Thinking of buying a Velocity

jd21476

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
702
Location
San Diego, CA
Display Name

Display name:
jd21476
I am thinking of selling my Piper Comanche and moving to a Velocity. Im drawn to the Velocity for a few reasons. First, the looks and performance are incredible. Second is the cost differential between a Certified aircraft and an Experimental. There are many things n my Piper that I could do but I wont because it is Certified but on an Experimental I wont feel the need to have an A&P do simple things. Also, avionics are much MUCH less expensive. I just finished installing all my avionics and spend well over $50k. The same on an experimental would have been 1/3 the price.

The example on the maintenance is that I had to remove and replace the exhaust because it had a small crack. Well on my Certified airplane, I am not allowed ot do that and I need my A&P to do it. I certainly could and I am fully capable of doing so but to appease the FAA i had my A&P do so....then got the bill. I think if I am going ot keep an airplane for a long time I want to go the Experimental route.

Thoughts?
 
Devil is in the details. First, I assume, if you go down this path, that you're looking at buying a flying Velocity and aren't looking to build. E-AB aircraft can be less expensive to own and operate than standard certificated aircraft, it's not necessarily by orders of magnitude. Avionics generally can be a bit cheaper (for the LRUs) but unless you do the install yourself it can still cost a pretty penny. Components can be less expensive but if you use standard aviation parts, the savings may be a wash. Maintenace can be cheaper, but using your exhaust example, your A & P could have supervised you doing the replacement and you'd have saved a bunch on labor. I get that not very A&P is willing to do that, but it's an option. Finally, truly examine your mission and see what airframe fits it best. There's a number of Velocity owners here than can speak to the pros and cons of a Comanche vs a Velocity so I'll defer to them on that aspect.

The big takeaway is there's no such thing as a free lunch. Going E-AB might hurt less in the wallet, but there's opportunity cost and you will trade time for money. Also if you aren't the builder, you'll still need A & P (no IA required) involvement to sign off or possibly perform the annual condition inspection based upon your desired level of participation. Just go into this eyes wide open as going E-AB might not be the panacea you perceive it is.
 
Last edited:
The example on the maintenance is that I had to remove and replace the exhaust because it had a small crack. Well on my Certified airplane, I am not allowed ot do that and I need my A&P to do it. I certainly could and I am fully capable of doing so but to appease the FAA i had my A&P do so....then got the bill. I think if I am going ot keep an airplane for a long time I want to go the Experimental route.

Thoughts?

My thought is that you currently aren't doing all that you can to control costs. There is no reason why you can't R&R an exhaust on an aircraft, TCd or not. It simply requires a mechanic to be involved and return it to service. My experience has been that pursuing an E/AB aircraft for the purposes of saving money on maintenance and parts doesn't pencil out to save enough to make it worth the effort in most cases.
 
I am thinking of selling my Piper Comanche and moving to a Velocity. Im drawn to the Velocity for a few reasons. First, the looks and performance are incredible. Second is the cost differential between a Certified aircraft and an Experimental. There are many things n my Piper that I could do but I wont because it is Certified but on an Experimental I wont feel the need to have an A&P do simple things. Also, avionics are much MUCH less expensive. I just finished installing all my avionics and spend well over $50k. The same on an experimental would have been 1/3 the price.

The example on the maintenance is that I had to remove and replace the exhaust because it had a small crack. Well on my Certified airplane, I am not allowed ot do that and I need my A&P to do it. I certainly could and I am fully capable of doing so but to appease the FAA i had my A&P do so....then got the bill. I think if I am going ot keep an airplane for a long time I want to go the Experimental route.

Thoughts?
I do almost all of my own maintenance on my Arrow. Disassembling your exhaust stack. You’re allowed to do that. You just need a mechanic to return it to Service. Another thought. While the velocity does have some impressive speed numbers, there aren’t that many of them, and I hope you always have a long runway. Looking at my humble Arrow II, there are few EAB aircraft that can match its utility. I can carry my wife myself and my daughter, two dogs and luggage five hundred miles. the number of experimental aircraft that can do that mission I can count on one hand. And they’re gonna be a whole lot more expensive than my Arrow. If you get a Cherokee six, then the field becomes even tighter. Experimentals make for fun, little sports car, toy planes, but lack utility.
 
Do it.
Just get transition training from someone familiar in type.
Have someone familiar look it over before purchase.
 
Before going any further, do the following (order by cost) ...

1) Call your insurance agent. Get a quote. You might find that you can't (or don't want to) afford the insurance.
2) Join the VOBA (Velocity Owners and Builder Association). https://voba.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=0&club_id=495146
3) Go to Sebastian and get a demo ride. Velocity's land fast compared to your Piper. That makes some people uncomfortable.

Are you planning on building or buying? Do you know which model? Fixed gear or retract?
 
Experimentals make for fun, little sports car, toy planes, but lack utility.
Ummm that's not 100% correct by any stretch. While basically true for a large segment of available E-AB designs/kits, depending on how you define utility, it's not universal. Case in point, my RV-10 has considerable utility by almost any definition for a 4-place airplane. Compared to your Arrow, I'm at least 20 knots faster with fixed gear, better overall performance, albeit with a slightly lower useful load (~100lbs or less) and I'm running a more larger more expensive engine. But my point is it doesn't lack utility.
 
Looking at my humble Arrow II, there are few EAB aircraft that can match its utility. I can carry my wife myself and my daughter, two dogs and luggage five hundred miles. the number of experimental aircraft that can do that mission I can count on one hand. And they’re gonna be a whole lot more expensive than my Arrow. If you get a Cherokee six, then the field becomes even tighter. Experimentals make for fun, little sports car, toy planes, but lack utility.
That would depend entirely on the definition of "utility".

For the purpose of this thread the OP's definition is what would matter.

But maybe theirs is like my definition: Getting from point A to point B (which was at least 700nm away) quickly and in comfort with me, my wife, a 100lb lab, and all the baggage. And there are plenty of 3,000' paved runways where I needed to go.
 
Last edited:
Ummm that's not 100% correct by any stretch. While basically true for a large segment of available E-AB designs/kits, depending on how you define utility, it's not universal. Case in point, my RV-10 has considerable utility by almost any definition for a 4-place airplane. Compared to your Arrow, I'm at least 20 knots faster with fixed gear, better overall performance, albeit with a slightly lower useful load (~100lbs or less) and I'm running a more larger more expensive engine. But my point is it doesn't lack utility.
I was speaking in generalities, so of course you picked the unicorn, the RV 10. so yes, I agree with all you said, but at 3-4 times the cost of my Arrow. Do you get 3 to 4 times the utility out of your RV 10? And I’m not raining on your parade, get what you want. I just see a lot of people willing to spend 2-300% more money to get 20% more utility. I keep having the AirMart sales people call me up wanting to sell my plane for me and I’m like for what? What’s the next step up? A bonanza at twice the money? Happiness is being content with what you have, and no debt. If only I could pay cash for a TBM 900.
 
Last edited:
I was speaking in generalities, so of course you picked the unicorn, the RV 10. so yes, I agree with all you said, but at 3-4 times the cost of my Arrow. Do you get 3 to 4 times the utility out of your RV 10? And I’m not raining on your parade, get what you want. I just see a lot of people willing to spend 2-300% more money to get 20% more utility. I keep having the AirMart sales people call me up wanting to sell my plane for me and I’m like for what? What’s the next step up? A bonanza at twice the money? Happiness is being content with what you have, and no debt.

Compare apples to apples -- of course any used aircraft is going to be less in acquisition cost than a similar new model. Using your logic no one would buy a new or late model standard certificated aircraft either. And again, depending on the definition of utility, which is subjective, the RV-10 isn't a unicorn. But If we stick to just 4-place, then besides the RV-10, off the top of my head there's also Bearhawk, Murphy, Cozy, Velocity, Sling, Lancair, Wheeler, Bede, and Glastar. The important thing is to understand your mission and find the best fit that meets your needs and budget - no right or wrong answer for the most part. But it's disingenuous to paint an entire category of certification with a broad, absolute brush.
 
No stress over annuals.

No fear over the unexpected $35,000 overhaul bill (if you have an experimental engine).

No getting in line at your local A&P and waiting an unknown amount of time for them to complete small repairs.

Ability to improve the safety of your airplane at your will.

Feeling in control of your own aircraft instead of constantly being at the mercy of the FAA, the parts industry, and your local repair station.

It can be hard for those who have only lived in the certificated world to really appreciate the experimental world. I know I didn't.

I will say, however, that taking on the responsibility of maintaining your own aircraft was a lot more than I expected. I used to blindly fly my Cardinal, well forever, without pulling the cowl. And only taking to the shop for annuals, oil changes, and repairs. I placed a whole lot of blind faith in Mr. Cessna and my A&P.

Looking back, I feel that blind trust was woefully misplaced. I was truly ignorant because I simply did not understand, or consider, all of the potentially serious failure points of my aircraft. After building and flying my own EAB I am now aware of all of the many, many, points of failure that exist in every aircraft that I never before considered.

"There's hundreds, even thousands, flying that only have their cowls pulled at annual or oil changes. Why should I worry about what's going on underneath the cowl in the meantime?" I think this is the mindset of many pilots.

It is not my mindset anymore. When you start living with an aircraft that is completely under your control you realize you have a whole new responsibility towards safety for you and your loved ones. It's on YOUR shoulders and no one else's.

I pull the cowl on my aircraft about every 10 hours to inspect. I know every wire, every connector, every support, and every component. And I know how easy it is to have a failure of them at any time. So I study maintenance issues, tweak, inspect, update, replace, clean, double check and improve, constantly. I estimate I spend 2 hours of inspection and maintenance for every hour I fly. Probably more.

I absolutely hate maintaining my own aircraft. To me, there is nothing enjoyable about it. It's a painful, time-consuming chore. But my wife flies with me and I will do every single thing possible to ensure it is as safe as possible. When I roll down the runway I KNOW that everything under the cowl is as good as it can possibly be. Yes, things can still go wrong, but I know I've done everything to put my aircraft in its best possible condition. I have not relied on someone else to ensure my safety.

Yet the burden, time, and effort of maintain my aircraft is still better than living under the thumb of the FAA (To be clear I'm not an FAA hater, its just the system and most of it makes sense to me). I have lived with the helpless, frustrating feeling that the FAA rules, at times, are just wasting my time and money for no real benefit. To have all the control in their hands and I'm just along for the ride.

I like being in control of my own schedule, my own time, and my own money. The burden of maintaining my own plane is far better than constantly being at the mercy, and control, of the FAA system. Also, regardless of what others may say, it's a heck of a lot cheaper....
 
There is no reason why you can't R&R an exhaust on an aircraft, TCd or not. It simply requires a mechanic to be involved and return it to service.
People say this quite often as if it is a normal thing.

In reality, finding an A&P that is going to accept the responsibility and liability of signing off your maintenance, is almost impossible. With a shortage of A&Ps why should they waste their time saving YOU time and money and assuming a bunch of liability for no benefit to them? While these may exist, they are truly a unicorn and a dying breed.

Take the OPs example of replacing an exhaust system. To say that anyone could do this suggests a complete lack of understanding of all the tasks involved, the knowledge involved, the tools involved, and the skill involved. For someone to even say that makes my head hurt because I know of the mountain of knowledge and skills it takes to actually do this properly on a real aircraft.

Everything sounds easy to someone who has never done it....
 
People say this quite often as if it is a normal thing.

In reality, finding an A&P that is going to accept the responsibility and liability of signing off your maintenance, is almost impossible. With a shortage of A&Ps why should they waste their time saving YOU time and money and assuming a bunch of liability for no benefit to them? While these may exist, they are truly a unicorn and a dying breed.

Take the OPs example of replacing an exhaust system. To say that anyone could do this suggests a complete lack of understanding of all the tasks involved, the knowledge involved, the tools involved, and the skill involved. For someone to even say that makes my head hurt because I know of the mountain of knowledge and skills it takes to actually do this properly on a real aircraft.

Everything sounds easy to someone who has never done it....
Having never done it before, I have replaced two exhaust systems on two different aircraft. Afterwards , My mechanic looked at it and signed it off. Each installation took me six hours plus a break for lunch. A socket wrench, and a flat head screwdriver, and some cuss words were all I needed. While I am somewhat mechanically inclined, I am not an expert by any stretch not close to Ted’s level of understanding. I don’t pull engines apart. But failure never occurred to me. It is literally take the old one off and put the new one on as the old one was.
Whether you say you can, or you can’t, you’re right. I’ve never been a fan of can’t.
Even if the OP gets velocity, unless he has the skillset/tools, he still gonna have to have a proper AP do the work on the engine. Unless he is willing to learn how to install Avionics, he is still going to have to get an Avionics guy to do the install. The components might be cheaper to buy, but they ain’t any cheaper to install.
But y’all can buy what you want. You put the question on the forum asking for thoughts and then you get mad when I give them to you because apparently somebody was just looking for validation for decision that’s already been made.
 
Last edited:
Even if the OP gets velocity, unless he has the skillset/tools, he still gonna have to have a proper AP do the work on the engine. Unless he is willing to learn how to install Avionics, he is still going to have to get an Avionics guy to do the install. The components might be cheaper to buy, but they ain’t any cheaper to install.
Actually, that's not true as far as legalities are concerned. Anyone, regardless of qualification, can perform any maintenance on an E-AB aircraft. As I stated earlier, if you aren't the builder with the Repairmans Certificate, then you do have to have an A & P (no IA required) signoff on the annual condition inspection, but for any maintenance regardless of how involved, no A & P involvement is required--period. That said, just because you can doesn't mean you should as being legal and being smart aren't synonymous. Acquiring the skills to install avionics or maintain mechanical systems isn't insurmountable - I'm living proof having built my plane and installed every system to include the avionics, all with no prior experience before I started. In doing so I saved a ton of money but it did cost me time and sweat equity which I was willing to pay. But it's definitely not a path for everyone, just as owning an E-AB aircraft isn't for everyone.
 
Last edited:
People say this quite often as if it is a normal thing.

In reality, finding an A&P that is going to accept the responsibility and liability of signing off your maintenance, is almost impossible. With a shortage of A&Ps why should they waste their time saving YOU time and money and assuming a bunch of liability for no benefit to them? While these may exist, they are truly a unicorn and a dying breed.

Take the OPs example of replacing an exhaust system. To say that anyone could do this suggests a complete lack of understanding of all the tasks involved, the knowledge involved, the tools involved, and the skill involved. For someone to even say that makes my head hurt because I know of the mountain of knowledge and skills it takes to actually do this properly on a real aircraft.

Everything sounds easy to someone who has never done it....
To be fair, if pulling an exhaust system is beyond someone's ability, I would submit that person is not the best candidate to build or maintain their own aircraft and that maybe they should stick to TC aircraft maintained by a A&P.
 
Actually, that's not true as far as legalities are concerned. Anyone, regardless of qualification, can perform any maintenance on an E-AB aircraft. As I stated earlier, if you aren't the builder with the Repairmans Certificate, then you do have to have an A & P (no IA required) signoff on the annual condition inspection, but for any maintenance regardless of how involved, no A & P involvement is required--period. That said, just because you can doesn't mean you should as being legal and being smart aren't synonymous. Acquiring the skills to install avionics or maintain mechanical systems isn't insurmountable - I'm living proof having built my plane and installed every system to include the avionics, all with no prior experience before I started. In doing so I saved a ton of money but it did cost me time and sweat equity which I was willing to pay. But it's definitely not a path for everyone, just as owning an E-AB aircraft isn't for everyone.
I agree I wasn’t talking about legalities. I was talking about the actual ability. I am a big fan of do it yourself but I’m not gonna pull apart an aircraft engine and rebuild it. Somethings are too important and require too much of a learning curve. I don’t want to be on that learning curve with my own aircraft engine. Most people want somebody else to do it. They just don’t wanna have to pay for it.
 
I agree I wasn’t talking about legalities. I was talking about the actual ability. I am a big fan of do it yourself but I’m not gonna pull apart an aircraft engine and rebuild it. Somethings are too important and require too much of a learning curve. I don’t want to be on that learning curve with my own aircraft engine. Most people want somebody else to do it. They just don’t wanna have to pay for it.
Agree 100%, but the ability isn't really that difficult to acquire unless you have zero mechanical aptitude. I'll do routine stuff - oil changes, spark plugs, timing, borescoping, removing/replacing accessories, etc, but something serious where I had to remove a cylinder or crack open the case, I'm leaving that to the pros. I know my limitations and how much effort I want to invest so I'd rather write the check as painful as that would be. When it comes to the airframe, that's a different story and that's all me unless it's a weldment. I can hobby weld but nowhere near to aerospace standards so that' a skill limitation that again, I don't want to invest the time it would take to get there.
 
I lost track of this thread but going to try and contribute. I think the Velocity looks awesome and was hell bent on having a Velocity Twin as my next project. However two things were a turn off,

1) My insurance company basically said even with about 100 hours dual in type it was going to be hard to insure. I was debating self insurance but for the cost of that project I decided against it.
2) It seemed like to complete the twin you basically do it in Florida which isn't really an option.

With that out of the way for general GA stuff unless you just love a particular airframe expieremental is the way to go! Now as pointed out if you're not mechanically inclined and struggle to use a screw driver than an A&P is going to have to do all your stuff anyhow and it's not that different. You mentioned avionics being 1/3rd of the price... not sure how that lines up but I spent $50K 5+ years ago for my glass and components so it can still be pricey.

Another note; you should develop a relationship with an A&P who will let you do some of the easy stuff like taking bolts off. Every year I have an A&P look at my engine and this year I had them do the whole annual. Now it still keeps costs under wraps because I dissassemble everything and remove panels, cowls, interior, etc. But it's not a bad idea even on an expierentmental to have a profession look it over.
 
First need to clarify what type of Velocity. World of difference between an XL RG and say an SUV…one for sale right now on the Velocity FB page ($130K). Man prices have skyrocketed.
 
People say this quite often as if it is a normal thing.

In reality, finding an A&P that is going to accept the responsibility and liability of signing off your maintenance, is almost impossible. With a shortage of A&Ps why should they waste their time saving YOU time and money and assuming a bunch of liability for no benefit to them? While these may exist, they are truly a unicorn and a dying breed.

In my experience, the number of mechanics willing to supervise a project varies with location. I've never lived somewhere where one couldn't be found, but I'll admit that I avoid large metro areas like the plague so it's quite possible that there are some areas of the US where no mechanics that are open to having assistance can be found.

Owner assisted maintenance is not all about saving money however, and is honestly not something I'd suggest pursuing if that is the sole intent. There are numerous reasons and ways to be involved with the maintenance of your aircraft and those reasons and ways don't change just because an aircraft has a special airworthiness certificate.

Take the OPs example of replacing an exhaust system. To say that anyone could do this suggests a complete lack of understanding of all the tasks involved, the knowledge involved, the tools involved, and the skill involved. For someone to even say that makes my head hurt because I know of the mountain of knowledge and skills it takes to actually do this properly on a real aircraft.

Everything sounds easy to someone who has never done it....

I'm not sure who you think suggested that anyone could do it; it certainly wasn't me. The OP claims he can, so why would you assume he can't? Of course, it has been my experience that the owners who think they're capable of performing maintenance tasks and don't need supervision often really can't, so maybe that description fits the OP. Neither of us really know at this point.
 
If you are looking at it from a financial perspective there are a few things to keep in mind.

Insurance on an experimental unless it is an RV is going to be much much higher than many commercially built airplanes. The first year of owning my sonex I couldn’t find insurance for under $3500 on an airframe worth 25k.

Even if you do your own maintenance you will still need to pay an A&P once a year to do and sign off the condition inspection. You can only get a repairman’s certificate if you were the original builder.

There are some savings in avionics if not needing to be certified but that also comes with needing to know how to install, wire, and configure them yourself. Most avionics shops won’t touch experimental because there is no guarantee that the builder followed any sort of standard practices when doing the initial wiring. Many don’t.

Engine parts are going to cost you the same no matter what. If you need a jug or crank for that lycoming motor it still isn’t going to be cheap. Unless you are running an auto conversion or some oddball engine the engine operating and maintenance costs are nearly identical between certified and experimental.
 
I ferried 2 Velocities from Sebastian years ago. It was like a sportscar after driving 172's arround the pattern. Sure was fun.
 
@Velocity173

Do you know if the factory is still doing condition inspections and pre-purchase inspections?

Tim
 
@Velocity173

Do you know if the factory is still doing condition inspections and pre-purchase inspections?

Tim
They do. They stopped advertising it on their website because they’re usually pretty booked though. But yeah, they still do that stuff. I’m actually thinking about scheduling mine next year to get some upgrades with the condition inspection.
 
As mentioned above, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Each advantage of E-AB ownership has another side of the coin. Most people who try it end up liking the tradeoffs, and you have some flexibility to choose some but not all of them. For example, I can do my own inspection each year, but I can also pay an A&P to do it. I end up doing everything myself because I built the plane and it's usually easier to troubleshoot a system that I already understand than to show a mechanic the ropes so he knows where to start looking. And that can feel like a burden since I have to find time and solutions on my own rather than paying an A&P for his time in search of solutions. But my day job involves pushing paper and arguing with people, then being bound by confidentiality not to brag about it, so it is also very rewarding to spend a couple hours and share a picture of the aileron I built or take my wife on a quick shopping and supper trip after we get the heated seats wired.

Utility is a word broad enough in meaning to have no general utility in discussion. All you can really do is categorize and rank planes by strengths and weaknesses. My RV-14 is hard to beat for my main mission, which is two people plus some bags and maybe a dog for a lot of short trips (100-250 nm), the occasional long trip (longest so far was 1270 nm, with one stop each way), ability to use shorter runways and occasionally grass, and maybe a hammerhead or Cuban eight now and then. The Velocity would throw out the last two but maybe add some speed, and definitely get more red carpet greetings than the RV. Neither of those planes will beat a pair of heated propellers dragging a pressurized tube and a half dozen seats through the clouds over the Rockies, although if you don't mind waiting for the clouds to pass they won't be far behind the King Air in block times and will arrive far ahead of it in costs.

Just be careful about selling that Comanche. People seem to like those things. :)
 
I am thinking of selling my Piper Comanche and moving to a Velocity. Im drawn to the Velocity for a few reasons. First, the looks and performance are incredible. Second is the cost differential between a Certified aircraft and an Experimental. There are many things n my Piper that I could do but I wont because it is Certified but on an Experimental I wont feel the need to have an A&P do simple things. Also, avionics are much MUCH less expensive. I just finished installing all my avionics and spend well over $50k. The same on an experimental would have been 1/3 the price.

The example on the maintenance is that I had to remove and replace the exhaust because it had a small crack. Well on my Certified airplane, I am not allowed ot do that and I need my A&P to do it. I certainly could and I am fully capable of doing so but to appease the FAA i had my A&P do so....then got the bill. I think if I am going ot keep an airplane for a long time I want to go the Experimental route.

Thoughts?

You won't save any money on a Velocity rectract vs a 4 place complex certified if you plan to insure it.
We are talking rates that are going to be probably 6 times what you paid on a Comanche.

The optimism of youth and inexperience is my only regret after spending 5000 hours building my airplane.
 
My thought is that you currently aren't doing all that you can to control costs. There is no reason why you can't R&R an exhaust on an aircraft, TCd or not. It simply requires a mechanic to be involved and return it to service. My experience has been that pursuing an E/AB aircraft for the purposes of saving money on maintenance and parts doesn't pencil out to save enough to make it worth the effort in most cases.
there are many reasons an owner/operator cannot do maintenance. tools,manuals,and training are the big ones. say you snap an exhaust stud and use your propane torch to help remove it. in car world thats a no brainer. heating up an aluminum head like that could cause a failure.
i have not met many a&ps that are willing to risk THIER license (and livelyhood) to save YOU a few dollars.
 
I am thinking of selling my Piper Comanche and moving to a Velocity. Im drawn to the Velocity for a few reasons. First, the looks and performance are incredible. Second is the cost differential between a Certified aircraft and an Experimental. There are many things n my Piper that I could do but I wont because it is Certified but on an Experimental I wont feel the need to have an A&P do simple things. Also, avionics are much MUCH less expensive. I just finished installing all my avionics and spend well over $50k. The same on an experimental would have been 1/3 the price.

The example on the maintenance is that I had to remove and replace the exhaust because it had a small crack. Well on my Certified airplane, I am not allowed ot do that and I need my A&P to do it. I certainly could and I am fully capable of doing so but to appease the FAA i had my A&P do so....then got the bill. I think if I am going ot keep an airplane for a long time I want to go the Experimental route.

Thoughts?
if your commute is between San Diego and LA, I'd go 50/50 with you on a plane, which may help with budgeting. If you're open to a KMYF <> KSMO mission, it would be ideal
 
if your commute is between San Diego and LA, I'd go 50/50 with you on a plane, which may help with budgeting. If you're open to a KMYF <> KSMO mission, it would be ideal
I keep my plane at KSEE in San Diego right now. Id have to sell it to buy a Velocity and Im not sure its worth all the headache of selling and buying
 
Back
Top