Buy/Sell decision?

Everskyward said:
Bonanzas and Cherokees don't have doors on the pilot's side either if that is a consideration.
Click to expand...

I had the hots for a Mooney many, many years ago (long before I could afford one) simply because of the mystique of them and the fact that a good friend and colleague of mine, who won a SEL speed record in one, just considered them the finest GA aircraft that one could own.

Later, when I went and sat in a Mooney (that I could afford to buy) for the first time I thought--good grief, forget it, too small, too ragged, let me out of here.

Eight months later I bought that Mooney and something peculiar happened to me--I think it is called the madness, some say you become what is known as a Mooniac. This is why I caution other pilots against flying a Mooney, or even doing a careful comparison of them to similar planes in the same price range. I do not want what happened to me to happen to others. It is just terrible flying these planes--you become addicted, you must fly, always and when you can't fly you wind up making long winded posts on lists like this because you are gripped with a need that just won't let go. I have to stop now and go fire up my Mooney. Don't let this happen to you, the horror, the horror...
 
Everskyward said:
Bonanzas and Cherokees don't have doors on the pilot's side either if that is a consideration.
Click to expand...

bbchien said:
John, how physically big are you and the Mrs?
Click to expand...

Rather than ask that question, he should pick some planes that he is considering (based on his mission and the amount of money he has to spend) and then go fly them.

I thought I would like an Ercoupe--no rudder pedals, neato canopy that you can fly with open. After flying in one, that all passed. They are great airplanes, do not misunderstand me, but not for me.

I thought I would like a 152 Aerobat with Sparrowhawk conversion--aerobatic, tough little bird. I thought how great it would be to just do a roll anytime I felt like it. After flying in one, that all passed.

I concluded that I wanted: superior flight capability (handling in the air) and sophistication in engineering design; i.e., built for IFR, cross-country flight at high speed. I got that in spades, did I make compromises, you betcha. Just getting in and out of my plane takes some skill, but that is part of understanding your mission. Good luck, don't make the mistake that others on this list have made by buying something that does not meet your mission. Only frustration will come of it.
 
Trapper John said:
That's a very good point. But it sounds like he wants faster, which led me to think that the destination might be more important than the journey.
Click to expand...

It keeps getting back to the mission. The reason I want faster is so that more destinations will be within my range, but the journey is really the mission. We flew to check out an IFR flight school that is 15 miles from our home base. We could have driven cheaper and faster, but that would have been boring.

I have gone back and forth a hundred times but I keep coming back to upgrading the 172. (I am going to keep perusing the ads, so that could change by tonight). I could "probably" sell her without taking too big a bath. And I could "probably" buy a better equipped, faster plane for not too much more. But if I upgrade the one I have, I know I will have one of the best 172's in the country. If I sell and buy new, it could take months and I could make a mistake. And like Denny said, the 172 is a good, reliable plane and so what if I turn a 4 hour flight into a 3.2 hour flight. Maybe we will have to fly an extra half hour or an hour a day. That is not really punishment because we like flying.

bbchien, you asked how big me and the missus are. Well, I am 5'9" and pushing 250. I have a bald spot, a gut and a double chin. She is 5'9" and pushing 150 with a figure a model would love. And she is just as pretty as our airplane is. (Don't ask how I got so lucky; but we do make a good team). We fit quite well in our 172 (no "extra" room though), but when we flew in a 152, it was a chore to close my door.

Today I added an Aspen PFD to my wish list.
 
Exocetid said:
Wow, the biggest piece of nonsense I have ever seen posted. Get a (aircraft related) mission other than being ______ (fill in blank).

There is a reason it always comes up on these sorts of posts, get with the program.
Click to expand...


Jeez then you must not spend much time on web boards if you think that post is the "biggest piece of nonsense you have EVER seen posted..."

I think you have to realize that not everyone may have a " mission" ie a 400 nm XC jaunt once a month or 75 mile breakfast runs on sundays. There are some folks who just want to fly, to bore a hole in the sky a few miles from home, futz around over the corn fields etc. Yea I supposed that that is a mission but some folks really do just want to fly, bore a hole in the sky and land.
 
If John's usage of the airplane was 75-mile breakfast runs, I think his post would have been different. If you calculate block times for a variety of light-plane trips, you'll usually find that it's necessary to move up at least two levels to achieve any significant trip-time differences. Moving up from a 172 to a straghtl-leg 182 doesn't change much, while moving to an RG would make a noticeable difference.

We flew an A-36 from Newark to Dallas a couple weeks ago, took a 8.7 hours with two fuel stops. For most of the trip our groundspeed was ~130 knots. We might have picked up 5-7 knots by staying low, but found the bumps were worse than the slow.

If we had been in a Skyhawk, the speeds would have been closer to 80 knots over the ground, another fuel stop would have been necessary, and we would have had time to count all the cows. But the same line of weather that stopped us in KLEX for the night in the Bonanza would have stopped us in the 172 as well, and we would have arrived in Dallas the next day a couple of hours later.

If they really want to fly to CA, an autopilot is a wonderful thing, and a necessity for me. Little airplanes need a hand on the tiller, and drving them all day is too much work for old folks.

In John's case I'd do an oil analysis and compression check, try to isolate the oil use issue, buy a cylinder or two if necessary and fly on.




AdamZ said:
Jeez then you must not spend much time on web boards if you think that post is the "biggest piece of nonsense you have EVER seen posted..."

I think you have to realize that not everyone may have a " mission" ie a 400 nm XC jaunt once a month or 75 mile breakfast runs on sundays. There are some folks who just want to fly, to bore a hole in the sky a few miles from home, futz around over the corn fields etc. Yea I supposed that that is a mission but some folks really do just want to fly, bore a hole in the sky and land.
Click to expand...
 
AdamZ said:
Jeez then you must not spend much time on web boards if you think that post is the "biggest piece of nonsense you have EVER seen posted..."

I think you have to realize that not everyone may have a " mission" ie a 400 nm XC jaunt once a month or 75 mile breakfast runs on sundays. There are some folks who just want to fly, to bore a hole in the sky a few miles from home, futz around over the corn fields etc. Yea I supposed that that is a mission but some folks really do just want to fly, bore a hole in the sky and land.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that missions change - buying a Matrix for a business mission then 5 years later changing jobs and deciding that it would be more fun low-and-slow will leave a burnt hole in one's pocket.
 
I promised pics earlier. Here will be my first attempt to add pics to a post:

Well, that didn't go well.

I was trying to upload 4 jpeg images from my computer, each about 2mb. I don't know if the files are too large or if jpegs are not allowed.

Any suggestions?

Also I was thinking of starting a new thread with the pics because this one is getting a bit long and redundant. Would that be appropriate, or should I just keep going on this thread?
 
alaskaflyer said:
If a decision is to be made about how one is going to fly and land (short of being propelled via air cannon, or leaping from Dead Horse Point), then a mission needs to analyzed and stated - however briefly - if one wants advice from one's peers about what to do regarding aircraft. Even if it is only involving how many seats will be filled while one is flying and landing.

Now, some people just want what they want, mission be darned. Just like how some day I want a Staggerwing.
Click to expand...

Done that. More fun than GA.
 
AdamZ said:
Jeez then you must not spend much time on web boards if you think that post is the "biggest piece of nonsense you have EVER seen posted..."
Click to expand...

Good point! I do not spend nearly as much time as you apparently do.
 
AdamZ said:
I think you have to realize that not everyone may have a " mission" ie a 400 nm XC jaunt once a month or 75 mile breakfast runs on sundays. There are some folks who just want to fly, to bore a hole in the sky a few miles from home, futz around over the corn fields etc. Yea I supposed that that is a mission but some folks really do just want to fly, bore a hole in the sky and land.
Click to expand...

Pilot A-- 400 NM XC's monthly

Pilot B-- 75 mile breakfast runs on Sundays

Pilot C-- just fly around like a putz, waste some gas, buzz cornfields.

Each of those is a mission. I see you are learning something. Now, each one describes a different plane, or maybe one if you want your mission to cover all three. At some point though you need to realize that plane A handles mission A better than plane C, etc. Once you know what your mission is, or your main mission, you can home in on the best plane for it. Of course, if your mission is to catch a jet stream at 35,000 feet you best have some bucks.
 
The OP is already upside-down on his 172 from what little I can glean. They don't go for all that much when they're engines are in dire need of overhaul. He looses no matter what he does. The question is how can he minimize the loss.

The way to maximize it is to buy another airplane. Remember, we're not talking about the aircraft we all fly (well, you guys anyway). His is going to be spanky clean and shiny, the interior is going to clean and fresh, and it is going to have an avionic suite more at home on the Space Shuttle, because that is pretty obviously what he likes. And that kind of airplane costs big, especially if its sleek and fast.

Me, I'd major the engine and leave it. From the sounds of it the aircraft is IFR capable without the GPS, which is enough. Most of the IFR pilots I know spend little time actually flying IFR (and that's here in bad-weather land).

However, if one must have the best then the cheapest option is definitely to put the bells and whistles in the airframe one has.
 
AdamZ said:
I think you have to realize that not everyone may have a " mission" ie a 400 nm XC jaunt once a month or 75 mile breakfast runs on sundays. There are some folks who just want to fly, to bore a hole in the sky a few miles from home, futz around over the corn fields etc. Yea I supposed that that is a mission but some folks really do just want to fly, bore a hole in the sky and land.
Click to expand...

But that in itself is a mission. Just getting out and flying. And THAT begs for a Super Cub!!!!
 
steingar said:
The OP is already upside-down on his 172 from what little I can glean. They don't go for all that much when they're engines are in dire need of overhaul. He looses no matter what he does. The question is how can he minimize the loss.

The way to maximize it is to buy another airplane. Remember, we're not talking about the aircraft we all fly (well, you guys anyway). His is going to be spanky clean and shiny, the interior is going to clean and fresh, and it is going to have an avionic suite more at home on the Space Shuttle, because that is pretty obviously what he likes. And that kind of airplane costs big, especially if its sleek and fast.

Me, I'd major the engine and leave it. From the sounds of it the aircraft is IFR capable without the GPS, which is enough. Most of the IFR pilots I know spend little time actually flying IFR (and that's here in bad-weather land).

However, if one must have the best then the cheapest option is definitely to put the bells and whistles in the airframe one has.
Click to expand...

I am not real sure if you were being sarcastic at all (about the space shuttle and such), but you pretty much nailed me. I have been looking and looking, but I cannot find anything as "nice"as the one I have and that has better specs without paying much more than it would cost me to upgrade my current plane. And suppose I do go through all the pain and paperwork of selling, and then do an extensive hunt for a new plane, I could still make another mistake. Unless I run up on a really good deal on a really nice airplane, I suppose I am going to have the nicest 172 around, with a rebuilt engine AND upgraded avionics. But I will skip the PFD and MFD and only get a 430w (plus CDI and new audio panel) to mate up with my 496. That along with my JPI engine analyzer, the Collision avoidance system and other bells and whistles will just have to satisfy me and my wife for the rest of our flying lives. I don't think that will be too awful.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it. (for tonight anyway).
 
JOhnH said:
I certainly don't mind answering this question again, but just exactly how specific does my "mission" have to be?
Click to expand...

As specific as it is! :D

Some people only do one type of flying. For example, if you want to go by yourself really fast for longer distances and you're tall, you want a Mooney. If you want to fly around the local area from a 1000' grass strip by yourself, maybe a Super Cub. If you want to load up your wife and all four kids and stuff for a week on a regular basis, you probably want an Aztec.

However, there are "wide-mission" planes too, and Cessna does a great job building that type of airplane. If you want something that's cheap to operate but will do a variety of things, a 172 is hard to beat. The 182 will be a tad more expensive to operate, but it'll do darn near anything you ask of it except carry more than four people or go faster than 140 knots in level flight.

It sounds like you're a "wide-mission" kind of guy, and that you like to do a lot of different types of flights, but that you do a fair amount of long cross-country flying, mostly with you and your wife. It also sounds like you'd like to go somewhat faster than your 172 goes, so that you can get places in the same amount of time. You want something that's easy to get into, and comfortable inside for the longer flights. Am I right?

So far, this says (to me) 182 or 182RG all over it - The extra cabin width will keep you comfortable and allow you some biscuits too :D, the extra power and baggage space means you can take more stuff (a pair of bikes, maybe?) if you want or even a couple of friends/kids/whoever. The FG vs. RG question is one only you can answer: Is the acquisition cost and extra maintenance of the RG worth it? An older 182 will do 130-135 KTAS, a new one will do 140 KTAS, both on about 13 gallons per hour. The RG's will do about 150.

As far as speed goes, yes you can enjoy a flight, but a 172 is slow enough that you can get a pretty good percentage faster without spending a fortune. The 182RG will cost you maybe 50% more to operate, but you'll be getting 40% faster airspeeds as well. Trying to get another 40% faster than the 182RG will cost you an additional 100%-150% (over the 182RG). I've done Houston to Madison in a day and Denver to Madison in a day in a straight-leg 182, and I've flown it to the east coast, west coast, and gulf coast from the Midwest (see my map below - The vast majority of that was in the 182).

No matter what you do, before you spend any money on upgrades, be SURE that you're in the right plane. It doesn't sound to me like you're sure of that at all, and it does sound like you want a plane that is somewhat faster without sacrificing the ease of flying, versatility, and comfort you get from the Cessna. Once you've got the right airplane, upgrade away! :yes:
 
JOhnH said:
I have been looking and looking, but I cannot find anything as "nice"as the one I have and that has better specs without paying much more than it would cost me to upgrade my current plane.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to account for resale value. You can pump and dump money into the 172 until it's the nicest 172 in the country, but it's still going to be a 172 and there's a limit to what it'll fetch when you sell. Do a search here for "expensive 152" and you'll see a bunch of folks who bought Garmin stuff and are trying to sell their 152's for $40,000. There seems to always be an upper limit for what the market will bear for a certain airframe. I've been looking at Twin Comanches for a long time, and it seems that no matter how nice they are, they simply will not sell for more than $120,000. I'm not sure what that number is on a 172, but I would guess it's well south of $60,000 for a pre-production restart airplane such as yours.

Were I you, I'd put that JPI and your local A&P to use, find out why you're burning oil (also, see if starting with less helps), and maybe put a used cylinder on it. That'll buy you some time. If you can afford it, buy the "new" airplane before you sell the old one, so you won't be in a rush to get an airplane.

Whatever you do, I hope you're satisfied with the result. :)
 
JOhnH said:
I am not real sure if you were being sarcastic at all (about the space shuttle and such), but you pretty much nailed me. I have been looking and looking, but I cannot find anything as "nice"as the one I have and that has better specs without paying much more than it would cost me to upgrade my current plane. And suppose I do go through all the pain and paperwork of selling, and then do an extensive hunt for a new plane, I could still make another mistake. Unless I run up on a really good deal on a really nice airplane, I suppose I am going to have the nicest 172 around, with a rebuilt engine AND upgraded avionics. But I will skip the PFD and MFD and only get a 430w (plus CDI and new audio panel) to mate up with my 496. That along with my JPI engine analyzer, the Collision avoidance system and other bells and whistles will just have to satisfy me and my wife for the rest of our flying lives. I don't think that will be too awful.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it. (for tonight anyway).
Click to expand...

Since buying my plane I have noticed a phenomena that I will call, for lack of a better term, familiarity. Yes, I know I am a bit of a smart-aleck, a prankster on this board, but here I am being quite serious. I went to a Vintage Mooney Group fly-in last Saturday for the first time. I had never seen so many Mooneys like mine; i.e., close in age and model, in one place. I feared that I might develop envy and begin longing for something nicer, newer, whatever. What happened instead was that I began thinking of how much better my plane was than any that I saw! Did I have the best plane there? Well, in my mind. But what was peculiar was the fact that every other pilot there felt the same way about their bird. In fact, it was almost as if our planes were alive and quite dear to each of us. Sure, we would say little things, out of earshot of our plane, like: I really want a new interior, or, that old panel has to go. By and by though, it was seriously as if these machines were alive.

I now see that the familiarity a pilot-owner has for his plane is not unlike the way a cowboy felt for their horse in the "old west". It was expensive for them to buy, expensive for them to keep, but it took them places and they had an affinity for it that was, well, maybe a bit weird. The reality is that I feel comfortable in my plane. I know where all the switches are, I know her little quirks, the seat is just right for me, just the whole milieu is perfect. When I fly I feel like I am one with the plane. I guess an über-pilot feels that way in whatever plane they fly, but flying is not my day job or even my part-time avocation. I fly when I can and I love every minute of it.

I am not saying that I am so comfortable that I have grown complacent, for I know that any flight might end unpleasantly. The reality is that I feel more comfortable that if something does happen I will be able to deal with it. I hate to beat a dead horse, but that is the main reason that knowing your mission is so important. When your plane fits your mission, your plane fits you.

I am thinking you may already have the right plane--so clean her up, fix her, and be happy--that other plane may be a nightmare that you would best be without.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Don't forget to account for resale value. You can pump and dump money into the 172 until it's the nicest 172 in the country, but it's still going to be a 172 and there's a limit to what it'll fetch when you sell. Do a search here for "expensive 152" and you'll see a bunch of folks who bought Garmin stuff and are trying to sell their 152's for $40,000. There seems to always be an upper limit for what the market will bear for a certain airframe. I've been looking at Twin Comanches for a long time, and it seems that no matter how nice they are, they simply will not sell for more than $120,000. I'm not sure what that number is on a 172, but I would guess it's well south of $60,000 for a pre-production restart airplane such as yours.

Were I you, I'd put that JPI and your local A&P to use, find out why you're burning oil (also, see if starting with less helps), and maybe put a used cylinder on it. That'll buy you some time. If you can afford it, buy the "new" airplane before you sell the old one, so you won't be in a rush to get an airplane.

Whatever you do, I hope you're satisfied with the result. :)
Click to expand...

Have you stopped taking your medicine?
 
JOhnH said:
I am not real sure if you were being sarcastic at all (about the space shuttle and such), but you pretty much nailed me. I have been looking and looking, but I cannot find anything as "nice"as the one I have and that has better specs without paying much more than it would cost me to upgrade my current plane. And suppose I do go through all the pain and paperwork of selling, and then do an extensive hunt for a new plane, I could still make another mistake. Unless I run up on a really good deal on a really nice airplane, I suppose I am going to have the nicest 172 around, with a rebuilt engine AND upgraded avionics. But I will skip the PFD and MFD and only get a 430w (plus CDI and new audio panel) to mate up with my 496. That along with my JPI engine analyzer, the Collision avoidance system and other bells and whistles will just have to satisfy me and my wife for the rest of our flying lives. I don't think that will be too awful.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it. (for tonight anyway).
Click to expand...

Right now there are airplane deals out there, but not for prime examples. Really nice aircraft command premium prices, even in a tanked economy. But there are limits to what any given airframe will command, as someone said. If you are going to do all that to your aircraft, just remember that you will not see most of that money on the other end. You will have a very nice 172 though. I was a bit sarcastic about the Space Shuttle crack, but not about the rest. I also fly a very spanky aircraft in need of avionics, so this is a question that occupies me quite a bit.
 
You could do A LOT worse than having a well equipped, nice looking, comfortable and capable C-172 at your disposal.
 
Exocetid said:
I am not saying that I am so comfortable that I have grown complacent, for I know that any flight might end unpleasantly. The reality is that I feel more comfortable that if something does happen I will be able to deal with it. I hate to beat a dead horse, but that is the main reason that knowing your mission is so important. When your plane fits your mission, your plane fits you.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I guess some folks go out and purchase an airplane to fit a "mission."

I have plenty of "missions" at work and the rest of life. Sometimes you just want to fly.
 
Lots of people feel that way. When the airplanes get too big, they miss the fun of flying little ones. When the airplanes are too small, they complain about the limitations for using them to go somewhere. As a result, many purchases are a comprimise of the two desires. And in a high percentage of cases, some tradeoff is part of the decision-making process.
dmccormack said:
I don't know. I guess some folks go out and purchase an airplane to fit a "mission."

I have plenty of "missions" at work and the rest of life. Sometimes you just want to fly.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Lots of people feel that way. When the airplanes get too big, they miss the fun of flying little ones. When the airplanes are too small, they complain about the limitations for using them to go somewhere. As a result, many purchases are a comprimise of the two desires. And in a high percentage of cases, some tradeoff is part of the decision-making process.
Click to expand...


Exactly right -- which is why it's important to cultivate friends who have airplanes on either side of the scale from you.

:yesnod:
 
The idea that you can throttle back a more capable airplane to enjoy the view (and the reduced fuel burn), but that you cannot kick a O-320/360 in the rump to generate any more than its rated horsepower no matter how fast you would like to get to Grandma's, is not lost on at least one poster in this thread :redface:

Whether you actually would do so is up to you :nono:
 
alaskaflyer said:
The idea that you can throttle back a more capable airplane to enjoy the view (and the reduced fuel burn), but that you cannot kick a O-320/360 in the rump to generate any more than its rated horsepower no matter how fast you would like to get to Grandma's, is not lost on at least one poster in this thread :redface:

Whether you actually would do so is up to you :nono:
Click to expand...

You simply cannot replicate flying an open-door classic by throttling back an A36 and opening the pilot's side vent and making putt-putt noises.
 
dmccormack said:
You simply cannot replicate flying an open-door classic by throttling back an A36 and opening the pilot's side vent and making putt-putt noises.
Click to expand...

Nor can you jump in your J3 and head west 800nm in 5.5 hours to beat the eastbound front moving in, threatening your presence at Thanksgiving dinner...

Or cram your second child in the baggage compartment for a family outing.

Who wouldn't want two planes? :rofl:
 
alaskaflyer said:
Nor can you jump in your J3 and head west 800nm in 5.5 hours to beat the eastbound front moving in, threatening your presence at Thanksgiving dinner...

Or cram your second child in the baggage compartment for a family outing.

Who wouldn't want two planes? :rofl:
Click to expand...


I have friends and hangar keys... :D
 
dmccormack said:
I don't know. I guess some folks go out and purchase an airplane to fit a "mission."

I have plenty of "missions" at work and the rest of life. Sometimes you just want to fly.
Click to expand...

What part of "that's a mission" did you not understand?
 
wabower said:
Lots of people feel that way. When the airplanes get too big, they miss the fun of flying little ones. When the airplanes are too small, they complain about the limitations for using them to go somewhere. As a result, many purchases are a comprimise of the two desires. And in a high percentage of cases, some tradeoff is part of the decision-making process.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. Sunday I was taxiing to the runway and as I cleared the GA area and approached the commercial, ground told a Continental ERJ to follow me. I throttled back a bit and said to let him go ahead as I wasn't on a schedule, and he pulled out and thanked me. At that point I thought, "In a way I wish I was him in the MEL with the glass panel and a crew, not to mention a restroom, and I will bet he wishes he was me in the Mooney about to take flight without a schedule to worry about."

Nevertheless, with only one choice I am happy to be in the Mooney...
 
Exocetid said:
Interesting point. Sunday I was taxiing to the runway and as I cleared the GA area and approached the commercial, ground told a Continental ERJ to follow me. I throttled back a bit and said to let him go ahead as I wasn't on a schedule, and he pulled out and thanked me. At that point I thought, "In a way I wish I was him in the MEL with the glass panel and a crew, not to mention a restroom, and I will bet he wishes he was me in the Mooney about to take flight without a schedule to worry about."
Click to expand...

I did that for a Horizon Q400 last May at PUW. He was taxiing out while I was on downwind. Called him on the CTAF and told him that I'd make a right 360 and re-enter the pattern. He had a schedule, I didn't. My brother and I were having fun.
 
dmccormack said:
If you define "mission" as "Whatever I feel like," then you have a very different definition.
Click to expand...

I doubt it--lots of folks have a "Whatever I feel like" mission. Those are expensive though and you clearly don't have the wherewithal for that.

The point of mission is to try to define what you do, or enjoy doing. If what you enjoy doing is flying fast, or if you need to fly fast, then that mission is not going to be accomplished in a 152.

Now, it also depends on how fast. Some consider a 172 fast, others consider it slow. If your mission says "real fast", then the 172 will not make it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top