Viable airplane options for low time pilots?

James331 said:
Ahh, well in that case that makes things a ton easier, most every plane linked here is good enough to get your instrument ticket, actually the plane doesn't even have to be legal for IMC to just get your instrument rating in it. I thought you wanted to do some real IMC flying with it.
Click to expand...

Although there are a lot of people who fly some IMC without autopilot and a GPS...we don't get much of it in AZ though
 
CC268 said:
Although there are a lot of people who fly some IMC without autopilot and a GPS...we don't get much of it in AZ though
Click to expand...

...and when you do get it, it's not the type you'd really want to fly in even if legal/equipped!
 
CC268 said:
...why do I need those things to get an instrument rating? Never said I was going to be flying instrument conditions on a regular basis...just would like to get my instrument rating...
Click to expand...

You don't. I think what he's trying to say is there's a difference between IFR flying and flying in IMC. We have a club 172 that's IFR that I wouldn't get anywhere near a cloud.
 
I bought for three reasons. First off, the airports that I wanted to fly into at the time were on the "NFW" list of the two FBOs. Second, I wanted to fly a tailwheel airplane and, at the time, the nearest place to rent one was over an hour's drive each way. Third, I had my fill of showing up at the airport and hearing "the guy who has it now is running an hour late" or "sorry, it's down and we don't have another one available."

But until I got some time built up, the cost of insurance was unbelievable. I only found one insurer who was willing to write an owner's policy for someone with fifty hours of tailwheel time and only a few hours in type. So I flew the living p*ss out of the airplane the first year in order to rack up time and drive down the insurance cost.
 
Gotcha - so you guys are saying no instrument flying unless you have a GPS and Autopilot correct?
 
Buying a plane is an emotional decision as much as a financial one.
You are not going to save money buying an airplane, if you want an airplane, be honest with yourself, it's a want, not a need.
 
CC268 said:
Gotcha - so you guys are saying no instrument flying unless you have a GPS and Autopilot correct?
Click to expand...

Jimmy Doolittle did it with a gyro and compass so I think you can probably pull it off but having an IFR GPS and an AP gives you a little extra margin and helps keep you ahead of the airplane. You're in AZ I gather so IMC won't be a big issue. I would save your duckets until you're ready to get a true X/C plane before you spring for a modern IFR set-up. Learn on a standard 6 with a couple VOR/GS.
 
Stephanie B said:
But until I got some time built up, the cost of insurance was unbelievable. I only found one insurer who was willing to write an owner's policy for someone with fifty hours of tailwheel time and only a few hours in type. So I flew the living p*ss out of the airplane the first year in order to rack up time and drive down the insurance cost.
Click to expand...

Interesting - what do you fly?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
There's also a lot of old trash out there tied down, rarely flown and people buy this junk and get way in over their heads in repairs. One can easily get upside down in an old 172 with lousy instruments, questionable engine. Id rather buy a decent 201 mooney in nice shape and fly it for ten years. Common sense to me .
Click to expand...

There is a "lot of old junk" out there with Mooney 201 decals on them, just as there are 172's and Cherokees. Buy the wrong Mooney, and they will "get way in over their heads in repairs". "One can easily get upside down in an old" Mooney "with lousy instruments, questionable engine."

The make and model of the airplane does not necessarily dictate the success of the purchase of a 30-60 year old plane.
 
ircphoenix said:
Want to know why so many people on here discourage ownership? It is because no matter how prepared you THINK you are for airplane ownership, you're not as prepared as you should be.

Renting is far more economical for most people than purchasing is, considering the mission of most people is 2 people + baggage to an airport 2 hours away. If you're making that trip every other month, it costs you maybe 480-600 bucks per trip at 120-150/hr, which is roughly 3,000-3,600 bucks a year.

A hangar alone can run anywhere from less than 100 dollars a month to 600. Fuel right now is anywhere from 3.00-5.50+/gal. Insurance can be anywhere from 500-1000. Annual flat rates run in the ballpark of 1200-1800 flat rate if NOTHING needs to be fixed.

So say your mission remains the same. Find a decent hangar for 150 bucks a month. Insurance of 600 bucks a year. Fuel at 4 bucks a gallon. 10 gal/hr *4 hours per round trip. That's 1,800 in hangar cost + 600 insurance + 960 fuel + 1400 annual. $4,760 per year. That doesn't include a plane payment if you have paid cash, but you really should add a theoretical payment into your cost calculations. Obviously the more you fly, the more both of those numbers rented or owned climb, and you will find a point where it is more economical to buy rather than rent.

But the reason so many people try to warn others off purchasing is because even those of us who believe we are most prepared can end up paying $36,000 for a plane and get hit with a $14,862 bill at annual.

All that being said, there is a damned good amount of people here who are absolutely providing sage advice when it comes to planes that might suit the bill, just as there are people cautioning you on what to buy. It is like advice from a parent when you're a kid. You roll your eyes at the time, then you come back later with scars and gray hair and realize they were right, even if you didn't like hearing it at the time.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, a lot of that is not applicable to the OP. There is an assumption on POA that "buyer's" haven't done any homework on their local costs, and have no clue what their bank balance is to be able to afford post-purchase costs.

When I was buying my plane, I set a purchase budget of "$XX,XXX" as that is what I wanted to spend. It had NOTHING to do with what I could AFFORD to spend. I still remember one of the replies being "well, if you can only spend $XX,XXX, then you can't afford to own a plane, as you will need TWICE $XX,XXX to be able to maintain it because of......____________ (fill in the blank; hangar, insurance, imaginary engine depreciation, fuel, etc...) The person making the comment had ZERO knowledge of my financial capacity, his sole purpose in commenting was to Discourage Aircraft Ownership At All Times.

Sorry you had a $14.8k annual, I haven't followed your threads, so I don't know what caused your annual, but it looks like something that should have been caught with pre-buys. My first annual on my 182 was $850, including oil change, if I remember. My plane goes into the shop today for the second annual, and I am expecting $750 for this year's annual.

I have another thread on here somewhere, and my first year's ownership costs were $85 an hour, wet.

I can tell you, before I bought, I had a good handle on my insurance costs, knew my tie downs, knew my annual inspection costs, knew the costs of the upgrades I contemplate in the next 1-5 years.

Yes, I probably spend $4760 a year on ownership.... or more... But, I spend far less on Airlines than I used to, I spend far less time sitting in airport terminals, I spend far less time getting frisked by TSA agents, I spend far less time renting cars and driving remote job sites, or to remote camping sites. I don't "bill my time out", but even putting a $100/hr or $50/hr cost on my time, the airplane is cheaper than other methods of travelling.

Last week, an employee of mine was involved in a fatal accident with a company truck, 350 miles away, by road. I was at the accident site in 2 hours because of the plane, able to help my employee, deal with state troopers, and make the necessary arrangements. All this happened after 5pm, so the options of renting a plane would be slim, and driving would have put me there 5+ hours later, and prevented a return trip the same night.
 
labbadabba said:
Jimmy Doolittle did it with a gyro and compass so I think you can probably pull it off but having an IFR GPS and an AP gives you a little extra margin and helps keep you ahead of the airplane. You're in AZ I gather so IMC won't be a big issue. I would save your duckets until you're ready to get a true X/C plane before you spring for a modern IFR set-up. Learn on a standard 6 with a couple VOR/GS.
Click to expand...

That was kind of the plan...I wanted to learn the old school way before I started learning on a glass panel, etc...I think if we decide were gonna fly a lot we may eventually get into something like a Vans RV-9A with an autopilot, etc...
 
Hank S said:
The only problem, Phoenix, is that not everyone approaches the Rent vs. Buy decision the same way. Some like having the plane ready to go at any time. Some like knowing that the plane is just like they left it when they show up for their next flight. Some just want to know that the plane is in good mechanical shape, because they've been involved in the maintenance.

Many owners find themselves flying much more often that they did as renters. The plane is available, it's not out with someone else, and it's not down often for unscheduled maintenance. An owner can upgrade the plane at any time, in most any way. Rather like buying a car or leasing one, lots of people go both ways.

But we do a disservice every time we try to force our own individual evaluation of the costs and benefits on someone else, even greater when we only disclose the results and not the analysis.
Click to expand...

This!!!! Renting is a pain in the ass, and it takes the fun out of the spontaneous $100 hamburger run. I fly much more now that I own, than I ever would if I rented. I can wake up, look out the window, and decide today is the day for a $100 breakfast. Can't do that if you rent, because some student has a 1 hour lesson blocked out from 9:30 to 10:30 on the schedule. Overnights without minimums become available, etc....

I would guess long-term renting drives more people out of aviation than losing medicals.
 
gitmo234 said:
And truthfully some people just discourage to discourage. Whether it's a brand new airplane or a 1956 model, there are some people here who will find any reason they can to say it shouldn't be bought and discourage others. When I was buying my airplane I posted very generic about it but gave up the year/make/model of it, and there were people even actively discouraging me from purchase and punching holes in everything and later admitted that they actually had figure out which one I was looking at and put in offers on it.
Click to expand...

That is true. If the OP finds a 172 with 5,000 hours on it, he will be discouraged from buying it as it was used as a trainer, and must be avoided at all costs.

If the OP find a 172 with 2,000 hours on it, he will be discouraged from buying it as it sat inactive for long periods of time, and likely imaginary mice got inside the plane, cylinders are corroded, and he should run, not walk from the plane.
 
So how much money should you spend on a 172 in order to get a good plane?
 
I live in a metro area with close to a million people. There are six airplanes available to rent within reasonable driving distance (30 minutes)

None are available on any consistent basis because of demand.

2-1977 172's at the Flying Club at BFL (130/HR wet)
1- 182 ($190/HR wet)

1-172 at $125/HR wet at BFL (Excell)

1-172 at the flying club at MIT ($120)

1-152 at L45 that was about $100/HR

That's it.

I chose to do my primary training in Yuma, 300 miles south in a shiatty, ratty old 172 that caused me a forced landing on my fourth solo and I lost a ton of money quitting when the same issue transpired again a week before my checkride and I walked.

I came home and rented for a few lessons before I finished up in my own plane.

I pay $238/mo for a really nice hangar at MIT. I could get a T for 165 or keep it at an FBO at BFL for the same (used to do that) but I like having a box hangar so my daughter can come out and ride her bike and play with her friends.

I paid $804 for full coverage insurance as a student. 200 hours now and I just paid $678 for year two.

I burn 8 gallons per hour so I figure about $50/HR for fuel and oil.

I don't put a reserve for maintenance. I am blessed with the means to cover most moderate items without a huge impact to the budget.

I owner assisted my annual. $1350 including new brakes, oil change, and a couple of small AD's.

My payment is $268/mo. I put 20% down.

I have a 1993 Socata TB-9 that I paid under $40k for. 2400TT and 400 since factory overhaul.

I can go out and fly it whenever I want. I can stay an extra day. There's no external pressure to have it returned.

My daughter can leave her toys in the backseat. The tires will always be inflated and free of flat spots.

I know the maintenance, I know when the 50 hour was done (usually runs under $200)

The costs are reasonable for the return.

I want to start my IR training, but I really DO want an autopilot and GPS.

2.5hr legs hand flying get old.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The point of my last post is, buy the plane that suits the mission. In CA, you have to pay an 8% use tax to the state upon purchase. That's a bite.

My wife was not sure she'd be into flying so she set some big expectations: it had to be younger than her ('83 model) and it had to have more than half left to TBO. She also wanted a low-wing because she gets claustrophobic.

She loves flying now and wants to see me get my IR so we can get through the soup at times. She sees the value of an autopilot.

We will also need more U/L with kid 2 down the road. But this was a starter plane and she's relaxed her requirements since then.

But seriously, don't write off the TB series. My -9 has a U/L short of 800lbs, only cruises at about 100kts, but looks great and flies nice. It's got the modern 6-pack and a full matching King /A suite.

It's recent enough that it hasn't been mismatched and cannibalized and my IA said it was one of the nicest 4-place fixed gear planes he's had the pleasure to work on. All while there's an SR-20, a PA-28-181 and a 182 in his hangar. Age means a lot and the values are low because there's not a whole lot of inventory or knowledge about the TB's.....

But seriously, in what area of life would you spend $40k on a 50 year old mechanical asset?

I've had old boats. But I'll never have another old plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
midcap said:
So how much money should you spend on a 172 in order to get a good plane?
Click to expand...

50k would be my best guess based on my research. At minimum an N model converted to 180 (no O-320 H2AD) a later M model or a P if you can find one.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tampico Trauma said:
Age means a lot and the values are low because there's not a whole lot of inventory or knowledge about the TB's.....
Click to expand...

Of all the planes I've subjected her to, only a TB has elicited an excited "what is THAT?" from my wife. It never occurred to me that they might be a good bargain.
 
midcap said:
So how much money should you spend on a 172 in order to get a good plane?
Click to expand...

Well if you're just going to be VFR, your budget would probably get you there.

If you're talking a IMC bird, you're going to want dual nav heads, ideally a HSI and a normal head, GNS or better, autopilot with GPSS and alt hold, engine monitor, 180hp, 50k sounds about right.


Also if you fly a lot of really dig flying, owning makes a heap of sense, I built hours towards my CPL in a plane I bought, my peers ended up with a log book filled with hours and receipts from rental FBOs, I spent about the same but not only had the hours at the end of the day, but also had a plane to boot.
 
Haters gonna hate man...its human nature!
 
Me neither. I watched this one on trade a plane for almost a year before I finally went to look at it. I usually wouldn't take her on the first look because I really have to prequal everything I looked at. It was the perfect seller and the perfect plane.

She's made it clear that the next plane is going to be a -20 or -21. I may have to oblige.

The biggest downer is that they're 5-10 kts slower than a 172. But ergonomically speaking, it's like flying a CJ. Everything is in the right spot both for your eyes and hands.

If money was no object I'd still get another TB.

And it was well over her $25k budget... I was in contract on a Musketeer that had similar times but much older. Thankfully a cheap (1hr) prebuy with a local A&P saved my tail and drove us this route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've always had an affinity to the Island planes. I remember as a kid getting an issue of Flying that featured the Trinidad and thought it was the coolest looking plane I'd ever seen. I will say that the panel looks like the dashboard from a '92 Pontiac. How's the visibility in those planes, it seems like you sit pretty low behind the panel.
 
The cost of renting for me probably would have been me giving up on flying. Schedules are the enemy of the destination flyer and having an airplane booked up for week with only 6 hours of actual time on the hobbs... or for 2-3 weeks and 10-20hrs just isn't going to be a viable thing and those kinds of trips are what keep me putting up with all the BS we have to deal with to make the magic happen.
 
CC268 said:
Interesting feedback - maybe we ought to just keep renting
Click to expand...
I went the renting route and now I wish I didn't. It's very limiting in what you can do. No long vacations (ruinous minimum use fees). No landing at private airports. Often no landing off pavement. And the unpredictable downtime is super disruptive. If you can do it it all, own by all means.

Don't listen to Jose and Co. though, you are right that $35k 172 is going to be a money pit. Cherokee is a solid choice, just boring.

I looked at Mooneys at 70 hours, but I didn't like how they flew. Not so much the vaunted slickness, I never had issues with it. It only becomes unpleasant when you're not free, like on IFR getting a "slam dunk". But I'm not even Instrument rated, and the airplane is trivial to slow down _before_ descent. But the irritatingly small windows for operation of gear and flaps really annoyed me. I managed to pinch and tear the skin of my palm on the gear lever and that smarted for weeks. I kept forgetting about the cowl flaps despite using the checklists. I guess I just wasn't ready.

BTW, my insurance required 50 hours in a retractable, so I wasted a ton of money renting an Arrow in preparation for the Mooney.
 
Last edited:
midcap said:
So how much money should you spend on a 172 in order to get a good plane?
Click to expand...


C-152 / C150 should be under $20k.

C-172 should be under $35k

C-182 will be above $35k

Pipers, of similar vintage and horsepower will be a bit cheaper to buy.
 
Ohhh nice. Kinda surprised at their requirement though, which was why I was wondering.
 
zaitcev said:
Don't listen to Jose and Co. though, you are right that $35k 172 is going to be a money pit. Cherokee is a solid choice, just boring.
Click to expand...

It is not about being "wrong" or being "right". It is about letting the OP (and others who post this question) know there are multiple "right" answers, and each individual just needs to be informed of the range of possible answers.

But, just trying to discourage people from ownership is a strange position.

(And, not sure how a $35k 172 is "going to be a money pit." while a Cherokee "is a solid choice". I assure you, you can find "money pit" Cherokees (and Beechcraft's, and Mooneys, and Grummans) that are money pits. The make and model may not be the primary driver of "money pit"-ness or of successful purchase.)

Isn't there somebody on this thread who just posted about his $14k annual on his "Cherokee"?

Bottom line for the OP is that there are options out there, and, with $35k he can find a nice plane, if he spends the time to educate himself, look at a lot of toads in an effort to find his prince/princess.... But, it takes a bit of shoe leather, a bit of smiling and dialing, and, likely looking at multiple planes.

$35k puts him in the Buyer's seat. He can find a good plane.
 
ircphoenix said:
Want to know why so many people on here discourage ownership? It is because no matter how prepared you THINK you are for airplane ownership, you're not as prepared as you should be.

Renting is far more economical for most people than purchasing is, considering the mission of most people is 2 people + baggage to an airport 2 hours away. If you're making that trip every other month, it costs you maybe 480-600 bucks per trip at 120-150/hr, which is roughly 3,000-3,600 bucks a year.

A hangar alone can run anywhere from less than 100 dollars a month to 600. Fuel right now is anywhere from 3.00-5.50+/gal. Insurance can be anywhere from 500-1000. Annual flat rates run in the ballpark of 1200-1800 flat rate if NOTHING needs to be fixed.

So say your mission remains the same. Find a decent hangar for 150 bucks a month. Insurance of 600 bucks a year. Fuel at 4 bucks a gallon. 10 gal/hr *4 hours per round trip. That's 1,800 in hangar cost + 600 insurance + 960 fuel + 1400 annual. $4,760 per year. That doesn't include a plane payment if you have paid cash, but you really should add a theoretical payment into your cost calculations. Obviously the more you fly, the more both of those numbers rented or owned climb, and you will find a point where it is more economical to buy rather than rent.

But the reason so many people try to warn others off purchasing is because even those of us who believe we are most prepared can end up paying $36,000 for a plane and get hit with a $14,862 bill at annual.

All that being said, there is a damned good amount of people here who are absolutely providing sage advice when it comes to planes that might suit the bill, just as there are people cautioning you on what to buy. It is like advice from a parent when you're a kid. You roll your eyes at the time, then you come back later with scars and gray hair and realize they were right, even if you didn't like hearing it at the time.
Click to expand...
Too sensible! Too pragmatic! An old airplane like this is a coin toss. Caveat emptor.
 
3 in the green said:
Ohhh nice. Kinda surprised at their requirement though, which was why I was wondering.
Click to expand...

It was a long time ago. Cheaper insurance was available, but they wanted something like ten hours with a CFI in type. There wasn't a local CFI who would do it.

Anyway, several years later, it was OOC for three months for an overhaul. I thought it would be a good time to get a complex checkout in a Navion. The FBO's insurance required ten hours of instruction in a complex airplane before they'd let you rent it as PIC. Almost 20 years before that, I had gone on a ride-along for an auto-parts run in a Navajo. (There was a truck plant in the next town and "just in time" doesn't always work.) It was a five hour round trip. The pilot was a CFI, he kindly signed me off as receiving five hours of multi-engine dual instruction. I showed that entry to the guy at the FBO; he shrugged and said "that works".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top