Seeking Advice on Purchase & Ownership

Coolidge

Coolidge

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
Coolidge
Hello folks,

After years of dreaming, I finally find myself in a position where aircraft ownership and being able to fly around 100 hours a year is possible. I'm seeking a little education here before I make any costly or unnecessary mistakes.

I am finishing up my Sport Pilots License and would like to purchase an airplane between now and next summer. I'm prepared to make the purchase if the right one comes along, but I don't want to rush into it and do something I'll regret later.

As an aside, I understand most people see very little benefit in getting a Sport Pilots License over a Private Pilots License. For the sake of this thread, let's assume that there are no alternatives for me other than aircraft that fit into the Light Sport category so we can avoid that debate, if you please.

I have been looking at Champs, Chiefs, Cubs, & PA-11/15/17's for a long time now and have pretty much decided that one of these old rag wing taildraggers would be an ideal first airplane for me to own. I have hangar space lined up, an old A&P/IA with extensive maintenance experience & A.D. familiarity on all of the above that is willing to travel to do a pre-buy, and a ferry pilot that will bring it back from anywhere in the U.S. One of the added benefits of one of these models is that I'll be able to pay cash. I've thoroughly enjoyed the time I've spent in these in the past and 99.9% of my flying will be purely for recreation over very rural areas. It would be a perfect fit.

So, we'll call option 1 buying an old taildragger.

However, lately I've been finding myself considering the merits of buying a newer, more modern aircraft, specifically an RV-12 S-LSA. I know that if I went that route, I'd be getting a new, nicer, more capable airplane with a higher useful load but they're also considerably more expensive. This means I would likely end up financing about half of the purchase price, which I'm not too excited about. I still have the hangar space worked out, and I've spoken to Vic @ Base Leg Aviation who specializes in RV pre-buys, so I'm comfortable with the logistics of it, I'm just torn.

Looks like we'll call option 2 buying an RV-12.

First question; which option makes more sense to you? Pay cash for an old taildragger that will fill my current mission requirements perfectly, or spend a lot more money (half of it borrowed) on a newer, all metal modern aircraft with fancy avionics and an autopilot?

Second question; is there any way to figure out how quickly a newer airplane will lose value? I know it isn't an exact science, but how on earth could I figure out how much I'd lose on an RV-12? I figure on an old taildragger you'd come out alright, but I don't know how to figure out where a 10 year old airplane is on it's value curve.

Thanks in advance! Looking forward to hearing different perspectives.

Coolidge
 
If it’s a financial concern, the old taildragger is the way to go. A 10 year old LSA still has a lot of depreciating to do - probably at least another 10 or 20 years worth. Maybe more - a 1999 Cessna is still a baby at 20 years old, and has a lot of depreciating left to do before it catches up with its nearest “legacy” version.

I do think the newer RV-12 style planes are more useful from a traveling perspective.

In general, you’ll have a lot more fun if you don’t have debt on the plane, so you should take that into consideration.

In my experience, if you buy an old, fully depreciated plane, you fly them for a few hundred hours and sell them for exactly what you bought them for. Not a lot of depreciation loss and you might even come out ahead when you factor in the hours (not including maintenance, storage, and operating costs, obviously).
 
My advice... Go fly both, then make a decision. I was all set to buy a Champ. Then I flew one, and flew an RV-12. There was no debate after that. If you plan to do ANY cross country travel, the 12 is the way to go. You CAN fly it low and slow, but you can’t push a Cub or Champ to 120 knots. If you shop around and don’t demand the latest panel, there are bargains out there. Low time D180 equipped planes can be had for prices that don’t put you in a ton of debt.

I still want a tube and fabric or wood and fabric plane; in fact I’m building one. But, I wouldn’t want one as my only plane. Your priorities and plans may be different.
 
If you had to regret one of the two choices, I would start with Option 1. If you regret it, you’ll be net-neutral cost-wise. Then you can execute Option 2 after selling Option 1.

If you go Option 2 first, you’ll be in the hole financially due to depreciation, and will be paying for it whether or not you figure out that Option 1 would’ve been the right choice. If you then execute Option 1, you’ve already paid the full cost of the mistake.

I would rather regret Option 1 than 2. Just financial logic here, no sense of any other real variable.
 
Option 1-A: Ercoupe (not a taildragger though, the little wheel is at the proper end of the plane :)).
 
Define your mission first.

$100 hamburgers? Local sightseeing? Pancake breakfast fly-ins? Go for the old taildragger.

Cross country travel? Long weekends? Flying vacations? RV12.

A bit of both? Ercoupe with the STC to take the weight up to 1320lbs, if you're okay with slow xc trips.
 
What's your budget? I love the 8A Luscombe which qualifies as light sport. Course you have to hand-prop it but that's fun. You can get a nice one for $20K.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
If you had to regret one of the two choices, I would start with Option 1. If you regret it, you’ll be net-neutral cost-wise. Then you can execute Option 2 after selling Option 1.

If you go Option 2 first, you’ll be in the hole financially due to depreciation, and will be paying for it whether or not you figure out that Option 1 would’ve been the right choice. If you then execute Option 1, you’ve already paid the full cost of the mistake.

I would rather regret Option 1 than 2. Just financial logic here, no sense of any other real variable.
Click to expand...

This is true except for sales and use taxes. I’d buy and sell a lot more planes if it didn’t cost me $5-$10k a pop just in taxes for the privilege of trading. Of course, in the case of a $20k champ, we’re not talking more than $2,000, but still...
 
Awesome information, thanks so much guys!

I didn't really expand much on "mission", but what I meant about recreational flying over very rural areas was basically hops around the pattern, flying along the rivers, general local sightseeing, and a travel radius not to exceed 100nm. At this point, I have no interest in flying more than an hour or two away from home, nor do I wish to fly at night, or in anything approaching marginal weather, or in congested airspace.

Dale; glad to hear from someone who has had the exact same thoughts! I've got about 8 hours in a Citabria and have been on a few ride sin Cubs & Champs, but I have had trouble finding a local RV-12 to try out.

455BU; your line of thinking makes a lot of sense to me. My gut tells me to get a Champ/Chief as a time-builder because that's all I really need right now and I should be able to net out pretty well on the deal when/if I decide to do something different. I'm more comfortable parking $30,000 in an airplane that shouldn't depreciate much more than I am borrowing money on a $75,000 airplane without any real idea what it'll be worth in 5 or 10 years. I'd love to hear some arguments to the contrary though!

alfadog; I'd like to spend around $30,000 if it's going to be a cash deal. I could do a little more if needed, but if I do the old taildragger route it seems like there are plenty of ultra-basic, no electric, low & mid-time examples out there for under $30,000. I don't know much about Luscombe's, but they seem to be an attractive alternative. There's a local CFI that instructs in one. It was my understanding that they didn't have quite the useful load that some of the other similar aircraft do (don't most have metal wings?).
 
Coolidge said:
Awesome information, thanks so much guys!

...
alfadog; I'd like to spend around $30,000 if it's going to be a cash deal. I could do a little more if needed, but if I do the old taildragger route it seems like there are plenty of ultra-basic, no electric, low & mid-time examples out there for under $30,000. I don't know much about Luscombe's, but they seem to be an attractive alternative. There's a local CFI that instructs in one. It was my understanding that they didn't have quite the useful load that some of the other similar aircraft do (don't most have metal wings?).
Click to expand...

If you're going the old taildragger route, I really think the Luscombe is the best of the lot. It cruises the fastest, I would imagine, at a nice 105 mph cruise, and can handle gentleman aerobatics. I did loops and rolls in the one I flew. Loops no problem but my rolls needed some work so I didn't do more than a couple. That said, make sure your A&P checks the airplane over very very well before you start stressing it. The 8A came in both rag wing and metal wing flavors. I don't know if there's a preference for one over the other. The one in my YouTube channel was metal wings and the one we're putting together now is a rag wing.
 
One thing about the Luscombe is that if you're 6ft tall that's marginal, over 6ft tall you're probably not going to like it.
 
Yes, you need to make a decision whether you want a sub $30k cash deal or finance a "nicer" plane. It all has to do with what you want to fly. I have 50 hours in a ctls and I am a fan of them. There's a nice ctsw on Barnstormers for $70k. You may or may not take some depreciation but I would not consider that a factor in the purchase decision.

https://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?id=1513332
 
Keep in mind that purchase price has little to do with overall cost of ownership. A nice RV12 should require very little maintenance expense verses a older aircraft that could have issues. RV12 parts are dirt cheap compared to some options and sip gas.
 
maintenance is the real cost of ownership. Don't worry about the purchase price.
 
yetti said:
maintenance is the real cost of ownership. Don't worry about the purchase price.
Click to expand...

Another bonus to a dirt simple airplane like a Luscombe. The fellow that owned the one that I flew was paying $600 for an annual. This was years before I got my A&P so it was nothing I was helping with. It was very much an owner assisted annual though.
 
Thanks for the continued input guys. I really, really appreciate the information.

Half Fast; I've done some research on Ercoupes and seen a few in person, but never flown one. They sure do seem neat. From my inexperienced perspective, it seems like they are less traditional and fewer/farther between than the sum of all the Champs, Chiefs, Cubs, and Cub variants out there. Makes me worry that selling an Ercoupe down the road would be more difficult than selling an old taildragger with more brand recognition. Do you think I'm off-base here?

Alfa & Eppy; thanks for the alternative suggestions. Those all seem to be sharp airplanes. I especially like the Flight Design/CT line and the Sting's. I thought about it for a long time and ended up eliminating all of them from my search. I was concerned that the current LSA gross weight standards might be a huge part of what makes this whole sub-segment of European-built composite aircraft attractive to LSA consumers. I don't know the reason, but it seems like the majority of people that I talk to in the GA community view these euro composite aircraft with a skeptical eye. It's not a sentiment that I share with them, but it seems much more prevalent than I would have thought. It also seems like the notice of proposed rule making issued by the FAA last fall regarding an increase in gross weight limit for LSA's is worth taking into consideration. I realize the FAA is a government entity and will be slow to act and could take years to change anything (if ever) so I'm not holding my breath. However, I'd be nervous about how the value of my aircraft would be affected if I owned a Flight Design, Czech Cruiser, Sting, Colt, Tecnam, etc. if a gross weight increase were to ever pass. I would be less concerned in that same situation if I owned an RV-12, and even less concerned still if I owned a Cub or Champ. Perhaps I'm being foolish, I just can't help but think about how the already thin demand might be driven towards other aircraft that were not previously able to be operated under the LSA rules, if such a change were to pass (C-120/140/150/152). I'd like to hear your thoughts on it?

Jeff; very good point! I've heard the argument for spending more at initial purchase and getting something in good shape versus buying cheap and having to put thousands and thousands into it. That argument has always made good sense to me, which is why I'm hesitating here and considering an RV-12. If I do go the old taildragger route, I hope to avoid getting burned too bad by having a solid A&P who is familiar with the type and appropriate AD's do a thorough pre-buy to make sure engine, airframe, wing spars, fabric, paint, etc. are in good shape, and by being prepared to walk away from it even if I had some money tied up in the pre-buy and travel.

Yetti; could you please expand on that? I'm having a lot of trouble disregarding the price difference between a $30,000 airplane and a $75,000 airplane. I'm afraid I don't have that luxury, and at first glance, it sounds a bit foolish. Do you mean that I should expect that to recover my acquisition cost when I sell, no matter the initial purchase price?
 
yetti said:
maintenance is the real cost of ownership. Don't worry about the purchase price.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The reason I don't own an RV-10 or SR-22 isn't because I somehow can't afford the maintenance or insurance on either. I certainly can. It's the CAPEX that makes it so. In 7 years and almost 400 hours, I've yet to come close to spending the difference in CAPEX differential outright from the lowly arrow. Let alone if I make a more even comparison, and only aggregated the mx cost and not the fuel cost (direct cost I'd incur with all airplanes). When you also account for the fact that the more expensive airplane won't have a zero mx cost, the amortization table to hitting CAPEX parity extends into decades, not single years. It's just not even close.

Your statement would be more applicable to comparisons like a fully depreciated worn out twin, when compared to a single of similar useful load. But single to single? No way mx is the biggest driver of marginal cost. Capital acquisition has always been my biggest obstacle to expanded participation in the hobby.
 
Regarding proposed LSA changes ... I was wondering the same thing , how it is going affect existing LSA market but ultimately I figured , this will probably take many, many years for whatever changes they will ultimately agree to , to become reality... it could be 5 or it could be 10 years ...who knows.

You could try to hedge your bets a bit and get something like Sling 2 which is designed for 1600 lbs and being sold as an LSA with a 1320 gross limit...

Personally, I could not really afford a “modern” plane like a Cirrus or DA42 - I wanted a relatively new plane , factory build and preferably non-certified ..and with my budget being around 100k, the only choice was a modern LSA so I went out on bought a 2012 used Sting S4...
I couldn’t care less about what the “GA community” thinks of these planes... buzzing around in a 110 knots plane with awesome visibility, roomy and comfortable cockpit , modern avionics and a BRS - that’s all I really need .
I am a software engineer in my 40s with a comfortable and very well paying job... I ain’t gonna make a career out of any sort of flying , I don’t care about IFR or any serious cross country flying ...
All I care about is being able to go up there , after work and on weekends, and just relax - I have no “mission” beyond having fun and for that sort of non-mission , a modern and comfortable LSA is pretty much the perfect choice.
 
Excellent post, Warmi! I understand what you are saying. Sounds like our intentions and "missions" are the same.

My main concern with the GA community’s opinion of these European composite LSA’s isn't really based in vanity. I just don't want to end up like one of the 200 poor souls that bought SkyCatchers. Losing $80,000 - $100,000 on SkyCatcher (or any airplane) in 7-8 years isn't going to work for me. I realize that the SkyCatcher was a one-off, but it sure makes you think. They all seem like fantastic airplanes. I guess eventually you just have to go with your gut and pick what you think makes the most sense!
 
Last edited:
Well, I know what you mean but I made peace with myself by stipulating that this is not an investment but rather a hobby.
My main concern was mostly with not ending up with an orphan plane without any technical support rather than anything else like resaleability value etc. ... but , yes, in the end this is an expensive hobby and you gonna have to have a decent income to support it.

Personally, I think something like RV 12 is probably the best compromise between having a decently capable and modern “toy” to play with and running a risk with your new investment being potentially devaluated overnight with a single stroke of a pen of some FAA bureaucrat - if they can create a new market almost overnight ( as they did 15 or so years ago) , they can just as easily destroy it ...
 
Speaking from experience, are you sure you'll put 100 hours a year on a plane? Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to put 100 hours on my Sportcruiser a year. But life, weather, work all get in the way, so I'm lucky if get about half that flight time in.

In terms of aircraft... you've got to fly the ones you're interested in to make an informed decision. The composite aircraft like Flight Design, Sting, and Remos are fine. They fly well, with my person nod toward a Flight Design CTsw given your price range and concern about useful load.

'The RV12 and the Sling 2 are very nice planes. The Sling 2 is a bit heavy, but it was designed to be stout and can easily accomodate way more than the 1,320 pounds max gross mandated by the FAA for Light Sport aircraft. The Vans RV12 is lighter and well engineered and it may be worth calling the factory or hanging out in the forum to see if anyone is selling one used. As you stated, you'll end-up carrying a note on these aircraft as they'll be above a $30-50K budget.

As much as I like the cloth winged aircraft, performance (read: level flight speed) will be something you'll want eventually. The ability to actually "get somewhere" will usually become part of the equation. If you don't think it will be a factor for you, then the cloth wing aircraft might be a great way to get into flying without extra loan payments to worry about.

But as I started with... fly each one and decide what works for you. I trained in a Remos, flew another LSA that I did not enjoy flying (it was fine, I wasn't used to a yoke), flew a Sportcruiser and loved it, so that's what I ended-up buying.
 
I love a Cub and its a great first trainer. You'd have a hard time getting much for 30K. But its not much for going places, 70 mph with about 3 hrs of fuel. Its kind of like riding a hot little motorcycle, but you arent going to take it on a 1000 mile trip. The Cub however is not hot. its docile, and super for short and small strips.

I dont know an R-12. You really need a flight in each before buying. PS you can get private pilot training without having to buy a plane beyond light sport.
 
Also consider a Taylorcraft... faster than most of the others in its class, but tight cockpit. They ran from prewar to late 1980s. My first plane was a 1941 T-Craft. But for maintenance costs, an experimental wins hands down unless you're an A&P. And if you don't really need two seats, a single seat experimental can be the least expensive (like under $10K) flying there is.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Nonsense. The reason I don't own an RV-10 or SR-22 isn't because I somehow can't afford the maintenance or insurance on either. I certainly can. It's the CAPEX that makes it so. In 7 years and almost 400 hours, I've yet to come close to spending the difference in CAPEX differential outright from the lowly arrow. Let alone if I make a more even comparison, and only aggregated the mx cost and not the fuel cost (direct cost I'd incur with all airplanes). When you also account for the fact that the more expensive airplane won't have a zero mx cost, the amortization table to hitting CAPEX parity extends into decades, not single years. It's just not even close.

Your statement would be more applicable to comparisons like a fully depreciated worn out twin, when compared to a single of similar useful load. But single to single? No way mx is the biggest driver of marginal cost. Capital acquisition has always been my biggest obstacle to expanded participation in the hobby.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Airplanes aren't "investments". One shouldn't ignore the opportunity cost of the "front-end" capital tied up in an airplane.

I'm in your camp on this. As long as one avoids the overinflated training market darlings, such as 172s, there's a plethora of very capable airplanes out there that trade for rather attractive values.
The "fear of fabric" (and wooden wings) discounts the prices of even the best examples of Vikings that come on the market.
The ridiculous discounted entry price of my Aztec plus all the money I have spent on it in 7 years of ownership still doesn't get me to the cost of building and flying a comparably equipped, but still less capable, RV-10.
If you are comfortable fitting into one, the short body Mooneys with 360 Lycomings are fast and reasonably thrifty airplanes for less than one will spend building a comparable kitplane, or buying some of the LSAs new. And one can own one of these Mooneys along with several 100% spares for less money than a single plastic fantastic.

These are just a few examples. And I am not suggesting this is the best or only route to aircraft ownership and enjoyment for everyone. But these days patient, opportunistic shopping is usually rewarding. I think @pigpenracing is another here that has figured that out.
 
Last edited:
Hey Coolidge,

I own a Champ and they are great little planes. They do have limitations though. There are also several things to consider when buying a old taildragger. Feel free to PM me and I would be happy to chat about Champs and what to look for when purchasing.

Pete
 
You CAN pay over $100K for a high end, show quality, new or near brand new RV-12, but there are some really, really good deals out there right now. There’s a high premium on the Skyview equipped and 12iS models. An older build with a D180 panel and carbs can be had for under $60K. You're still getting a fairly new airplane with a modern panel and (in most cases) autopilot. You may need to spend a little on ADS-B compliance, but I think I spent under $1500 total for that.

Yes, it will cost you more than a Champ or some (maybe most) Cubs. Not more than your house, though. As for changes to the LSA rules, no rules will change what the airplane is -- a light, sporty, two-place airplane that will haul two people with a carry-on sized bag or two, at 120 knots true, while burning MOGAS at 5-6 GPH. At 100 - 105 knots I'm burning about 4.5 GPH or less. It's pretty cheap flying -- we figure about $33 per hour wet, including an engine overhaul reserve. Regardless of what changes may or may not occur during our lifetimes, it's not like they'll suddenly drop the value of the plane much. If your mission includes actually going anywhere, it's a really good choice.

On the flip side, your other choices are many. Champs, Cubs, Luscombe, T-craft, Ercoupes and on and on and on. They're all slow, some require hand propping, and they're all certified airplanes with all the maintenance and upkeep implications of that. But, for the most part, their value has bottomed out, so they're mostly cheap to buy. Just make sure you have a friendly mechanic who you trust. If your only intended use is buzzing pastures and enjoying nice days, they're great. And, while there's no shortage of ugly ducklings out there, or a few grand more you can get a really nice looking little plane that will get you a lot of compliments.

Oh, and one other choice you might want to look at is a Sonex. I haven't even sat in one, but they're cheap, light, and quick.
 
Warmi said:
Well, I know what you mean but I made peace with myself by stipulating that this is not an investment but rather a hobby.

...risk with your new investment being potentially devaluated overnight with a single stroke of a pen of some FAA bureaucrat - if they can create a new market almost overnight ( as they did 15 or so years ago) , they can just as easily destroy it ...
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Exactly.

When I was racing sports cars, the prevailing wisdom was not to put more money on the track than you would be willing to hold in your fingers and touch with a lit match.

I’m plane shopping right now, and I have adopted a similar attitude. Sure, resale value would be nice, but ultimately these are expendable funds being used to provide enjoyment, just like paying for a vacation. No expectation to recoup.

OP, the Ercoupes seem to sell easily enough, especially the ones that are LSA legal. An STC will take the max gross from 1260 to the LSA limit of 1320, and if the FAA ever increases that limit there’s another STC to go to 1400. That’s significant compared to the old LSA taildraggers. If you want to pay cash and stay under 30k or so, an Ercoupe might be your most practical choice.
 
Half Fast said:
:yeahthat:

OP, the Ercoupes seem to sell easily enough, especially the ones that are LSA legal. An STC will take the max gross from 1260 to the LSA limit of 1320, and if the FAA ever increases that limit there’s another STC to go to 1400. That’s significant compared to the old LSA taildraggers. If you want to pay cash and stay under 30k or so, an Ercoupe might be your most practical choice.
Click to expand...

Plus, you can fly with the top (windows) down like a convertible with your arm on the sill while tooling around.
 
Well said, gentleman!

Dale; I agree with you on the RV-12 being better insulated against any potential rule changes. I may not have been clear earlier, but that’s why the RV-12 remains on my list. It’s only the expensive European composite aircraft that I’ve taken off my prospect list.

Half Fast; I will certainly add the Ercoupes to my list. I searched out a few after your posts yesterday and they don’t seem so strange at second glance.

Thanks for humoring me guys. I definitely expect to lose some money here, and I surely don’t expect to break even. I understand an engine overhaul, fabric, paint, etc. could really throw a wrench in the deal and I’ve accepted that. I’m just trying to minimize the downside. Not trying to beat a dead horse, but if I was willing to lose 100% of my initial purchase money (all other things equal), I’d just rent an airplane and avoid all the maintenance and hangaring hassle.

Thanks again for all the advice guys. Looking forward to hearing more.
 
Coolidge, Have you settled on something? I just recently bought an Ercoupe. I obtained a tailwheel endorsement 10 years ago and owned an Aeronca Chief for a short period of time. I find the Ercoupe to be an enjoyable plane, easy to fly (no rudders) and had a blast ferrying it 200 nm back to TN. I considered going back into tailwheels but decided against it for a host of reasons, especially lack of comfort in being able to continually train to fly them well, especially in windy conditions. The Ercoupe has the ability to land when many other tri-gear are struggling. I'll be happy to share my findings with you if you are intested. Good luck, George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top