Best 'cheap' Aircraft For Outdoor Tie-down Storage, your opinion

B

Brad W

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
2,061
Location
NE Florida
Display Name
Display name:
BLW2
In your opinion, what is among the best of the really low cost aircraft that would be suitable for storage outdoors tied down on the ramp?

Recently saw a piece on a restored Aeronca Champ.... and I remembered fondly my time trying to get my conventional gear sign-off in a 7AC (N3692E). It was just after finishing my instrument rating and I count those hours as probably THE most fun I've had flying. Never did get my sign off...seemed like that tail wheel was a shimmy monster and it screwed me up royally...but it was still fun.

Anyway, as I'm constantly daydreaming about what sort of aircraft would be a good fit for me to buy
...and trying to figure out my 'mission'...ride for family of 5, two seat local flyer, 4-seat compromise

A little champ sure would be fun and economical...but the two airports that make the most sense for me both have long hangar waiting lists... and even tiedowns aren't available at one of them....
....and I'd need to keep the costs down anyway to get DW's buy in....
But seems like a fabric plane like a champ would not be a great choice... especially in Florida. And do they have wooden spars too?
so.... something like a cessna 120/140 or C152 come to mind...but those aren't really quite the same

I'm wondering, what comes to your mind if thinking of cheap and outdoor tie-downs?
 
Brad W said:
In your opinion, what is among the best of the really low cost aircraft that would be suitable for storage outdoors tied down on the ramp?

Recently saw a piece on a restored Aeronca Champ.... and I remembered fondly my time trying to get my conventional gear sign-off in a 7AC (N3692E). It was just after finishing my instrument rating and I count those hours as probably THE most fun I've had flying. Never did get my sign off...seemed like that tail wheel was a shimmy monster and it screwed me up royally...but it was still fun.

Anyway, as I'm constantly daydreaming about what sort of aircraft would be a good fit for me to buy
...and trying to figure out my 'mission'...ride for family of 5, two seat local flyer, 4-seat compromise

A little champ sure would be fun and economical...but the two airports that make the most sense for me both have long hangar waiting lists... and even tiedowns aren't available at one of them....
....and I'd need to keep the costs down anyway to get DW's buy in....
But seems like a fabric plane like a champ would not be a great choice... especially in Florida. And do they have wooden spars too?
so.... something like a cessna 120/140 or C152 come to mind...but those aren't really quite the same

I'm wondering, what comes to your mind if thinking of cheap and outdoor tie-downs?
Click to expand...

I considered a Luscombe for that role, ended up with a 140A. If I had a do over, I would have looked at 170As as well.

If you want to keep costs low and predictable, join a club. Having had experience with both, weekend warrior club flying has been maybe 6k a year all in, ownership more like 6k a year before the prop turns.
 
Can a “ride for family of five” possibly be “cheap”?
 
Brad W said:
But seems like a fabric plane like a champ would not be a great choice... especially in Florida.
Click to expand...
How much hail do you get in Florida? Fabric is a lot easier to fix and probably more resistant...
Salt and humidity are hard on aluminum as well.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
How much hail do you get in Florida? Fabric is a lot easier to fix and probably more resistant...
Salt and humidity are hard on aluminum as well.
Click to expand...

No hail to speak of, but the sun and heat is hard on paint, fabric, leather and electronics. At minimum I would have a cover for the cabin part.
 
I did a lot of research into this because renting a hangar is nearly impossible where I live.

My research came down to this list:
Cessna 150 (early model tailwheel conversions have a really good reputation, but they are a bit pricy)
Cessna 140A (all-metal wing)
Metal Wing Luscombe (I almost bought one of these but the seller talked me out of it)
Metalized Stinson 108 (these have a surprisingly good reputation, but inspect them very closely for corrosion on the longerons, and buy the best engine you can afford)
Grumman Yankees (what I bought, I pay a little more for insurance than a 150, but it's a bit faster and has a great reputation for being low-maintenance)
Piper Cherokee 140s (they tend to be a bit more expensive than the rest of the list)

I looked a few fabric covered planes (I really like the Stinson 108), but at lower price points most of them have not been recovered in decades, so a recovering job is not an if but a when. If you hanger a good 20-year-old Stits covered plane for 5 years, you will probably be ok, but if tie it outside then that is less likely. Also, with modern coverings, the fabric itself isn't always the problem. There is an issue with Pacers where modern coverings are lasting so long that the longerons are rusting under the fabric, this didn't happen on the same scale when the fabric was replaced every 7 years so the corrosion was found and repaired before it had to be replaced.
 
Davis Da2
Zenith Ch-701

Inexpensive purchase price. All metal designs that can hold up to weather. Experimental to reduce maintenance costs.
 
Metal holds up better than tube and fabric. The higher your UV index the more true that is.
 
Thanks everyone so far....
GeorgeC said:
If you want to keep costs low and predictable, join a club. Having had experience with both, weekend warrior club flying has been maybe 6k a year all in, ownership more like 6k a year before the prop turns.
Click to expand...
I haven't had too much luck finding clubs.... there is one starting up with a cherokee I posted about a while back. It's not exactly a cheap one... I'd get some of what I'd like to acheive in owning...but not all...and the club still brings a few issues as well...availability being one... But yeah, wish I had some good ones to choose from!!!

wrbix said:
Can a “ride for family of five” possibly be “cheap”?
Click to expand...
...welll cheap is relative I supoose.... but in my case THAT is why a nice family ride isn't on my short list to dream about!

MarkH said:
Metal Wing Luscombe (I almost bought one of these but the seller talked me out of it)
Click to expand...
talked you out of it? why?
I don't know much about them, but have thought they seem to be similar to the cessna 120/140 type of thing.... perhaps a bit more respected....
 
The Luscombe has a reputation for being difficult to land and expensive to insure with low tailwheel time.

But mostly this was because I am looking to get my instrument and commercial, and he convinced me to hold out for something that I could do at least some of the training in (the Luscombe did not have an electrical system)
 
The most affordable all weather tie down plane will be a 120/140. If you don’t mind the nose wheel a Grumman Yankee would be top of the list. 150’s are getting expensive to the point it makes almost as much sense to buy a Cherokee 140 or early 172 instead. Champs, cubs, Stinson all sat outside for years without major issues. Yes they will deteriorate faster than if kept indoors it modern fabrics will last a long time outside especially with good paint. A metal plane will likely look just as bad as a fabric one after 15 years on a ramp. The difference is the metal one will just need paint, the fabric one may need paint and fabric.
 
Grum.Man said:
If you don’t mind the nose wheel a Grumman Yankee would be top of the list.
Click to expand...
I always thought the grummans looked fun...like mini-fighters. I've nver been around any though and don't know much about them. I'm not sure how I feel about that dome canopy though....
I'd prob prefer the nose wheel honestly for lower insurance rates....even thought i think it'd be great to get something to finally finish my conventional sign-off in.... and the nostalgia and simplicity are appealing to me....
 
Grum.Man said:
Yes they will deteriorate faster than if kept indoors it modern fabrics will last a long time outside especially with good paint. A metal plane will likely look just as bad as a fabric one after 15 years on a ramp. The difference is the metal one will just need paint, the fabric one may need paint and fabric.
Click to expand...
Great to know about the fabrics...I was concerned about the fabric but more so about the wooden spar than the fabric.
 
Brad W said:
Great to know about the fabrics...I was concerned about the fabric but more so about the wooden spar than the fabric.
Click to expand...

About 99% of Champs/Chiefs still have the wood spars which were stock from the factory.
Wood spars are fine if they are properly protected with spar varnish/epoxy, and protected from moisture, rain and water pooling inside. Bare wood and water don't get along well, wood rot.
Your best bet for outside storage for any length of time is a metal plane.
 
Please don't do that to a bona-fide antique. Get a Yankee or a Tomahawk or some such for now. When a hangar becomes available, then get your classic.
 
Brad W said:
I always thought the grummans looked fun...like mini-fighters. I've nver been around any though and don't know much about them. I'm not sure how I feel about that dome canopy though....
I'd prob prefer the nose wheel honestly for lower insurance rates....even thought i think it'd be great to get something to finally finish my conventional sign-off in.... and the nostalgia and simplicity are appealing to me....
Click to expand...

I learned in Grumman AA1 s and also have flown a Tomahawk. Of the two, I'd prefer the Grumman. Being able to taxi with the canopy wide open is great for hot weather, plus you can fly with it partially open, which is also appealing when it's hot. The Tomahawk flies like a heavier airplane and isn't as responsive as the Grummans. Both have heavier wing loadings than most of the other two seaters, which makes for a better ride when it's bumpy but also fly faster on approach. Both got a bad rap early in their training careers, but that was mainly because they didn't behave like Cessna 150s, and some people had a hard time adjusting. I do have a little wheel time in a 150 and much prefer the Grumman. The original Yankee is faster and a little less forgiving. None of the Grummans are great short field machines.

The Beechcraft Skipper looks similar to the Tomahawk, I haven't flown it and not all that many were produced.

OneCharlieTango said:
Please don't do that to a bona-fide antique. Get a Yankee or a Tomahawk or some such for now. When a hangar becomes available, then get your classic.
Click to expand...

Little old taildraggers aren't exactly scarce, if the OP decides to get one and keep it outside it's not like he's destroying some irreplaceable artwork, it's just a little old airplane, of which thousands were built.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Please don't do that to a bona-fide antique. Get a Yankee or a Tomahawk or some such for now. When a hangar becomes available, then get your classic.
Click to expand...
Why? Planes are meant to be flown.
 
yeah, that brings up an interesting discussion for sure...
on one hand...being a steward for a time, taking care of an aircraft that some day some future generations might enjoy.
on the other hand.... if a person limits themselves over such notions, they may very well never get the chance to enjoy owning one....or even flying one of the very many very nice examples that will just simply never show up on a flight school's rental fleet
and on another hand who cares, it's just a thing.
...and if the person is capable of doing the additional maintenance required to keep it up, then so what
...or if they don't keep up with the maintenance, the plane spends it's last few airworthy years being flown by someone that appreciates it (hopefully)
...or it becomes a project for some future generation to restore!

As the original poster of this thread, I certainly am not happy that the airports around me are so inaccessible...I don't entertain serious thoughts about getting something made of wood and keeping it outdoors in FL...but if it turned out to be my best option of finally owning an aircraft for a few years before I hang up my headset again, then so be it.... I'd do my best to keep it as well as possible.

Regardless...seems like something from Grumman Iron Works seems to be the takeaway here that was not previously on my radar.... and if it handles rough air better than a cessna 150/152, then it might be something to consider!
 
Surprised no ones mentioned the Grumman AA5 line, Traveler, Cheetah, Tiger. The travelers are good planes and can be had in the 20-30k range. Provide 4 seats. And decent economy as far as fuel burn and operating costs go. It’s metal, and it’s in the not too expensive/not too niche range to not want to just tie it down outside. My friends father had tiger and then a cheetah and always kept em outside in south Florida. Cabin cover on it and he never seemed to have a problem
 
JustinD said:
Surprised no ones mentioned the Grumman AA5 line, Traveler, Cheetah, Tiger. The travelers are good planes and can be had in the 20-30k range. Provide 4 seats. And decent economy as far as fuel burn and operating costs go. It’s metal, and it’s in the not too expensive/not too niche range to not want to just tie it down outside. My friends father had tiger and then a cheetah and always kept em outside in south Florida. Cabin cover on it and he never seemed to have a problem
Click to expand...

Saw a Grumman for 15K the other day...they definitely are cheap aircraft..
 
JustinD said:
Surprised no ones mentioned the Grumman AA5 line, Traveler, Cheetah, Tiger. The travelers are good planes and can be had in the 20-30k range. Provide 4 seats. And decent economy as far as fuel burn and operating costs go. It’s metal, and it’s in the not too expensive/not too niche range to not want to just tie it down outside. My friends father had tiger and then a cheetah and always kept em outside in south Florida. Cabin cover on it and he never seemed to have a problem
Click to expand...

The OP asked for a "really low cost" airplane. I didn't mention the AA5 series because they're more expensive than is an AA1. I really like them, if I were to get back into power flying that's what I'd want.

Edit: Another option if you wanted a "fly it until it isn't airworthy" plane would be one of the PA-22s, either the Colt or Tri-Pacer. You could fly it until the fabric or the engine needed major attention, and then scrap it.
 
Last edited:
I think the cessna 120/140 is a great option, an A would be perfect but are pricier. It is only the wing thats fabric and You could get a set of wing covers and several years insurance difference just in purchase price compared to a 150. A very decent one with low to mid time engines can be had all day long for 20k or so... I love my 140, and you will create ramp conversations in a 120/140 that'll you'll never get in a 150/2...

They are definitely darn near cousins with the luscombe but understand the 120/140 is more forgiving on the ground..

I was a zero hour TW guy with only 150 hours of nosewheel before that, just a year and a half ago and my insurance is only 800-900 a year. Approaching 130hrs of TW time since I got her :)

if you are entertaining the thought of one check out March’s edition of Flying Magazine, a whole article on the 120/140s, and you might even see two pics of my panel, the article starts on page 52 ;)
 
Not sure where you are but look local. You can typically find airplanes cheaper than those on Barnstromers and Trade-a-plane. Check the bulletin boards at airports.
 
Sundowner or Yankee. The former because the capex is low enough and the plane hauls enough useful load to fit your criteria (4+2, reality is 4 adults and a toddler with 1hr fuel.) The later because what everyone else said.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
What’s the useful load on your 140 @Huckster79 ?

is there an electrical system that would run ads b xpdr radios etc.?
Click to expand...

mine was a heavy girl when I got her at 1012 on scales so 438, BUT in the spring we will re-weigh as I believe I have her down to about 950-960 so potentially 500lbs... 25 gallons of fuel at 5 gallons an hour is more capacity than my bladder... so if weight is a concern often gas can be left behind...

yes the 140s all have electrical systems, some still with generators but many many have alternators...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top