Gotta have Useful Load

OkieFlyer said:
I mentioned the 337 Skymaster earlier. Does anyone have an opinion on that. It's a '67 model, will need interior panels, but the seats are okay, probably some new radios, and touch-up on the paint. Front engine is mid time and rear engine is pretty low time I believe. Front prop is brand new, not sure about the rear one. Istruments are good. I has a Robertson STOL kit as well. I think the guy would let it go for 20K or less. Anyone think it would be worth messing with? It's a lot of airplane and one heck of a hauler. Fuel burn is probably pretty steep as I mentioned before. Anyone know of any particular problems with the skymaster? The current owner is an A&P.
Click to expand...
Rotor&Wing can probably give you more insight on 337s, but like alot of planes, I would highly recommend running away from cheap airplanes - a twin like a 337 selling for 20K??? Probably isn't airworthy or is at best borderline airworthy and going to need a ton of dough to get it into an airworthy state. You generally get what you pay for.

As far as planes owned by A&Ps.....they vary greatly!

I have noticed a trend that A&P owned airplanes are either very well maintained and are priced accordingly or they are very cheap and you find alot of maintenance deferred or overlooked.
 
Pilots buy paint and radios, mechanics buy airplanes... is the old joke, right?

I have a friend who's flown across the U.S. twice now, I believe, in his Cherokee 140 that has large areas where there's no paint on the wings at all... the airplane is solid mechanically and airworthy, and ugly as sin.

He's having more fun per dollar than the guys who are replacing interiors, I bet.
 
If you're on a budget I'd scratch anything with two engines off the list. Once you bolt on a second engine you are doubling your engine related maintenance costs. I've also seen some owners cut more corners on twin's engines "because it has a spare."

My vote is a 205 or find a light 182. Have you looked at the flint wing extensions? IIRC they bump the gross up to 3100lbs.
 
denverpilot said:
Pilots buy paint and radios, mechanics buy airplanes... is the old joke, right?

I have a friend who's flown across the U.S. twice now, I believe, in his Cherokee 140 that has large areas where there's no paint on the wings at all... the airplane is solid mechanically and airworthy, and ugly as sin.

He's having more fun per dollar than the guys who are replacing interiors, I bet.
Click to expand...


Sounds like my flight school planes:rofl:
 
Skylane81E said:
If you're on a budget I'd scratch anything with two engines off the list. Once you bolt on a second engine you are doubling your engine related maintenance costs. I've also seen some owners cut more corners on twin's engines "because it has a spare."

My vote is a 205 or find a light 182. Have you looked at the flint wing extensions? IIRC they bump the gross up to 3100lbs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really want to get into twins anyhow. I like the 205 or light 182 idea, but I'm not familiar with these wing extensions. I'll have to check that out. Thanks

Skylane81E said:
Sounds like my flight school planes:rofl:
Click to expand...

Funny. The 172 I trained in fell out of the ugly tree for sure. It had a thin layer of krylon on about half of it. I mean thin enough to see through. I believe it cost the owner of the flight school 15K, it's IFR certified, and and has served school well for about 8 years now. Ugly don't mean squat. N333AF is a good old bird.
 
When they start passing over the 16K hour mark looking good becomes a relative term.
 
I just have to say that It's kinda funny to me that $50,000 is considered "on a budget". I thought it was quite a chunk of change, but I guess I'm not doing as well as I thought. Hell, thats $12,000 more than I bought my house for and it's certainly no dump. Do I live in the twilight zone? Or maybe la la land :eek:
 
Last edited:
OkieFlyer said:
I just have to say that It's kinda funny to me that $50,000 is considered "on a budget". I thought it was quite a chunk of change, but I guess I'm not doing as well as I thought. Hell, thats $12,000 more than I bought my house for and it's certainly no dump. Do I live in the twilight zone? :eek:
Click to expand...
50K will buy a lot of good airplanes, but you are looking for a little more airplane than typically goes for that price.:wink2:
 
Skylane81E said:
50K will buy a lot of good airplanes, but you are looking for a little more airplane than typically goes for that price.:wink2:
Click to expand...

I reckon you're right about that. Wishful thinkin'. Everything else is cheaper in OK, I was hoping airplanes were too. Ain't happenin'.
 
Skylane81E said:
If you're on a budget I'd scratch anything with wings off the list.
Click to expand...

FTFY ;)

Once you bolt on a second engine you are doubling your engine related maintenance costs. I've also seen some owners cut more corners on twin's engines "because it has a spare."
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of owners of singles chase gremlins that didn't exist because they were deathly afraid of that one engine failing. Not that I blame them. Overall, most of my maintenance items have been airframe related. Not nearly as many have been engine or prop related. And I've had a number of failures that were benign on a twin, but would be pretty bad on a single. These weren't due to cutting corners, just due to sometimes things break, and you're a whole lot less likely to break both if you have two.

If you use the plane as a traveling machine, well, there are reasons why all transport category aircraft have at least two. Those reasons apply to us in smaller birds, too.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
FTFY ;)



I've seen a lot of owners of singles chase gremlins that didn't exist because they were deathly afraid of that one engine failing. Not that I blame them. Overall, most of my maintenance items have been airframe related. Not nearly as many have been engine or prop related. And I've had a number of failures that were benign on a twin, but would be pretty bad on a single. These weren't due to cutting corners, just due to sometimes things break, and you're a whole lot less likely to break both if you have two.

If you use the plane as a traveling machine, well, there are reasons why all transport category aircraft have at least two. Those reasons apply to us in smaller birds, too.
Click to expand...

Don't think that I was twin bashing, but by definition it's almost twice the airplane and runs costs up. Owner/operator gets to make the call if it's worth it or not.
 
I'd be VERY cautious with a $20k twin. Something's wrong with that picture.

As for the 210 advice I gave. It came from a book on used planes I bought 10 years ago. Had the good and the bad on many airframes. It was a good starting point when looking.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I just have to say that It's kinda funny to me that $50,000 is considered "on a budget". I thought it was quite a chunk of change, but I guess I'm not doing as well as I thought. Hell, thats $12,000 more than I bought my house for and it's certainly no dump. Do I live in the twilight zone? Or maybe la la land :eek:
Click to expand...
Depends on what you are trying to get for 50K.

My airplane, even after I have the extensive first annual done, upgrade it to IFR and have it freshly painted is going to be well under 50K invested, but I am not trying to go fast or haul alot of stuff.
 
Skylane81E said:
Don't think that I was twin bashing, but by definition it's almost twice the airplane and runs costs up. Owner/operator gets to make the call if it's worth it or not.
Click to expand...


Yes sir. I dig twins, but in my case, the operating costs would most likely be more than I want to take on.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Probably won't find a good one for 50K.

206's have retained their value quite well.
Click to expand...
You are right, I looked them up and I had no idea. I was just thinking of the one I flew that the company sold for $12,500 cash and was later found to have been running drugs. No surprise there. That was about a 1966 model with a run out engine and probably original avionics, but it was turbo. That was also in the late 1980s.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I reckon you're right about that. Wishful thinkin'. Everything else is cheaper in OK, I was hoping airplanes were too. Ain't happenin'.
Click to expand...

You're gaining some valuable insight here. Double your budget for a 1300 pound useful load cross-country airworthy plane with some first annual budget included. If you want to fly (with pax) a high time ugly duckling with smokin rivets that's your call.

I knew going in what "pride of ownership" costs. That's been my call.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I just have to say that It's kinda funny to me that $50,000 is considered "on a budget". I thought it was quite a chunk of change, but I guess I'm not doing as well as I thought. Hell, thats $12,000 more than I bought my house for and it's certainly no dump. Do I live in the twilight zone? Or maybe la la land :eek:
Click to expand...

It's all relative to one's perspective. Some will budget $25K max. Some will budget $50K max. Others may budget $250K max, and another may budget $2500K max. It's important to be realistic on your budget. I know of someone in that $2500K class who spent about $50K just for the annual.
 
Walk around OSH and note the number of green prop tips. All of the trike recips will have them. And the ones that are usually thought to be the most prone are the models that are owned by somebody else.
EdFred said:
The only thing that scares me about the 210 is how close that prop gets to the ground. A not so smooth surface looks like it would prop strike on a 210 a lot quicker that most other planes.
Click to expand...
 
Skylane81E said:
Don't think that I was twin bashing, but by definition it's almost twice the airplane and runs costs up. Owner/operator gets to make the call if it's worth it or not.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were twin bashing, but as with a lot of things, it helps to have some ownership experience. In the past 900 hours of twin time (and having to deal with all the costs associated), I've seen a lot of advantages to twin ownership cost wise that wouldn't exist with singles.

Part of the problem is people typically don't compare singles to comparable twins. A Bonanza vs. a Baron is a reasonably equivalent comparison, but a 182 vs. an Aztec is not. A Comanche 250 vs. Twin Comanche is. When you do the good comparisons and weigh the intangible benefits, they aren't as bad as people think.

...but if you buy a $20k one, it'll probably be worse. :)
 
I can agree there, I've spent 120K++ of a customers money on a twin before but a Navajo isn't a fair comparison to a 150.


But our Seneca isn't all that much more plane than my 182 and is arguably no more than a SR22. I'm glad I'm not paying the bills for the PA34 though. Just the basic math of more plane = more money so if cost is a concern the smallest plane that will do the job is likely a good choice.
 
Skylane81E said:
But our Seneca isn't all that much more plane than my 182 and is arguably no more than a SR22. I'm glad I'm not paying the bills for the PA34 though. Just the basic math of more plane = more money so if cost is a concern the smallest plane that will do the job is likely a good choice.
Click to expand...

Seneca vs. SR22? SR22 is a 4-seater, Seneca (assuming a Seneca II) is 6 seats and significantly more room than an SR22. We'll assume both are turbocharged. Then you're also comparing a new plane vs. a several decade old plane.

Yes, more plane = more money, and if you just want to bore holes in the sky a twin is a bad choice. However, when you are operating the plane and use it as a serious means of transport, there are a number of advantages.

I don't think our OP is concerned as much with the serious means of transport so much as the weight issue, though.
 
If you're looking for an OWT, the one about the 20% of cost that will be necessary at the first annual should top your list. It's pure crap, and reasons most buyers get stuck with a big cost are:

1. They're too cheap to pay the mechanic that will maintain the airplane to perform the pre-buy inspection.

2. They're too dumb to walk away from a deal that you could smell all the way to Rush Springs.

3. They couldn't negotiate a starving dog out of a snowstorm with a T-bone steak.
 
skylanerg said:
You're gaining some valuable insight here. Double your budget for a 1300 pound useful load cross-country airworthy plane with some first annual budget included. If you want to fly (with pax) a high time ugly duckling with smokin rivets that's your call.

I knew going in what "pride of ownership" costs. That's been my call.
Click to expand...

Pride of ownership has little to do with looks IMO, if that's what you're implying. But that's me.

skidoo said:
It's all relative to one's perspective. Some will budget $25K max. Some will budget $50K max. Others may budget $250K max, and another may budget $2500K max. It's important to be realistic on your budget. I know of someone in that $2500K class who spent about $50K just for the annual.
Click to expand...

Your right there. And my budget is set by how much I can spend without going into debt. If I wanted to bring the bank into the deal, I'm sure they'd loan me a whole bunch and I could have the plane of my dreams, but that's not how I roll. I don't go into debt on toys. Perspective is also shaped by your location. Like in Cali, 150 grand gets you a shack, and here it can get you a 3000 sq ft house on 10 acres. In a lot of places, an 80k salary is chump change, but here it's pretty darn nice. In some places, hangar rent is $500 a month, here it's $50. Know what I mean.

Airplane ownership may be the thing that costs the same anywhere you live, and that's something I'm trying to find out by talking to you guys.
 
wabower said:
If you're looking for an OWT, the one about the 20% of cost that will be necessary at the first annual should top your list. It's pure crap, and reasons most buyers get stuck with a big cost are:

1. They're too cheap to pay the mechanic that will maintain the airplane to perform the pre-buy inspection.

2. They're too dumb to walk away from a deal that you could smell all the way to Rush Springs.

3. They couldn't negotiate a starving dog out of a snowstorm with a T-bone steak.
Click to expand...


I love Okies. :rofl:
 
Labor, fuel(to a point) and rent will vary by region. Plane's and parts won't. Airplanes are just to mobile to vary much by location.
 
On that budget you can't even find a decent Cessna 205- IO 470U, 260 hp, 1500 useful, but that's what I'd try to find.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Seneca vs. SR22? SR22 is a 4-seater, Seneca (assuming a Seneca II) is 6 seats and significantly more room than an SR22. We'll assume both are turbocharged. Then you're also comparing a new plane vs. a several decade old plane.

Yes, more plane = more money, and if you just want to bore holes in the sky a twin is a bad choice. However, when you are operating the plane and use it as a serious means of transport, there are a number of advantages.

I don't think our OP is concerned as much with the serious means of transport so much as the weight issue, though.
Click to expand...


Interestingly our Seneca II has the EXACT same payload as one of our SR22s. I should know because I had to drain fuel out of our Cirrus (14gal) then when outside issues pushed the flight to the Seneca I had to drain...












...14 gal.

But compare it to a lance/saratoga, 6 more cylinders, extra turbo, extra prop and governor, more mags....

Even if it all keeps working it will need overhaul eventually.

Now it's also less likely to crash due to a failure. Value of that is up to the operator. We only use the Seneca on charter for customers who insist on a twin. Even one of those clients is working on his insurance company to allow him to charter the Cirrus arguing that the cute makes it just as safe(debatable but still...)
 
On a historical basis, some regions, such as California, have been stronger resale markets. That may have changed due to recent downturn in the economic environment there.

Skylane81E said:
Labor, fuel(to a point) and rent will vary by region. Plane's and parts won't. Airplanes are just to mobile to vary much by location.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
On a historical basis, some regions, such as California, have been stronger resale markets. That may have changed due to recent downturn in the economic environment there.
Click to expand...
We've been shopping for some customers, prices seem constant region to region. However I'm a relative newb to this thing and the market has been sliding since before I started into this airplane thing.
 
Skylane81E said:
We've been shopping for some customers, prices seem constant region to region. However I'm a relative newb to this thing and the market has been sliding since before I started into this airplane thing.
Click to expand...

Anyone have any experience with the Cherokee 6 260? Are they the "dogs" that I've heard they are?
 
Price is outta sight.
On that budget you can't be choosy. The Cherokee 6 260 above 10,000 feet is a joke.
 
I was just looking at the Wing-X STOL kit. Looks like it's about $5000 and increases the gross to 2950 for 182 E thru M models, which is the same as the N model I mentioned earlier. So I'm thinkin I can get a decent mid 60s 182 and put the stol kit on for 50k and get 1300 lb useful. Thoughts?
 
skylanerg said:
Okie, you're on the right track and kudos on the research. However you cut it, you will never get 10 pounds of **** into a 5 pound sack. Shopping is a blast though, ain't it?
Click to expand...

Frustrating and fun. :wink2: It's been a fun discussion and I got lots of good input. Man we did 77 posts in a day. Not bad eh.:D
 
OkieFlyer said:
I'm in need of a plane with a 1200 lb useful load, with plenty of leg room in the back, for less than 50K. [...] Basically, I need to haul 850 lbs of people, some luggage, and enough gas for 2.5 to 3 hrs with reserves.
Click to expand...

At the moment there is a 1993 Velocity SE on aso.com with an asking price of $47k. Useful load is "only" 1000 lbs, but at 180 mph @ 9 GPH, maybe the efficiency may be worth a look? Besides - it's much newer and prettier than the doddering Cessnas models being recommended!
 
OkieFlyer said:
Yeah, I don't really want to get into twins anyhow. I like the 205 or light 182 idea, but I'm not familiar with these wing extensions. I'll have to check that out.
Click to expand...

Huh... I missed that "wing extensions" thing, but the "P" and "Q" model 182s can have their takeoff weight bumped to 3100 lbs with nothing but some money and a piece of paper for one of two available STCs. 3110 ramp weight.

Our 1975 Cessna 182 "P" is one of 'em. It was certified to older certification rules and Cessna later certified the exact same airframe under new rules which allowed in the "new math" (ha!) the 3100 lb gross T/O weight.

That set the stage years later for an enterprising folks to ask for an STC to raise the TO weight on the older identical models.

Landing weight is still 2950 which is our current max gross weight, so you either have to burn off fuel (as Kent mentioned) or throw Kent out with a parachute. Only bring the parachute if you feel like being nice today. ;)

It depends on if he left you his iPad in his will or not, I suppose. :D

http://www.182stc.com/

You can even buy it through Aircraft Spruce.

http://www.seaplaneswest.com/floatkits.html

So far, we haven't found a "mission" we'd regularly need to do enough to justify $750 for 150 lbs of stuff. But I suppose if we were ever given the job of hauling gold bars out of Ft. Knox, we'd buy it. ;)

Seaplanes West can get ya to 3350, but you'll have to put a "P", "Q" or "R" model on floats.

http://www.seaplaneswest.com/floatkits.html

This article below chronicles the various "bumps" in Skylane gross weight (and even explains that a 182 and a Skylane and a Skylane II were actually different features that you ordered, but where they get "92 gallons" for a P model I have no earthly idea.

We're 80 gallons, 75 usable. It's way more gas on board than normal human bladders and those not wishing an early death from Deep Vein Thrombosis really need. We've got over five hours of fuel plus VFR reserves on board. You go that long you won't want to get back in for a while.

Otherwise it's a good article about the "real" four-seaters, the Skylane and the Dakota...

http://airbum.com/articles/ArticleSkylaneDakota.html

Clark's Frankenkota can out haul and easily out climb my Skylane. ;)
 
OkieFlyer said:
Wow, thanks for all the quick replies guys. :)

But by golly, it will sure haul a load. So it seems like the best choices are:
1. C210 maintenance hog with iffy landing gear
2. Cherokee 6 that will haul a ton, but is a dog
3. Cherokee 235 that also hauls a ton, but you can't fit anyone in the back
4. C182 with plenty of room, but can't handle my loads

5. Cessna 205 -- with the load you require
Click to expand...

added one more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top