Why the Hangar

[flyingcheesehead]

Hangars are inexpensive???

Not in your state - Here, we pay about $180/mo/plane for a community hangar with 24-hour push/pull service from the FBO. No way in hell I'd park a plane outside here at those prices, though sadly some still do.

 

[EppyGA]

I hanger because my partner owns it.

 

[Dan Thomas]

A good cockpit cover like the ones made by Bruce or Kennon will work well to protect the interior and the avionics - I'd recommend that as a minimum no matter where you keep your aircraft.

Cockpit covers have their limits and drawbacks, too. Dust gets under them and the wind then moves the cover around and grinds the dust into the plexiglass and paint. In the past some covers were known to exude solvents or plasticizers from their plastics that would damage the plexiglass, too. Don't know that's true of any newer covers.

Pretty hard to beat a hangar, even my old pole-barn affair built of used wood more than 30 years ago and which I bought for $1000 and stuck another $700 or so into it to fix the roof and put some paint on it. Living in a rural area far from a major city has its advantages.

Dan

 

[Tom-D]

What better place to ask this question than hangar talk forum???


Reading an article about my favorite plane, and the author bashes the idea of owning this type of plane without hangaring it. Kinda like looking down on those that keep it parked on grass, outdoors, etc.

I've also seen articles on buying where a key word is if the plane was hangared or not as an indicator of it condition, type of care, etc.

Does anyone have any real data on the value of hangaring a plane vs not?
Is it really cost effective?

It really depends upon what you think is important, me, I like to be in out of the rain while I work on my aircraft.

 

[somorris]

Our ramp used to be full of tied own aircraft. Now there's only three, and they don't move.

That probably means the number of aircraft owners (and pilots) has declined. There are likely people who see my airplane tied down and think it never moves because most of the time I use the same tie down space, put the cover on, etc. which makes it hard to tell it has moved unless you were out are the airport a lot. I fly it weekly if not more.

 

[steingar]

That probably means the number of aircraft owners (and pilots) has declined. There are likely people who see my airplane tied down and think it never moves because most of the time I use the same tie down space, put the cover on, etc. which makes it hard to tell it has moved unless you were out are the airport a lot. I fly it weekly if not more.

No tracks in the snow.

 

[somorris]

No tracks in the snow.

Sounds like pretty conclusive evidence! How sad that people invest in an airplane then let it sit. Poor airplane!

 

[dmccormack]

How sad that people invest in an airplane then let it sit. Poor airplane!

There are probably more airplanes in that category at MGW, VVS, WAY, and FWQ than fliers.



Many are held by families after the owner passes. Lots of squabbles over who is gonna make all that money when they sell that multi-million dollar PA-28-160.

 

[steingar]

Sounds like pretty conclusive evidence! How sad that people invest in an airplane then let it sit. Poor airplane!

It's happening all over the country. You have to have a lot of money to buy an airplane, but you need even more to fly it. Can't fly it, can't sell it for anything, you let it sit.

 

[Ghery]

It really depends upon what you think is important, me, I like to be in out of the rain while I work on my aircraft.

Which means that most of the year you need a hangar around here.

 

[jshawley]

have they had to deal with anyone who trailers their aircraft to the airport?

This little issue is about to become a tempest in a teapot here at M17. The city council is pondering adopting a set of "Rules and Regulations" that prohibits, except under certain conditions, "experimental flights," as well as trailering in of aircraft.

Problem is, most homebuilts are built at--well--home, and are trailered in, at least until the wings are installed, and, well, --and it goes downhill from there.

One councilman suggested charging anyone who trailers an aircraft in the same as hangar rates--$175.00/month, even if he doesn't lease a hangar. Others are pondering charging pilots $1.00/day when they trailer a craft in.

Meanwhile, a couple of "experts" in the city bureaucracy assert that driving a trailer past the gate is a Through the Fence thing, and falls under homeland security issues, and thus cannot be done. I suppose they prefer one parks on the road, off-loads the fuselage, then carry the wings in to install. Sigh.

Nothing like bureaucracy. This is the same city that is pondering implementing a Minimum Standards document that would require a listing of tools so the city can make certain a mechanic has the right tools before he can work for hire--as well as a listing of references, credit report, and resume. Mind you, the city isn't hiring the free-lance mechanic--just letting him work there--but not in the Tee hangars: Only in those hangars where work is permitted to be performed. (I won't even mention the insurance requirements.)

Double-sigh. And they wonder why 20 out of 54 hangars are now empty, when three years ago, there was a waiting list!

 

[Bob Noel]

Nothing like bureaucracy. This is the same city that is pondering implementing a Minimum Standards document that would require a listing of tools so the city can make certain a mechanic has the right tools before he can work for hire--as well as a listing of references, credit report, and resume. Mind you, the city isn't hiring the free-lance mechanic--just letting him work there--but not in the Tee hangars: Only in those hangars where work is permitted to be performed. (I won't even mention the insurance requirements.)

How are they able to prevent you from maintaining your aircraft in your hangar?

 

[ejensen]

How are they able to prevent you from maintaining your aircraft in your hangar?

My hangar lease doesn't allow commercial work in the hangar. Even includes on field A&Ps. I can maintain my plane or even build one but if I need help I can't pay for it. Quite a bit of work get done on the airport with the doors closed.

 

[dmccormack]

My hangar lease doesn't allow commercial work in the hangar. Even includes on field A&Ps. I can maintain my plane or even build one but if I need help I can't pay for it. Quite a bit of work get done on the airport with the doors closed.

Holy cow! That's downright ludicrous!

 

[Ted]

Holy cow! That's downright ludicrous!

My airport is the same. You can't even change the oil in your hangar. Reason: The FBO wants you to pay them to do it.

Of course, I refuse to give them any money. Ever. Why? Their policy. So it doesn't exactly work well for them.

 

[murphey]

When you say "Camper" do you mean a trailer, or a motor coach? I assume trailer...

KAPA has a strict "no trailers" rule for the ramp areas. Zero. None. They don't want the liability of people running trailers into aircraft, etc... I guess.

Yet at KFTG as long as there's an airplane in the hangar (the county hangars, not the privately owned ones) we can store anything else. There
are boats, campers, trailers, etc. parked next/behind the airplane.

 

[Everskyward]

KAPA has a strict "no trailers" rule for the ramp areas. Zero. None. They don't want the liability of people running trailers into aircraft, etc... I guess.

If someone has told you "no trailers" you need to point them to this site and ask them where they see trailers in this list.

Motorhomes, mini-bikes, go-carts, roller blading, skate boarding, and bicycles are prohibited on the Airport ramp.

http://www.centennialairport.com/Rules-Regulations

 

[ejensen]

Holy cow! That's downright ludicrous!

Might be ludicrous but it is very common around here (and elsewhere from what I've heard). At least I can do my own maintenance. As mentioned above, so don't even allow that for 'safety & health' reasons.

 

[bigred177]

Sounds like pretty conclusive evidence! How sad that people invest in an airplane then let it sit. Poor airplane!

At GTU There are a number of planes like this. Our A&P has asked a few of the owners if they were interested in selling v. letting them rot, they said it was cheaper for them tax-wise to let it sit than to sell it.

 

[dmccormack]

My airport is the same. You can't even change the oil in your hangar. Reason: The FBO wants you to pay them to do it.

Of course, I refuse to give them any money. Ever. Why? Their policy. So it doesn't exactly work well for them.

Yeah, that sure seems like a counter-productive way to stay in business.

 

[gismo]

My airport is the same. You can't even change the oil in your hangar. Reason: The FBO wants you to pay them to do it.

Of course, I refuse to give them any money. Ever. Why? Their policy. So it doesn't exactly work well for them.

Has your airport ever accepted any FAA money? If so I'm pretty certain that such a policy is contrary to FAA requirements for publicly funded airports.

 

[Ted]

Has your airport ever accepted any FAA money? If so I'm pretty certain that such a policy is contrary to FAA requirements for publicly funded airports.

Pretty sure they've accepted plenty of FAA money. And yes, they've been informed of this policy repeatedly. But, they keep at it. So that just encourages me to go elsewhere for my work.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Has your airport ever accepted any FAA money? If so I'm pretty certain that such a policy is contrary to FAA requirements for publicly funded airports.

Sure you quoted the right post, Lance? The stuff that's going on at M17 as described in the first post on this page does sound to me like it's contrary to normal FAA requirements - However, not allowing "outside" maintenance in people's hangars is a very common requirement, and probably has more to do with who paid for the hangars rather than the airport itself.

 

[ejensen]

Sure you quoted the right post, Lance? The stuff that's going on at M17 as described in the first post on this page does sound to me like it's contrary to normal FAA requirements - However, not allowing "outside" maintenance in people's hangars is a very common requirement, and probably has more to do with who paid for the hangars rather than the airport itself.

On my airport it is the ground lease for the T-hangars and the business requirements for the mechs themselves, have to have a base of operations. I can't say about the stand alone boxes. Never seen one their leases.

 

[denverpilot]

If someone has told you "no trailers" you need to point them to this site and ask them where they see trailers in this list.

http://www.centennialairport.com/Rules-Regulations

You needed to go one link further in.

http://www.centennialairport.com/Gate-Card-Application

"4. Unless approved or escorted by Airport Operations, motor homes and trailers of any kind are not permitted on the AOA. In addition to posing a hazard to taxiing aircraft, trailers can cause access gates to close prematurely, possibly resulting in damage to your vehicle and trailer or the access gate itself."

So, it sounds like... maybe... if you have Airport Ops truck come over, you could get a trailer in or out... but I've never asked.

 

[AA5Bman]

Jaybird:

I'm the oddball here. I keep my airplane tied down outside. For me, the cost of the hangar considering the value of the airplane says to me it makes sense to tie down outside. Hangars here are $200/mo. I can do a lot of flying for $2,400. I used to (with a different airplane) rent a hangar. I saw several times my airplane in the hangar with condensation all over it. If the roof of the hangar is not insulated, I think it might be better to be outside. At least the sun can dry things off. I use a cover and keep a good wax job on the paint. Not for everybody, but it works for me. There are a lot of airplanes sitting in hangars at my airport that are rarely flown. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I'm with you. My plane is covered but sits outside and I'll tell you what, it makes even less sense here where an unheated, unelectrified hangar goes for $500 a month. That said, I don't have basically any weather to worry about. If you get big hail storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, or any of the other weather elements that could ruin a plane, a hangar might be more desirable.

I don't want to start a war, but in my opinion the hangar issue is somewhat overblown. They're nice but not do or die.

 

[denverpilot]

A friend in PHX doesn't hangar his C-150, but it DEFINITELY needs and is under a sun shade...

 

[murphey]

You really need to move over to FTG. So what if I live 10-45 min from APA (depends on traffic) but base at FTG. I've never spent more than 30 min driving out there. Hangar costs only a bit more than a car port at APA, fuel is $1 (or more!) cheaper, and everyone rides around the entire area other than taxiways & runways. We got bikes, golf carts and mopeds all over the place.

Despite what the Airport Authority wants (lots more military, lots more bizjets, etc) we're really laid back out here. Large number of builders, Young Eagles every month, and when I need a 3rd hand to change the oil in the airplane in the hangar, there's always someone around.

True, the cafe is less than appealing (closed on Sundays, only open lunchtime during the week, and Saturdays are on a really wierd schedule) but most of us have microwaves and fridges in the hangars.

Nice weather? Always someone grilling outside the hangars.

 

[denverpilot]

You really need to move over to FTG.

Yeah, I used to drive out there all the time to fly rentals cheaper in the early 90's. Always liked KFTG.

Well, I did until someone at a for-profit flight club, dug up the KFTG by-law that says "clubs must have a manned desk and a phone" rule, and kicked the non-profit flight club I was in, off the field. (Note: I know both guys in that fight, and don't hold it against either one of them. I do think the by-law was the dumb part of the whole thing. Each was just looking after his own interests.)

Wonder if that goofy rule is still in the KFTG by-laws? If it still says they must have a manned desk for 8 hours a day, I bet it hasn't been enforced in a decade.

Problem we have right now is one owner lives 5 minutes from APA, I live 10 minutes (maybe 15 with bad traffic and a traffic light red), and the other is in Parker.

We have an "okay" deal on our shed... er, hangar. We are renting from a guy who retired to Florida. We made an offer to buy, he wasn't interested. There were a lot of phone numbers and For Sale signs up in the sheds earlier this year, and still are some... out of curiosity I made a few phone calls and laughed out loud at the prices a couple of folks were wanting for a building that's held to the ground with a spike through the asphalt.

Biggest problem at APA is the Airport Authority keeps upping the ground lease under the hangars. That was popular right up until the economy turned down. They seem to have quit that now for a while.

So... I think KFTG has always been the "ace in the hole"... if prices keep going up at KAPA... we'd probably move.

Also while I-225 was torn up this year on and off, I assume your time to get from the south-side to KFTG was much longer, or you paid the ransom... ahem, toll to the Arabian investors, and used E-470?

What's a real hangar with electricity roughly going for out there these days? I hear that it would make me jealous. Just haven't seen any real numbers anywhere and haven't called or checked into it.

 

[murphey]

Yeah, I used to drive out there all the time to fly rentals cheaper in the early 90's. Always liked KFTG.

Wonder if that goofy rule is still in the KFTG by-laws? If it still says they must have a manned desk for 8 hours a day, I bet it hasn't been enforced in a decade.

8-5? Surely you jest!

So... I think KFTG has always been the "ace in the hole"... if prices keep going up at KAPA... we'd probably move.

Also while I-225 was torn up this year on and off, I assume your time to get from the south-side to KFTG was much longer, or you paid the ransom... ahem, toll to the Arabian investors, and used E-470?

What's a real hangar with electricity roughly going for out there these days? I hear that it would make me jealous. Just haven't seen any real numbers anywhere and haven't called or checked into it.

Let's see - Clark lives out SW and it's about an hour drive for him. As for 225 being torn up, Chambers is the best option north to I-70. But it's never taken more than 30 min. As for going south, even when there's no construction, it's a bottleneck for about 3 miles from Colfax to Miss.

I'm in a county t-hangar with power - $260/mo and that includes snow removal up to about a foot within the door. The plow can't get closer without damaging something. There are empty county hangars, BTW. If you want one with water & heat you need to either buy or rent from non-county owners.

I got blankie & engine heater to keep the engine warm and haven't had any problems starting the cherokee.

We're doing Young Eagles this saturday morning. Come on up (unless you're doing the CAP Mtn Flying) and take a look. Much less traffic so you're not stuck waiting for the bizjets to take-off, every type of approach on 3 runways for IFR training (none of this "go missed at Lincoln" or "we can't fit you in right now") and if something goes wrong there's lots of off-field landing available...

No, I don't get a kickback...

 

[denverpilot]

I'm 3.7 miles from KAPA, 31.3 miles from KFTG. (One of the other owners is 1/2 that distance to KAPA. I doubt his car has time to get warm if he doesn't hit a stop light going across Arapahoe & Peoria.)

So I just did the math... with three owners, I'm paying $46 more a month than if we were out there, to have the airplane 10 minutes away vs. 1/2 hour to 1 hour away.

Hard to put a price on it... if it were a 2 owner or 1 owner aircraft, I'd be out there in a heartbeat! And electricity would be nice... but we have a generator...

 

[gismo]

Sure you quoted the right post, Lance? The stuff that's going on at M17 as described in the first post on this page does sound to me like it's contrary to normal FAA requirements - However, not allowing "outside" maintenance in people's hangars is a very common requirement, and probably has more to do with who paid for the hangars rather than the airport itself.

I was specifically responding to the "You can't even change the oil in your hangar" comment. It is quite common (and FAA legal) to prohibit mechanics from working on airplanes they don't own in their hangar, that's what the "FBO" concept is intended to prevent. Precluding the owner of an airplane from bringing in his own technician to work on his airplane in his hangar is a bit stickier but AFaIK, even prohibiting that has been found to be unacceptable to the FAA at publicly funded airports. But airport management can often get around that by requiring insurance, environmental protection, and safety equipment for all maintenance activity that makes the use of off airport help less cost effective.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was specifically responding to the "You can't even change the oil in your hangar" comment. It is quite common (and FAA legal) to prohibit mechanics from working on airplanes they don't own in their hangar, that's what the "FBO" concept is intended to prevent. Precluding the owner of an airplane from bringing in his own technician to work on his airplane in his hangar is a bit stickier but AFaIK, even prohibiting that has been found to be unacceptable to the FAA at publicly funded airports. But airport management can often get around that by requiring insurance, environmental protection, and safety equipment for all maintenance activity that makes the use of off airport help less cost effective.

Hmmmm... Very interesting. Maybe some folks could start challenging these policies, then.

 

[pilot_dude]

Other than the reasons previously posted, one advantage of hangaring for me and pax is that the plane is cool(er) in the summer and warm(er) in the winter.

 

[ejensen]

I was specifically responding to the "You can't even change the oil in your hangar" comment. It is quite common (and FAA legal) to prohibit mechanics from working on airplanes they don't own in their hangar, that's what the "FBO" concept is intended to prevent. Precluding the owner of an airplane from bringing in his own technician to work on his airplane in his hangar is a bit stickier but AFaIK, even prohibiting that has been found to be unacceptable to the FAA at publicly funded airports. But airport management can often get around that by requiring insurance, environmental protection, and safety equipment for all maintenance activity that makes the use of off airport help less cost effective.

Interesting. There are a couple thru-the-fence negotiations (fights) in progress now. Maybe this will come up. We were almost two years getting our lease (partnership w/ 30 Ts) approved by airport management and two city councils. At least 4 attorneys so you can imagine how comprehensible it is. But the non-commercial clause stayed in and appears to stop me from paying someone for aircraft services on my airplane. I should ask if this applies to maintaining the hangar.

And you're right, even if the lease allowed they would have to meet the standards set by the airport and pay the associated fees. One standard is to have a certain # of ft sq to work in. Much larger than my T.

 

[jshawley]

... Precluding the owner of an airplane from bringing in his own technician to work on his airplane in his hangar is a bit stickier but AFaIK, even prohibiting that has been found to be unacceptable to the FAA at publicly funded airports. But airport management can often get around that by requiring insurance, environmental protection, and safety equipment for all maintenance activity that makes the use of off airport help less cost effective.

That's precisely what is in the process of happening here, Lance. Insurance, environmental plan, proof of proper tools (verified by the Airport Manager/City Administrator), and so forth. We are permitted to do the FAA-legal owner stuff, but I notice that sometimes hangar doors don't open for periods of time.

This place used to be thriving. Used to have an on-site cafe that at least barely broke even. Soon M17 will be a corporate jet port: 4,000 ft. x 75 ft. (With plans to expand to 5k. after buying out a local civic organization and a few landowners/households.)

I guess "if you build it [the corporate jets] will come." I just don't see any evidence of that, given other considerations. Meanwhile, more of the GA set are becoming disenchanted with the whole shooting match, and more hangars are being vacated.

Meanwhile, the city has formed an Airport Advisory Committee, to which they are not listening. All suggestions are being rejected out of hand.

It is a shame.