Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot.

darlingm

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
10
Display Name

Display name:
darlingm
Just starting to look at buying a plane. If I owned my own plane, I could easily see putting enough hours in per year to beat renting.

Least expensive is key. Low gas usage is key too. Understand too low of an initial price means higher cost because there's stuff wrong with it. Know to have a pro inspect and appraise. Looking for guidance beyond that, to know when to scratch an ad and not waste time with the inspection. :)

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1961/Cessna/150A/2086672.html
1961 Cessna 150A for $12.9k. 7700 airframe hours. 495 smoh. Last annual 12/2014.
No air conditioner. Lot of airframe hours. But, engine should have at least 1500 hours left in it, right?

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1947/Ercoupe/415-E/1544316.html
1947 Ercoupe 415-E for $13.9k. 2130 airframe hours. 989 engine hours.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1964/Cessna/150/2044201.html
1964 Cessna 150 for $14.3k. 3675 airframe hours. 530 smoh.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1946/Luscombe/8A/1343597.html
1946 Luscombe 8A for $14.5k. 1033 airframe, 523 smoh. Rebuilt '08.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1946/Cessna/120/2152597.html
1946 Cessna 120 for $14.5k. 780 airframe, unknown engine time. New prop, 6/15 annual.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1969/Cessna/150K/2053662.html
1969 Cessna 150K for $14.9k. 2250 airframe, 167 stoh. Annual 3/15.

Do any of these scream go away? Or are they worth looking into?
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

The taildraggers will be the most fun....
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Look like some OK starter airplanes.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

I like the last 150. Has the best panel. You can throw in a radio w GS, get your pitot/static check and fly it IFR.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

If all I could afford was $10-15k, I'd look for the simplest airplane possible and give it a very thorough pre-buy. Even on a $12k airplane, say a 150/152, your first annual could cost you 25% or more of the purchase price if a few things go wrong. The simpler the plane, the few possible things to go wrong.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

If all I could afford was $10-15k, I'd look for the simplest airplane possible and give it a very thorough pre-buy. Even on a $12k airplane, say a 150/152, your first annual could cost you 25% or more of the purchase price if a few things go wrong. The simpler the plane, the few possible things to go wrong.

But the lower the price the greater the chance that some 4 figure issue will turn it into scrap. Which is sort of what you said!
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Any aircraft you buy under 15K will be a project. A good maintained 150 with a low time airframe and engine good interior, paint and clear glass, with IFR radios, will be priced above 20k.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

1964 was the best year for the 150...
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

For the 150 I'd suggest spending a bit more up front for the 150M. Some small features make it a slightly better plane, but it's a little heavier as well, though you get another 100Lbs gross increase.

The Luscombe is a hand prop plane, so be prepared for that. Otherwise, it looks ok from the pics. Prolly give you a few years of good service with some catch up maint. Paint doesn't make a plane fly.

No on the Ercoupe, it's a 1 person plane unless it has the C-90 engine(maybe it does), even then they are anemic planes.

I like the first C150, not a fan of the early omni-vision planes, as they are a bit slower.

Plan to spend more to inspect and less to fix but they all will need some TLC.

<bargain: http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1045340_Cessna+150M.html>
 
Last edited:
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Depends on your mission. I have about 100 hours in the Luscombe 8A and would own one in a heartbeat but only for farting around within, at most, a 300 mile radius; half that is better. Cheap aircraft are slow. If that fits your mission then I think they are a great value.

BTW, get some time in whatever you are serious about to see if it is a good fit for you, my tall friends (over 6') did not enjoy being in the Luscombe.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

I like the last 150. Has the best panel. You can throw in a radio w GS, get your pitot/static check and fly it IFR.

IFR flight doesn't require a glide slope. You'd want one for serious IFR (which I'm not sure I'd do in a 150) and for training for your instrument ticket, however.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Depends on your mission. I have about 100 hours in the Luscombe 8A and would own one in a heartbeat but only for farting around within, at most, a 300 mile radius; half that is better. Cheap aircraft are slow. If that fits your mission then I think they are a great value.

BTW, get some time in whatever you are serious about to see if it is a good fit for you, my tall friends (over 6') did not enjoy being in the Luscombe.

This right here says it all. Questions for you, Have you started flying lessons? If so how many hours? What if anything have you already flown? What are your goals with regard to flying in the next 5 or so years? Just buzzing around the patch or headed 125 miles for a good omelet on Sunday? Or do you need to really travel?
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

That square tail C150 is WAY out front on this list (i may even know the plane).

One detail you are sweeping past and that is location. I've moved a few planes across this amazing country and a fuel bill of $1500 is getting off REAL light. That and some unexpected items the PO forgot to mention make for a thrill a minute.

The planes you're listing are from thousands of miles apart.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Taildraggers are a lot of fun- I got tired of the 150/152/172 pretty quickly, but there's a cherry 140 I'll go up in any day because it's so fun.

OTOH, as a student pilot you'll want an electrical system- having an inplane starter, transponder, and NAV/COM capability opens up a lot of airports and makes life way easier. If possible, barebones IFR equipment is the next big step- it helps complete your learning and offers an emergency "out" post license.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

I've moved a few planes across this amazing country and a fuel bill of $1500 is getting off REAL light.

LGA -> LAX is 2146 NM. Say a C150 does 88 knots, that gives 24 hours enroute. @4GPH that gives less than 100 gallons of gas. I suppose if you stop at every expensive station along the way, you could get the bill up over $1000. I could do it for less than $400 by shopping carefully. Add in a comm flight one way, and you're still way under $600. Add another $200 for hotels and meals coming back and it's maybe $800 all in. ;)

This is a guy at the bottom of the market. $800 to go across the country for a plane is pocket change for the right starting plane.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

A 140 with an 85 Hp is underpowered with two people full tanks , needs an 0200. . The best Luscombe is the F model , far superior to the others. I've owned two of each. If they are in nice shape, always hangared , they will not be under thirty grand. I'm six foot, both are cramped with two full size adults. Alone , I'm fine.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

The Cavalier I just sold went for $8500. IFR panel. Ceconite, even though it was put on in 1974, inspected thoroughly "as new". Underneath the paint it was still perfect. Amazing. Paint in places was chipped but the plane still looked great. New owner is delighted. Always protected from water and UV by being hangared. Plane really needed nothing except new tires and really didn't even need those - just needed the old ones switched on the rims but I put new ones on to make the A&P happy that did the condition inspection.

A few days later, an RV-3, with the spar mod and a full panel that usually flies twice a week got sold for $7K simply because the owner was getting old and bored with flying - or maybe it was medical - you never know. Couldn't believe this plane sold for so little. Sold by word of mouth, wasn't advertised. Owner took a huge loss on it just because he didn't want to go through the hassles of dealing with tire kickers. Sometimes, at a certain age or stage in life, you just don't give a damn about how much you sell something for. Selling a beloved old plane to a good home is more important to some than getting market value.

Either one of these planes will leave any of the ones mentioned far behind in speed, efficiency, maintenance costs, and just plain fun. It is not fun to go 90 miles an hour in something with wings, at least not for very long.

If cost is a factor, buy something like the two examples I've mentioned. They turn up, as do good deals on Pipers and Cessnas. All those hangers at the mostly deserted airports around the country are full of mostly pretty nice planes. Eventually the owners get tired of the hangar rent and realize they are never going to get but a fraction of what they have invested in what was once their pride and joy. The market just isn't there anymore and it has little to do with the economy. Kids are growing up more interested in drones or simulated flying than in the actual devices that make flight possible. We can thank TSA & HS for the fences around all the airports for at least part of that situation but my point is the market for all these once treasured planes is narrow and getting narrower. Eventually the owner just puts the word out that they are looking for a good home for their plane. They had it on Barnstormers twice and TAP once with nothing but a lot of calls from bored people who wanted to talk about how they flew one of those twenty years ago. What do you do then? If still alive you put the word out and sell it for whatever offer comes along or you die and the wife sells it for whatever offer comes along. It's a pretty good time to be buying a decent airplane, if you're not in a hurry. There's no reason to buy junk.

It takes a bit of patience and putting the word out that you're looking. The ones I've seen sell recently are in the Experimental category and that RV-3 especially was an exceptional steal. But there are decent spam cans out there that are also selling, word of mouth, for really small sums. Bellanca Vikings can be bought especially cheap and good ones are not rare. They are pure joy to fly but because of their certification you're stuck with pricey annuals and overpriced parts.

You're looking for really inexpensive so you're limited, at least in the spam can world, to junk that will cost a significant amount of money to maintain properly. They're boring to fly and expensive to improve or modify thanks to their certification. Going 90 miles an hour in an airplane is not fun I'm sure you know. Learning to handle a Luscombe or an old taildragger Cessna is fun . . . but once that's under control there you are. 90 miles an hour. What do you do with that? Buy some goggles and a flying helmet and pretend it's 1946? That gets old quick. Airplanes are for travelling. Or for training. If you want a trainer any of these will do if you can afford the expense of maintenance.

I have seen very nice old C-172's and Cherokees of various kinds sell incredibly cheap in the last two or three years. Within the last year I saw a current and decent Cherokee 180 start out at 15K and ended up going for $6500. Word of mouth is how it happens. Put the word out at your local airports. Get to know some old timers who know what's going on. Just relax and keep your eyes and ears open and eventually somebody will mention something to you that will be just perfect, and it'll be right in your own back yard. I suggest the (perhaps novel to you) idea to think in terms of planes in the Experimental category. You get a lot more for your money and they are much less expensive to maintain. They're generally far more fun and go twice as fast as the the factory builts, especially those you've mentioned out of TAP. You need some mechanical aptitude and interest to own an Experimental, but nothing special. You can easily learn anything you need to learn if you have the time to research and do your own work. You know it's done right, which is the primary advantage as I see it.

Both of these planes, the Cavalier and the RV-3 - or any other aircraft in the Experimental category - can be modified, improved and maintained by the owners. No $40 - $80/hr A&P's required except once a year to sign off the condition inspection for which you've already done all the work. No FAA approved overpriced and often counterfeit parts or TSO'd avionics required. All you need is an interest in learning how they are put together and how to keep them that way. And a hangar. Don't buy anything that's been left out in the elements and don't leave your new plane, whatever you wind up with, out there either. If you can't afford a hangar you can't afford an airplane.

Just some thoughts. Please forgive the repetitiveness, it's late and I'm sleepy. If you don't have natural aptitude for flying and an interest in how your plane works, please ignore everything I've said focus instead on keeping lots of money in your checking account so you can keep up with that clapped out 150 you seem to be considering. All those planes you listed make very good training aircraft. As always, your choice of aircraft depends on the mission. If your mission is to do some training they'll all do fine. If you're dependent on A&P's and certified parts they'll all be a lot more expensive than they at first seem, I guess that was my main point with all this rambling. Sorry. Others have said the same thing much more succinctly. I type faster than I think and this is what happens.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

LGA -> LAX is 2146 NM. Say a C150 does 88 knots, that gives 24 hours enroute. @4GPH that gives less than 100 gallons of gas. I suppose if you stop at every expensive station along the way, you could get the bill up over $1000. I could do it for less than $400 by shopping carefully. Add in a comm flight one way, and you're still way under $600. Add another $200 for hotels and meals coming back and it's maybe $800 all in. ;)



This is a guy at the bottom of the market. $800 to go across the country for a plane is pocket change for the right starting plane.


I did SE Florida to Oregon and back (~6000 NM) for $2500, I kept the days short (1 leg, < 6 hours), if I pushed it I could have saved some in hotels. But I wanted to stop along the way to see friends and once for weather. I did 1 long day with 2 legs, I wouldn't want to do it 2 days in a row.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

For the 150 I'd suggest spending a bit more up front for the 150M. Some small features make it a slightly better plane, but it's a little heavier as well, though you get another 100Lbs gross increase.

The Luscombe is a hand prop plane, so be prepared for that. Otherwise, it looks ok from the pics. Prolly give you a few years of good service with some catch up maint. Paint doesn't make a plane fly.

No on the Ercoupe, it's a 1 person plane unless it has the C-90 engine(maybe it does), even then they are anemic planes.

I like the first C150, not a fan of the early omni-vision planes, as they are a bit slower.

Plan to spend more to inspect and less to fix but they all will need some TLC.

<bargain: http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1045340_Cessna+150M.html>


I used to fly an "A" model ===>
Note that the seats are BENCH and not bucket
And they are NOT adjustable!.

I think the 65 "E" models were their best, followed by the "M" and the "H"
(FWIW)
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

I used to fly an "A" model ===>
Note that the seats are BENCH and not bucket
And they are NOT adjustable!.

I think the 65 "E" models were their best, followed by the "M" and the "H"
(FWIW)

Have you ever flown a 90 horsepower F model Luscombe in good condition?
The a model, 65 hp can't compare to it. I've owned both over the years. Most e models I'm familiar with were 85 hp. The "H" I've never heard of.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Have you ever flown a 90 horsepower F model Luscombe in good condition?
The a model, 65 hp can't compare to it. I've owned both over the years. Most e models I'm familiar with were 85 hp. The "H" I've never heard of.

I thought he was referring to Cessna 150's.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Looked at subject line and OP and can't figure out link between cheap small airplanes and firearms mishandling. ;)
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Any aircraft you buy under 15K will be a project. A good maintained 150 with a low time airframe and engine good interior, paint and clear glass, with IFR radios, will be priced above 20k.
That is NOT a given, though.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

Any aircraft you buy under 15K will be a project. A good maintained 150 with a low time airframe and engine good interior, paint and clear glass, with IFR radios, will be priced above 20k.

There are good deals out there everyday.... I buy and sell tons of stuff that I find deals on. I could buy a plane for $10,000 that everyone is scared of and put it back for sale at $25,000 and sell it. People are strange. They won't buy cheap stuff but buy the same things for much more money. That is where I come in.
You can get a very very nice first plane for $15,000. Don't listen to this crap. Some people just want stuff gone quick so they don't have to deal with it. Look at planes for $20-$25,000 and walk up with $15 cash. You will be surprised what hundred dollar bills will do.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

There are good deals out there everyday.... I buy and sell tons of stuff that I find deals on. I could buy a plane for $10,000 that everyone is scared of and put it back for sale at $25,000 and sell it. People are strange. They won't buy cheap stuff but buy the same things for much more money. That is where I come in.
You can get a very very nice first plane for $15,000. Don't listen to this crap. Some people just want stuff gone quick so they don't have to deal with it. Look at planes for $20-$25,000 and walk up with $15 cash. You will be surprised what hundred dollar bills will do.



This!

If you want to buy a plane for $15k, look at planes listed for $25k, and then offer $15k.

Two possible things could happen:

Yes

Or


No.


Then you move forward or move on. You aren't trying to make friends with sellers, you are trying to buy a plane.
 
Re: Are these planes bad ideas? Looking to buy inexpensive without shooting own foot

That 1969 150K has caught my eye and I might head up to take a look at it. I do a lot of local flying or flying within 2 hours from home. I usually fly solo or with my wife who is quite diminutive so a 150 is not a bad choice for us. If it is in good condition, it should make someone a good plane for training or just tooling around in.
 
Back
Top