Commute by Plane?

mercurial said:
The Piper Archer II looks like a sweet plane. Unfortunately, I had some major family-related expenses recently that took a big lump of flesh out of my savings, and I can't afford an $80k plane unless I push myself a little harder than I want, or give up my stubborn vow to always own my toys outright.
Click to expand...

You can buy an Archer for a lot less than $80k. More like half that. It's old name was Cherokee 180. Search for that too. The thing is, your mission is the commute. The Archer will cost you more to operate. It's not just about purchase price, it's also about annual operating costs too. You can pay more to haul around three empty seats, or pay less for one empty seat.

Stay on target...:wink2:
 
mercurial said:
By the way, the airport has avgas at over $4.50. I guess no one remembered to tell them that crude is in free fall right now? Is this how the FBOs make their money, a natural pricing lag, or just a general pattern of refineries squeezing a small market?
Click to expand...

That's not expensive, that's almost a dollar a gallon cheaper than most of the FBO's around here, and a good $2 a gallon less than it was just a couple months ago.

http://skyvector.com/

Click that link, then click the fuel prices button at the top and you'll get an idea what fuel sells for in different places. Don't choke when you see SFO.

I like Cherokees, but for your mission a smaller cheaper 2 seater would be more cost effective. Buy a 152 or similar, and rent a bigger plane for the family trips.
 
mercurial said:
So many choices. I just talked to a close friend who is an airline pilot for Spirit, and was trained long ago out of the same airport. He joked that you don't fly a 152, you wear it, and said it will be an adventure to handle it in some of the winds that whip through my route. Of course he would say these kinds of things because he's used to flying a huge ass airbus :lol:

I really don't know how to buy an airplane and I don't want to get stuck with a dud. It's going to be difficult to buy one with true confidence until I get some experience. Also, finding the right plane is going to take a little time and patience, and I'd rather get in the air immediately and start advancing my training goals. So I guess I'll rent for the new few months until I'm not a complete moron, and then if the 152 doesn't completely freak me out and just feels good, I'll try to find a nice one.

By the way, the airport has avgas at over $4.50. I guess no one remembered to tell them that crude is in free fall right now? Is this how the FBOs make their money, a natural pricing lag, or just a general pattern of refineries squeezing a small market?
Click to expand...


Hire a pro to find and buy it for you and take you through the process the first time. It's not that difficult really, but it helps to know what you are looking for when initially inspecting.
 
mercurial said:
Good eye, total coincidence because no, AFAIK we do not use hg, it's a proprietary version of perforce. Also I'm not an engineer, more of a data analyst/mining expert, and only rarely check in code. The kind of code that gets what I need done, but makes all the real engineers roll their eyes.

The Piper Archer II looks like a sweet plane. Unfortunately, I had some major family-related expenses recently that took a big lump of flesh out of my savings, and I can't afford an $80k plane unless I push myself a little harder than I want, or give up my stubborn vow to always own my toys outright.
Click to expand...

This is not a toy, this is a work tool, but I don't disagree with you wanting to own outright, it's a much better position to be in. It also preserves some more capital availability, because as a work tool, you need to have $20k available to you at any time to keep it going.
 
Dav8or said:
You can buy an Archer for a lot less than $80k. More like half that. It's old name was Cherokee 180. Search for that too. The thing is, your mission is the commute. The Archer will cost you more to operate. It's not just about purchase price, it's also about annual operating costs too. You can pay more to haul around three empty seats, or pay less for one empty seat.

Stay on target...:wink2:
Click to expand...

Cherokee 180 and Archer II are also different airplanes really, especially when you look at the ones below $40k. Different wing and cabin.

The point to commuting is to do it as reliably, efficiently, and cost effectively as possible. Until the guy has developed the skills to get in a single seat experimental and maintain it himself, that is going to be done best by a 150/152 series plane. It's been proven the leader in the roll many times. 250hrs a year is a full time mission for an airplane, may as well dedicate the best one for the job to it. If you need something else to fly on a different mission, join a club or partnership as well down the road.
 
MAKG1 said:
At $5/gallon and 6 GPH, that's $30/hour in fuel. With the factor of 3, that's $90 wet Hobbs. For a 172, you get $127.50. For a 182 with its 13 GPH, it's $195. Look around and see what they really cost, and you'll find it comparable. If you go further out from the Bay, the fuel gets cheaper, but do you really want to commute to Tracy for flying lessons?

You're underestimating what it costs to fly.
Click to expand...

So I've been talking to a few more local old hands, it sounds like the local FBO owned flight school is mostly a pilot factory for India and China and doesn't really cater to people like me. The club rental rates are way better, around $95 wet tach for a 172, and I'll just go with some independent instructors. I like the idea of saving some $, and joining the actual local community.
 
mercurial said:
So I've been talking to a few more local old hands, it sounds like the local FBO owned flight school is mostly a pilot factory for India and China and doesn't really cater to people like me. The club rental rates are way better, around $95 wet tach for a 172, and I'll just go with some independent instructors. I like the idea of saving some $, and joining the actual local community.
Click to expand...

Some o these clubs are little more than aircraft rental companies that use the 'club' label to escape airport licensing requirements. For the goals you describe, they can be a great option to get started. You wont want to use a club aircraft to commute, but you can get your certificate in one and keeo your eyes open for your own bird. A club can also give you access to more capable aircraft if you want to stretch your wings beyond 152 or cherokee 140 range.
 
If you start with a club, start with a big club with the most options in airplanes. That will buy you time to learn and find the right plane for your commuter.
 
There are a few flying clubs that you can use, like concord flying club, NRI and a couple others. they have freelance instructors. Other than that it's Sterling or PSA both good.
I think you need to start flying and see if you like it. Then the rest will come together.
 
I did my first flight today in a 172, what a blast! I'm going to try to fly 3 days a week, and finish my private certificate as soon as possible.
 
So who did you chose for your flight training? Glad your going in head first, get it done....:yes:
 
mercurial said:
I did my first flight today in a 172, what a blast! I'm going to try to fly 3 days a week, and finish my private certificate as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

That is so awesome!! Congrats! Does your flight school have a 152/150? (or similar two seat trainer) If so, I would request to try that out. It will save you loads of money on getting your PPL and define if a plane like that could actually work for your original mission of the commute.
 
Willy, Kevin Hanrahan gave me my first flight, but he's going to be doing alot of business travel so I'm getting passed off for the rest of my training to a fella named Rick Arias, who appears to also fly for Pacific States Aviation. I'm leaning towards doing all the training in the 184 club plane, which is the 172 I flew in today.

@Dave, the flight school has 152s for rent for around $100, same price as the 172 via the club route. Perhaps if I sniff around a bit, I can find someone who will offer up a private one without the markup.
 
mercurial said:
Willy, Kevin Hanrahan gave me my first flight, but he's going to be doing alot of business travel so I'm getting passed off for the rest of my training to a fella named Rick Arias, who appears to also fly for Pacific States Aviation. I'm leaning towards doing all the training in the 184 club plane, which is the 172 I flew in today.

@Dave, the flight school has 152s for rent for around $100, same price as the 172 via the club route. Perhaps if I sniff around a bit, I can find someone who will offer up a private one without the markup.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to pay the markup, you can't expect them to be there, their planes available to you, when you need them in the future. If you had any idea of how many rental planes, and the whole spectrum, not just trainers, are gone from availability now that existed 25 years ago.:nonod:
 
What do you guys think about an RV-7a? I'd probably buy instead of build, and slowly upgrade it into what I want. A snarky fellow earlier in the thread suggested that I get an RV and pretend that I built it myself, but I would promise to only do that in front of attractive women.

A local flying club has an RV so I will have a chance to thoroughly acquaint myself with it, at some point.
 
mercurial said:
What do you guys think about an RV-7a? I'd probably buy instead of build, and slowly upgrade it into what I want. A snarky fellow earlier in the thread suggested that I get an RV and pretend that I built it myself, but I would promise to only do that in front of attractive women.

A local flying club has an RV so I will have a chance to thoroughly acquaint myself with it, at some point.
Click to expand...

Sure, absolutely. No reason you can't useone for a commuter, heck, I used a Midget Mustang to commute between N.TX and S.LA. The best commuter is the smallest plane that gets the job done for you. I wish we had Dynon panels when I had the MM, because it was a real pain to make that plane IFR capable.
 
I'm not sure how great of an instrument platform the RV-7 is. Your commute from Concord to Palo Alto will go fast enough in a trainer and the RV-7 will get you there even quicker, which sounds good, but when you're new at instruments, you want things to happen slow. Also I'm told the RVs have very light control forces, so again not ideal for a new instrument pilot. You want stable and heavier controls. Of course an RV can and are flown on instruments and you can commute in any airplane, I'm just saying IMO, it's not ideal for you.
 
Dav8or said:
I'm not sure how great of an instrument platform the RV-7 is. Your commute from Concord to Palo Alto will go fast enough in a trainer and the RV-7 will get you there even quicker, which sounds good, but when you're new at instruments, you want things to happen slow. Also I'm told the RVs have very light control forces, so again not ideal for a new instrument pilot. You want stable and heavier controls. Of course an RV can and are flown on instruments and you can commute in any airplane, I'm just saying IMO, it's not ideal for you.
Click to expand...
You hear people go on and on about how great the handling is on a beechcraft bonanza/baron. You also hear how ponderous is the handling of a PA32. Having owned both, I'd say the handle exactly the same once i press the STEC button.
 
JHW said:
You hear people go on and on about how great the handling is on a beechcraft bonanza/baron. You also hear how ponderous is the handling of a PA32. Having owned both, I'd say the handle exactly the same once i press the STEC button.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Before buying the RV, people told me that all that lovely responsiveness translates into a twitchy cross country machine.

First off, I've found that was wrong -- she will trim up to fly hands off just fine -- but once I click the TruTrak, it feels exactly the same as my ponderous old Pathfinder. And, in fact, the RV handles turbulence better, thanks mostly to the seating position.

There are lots of silly old wive's tales about flying, and Homebuilt planes in particular.
:)
 
mercurial said:
What do you guys think about an RV-7a? I'd probably buy instead of build, and slowly upgrade it into what I want. A snarky fellow earlier in the thread suggested that I get an RV and pretend that I built it myself, but I would promise to only do that in front of attractive women.

A local flying club has an RV so I will have a chance to thoroughly acquaint myself with it, at some point.
Click to expand...

If I were to choose another plane it would be an RV-7 or 8. I think it would be a great commuter. 90% or more of my flying has been solo. I rarely filled the back seats let alone the right seat next to me.

In reality when I saw your initial post, I was thinking an RV would be perfect. Even an RV-6 would work, and you can get them for a bit less.
 
This whole topic is how I finally got into flying in the first place. I was working as a contractor at a site four hours away and making great coin, but I hated the four hour drive. So I made the same kinds of plans, how to fly, the routes, etc. How little did I know then.

I think a lot of what I'm going to say has already been said, so maybe this is a summary.

1) There's no way you're doing this without an IFR certificate and hard core IFR skills and even then it's a stretch. Palo Alto only has two approaches, both from the south and both with MDAs 460-500'. If you have less than a 500' ceiling, you can't get in even with IFR.

This was one of my hard realizations for GA somewhere along the way. Even when you have VFR weather, you can't take an extended trip without an IFR ticket because you rarely know the weather on the way back.

2) By my best guess at a probable IFR routing, you have a minimum 115 nm trip in IFR. Yes, you can shortcut that in VFR, but you need to be prepared for an hour+ flight

3) Is this doable at 1000-1500/month? I don't have my airplane spreadsheet, but my instinct tells me no. 2 hours/day x 15 days/month = 30 hours/month. A reasonable cost for a reasonable airplane including maintenance and engine set-aside is at least $75/hour, so that's $2250/month for operating, without an airplane, without a hangar, without landing or ramp fees.

It's hard. But if you can satisfy these, you'll be having a blast and arriving at work with a GBG - great big grin - every day. :)

All the rest is fluff - if you can't get past these three
 
Jay Honeck said:
There are lots of silly old wive's tales about flying, and Homebuilt planes in particular.
:)
Click to expand...

I don't think a RV would be a bad fit for commuting, but would it make sense for the OP who has no formal flight training to start out in an RV? Jay, I know you started in Pipers and then moved up (or is it down?) to an RV-8.

Most of the folks I know who fly RVs have some degree of flying experience. It just seems easier to start on the Cessna 150 or 172 and learn about flying, IFR, and aircraft ownership on that. Later you can ditch the certified airplane for an experimental, and then you can truly appreciate the benefits (and perhaps the pitfalls too) of owning and flying an amateur built aircraft. Another consideration is finding an instructor willing to teach ab intitio training in an experimental. Any CFI can handle a 172 or 150 (assuming within w&b limits of course).
 
Brad Z said:
I don't think a RV would be a bad fit for commuting, but would it make sense for the OP who has no formal flight training to start out in an RV? Jay, I know you started in Pipers and then moved up (or is it down?) to an RV-8.

Most of the folks I know who fly RVs have some degree of flying experience. It just seems easier to start on the Cessna 150 or 172 and learn about flying, IFR, and aircraft ownership on that. Later you can ditch the certified airplane for an experimental, and then you can truly appreciate the benefits (and perhaps the pitfalls too) of owning and flying an amateur built aircraft. Another consideration is finding an instructor willing to teach ab intitio training in an experimental. Any CFI can handle a 172 or 150 (assuming within w&b limits of course).
Click to expand...
whatever you start in, you'll think it's normal.
 
Anthony said:
If I were to choose another plane it would be an RV-7 or 8. I think it would be a great commuter. 90% or more of my flying has been solo. I rarely filled the back seats let alone the right seat next to me.

In reality when I saw your initial post, I was thinking an RV would be perfect. Even an RV-6 would work, and you can get them for a bit less.
Click to expand...

If I wanted an RV for a commuter, it would be a 4. Less frontal area than a 7, less than half (1/3?) the price of an 8, within a few minutes of each other at the end of his commute.
 
Brad Z said:
I don't think a RV would be a bad fit for commuting, but would it make sense for the OP who has no formal flight training to start out in an RV? Jay, I know you started in Pipers and then moved up (or is it down?) to an RV-8.

Most of the folks I know who fly RVs have some degree of flying experience. It just seems easier to start on the Cessna 150 or 172 and learn about flying, IFR, and aircraft ownership on that. Later you can ditch the certified airplane for an experimental, and then you can truly appreciate the benefits (and perhaps the pitfalls too) of owning and flying an amateur built aircraft. Another consideration is finding an instructor willing to teach ab intitio training in an experimental. Any CFI can handle a 172 or 150 (assuming within w&b limits of course).
Click to expand...
I guess there's something to be said for an aircraft that is slow to respond to pilot inputs -- but I've got mixed feelings on that. Does it really teach stick and rudder skills when you learn in a plane that doesn't respond to control inputs?

Since that's the way it's been done for at least 50 years, I guess it's the way to go. A Cessna/Piper/Beech gives a new pilot time to react to an improper input, and fix it before he (for example) rolls too far and drags a wing whilst in the flare.

All I know is the last time I flew a Cherokee, I honestly thought something was broken. It simply wouldn't turn, climb, or slip without (what felt like) massively exaggerated control inputs. It was actually a bit scary to land.
 
JHW said:
You hear people go on and on about how great the handling is on a beechcraft bonanza/baron. You also hear how ponderous is the handling of a PA32. Having owned both, I'd say the handle exactly the same once i press the STEC button.
Click to expand...

Just dont end up like the Cirrus pilot over Newcomerstown, OH and the Seneca pilot over Garoga, NY who both lost it in IMC the second the autopilot disconnected.
 
weilke said:
Just dont end up like the Cirrus pilot over Newcomerstown, OH and the Seneca pilot over Garoga, NY who both lost it in IMC the second the autopilot disconnected.
Click to expand...

Yep, if you're not ready to hand fly the whole trip, you shouldn't go, because autopilots are failure prone.
 
JHW said:
whatever you start in, you'll think it's normal.
Click to expand...


+1.

To the OP, whatever you start off with is your norm. I have not flown a 172 or 150 before and only been in a 172 a couple times. I trained in a Grumman and bought an experimental quite a bit before I had my ticket punched. 300 hours later and IFR in hand along the way, I don't feel like I have over-reached at any point along the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top