plane for the mission? college student flying

LJS1993 said:
What would be so bad about a Tomahawk? They are cheap, made as trainers, etc?
Click to expand...

The Traumahawk?

Great plane if you have good CFIs

Not a great trainer when used with lowtime or hobby CFIs

Same deal with the Grummans
 
\__[Ô]__/;1290048 said:
Kitfox was on my list, but last time I looked, I couldn't find one with a 4 stroke engine priced in our budget.
Click to expand...
Kitfox is popular and pricey

The Avid Flyer (which was what Denny copied when he made the first Kitfox) will be less expensive as will other Avid Flyer derivatives (Like my Merlin GT).
 
ChitDisturber said:
Whoa, hold on a second.

Guessing you said that backwards.

So are you saying a C150 is MORE aircraft then a 7AC or Taylorcraft??
Click to expand...

You get more radios and that sort of **** for the same price in a 150/152. A 150/152 feels a lot roomier than the 120/140, Taylorcraft, Champ. The 150/152s with the back window have a huge baggage area (volume).
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You get more radios and that sort of **** for the same price in a 150/152. A 150/152 feels a lot roomier than the 120/140, Taylorcraft, Champ. The 150/152s with the back window have a huge baggage area (volume).
Click to expand...
i like the 150 for this topic too, but there is no way a 150 feels roomier than a champ
 
LJS1993 said:
What would be so bad about a Tomahawk? They are cheap, made as trainers, etc?
Click to expand...

Tomahawk hasn't been ruled out. I've flown one and really liked it. However, we need to make a case that what we're doing is safe, and their reputation for stall/spin fatalities might be a problem for us.
I don't want to get into relative safety records of the tomahawk vs. etc... here. The point is that the perception of being unsafe could be enough to cause a problem for us.
 
\__[Ô]__/;1290124 said:
Tomahawk hasn't been ruled out. I've flown one and really liked it. However, we need to make a case that what we're doing is safe, and their reputation for stall/spin fatalities might be a problem for us.
I don't want to get into relative safety records of the tomahawk vs. etc... here. The point is that the perception of being unsafe could be enough to cause a problem for us.
Click to expand...
i would mainly advocate for a 150 just because there are more of them to choose from. That said, a thomahawk is a heck of a lot more confortable and your target audience is not going to be versed in any "preceptions" of safety or lack thereof
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You get more radios and that sort of **** for the same price in a 150/152. A 150/152 feels a lot roomier than the 120/140, Taylorcraft, Champ. The 150/152s with the back window have a huge baggage area (volume).
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, teaching folks from the ground up in a taildragger will make a better pilot.

Having a fancy radio stack.. not so much.

Besides their bread and butter is PPL students and for that you don't need a airliner panel, heck it makes for a better VFR pilot NOT having too many distractions on the panel.

Then I could be biased, learned how to fly in a 7AC
 
ChitDisturber said:
For what it's worth, teaching folks from the ground up in a taildragger will make a better pilot.

Having a fancy radio stack.. not so much.

Besides their bread and butter is PPL students and for that you don't need a airliner panel, heck it makes for a better VFR pilot NOT having too many distractions on the panel.

Then I could be biased, learned how to fly in a 7AC
Click to expand...

And I learned to fly in a Cessna 120.

On the e-AB angle:
"Because the club decided to buy an experimental aircraft, everyone had to have an ownership position, otherwise members would not be allowed to rent the aircraft, said Hamilton. So the club was formed as an LLC, he added."
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...mp-Creek-Flying-Club-builds-own-aircraft.aspx
 
Tom-D said:
That's what a low price will get you.

500 hours to TBO and maybe a long time after.
Click to expand...

I know a guy with a 150 that has nearly 2700 SMOH and has better compression and less junk in the oil than the one at the flying school at the same field that has 900 SMOH.

I concur that the 150 is probably the plane the OP is looking for. Cheap to buy because it's NOT SP-approved (I expect that to change in the not-too-distant future), cheap to fly, no vices and no surprises.

Good 150s can be found for under $15K. With the autogas STC, they fly for about $30 per hour.
 
\__[Ô]__/;1290056 said:
I'm hoping to find something experimental with lower ownership/operating costs than what I can find in the certified world.
Click to expand...

You will spend $30K for a used RANS, which runs on autogas and which you can do your own maintenance on -- but will need an A&P to do the annual condition inspection (which will cost as little as $500).

You can spend $15K for a used 150, which runs on autogas and what you can do your own maintenance on "under the supervision" of an A&P -- but will need an IA to do the annual inspection (which will cost as little as $500).

For the extra $15K, you get an Experimental airplane, which has to be hangared to keep the fabric from disintegrating, which has fewer instruments, less carrying capacity and landing gear which is a fraction of the strength of that of the 150. What a bargain . . ?!
 
I bought a real plane for $20k no limitations.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Indeed. I paid $20,000. for mine. Doesn't get much more expensive than that.

It would fit the bill except it does not have lights. And I'm not sure how E-AB fits into the rental idea.

Taylorcraft, Champ, etc. can be had for $25K or less. But you do get more airplane for the money if you buy a Cessna 150.
Click to expand...
 
If you are going to have a real flight school than have real airplanes.

The Cessna 150 is good and cheap operating expenses but no cheaper to by than a Cherokee. The 150 is limited by its useful load of two 180-190 lb people and fuel.

We live in a world where even students are less likely to be under 200lbs so the 150 limits you to the full range of possible students.

For this reason, on a one plane school, I would not limit it to an aircraft with a 500lb useful load. Even if only 10% of your possible students are 250-270 lbs that rules out a lot of potential off a new startup.

The additional gallon or two per hour of operation is a non event IMO.
 
like others have suggested, a 150 is a good start. im building time with a 150 and a warrior. the 150 is good for slow x countries. i went to nantucket a few weeks ago and saw cars passing me
 
jordane93 said:
like others have suggested, a 150 is a good start. im building time with a 150 and a warrior. the 150 is good for slow x countries. i went to nantucket a few weeks ago and saw cars passing me
Click to expand...

I once knew a girl in Nantucket...
 
SoloEqs said:
All of the Cherokees I've seen were in the 172 price range (<$22K), while 150s are available for less than $12K.

However, I agree, the PA might be a good choice for his needs.
Click to expand...

A cessna 150 bought for 12k is going to be a Maintenance pig.

You want one with good paint, legal radios, mid time engine with after market cylinders, good glass, nice interior, oil filter. those will not be bought for under 18-20k.
 
Sounds like there's pretty strong agreement on the 150. I really wish it qualified for sport pilot. That and the cramped size are the big negatives. I have to go back and see how important the sport pilot thing is to people.

Can anyone give me a ballpark figure on an O-200-A overhaul cost?
 
\__[Ô]__/;1292123 said:
Sounds like there's pretty strong agreement on the 150. I really wish it qualified for sport pilot. That and the cramped size are the big negatives. I have to go back and see how important the sport pilot thing is to people.

Can anyone give me a ballpark figure on an O-200-A overhaul cost?
Click to expand...

Between $7k and $12k depending on what it needs.
 
SoloEqs said:
You will spend $30K for a used RANS, which runs on autogas and which you can do your own maintenance on -- but will need an A&P to do the annual condition inspection (which will cost as little as $500).

You can spend $15K for a used 150, which runs on autogas and what you can do your own maintenance on "under the supervision" of an A&P -- but will need an IA to do the annual inspection (which will cost as little as $500).

For the extra $15K, you get an Experimental airplane, which has to be hangared to keep the fabric from disintegrating, which has fewer instruments, less carrying capacity and landing gear which is a fraction of the strength of that of the 150. What a bargain . . ?!
Click to expand...

Well clearly that wouldn't be our choice of plane then. The point of investigating experimentals is to expand our options in hope of finding something with lower operating cost (possibly via lower fuel usage) or something flyable under light sport, which the 150 and most certified planes in our budget aren't. We wouldn't pick an experimental that didn't give us any benefits over a certified plane. But since running an experimental might be possible for our situation, I feel it's worth looking into what's out there that might be suitable.
 
Tom-D said:
A cessna 150 bought for 12k is going to be a Maintenance pig.

You want one with good paint, legal radios, mid time engine with after market cylinders, good glass, nice interior, oil filter. those will not be bought for under 18-20k.
Click to expand...


Just when I was losing faith in ol Tom..... He adds the best post in the thread.....:yes:
 
\__[Ô]__/;1292149 said:
Well clearly that wouldn't be our choice of plane then. The point of investigating experimentals is to expand our options in hope of finding something with lower operating cost (possibly via lower fuel usage) or something flyable under light sport, which the 150 and most certified planes in our budget aren't. We wouldn't pick an experimental that didn't give us any benefits over a certified plane. But since running an experimental might be possible for our situation, I feel it's worth looking into what's out there that might be suitable.
Click to expand...

The problem you will run into with an experimental is renting out. You can get around the problems with having a club which I believe will require equity stakes for all members (giving them some ownership interest), but it likely won't be worth the hassle. Experimentals are not cheaper than certified planes to acquire, and are not part particularly cheaper to keep in good repair since outside of avionics, most all the rest of the parts will be the same.

There is a super sharp extremely low time C-150 for sale on this board that he's asking $35k for. This would be advantageous to something like this because you are starting with a good airplane that doesn't need a bunch of catch up work which anything for <$20k will require.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63780&highlight=C-150
 
Last edited:
\__[Ô]__/;1292149 said:
Well clearly that wouldn't be our choice of plane then. The point of investigating experimentals is to expand our options in hope of finding something with lower operating cost (possibly via lower fuel usage) or something flyable under light sport, which the 150 and most certified planes in our budget aren't.
Click to expand...

I believe the 150/152 has a MOGAS STC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top