First Time Buyer - My Thread.

Love my Glasair 2rg. 165 KTS on 6.5 gals/hr. Plenty of room for 2 and up to 80 lbs baggage. 42 gals total fuel. Very low annual cost. Downside is high landing speed. No runways under 2800 FT.
 
I’m considering a buyers agent. When I look at trade a plane I wondered about the length of time some of these planes have sat waiting for a new owner. Perhaps a buyers agent can find planes not on trade a plane.

I like it when I can see the plane flying in flightaware.
 
Buying a plane takes time. But it also takes you into the details and nitty gritty of all things about your potential new plane. I found this invaluable in learning the things I need to know for a good buy and subsequently being an owner.
 
The answer is always 'just get a Bonanza. You'll wind up owning one anyway, so might as well get it now.' Sightseeing isn't fantastic but it's ok. Can sip fuel at 8GPH going slow. Turn the wick up and go 165Kts with O2 in the teens. Robust gear, rated for Utility category, any A&P has worked on them, looks damn good on the ramp.
 
It’s been a while since I posted on this thread because …life!

What is your break even number for renting versus buying (Not including cap-ex or engine replacement)?

I feel like if i spend 65,000 on rentals per year, I would have been better off buying and using that 65K annual spend for maintenance and upkeep of my own plane.

If I fly so little I only spend 25K, I should rent. Somewhere in the middle, near 50k I think, is the inflection point.

What’s your range?

I’m sure many will think it’s not about the money, but surely it has some consideration.
 
Am I the only one thinking New Jersey to Wisconsin is not a very realistic route to fly a single engine piston on with any regularity? This a once a year flight at best, when time, willingness to sit for 5 hours in a small GA cockpit, weather, and maintenance status all line up. I.e. I wouldn’t buy a plane of this type with no IR thinking this is your primary mission.
 
Justin M said:
What is your break even number for renting versus buying (Not including cap-ex or engine replacement)?

I feel like if i spend 65,000 on rentals per year, I would have been better off buying and using that 65K annual spend for maintenance and upkeep of my own plane.

If I fly so little I only spend 25K, I should rent. Somewhere in the middle, near 50k I think, is the inflection point.

What’s your range?

I’m sure many will think it’s not about the money, but surely it has some consideration.
Click to expand...
Oof. I graduated 7th grade a long time ago but this brings me right back to the feeling of someone asking me to do math I'd really rather not.
In theory if I were to run the numbers I'd likely come out ahead renting.
Problem is threefold:
- my use case is one of convenience - I put a high value on going wherever, whenever, without paying through the nose for leaving the plane parked somewhere while I go eat good food for a week.
- I fly planes no one rents. I can only imagine the hourly cost of a 180 someone could take into the backcountry camping. I think about the only way I'd rent ours out is if I get to hold your even nicer 180 as collateral.
- Maintenance. Yeah, there's the stereotype of clapped out rental ridden hard and put away wet, but the real nuts and bolts of what keep that airplane mechanically sound are very very important to me. I'm very hands on with our maintenance, and I know if my partner(Dad) or I do something stupid I'll know about it.

Important to the discussion here is situation as well - I live at the airport, my hangar is attached to my house. I give the airplane a pat as I walk by almost daily. That is worth quite a bit to my well being. So - there's your math - how much is happiness worth?
 
You own a plane because you want to spend the money to for the convenience of flying on your own schedule, vs fitting into the rental schedule. You can't do a cost analysis / cost benefit with owning your own plane - it's a hobby, a fun thing to do. Nothing about renting or owning a GA aircraft makes financial sense LOL.

If you fly 50 hours or less a year, you might find renting is better because you'll have less occasions when you can't get the plane because you simply have less occasions of flying. You will also get the benefit of someone else dealing with keeping the plane airworthy, paying the tie down and insurance fees, etc.

If you fly, or will fly, 100 hours or more a year, then you'll probably hit a lot times when the rental plane isn't available. You'd likely find that owning, even with all of the ownership hassles, is worth it.
 
AA5Bman said:
Am I the only one thinking New Jersey to Wisconsin is not a very realistic route to fly a single engine piston on with any regularity? This a once a year flight at best.
Click to expand...
I think it's actually a pretty solid mission. Five hours is not that long. Take off at 7am and you're there by noon. Beats the hell out of driving and probably not that far off from what it'd take to go to an airport and fly commercial. Plus you can get closer to your final destination.
Sure weather can throw a wrench in the plan, but that's just part of the hobby.
 
Justin M said:
What is your break even number for renting versus buying (Not including cap-ex or engine replacement)?

I feel like if i spend 65,000 on rentals per year, I would have been better off buying and using that 65K annual spend for maintenance and upkeep of my own plane.
Click to expand...

In almost any cost analysis for renting versus buying an airplane, the answer is nearly always buying. Buying an airline ticket, that is. This isn't a spreadsheet decision.

Do you do a cost-benefit analysis before buying a puppy? Having a child? Getting married? Personal flying is something we do because we enjoy it, not for any sort of economic advantage, and owning a plane for me is far more enjoyable than renting. I always know the condition of the plane and how it's been maintained, I don't have to worry about somebody else re-programming the radio, I know whether or not the last landing was about 0.01 Gs short of a crash, I have a good idea of what the fuel and oil consumption should be, etc. The plane is available when I want it, scheduling checkout and return times is a non-issue. If you can afford to own, then own.
 
I'm in the 100 hour a year camp also -- but also, the rental lines usually only have a specific type of trainer-class, so if you can't rent some of the better XC machines near you via large school or cool flying club, this formula may break down sooner if you want to fly something with specific capabilities.

The way I am seeing shops abuse their customers with timelines and adventurous billing, though, I'm starting to think 125 or 150 hours/yr is soon going to be the new inflection point. :/
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
I think it's actually a pretty solid mission. Five hours is not that long. Take off at 7am and you're there by noon. Beats the hell out of driving and probably not that far off from what it'd take to go to an airport and fly commercial. Plus you can get closer to your final destination.
Sure weather can throw a wrench in the plan, but that's just part of the hobby.
Click to expand...
I mean... over a 700 mile route with no instrument rating, weather is going to throw a wrench in the plan somewhere along the way - basically over the great lakes no less - what... 99% of the time minus July?

I have had this vision of flying our plane to visit family about 600nm away. Over 10 years of airplane ownership it has actually happened precisely zero times.

...and that's with an instrument rating.

I'm not saying it won't happen - although in my case it hasn't for a whole host of reasons - but that it's not likely to happen often, and it's definitely not likely to happen often enough to buy a single engine piston specifically tailored to meet this mission. Figure out the rest of your mission, buy the plane for that, and high-five yourself if you get to make this trip, too.
 
AA5Bman said:
Am I the only one thinking New Jersey to Wisconsin is not a very realistic route to fly a single engine piston on with any regularity? This a once a year flight at best, when time, willingness to sit for 5 hours in a small GA cockpit, weather, and maintenance status all line up. I.e. I wouldn’t buy a plane of this type with no IR thinking this is your primary mission.
Click to expand...
When I had access to the club 182, I flew this two or three times a year. And nj to Charlotte ( 4 hours ). It’s not impossible or even improbable.

Sure I slept at KONZ one night and KZER another, but those just make good stories. I count those as wins even though it would have been more cost efficient to fly United.

In the same moment, I hope to add instrument to my certificate this year. I’m sure it will be the best thing for my continuing long flights.
 
Ok. I've done NH to VA for the last ten years, multiple times a year with no IR. Just got my IR last week. You do need to be careful about weather, but I could extend stays when needed, take an airline as a backup, or just not go.
 
AA5Bman said:
I mean... over a 700 mile route with no instrument rating, weather is going to throw a wrench in the plan somewhere along the way - basically over the great lakes no less - what... 99% of the time minus July?

I have had this vision of flying our plane to visit family about 600nm away. Over 10 years of airplane ownership it has actually happened precisely zero times.

...and that's with an instrument rating.

I'm not saying it won't happen - although in my case it hasn't for a whole host of reasons - but that it's not likely to happen often, and it's definitely not likely to happen often enough to buy a single engine piston specifically tailored to meet this mission. Figure out the rest of your mission, buy the plane for that, and high-five yourself if you get to make this trip, too.
Click to expand...
I made five 600NM out and back trips last year. Atlanta - Dallas (twice), Atlanta - Oshkosh, Atlanta-Stillwater OK, Atlanta - College Station Texas. I'm VFR, and didn't fly any of that at night. All of those flights (miraculously) launched and arrived on the desired time and date.

My experience is that 9 months of the year (March through November), if I'm willing to advance or delay a trip by a day or so, I can make these trips pretty reliably.

I think it helps that my airplane has a 600+NM range and can do that distance in 3.5 hours, so I don't need all day to make a flight like that.
 
AA5Bman said:
I mean... over a 700 mile route with no instrument rating, weather is going to throw a wrench in the plan somewhere along the way - basically over the great lakes no less - what... 99% of the time minus July?

I have had this vision of flying our plane to visit family about 600nm away. Over 10 years of airplane ownership it has actually happened precisely zero times.

...and that's with an instrument rating.

I'm not saying it won't happen - although in my case it hasn't for a whole host of reasons - but that it's not likely to happen often, and it's definitely not likely to happen often enough to buy a single engine piston specifically tailored to meet this mission. Figure out the rest of your mission, buy the plane for that, and high-five yourself if you get to make this trip, too.
Click to expand...
It all comes down to your schedule flexibility. I've routinely done trips that length in my plane flying out of Chicago and it's been NBD (I'm VFR), but my schedule has been quite flexible. If it's IFR en-route somewhere I'll just wait a day. Or I'll stop half way and get a hotel.

If I was doing that as a sort of commute trip where I was planning to fly every Friday and come back every Sunday? Then no, it wouldn't be reliable enough of a trip. But several times a year? Totally doable and, IMHO, a great use of the airplane!
 
kyleb said:
I think it helps that my airplane has a 600+NM range and can do that distance in 3.5 hours, so I don't need all day to make a flight like that.
Click to expand...

Winds aloft can make that better or worse, of course. Ignoring winds, even my baby Beech could do that 600nm trip in under 5 hours. My bladder would necessitate a stop along the way, though.
 
Half Fast said:
Winds aloft can make that better or worse, of course. Ignoring winds, even my baby Beech could do that 600nm trip in under 5 hours. My bladder would necessitate a stop along the way, though.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that stop adds at least a half hour to the trip, a bit more fuel consumption, and probably more time at lower (less comfortable) altitudes. A faster airplane allows you to detour around weather, restricted areas, congested airspace, etc. with less of a time penalty. But yeah, you can definitely make long XC's in slower aircraft. I took my Tomahawk to Oshkosh (600+ NM) several times.
 
kyleb said:
Unfortunately, that stop adds at least a half hour to the trip, a bit more fuel consumption, and probably more time at lower (less comfortable) altitudes. A faster airplane allows you to detour around weather, restricted areas, congested airspace, etc. with less of a time penalty. But yeah, you can definitely make long XC's in slower aircraft. I took my Tomahawk to Oshkosh (600+ NM) several times.
Click to expand...

You’re right, of course, and I suppose I could avoid the stop with an external catheter and a discharge tube, but I think I’d rather land.
 
Half Fast said:
You’re right, of course, and I suppose I could avoid the stop with an external catheter and a discharge tube, but I think I’d rather land.
Click to expand...
Be tough! A buddy has some sort of bladder problem and has to self-cath every night. Says his doc described it as a temporary work around for the bladder problem until they do the real fix. My buddy says the doctor should have advertised it as the best sleep aid ever - he doesn't' have to get up at night anymore to pee.
 
AA5Bman said:
I mean... over a 700 mile route with no instrument rating, weather is going to throw a wrench in the plan somewhere along the way - basically over the great lakes no less - what... 99% of the time minus July?

I have had this vision of flying our plane to visit family about 600nm away. Over 10 years of airplane ownership it has actually happened precisely zero times.

...and that's with an instrument rating.

I'm not saying it won't happen - although in my case it hasn't for a whole host of reasons - but that it's not likely to happen often, and it's definitely not likely to happen often enough to buy a single engine piston specifically tailored to meet this mission. Figure out the rest of your mission, buy the plane for that, and high-five yourself if you get to make this trip, too.
Click to expand...
Yep. Many start out with grandiose ideas of flying here and flying there. Then they find out the wife ain’t all that thrilled, or you know the kids have those weekend sports activities, etc etc. Soon you find yourself flying for a lot of those $100 hamburger runs by yourself, and making that occasional long XC flight. So as you said, by for the flying you do for 80-90% of the time, and celebrate the other 10% when it all aligns to make it happen.
 
Whatever you do, you personally should read every word in every logbook for any possible purchase you're considering.

DO NOT rely on what a broker or mechanic says (prebuy or otherwise).

Not to slam brokers or mechanics, but very few will spend the time to do the type of deep dives it takes to read all the details in 4-5 logbooks, or more.
You will discover use and squawk trends among other things.
Or the 50 yo plane that only has 2 or 3 logbooks of mostly just annual entries....
 
I just scanned this thread, top to bottom. I think the number of seats needed is 2.

You can buy a ready to fly IFR 2 seat Vans aircraft. Is going to get you close to 200 mph burning 10 gph for less than 200k.

The 182 will typically cruise between 130 and 150 knots (150–173 mph and burn 11–13 GPH

Because the RV is experimental, your choices for parts and maintenance become less regulated and less expensive.

Either way, you really want to keep it inside a hangar. Outside for short term like a week is just ok.

The OP has enough Cessna time that renting a 172 or 182 for a particular trip is always an option.
 
The first year of ownership, you'll fly all the time. You'll fly somewhere it would be easier to drive, just because you bought the plane. Next year, you'll fly about 70% of the prev year. Third year you'll fly maybe 60 hours, a bit more if an Inst rating. It's like an outdoor hot tub when you buy a home. after 4 years, you'll settle on about 50-60 hours per year. Less if it's EXP because there are some flights you would do in the cert plane, that you may not in the EXP. Like IFR various conditions.

I used to live in WI, and I gotta say, from late Dec to late Mar, no one is flying GA much to the east. It's often miserable conditions, and just getting the plane going is a job unless you have a hangar, and heat avail. My Bonanza had an oil pan heater, and even with a new batt and perfect starter just getting it to light, and run when it's -11F is a j.o.b. Then, if no hangar, you have to call the FBO, have them pre-heat($200), and it's soup and icy from the lakes all the way to TEB, and you are shooting a precision appr, and you have to do all the same spit on the other end. Woof, it's just a big deal to use the PLANE.

I mean look at it right now. It's a freaking mess I wouldn't take a SE piston plane anywhere near there, but I'm sure there are Cessnas up there anyway.

mideast weather.jpg
I have nothing against EXP planes, heck - I owned three of them. My wife would take one look at an EXP plastic plane, and then one look at a Bonanza and it would be no contest. So, I'll push my original plan. Get this. Blistering fast, safe and haul what you want. Choose wisely.

BARNSTORMERS.COM Find Aircraft & Aircraft Parts - Airplane Sale, Jets, Helicopters, Experimental, Warbirds & Homebuilt

Aircraft for sale. Find the best new and used aircraft for sale such as business jets, helicopters, Experimental, Warbirds and more.
www.barnstormers.com

YMMV, object in mirror, contents have settled, pro driver, closed course, and may cause anal leakage.

Edit; OK I lied. I just looked at the lakes, and there are currently ZERO Cessnas tootling around the lakes. It's all buses and Boeings.
 
Last edited:
My concern with buying experimental is that I have absolutely no idea whether it was put together by a master craftsman, or by someone who let his kids to a bunch of drilling and felt that the holes were "good enough". At least with certified aircraft I have a sense of how well the aircraft was constructed. And to be clear, that's not a knock on experimentals at all. I think they're fantastic and I'd love to own one someday, but I genuinely don't know how to sort the wheat from the chaff for a true home-built. My plan would probably be SLSA->ELSA to thread that needle.
 
AvNavCom said:
My concern with buying experimental is that I have absolutely no idea whether it was put together by a master craftsman, or by someone who let his kids to a bunch of drilling and felt that the holes were "good enough". At least with certified aircraft I have a sense of how well the aircraft was constructed. And to be clear, that's not a knock on experimentals at all. I think they're fantastic and I'd love to own one someday, but I genuinely don't know how to sort the wheat from the chaff for a true home-built. My plan would probably be SLSA->ELSA to thread that needle.
Click to expand...
I have thought off and on about building an experimental category aircraft. The issue that has always stopped me is the issue of liability after I would sell it. I have heard that one can break the liability chain by selling without the engine as non-flyable. But who really knows in litigious society we live in.
 
Rcmutz said:
I have thought off and on about building an experimental category aircraft. The issue that has always stopped me is the issue of liability after I would sell it. I have heard that one can break the liability chain by selling without the engine as non-flyable. But who really knows in litigious society we live in.
Click to expand...
That is a valid concern. However, my belief is that if you built the aircraft by plans and required the buyer to have a condition inspection done by an A&P following the aircraft's sale, you've shed most of the risk. You built it correctly and the A&P has found the aircraft to be in condition for safe flight. If it is poorly maintained after that, damaged, or misused, well, that's hard to lay at your doorstep.

That said, I'd vet a buyer carefully. There was a guy in the RV community several years ago who bought someone's airplane and every time he raised his head on one of the forums it was an effort to assign blame. Don't sell to *that* guy.
 
I am an A&P and I had similar concerns before buying an RV7. I spoke with a DAR who routinely inspects RV’s.

His assessment was the RV was so structurally sound that 1/3rd of the rivets could be completely missing and the airframe would still be structurally sound.

That being said. I would get a DAR, IA, or A&P to preform a prepurchase inspection of the aircraft.

Vans has always done a good job with precut parts. Lately they switched over to prepunched laser cut. Their latest offering the RV15 now uses a gazillion pop rivets.

Their prototype on display at Oshkosh was wrapped in vinyl. The RV15 is marketed towards the backcountry crowd, however the -15 will cruise 20 knots faster than a 172. A stall speed of 45 knots and a stopping distance of around 400 feet.

Many of the RV’s are 200 mph aircraft. I remember talking with a guy who was saying he was on a very long final and a RV passed underneath them on final to the same airport. After they finally landed and taxied to the ramp, they caught up with the folks in the RV who had already tied down and were in their car and were driving off before they shut down.
 
And….. if the RV 9 has 500, 700 hours or so on it already, you could say it’s also has a thorough “test flight”.
 
I was an owner for decades prior to getting into the business with about 1500hrs IMC with most of it in Chicago / the midwest. Amusingly, I started with Mooneys before I moved on to anything else.

My shop has many a customer who thought they'd save money on maintenance and buy experimentals so they could work on their own planes. That seldom happens and sometimes it leads to safety issues.

I've owned practically every brand there is; currently we own an R22, an R44, Mooneys, Pipers, Cessnas, and a Beechcraft and a lancair.

People mentioned Bonanza's - great airplanes, but lugging around 4 empty seats doesn't make sense for many.

I echo what they've said about Lancairs - fast and slippery - but many a pilot can't handle them. Some Lancair Legacy's are in your budget.

My surprising choice was Comanches - not as economical as a mooney, yet roomy and fast, and you can always dial the power back and sip less gas. Much older, they used to have parts availability until Webco came around, but solid airplanes.

To me, 182's are bigger 172's with bigger engines. Good enough, but...there are better planes for the mission.

At that price point, I'd try to find a hangar...outside is doable, but depending on where you live, weather can be ruthless.
 
theplanesalon said:
My surprising choice was Comanches - not as economical as a mooney, yet roomy and fast, and you can always dial the power back and sip less gas. Much older, they used to have parts availability until Webco came around, but solid airplanes.
Click to expand...
Not to hijack the OP, but this is my question regarding aircraft that are no longer in production (socata TB20, Comanche 250, Bonanza 36). How difficult will it be to get parts if I buy one?
 
SLB said:
Not to hijack the OP, but this is my question regarding aircraft that are no longer in production (socata TB20, Comanche 250, Bonanza 36). How difficult will it be to get parts if I buy one?
Click to expand...
Bonanza ok. Others depending on the part are sometimes getting harder to find, or have long lead times. Textron really supports their Cessnas for the most part, and they own Beech now. All others are getting closer to orphan status as far as new parts go. Of course, always salvage, which has to be used at times regardless. In time it seems the fleet is going to be Bonanzas, 172, and 182s (restart and old), and Cirrus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top