL going 160 kts. Decided to climb to 17,500' to avoid a cloud at 750'/min. ATC radioed me while flight following with "did you say you were a Cessna?".

Guess it's not common for them to see a 182P with that rate of climb. :7)
 
Last edited:
Nope, bought just about right. Met my mission needs. Could always use more speed and power, but it really wouldn't have made much difference
 
masloki said:
Ideally, no, but that is a $10k or less problem, whereas a turbo isn't going to happen for less than 50k.
Click to expand...
50? Really. I've seen for cheaper, though depends on airframe maybe.
 
First plane was an Archer. Bought it for budget and for learning ownership. It was slow but capable.

Now I have a 6 seater (Lance). I fly it mostly solo, but it enables me to carry when I want. I have filled all 6 seats once and 5 seats once. But I've only had it 3 months.

Also, can't post the picture, but I fit a huge box in it that would never fit an Archer or most other (maybe all) 4 seaters.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
First plane was an Archer. Bought it for budget and for learning ownership. It was slow but capable.

Now I have a 6 seater (Lance). I fly it mostly solo, but it enables me to carry when I want. I have filled all 6 seats once and 5 seats once. But I've only had it 3 months.

Also, can't post the picture, but I fit a huge box in it that would never fit an Archer or most other (maybe all) 4 seaters.
Click to expand...

Wait till you take out all the seats except the pilot seat. I do that in the Comanche, and it looks like a box truck on the inside.
 
EdFred said:
Wait till you take out all the seats except the pilot seat. I do that in the Comanche, and it looks like a box truck on the inside.
Click to expand...
I had someone wanting me to fly 11 dogs this weekend. Would've fit pretty easily. Unfortunately my prop had other plans.
 
My initial mission was just to get something I could afford and build time in. I bought a '66 C150F and it was perfect. Later, I wanted something that would let me take more than one passenger and be a little faster, so I bought a '63 C172D. I made two round trips from California to Florida in it, plus lots of 500-1,000 nm cross-country trips to destinations in the western U.S and Mexico. A medical issue prompted me to sell the 172, buy an LSA, and use my valid CA driver license in lieu of a medical certificate. Even though I've been flying under BasicMed since May, 2017, I still own and fly the LSA since it meets my mission requirements for 95% of the kind of flying I do, and I can rent a 172, 182, or PA32 from the FBO where I got my last flight review for the other 5% if I need more seats for taking friends on a bay tour.

If I were younger, I'd consider building a FURIO-RG, a development of the Stelio Frati designed F8L Falco executed in carbon fiber, but at 78 I'm simply running out of time and enjoy flying my LSA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top