Most economic Single Engine

T

Toddvg

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
7
Display Name
Display name:
Todd R Vander Galien
I have been looking into purchasing my first plane for the purpose of commuting. I work in PA and my family lives in MI, 6.5 hour drive each way. I want to purchase a cheap plane for my commute once or twice a week. It is 280 mile flight each way,

I just want a nice 2-4 seater that will cheap on fuel but also cheap to buy, I thought a 152 but seems to slow, then thought about a KIS TR-1 but I think wind will be to much of a factor.

Anyone have some ideas????
 
Can I get some feed back on your choices.
 
they called it the commuter for a reason. low purchase price, low fuel consumption, every mechanic can work on it, parts readily available.
 
I am also concerned with buying to light of a plane, don't want a little wind stopping me from seeing the kids.
 
I had exactly the same situation but longer distance (240nm) over water . I found the Mooney M20J to be an excellent choice for the mission. I was getting 20mpg out of the Mooney which was better than my SUV (18mpg) or any boat. Highly reliable, never let me down.

José
 
RV-6A......


Reasons:

1-You can work on it to save money.
2- There are alot out there for sale and that helps keep the asking price down.
3- The 6-A in a trike so transition should easier then a tailwheel plane.
4- Twice as fast as a C-150 and about the same fuel burn.
 
Last edited:
Pulsar or Glasair. About twice as much as a C-150 but you'll get there faster and have way more fun doing it.
 
Let's define 'economic' first of all. Neither the RV-6 nor the M20J are cheap to acquire. Not by a long shot. Sounds like the OP means cheap as in <30K cheap. That's the problem with asking advice on value from a demographic conditioned and willing to spend 10-15K a year on fixed upkeep and upgrades before a single blade has turned on the prop for the year. OP you need to specify your acquisition cap amount before any of this will be of any value.
 
Certificated: Grumman AA1, AA1-A, AA1-B, AA1-C. Low MX, faster than the others, looks good, handles well. Not too stable in a strong wind, but doable.

EXP: Glasair 1 TD. Low cost to buy, fast, fix it yourself. Acro if you want. Again, not too stable in windy stuff, but if you learn TW, you learn to use your feet.

LSA: Sonex. Cheap to buy, VW runs any kind of 91 octane fuel, easy to fix, fun to fly and moderately fast(~140MPH at 8k').
 
Toddvg said:
Can I get some feed back on your choices.
Click to expand...

A used T-18 is going to give you about the most mph/$ (purchase and operating) that you are going to find. Price will depend a lot on the panel.

But it's only 2 seats.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Let's define 'economic' first of all. Neither the RV-6 nor the M20J are cheap to acquire. Not by a long shot. Sounds like the OP means cheap as in <30K cheap. That's the problem with asking advice on value from a demographic conditioned and willing to spend 10-15K a year on fixed upkeep and upgrades before a single blade has turned on the prop for the year. OP you need to specify your acquisition cap amount before any of this will be of any value.
Click to expand...

An airline ticket may be the lowest cost option.

José
 
I commuted 2 years in a Glasair 1 tricycle gear with an o-320 and fixed pitch prop. Cruised at an honest 150KTAS and burned about 8gph chock-to-chock. It was an excellent commuter! Plenty out there can be had (basic models) for the $30-40k range. Cheaper than an RV and typically more useful load.
 
I was thinking under $30,000 to purchase. But was more worried about Cost per hour while at the same time giving me more flexibility on weather.

I might be a newbie but a light sport would be cheaper and faster but a lower wind speed would keep me grounded then in a 152. A 152 is a nice plane and what I learned on, but slow so would take longer and cost more gas.

Are these correct thought??
 
A few considerations, having spent a lot of my flying career in and around the area that you want to fly.

In the icing season you will need de-ice or you won't be going. If you have flexibility in your schedule and can accept this uncertainty for about 4-6 months out of the year then that's fine. If not, you're basically looking at a de-iced plane of some sort, which will probably put you towards a twin, and be nowhere near "cheap." If you're talking about doing this weekly, you want to minimize your flight time so you can spend more time with your family. A 150 won't help with this, and a 40 kt headwind (which happens frequently) will suddenly make the car faster.

To my mind, your best option is a Lancair 320/360. You'll be able to do the trip in about 90 minutes block time on 8-10 GPH. It probably gets about the same mileage as your car. It's experimental so that lowers a lot of parts costs and you can work on it yourself. Since you're going 190-200 kts, that means that a 40 kt headwind turns the 90 minute trip into a 110 minute trip. No big deal.

But keep in mind that you will need an instrument rating and a good portion of the year when there's ice in the forecast, you just won't be going. You'll also need to get some good training in the plane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A few considerations, having spent a lot of my flying career in and around the area that you want to fly.

In the icing season you will need de-ice or you won't be going. If you have flexibility in your schedule and can accept this uncertainty for about 4-6 months out of the year then that's fine. If not, you're basically looking at a de-iced plane of some sort, which will probably put you towards a twin, and be nowhere near "cheap." If you're talking about doing this weekly, you want to minimize your flight time so you can spend more time with your family. A 150 won't help with this, and a 40 kt headwind (which happens frequently) will suddenly make the car faster.

To my mind, your best option is a Lancair 320/360. You'll be able to do the trip in about 90 minutes block time on 8-10 GPH. It probably gets about the same mileage as your car. It's experimental so that lowers a lot of parts costs and you can work on it yourself. Since you're going 190-200 kts, that means that a 40 kt headwind turns the 90 minute trip into a 110 minute trip. No big deal.

But keep in mind that you will need an instrument rating and a good portion of the year when there's ice in the forecast, you just won't be going. You'll also need to get some good training in the plane.
Click to expand...
..that.....
 
Toddvg said:
I have been looking into purchasing my first plane for the purpose of commuting. I work in PA and my family lives in MI, 6.5 hour drive each way. I want to purchase a cheap plane for my commute once or twice a week. It is 280 mile flight each way,
Click to expand...

SWAG estimates on your utilization and fuel costs, first:

Average seems to be about 1.5 trips/week, 560 sm/trip, for 840 sm/week or ~50*840 = 42,000 sm/year. Make sure that your usage is really going to be that much. You may find reality to be different.

Others may have different numbers, but I believe you should use a cost estimate of a minimum of $0.60/sm to $1.00/sm for all-up costs given the proposed usage with most single engine planes likely to be suitable for your mission. Sure you have $25k/year to $42k/year to spend?

But if you only want to worry about fuel cost - then most of the planes so far suggested have zero wind cruise speed mileage of about 20 smpg (+/- 10 smpg). Assuming avgas is $6/gal (this is an estimation, after all) then fuel cost is about $0.30/sm (or $0.20/sm to $0.60/sm). In the efficient 30 smpg SELs your fuel cost is $8400/year. At 20 smpg that's $12,600/year; and at 10 smpg, $25,200/year.

I just want a nice 2-4 seater that will cheap on fuel but also cheap to buy, I thought a 152 but seems to slow, then thought about a KIS TR-1 but I think wind will be to much of a factor.

Anyone have some ideas????
Click to expand...
Toddvg said:
I was thinking under $30,000 to purchase. But was more worried about Cost per hour while at the same time giving me more flexibility on weather.

I might be a newbie but a light sport would be cheaper and faster but a lower wind speed would keep me grounded then in a 152. A 152 is a nice plane and what I learned on, but slow so would take longer and cost more gas.

Are these correct thought??
Click to expand...

A 152 should yield roughly 15 smpg. A Cherokee 140 probably has similar mileage, but with a bit more speed and hauling capacity, yet acquisition cost not much different than a 152.

Since you are primarily using it to commute to/from family, I presume you don't absolutely need high dispatch utility? If so, avoid getting sucked into planes with deicing - these are so far outside your budget and needs that it may inadvertently dissuade you for the wrong reasons. Never hurts to buy the occasional airline ticket or drive.

All the above in my humble opinion.
 
A Cherokee 140 or 180 would be an economical possibility. Faster than a 150 but not a lot more money.
 
If you want economical, and you're going with production planes, and you don't use short/soft fields, you go with the Grummans, since they are significantly faster than their C/P/B competitors but don't cost a dime more per hour to own and operate. However, they have the same major problem with dispatch reliability as a commuter aircraft that all the other light singles have in the region in which you're flying -- they don't do ice.
 
Jim Logajan said:
SWAG estimates on your utilization and fuel costs, first:

Average seems to be about 1.5 trips/week, 560 sm/trip, for 840 sm/week or ~50*840 = 42,000 sm/year. Make sure that your usage is really going to be that much. You may find reality to be different.

Others may have different numbers, but I believe you should use a cost estimate of a minimum of $0.60/sm to $1.00/sm for all-up costs given the proposed usage with most single engine planes likely to be suitable for your mission. Sure you have $25k/year to $42k/year to spend?

But if you only want to worry about fuel cost - then most of the planes so far suggested have zero wind cruise speed mileage of about 20 smpg (+/- 10 smpg). Assuming avgas is $6/gal (this is an estimation, after all) then fuel cost is about $0.30/sm (or $0.20/sm to $0.60/sm). In the efficient 30 smpg SELs your fuel cost is $8400/year. At 20 smpg that's $12,600/year; and at 10 smpg, $25,200/year.



A 152 should yield roughly 15 smpg. A Cherokee 140 probably has similar mileage, but with a bit more speed and hauling capacity, yet acquisition cost not much different than a 152.

Since you are primarily using it to commute to/from family, I presume you don't absolutely need high dispatch utility? If so, avoid getting sucked into planes with deicing - these are so far outside your budget and needs that it may inadvertently dissuade you for the wrong reasons. Never hurts to buy the occasional airline ticket or drive.

All the above in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

+1. A good alternate to driving, but not reliable. I have driven many planned flights and I live in sunny California, but flying is always better when I can do it. The Cherokee 140 has a reasonable acquisition cost and is very capable (close to 900 lbs useful load).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A few considerations, having spent a lot of my flying career in and around the area that you want to fly.

In the icing season you will need de-ice or you won't be going. If you have flexibility in your schedule and can accept this uncertainty for about 4-6 months out of the year then that's fine. If not, you're basically looking at a de-iced plane of some sort, which will probably put you towards a twin, and be nowhere near "cheap." If you're talking about doing this weekly, you want to minimize your flight time so you can spend more time with your family. A 150 won't help with this, and a 40 kt headwind (which happens frequently) will suddenly make the car faster.

To my mind, your best option is a Lancair 320/360. You'll be able to do the trip in about 90 minutes block time on 8-10 GPH. It probably gets about the same mileage as your car. It's experimental so that lowers a lot of parts costs and you can work on it yourself. Since you're going 190-200 kts, that means that a 40 kt headwind turns the 90 minute trip into a 110 minute trip. No big deal.

But keep in mind that you will need an instrument rating and a good portion of the year when there's ice in the forecast, you just won't be going. You'll also need to get some good training in the plane.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is it. Not a 30k plane but many may be had for about twice that. It will get there about twice as fast as a 152, burn about half the fuel as a 152 (net given fewer hours in the air). Does not play well with ice - I had to drive today due to ice at altitudes I needed to be to complete todays trip. You would be safer in some ways secondary to increased climb performance but definitely more of a handful and more dangerous in other ways such as landing and engine out scenarios. It is within the capabilities of a new pilot though with proper transition training.
Other experimentals such as a RV 6A mentioned earlier would also be good choices due to low cost per mile (a function of higher speed per fuel consumption and lower maintenance cost). Typically the cost of purchase of a plane such as a RV 6A or Lancair 235/320/360 will be at least 50k though while many certified planes may be purchased for lesser amounts. I would expect the lower cost certified planes to have higher cost per mile though due to age, certified maintenance, slower speed per fuel consumption, etc.
So, "most economic" would need to be defined as economic to purchase, economic to operate, or some combination of the two.
 
My suggestion is a nice new road car or airline it.

Commuting reliably by cheap, small, aircraft is a bad plan from the start.

What happens if you get up to MI, weather moves in and you can't fly back?

What happens if you get up to MI and the plane breaks down?

What happens when the weather is questionable and you really need to get back to work? For many pilots this scenario is a really good way to get into trouble.

Icing was already mentioned, so take half the year off your calendar.

It will take a lot more airplane than most are suggesting for this to make sense.
 
Economic to operate but not economic to acquire, is not economic at all in my book....
 
I have been flying a Cardinal lately. It burns a bit more gas then my 172 but the time it saves fuel is basically a wash. It is wide, comfortable to fly and a solid IFR plane. I am sure it is capable for hours of solid IFR but the most I do is pop ups etc.
 
My vote would be for a Cessna 175 or Cherokee 180. Both can be had cheaper than a C172, but are faster and will haul more than a C172.


C175 cruises about 135 mph on 9-10 gph and is eligible for a mogas STC if you want to run cheaper automotive gas. The geared engine has a lower TBO (1200 hr) than most others, but if you fly it by the book they often go way past that.

Cherokee 180 pretty close to the same as the 175 on speed, fuel burn, and useful load, and is also eligable for a mogas STC. Slightly less comfortable cabin IMO, but arguably more reliable lycoming engine.
 
Toddvg said:
I was thinking under $30,000 to purchase.
Click to expand...

When I determined a while back that it was cheaper for me to continue renting, I used answers to questions similar to the following rather than a purchase cost budget:

What is the largest annual travel budget you feel comfortable spending?

And what is the minimum or typical number of these trips you feel comfortable traveling per year?

For how many years do you anticipate having to do this?

Those numbers may provide a better insight into whether you should buy something fast and efficient (but expensive to acquire) or something slower and less efficient (but cheaper to acquire) or whether a car is all that will work, given the constraints you have to work within.
 
Alexb2000 said:
My suggestion is a nice new road car or airline it.

Commuting reliably by cheap, small, aircraft is a bad plan from the start.

What happens if you get up to MI, weather moves in and you can't fly back?

What happens if you get up to MI and the plane breaks down?

What happens when the weather is questionable and you really need to get back to work? For many pilots this scenario is a really good way to get into trouble.

Icing was already mentioned, so take half the year off your calendar.

It will take a lot more airplane than most are suggesting for this to make sense.
Click to expand...

You always have to have backups, and you also always need to look at the weather. It doesn't matter what you're flying, some days you just can't go. Saying that 6 months of the year are off the calendar isn't accurate, because a lot of the winter days in that area are CAVU. The rest you need a de-iced twin at minimum, so if anything it makes the go/no-go easier. Plus, unless you live in PHL or PIT, there just aren't good options for getting to MI from PA - the airline service around the state is rotten.

I think that the idea is a fine one, but the concept of using a 150 or even a Cherokee for a trip like that will get very old, very fast once he realizes that he spends more time flying than with his kids with those planes. 150 kts is the minimum, and this mission screams Lancair 320/360.
 
In order to get the speed with economy and a low cost of airplane acquisition, the OP will likely have to look beyond the certified planes and the higher profile experimentals mentioned.
If he looks around, he will find a few experimentals which may be purchased less than 30k and which will do around 150 knots. A couple I can think of are the vari-eze and the quickie (which may be found in a tricycle gear).
 
Yup Vari-eze would be a good choice in EXP in place of the Glasair. Not sure about the Lancair. I think you need to spend > $50k for a flyable 320/360? Don't know much about them, but they are higher price than the Glasair.

I gave no consideration to fighting weather. You either go, or you don't when things close in. Not much middle ground for an inexpensive commuter. Once you start down the hard IFR, or ice path prices go up dramatically.
 
tonycondon said:
150 is still twice as fast as driving.
Click to expand...

I've had cars beat me on 200 mile trips in a Cessna 150. Drive to the airport, pre-flight, fire up, taxi, take off, spend a while at Vy, fight a 40MPH headwind, watch cars on the interstate pass you below, land taxi shutdown... My ride (who left the same time I did) was waiting on me.
 
well he said it was a 6.5 hr drive or a 280 mile flight.
 
bartmc said:
I've had cars beat me on 200 mile trips in a Cessna 150. Drive to the airport, pre-flight, fire up, taxi, take off, spend a while at Vy, fight a 40MPH headwind, watch cars on the interstate pass you below, land taxi shutdown... My ride (who left the same time I did) was waiting on me.
Click to expand...

Not to mention if there is bad weather and you have to fly around it.

José
 
Toddvg said:
I was thinking under $30,000 to purchase. But was more worried about Cost per hour while at the same time giving me more flexibility on weather.

I might be a newbie but a light sport would be cheaper and faster but a lower wind speed would keep me grounded then in a 152. A 152 is a nice plane and what I learned on, but slow so would take longer and cost more gas.

Are these correct thought??
Click to expand...

Old Bonanza, Mooney M20C.
 
Alexb2000 said:
My suggestion is a nice new road car or airline it.

Commuting reliably by cheap, small, aircraft is a bad plan from the start.

What happens if you get up to MI, weather moves in and you can't fly back?

What happens if you get up to MI and the plane breaks down?

What happens when the weather is questionable and you really need to get back to work? For many pilots this scenario is a really good way to get into trouble.

Icing was already mentioned, so take half the year off your calendar.

It will take a lot more airplane than most are suggesting for this to make sense.
Click to expand...

:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
Hell, I will say it since everyone is already suggesting things that aren't really that economical...

Pilatus.

:rolleyes:

Carry on.
 
EdFred said:
Hell, I will say it since everyone is already suggesting things that aren't really that economical...

Pilatus.

:rolleyes:

Carry on.
Click to expand...

You gotta define economical. You can pick up an old bo, mooney or Comanche in his price range. The MPG is going to be better than a Cessna 172. On airframes in this price range the insurance ding is going to be less than half a tank of gas, or just go naked on hull value. The gear on those (with maybe the exception being the Comanche) planes is simple enough to maintain and a tad more expensive over a fixed pitch.

For low acquisition cost, low maintenance, 100+ knot planes. A PA28 would be his best bet unless he heads over to the dark side (experimental). But he can get a damn good PA28-140/150/160 in that range. I'm not sure what 30K will buy you in the exp category.
 
EdFred said:
Hell, I will say it since everyone is already suggesting things that aren't really that economical...

Pilatus.

:rolleyes:

Carry on.
Click to expand...

What, not a suborbital rocket!?

Seriously, for around or under $30k, 2 seats, zero wind gas mileage over 40 smpg, speed of 150 mph at 9500 ft, all of which meet the OPs requirements and the need for speed, the Sonex may be the most economic on acquisition cost, newness, efficiency, and maintenance costs. Wouldn't be IFR for that price, but a better deal than a 152. Biggest down sides are low useful load and cramped seating if you really have two people. But as a commuter for that distance and low budget, seems plausible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top