Most economic Single Engine

Toddvg said:
Capt. Geoffrey

The engine is a Subaru Legacy 135 hp 2.2 L
Click to expand...
Todd

I am an experimental guy (and I own 2 Subaru's) and I would not venture into the alternative engine world...
Recommend passing on that one.
There are other experimentals that are not the higher end newer shinier faster more common models which will meet you price point and be among the most economical to operate of anything out there while cruising in the 140-200 mph range. A few have been mentioned; of these the vari-eze is likely the most well known which will likely translate into an easier sale when the time comes to move on.
 
Oh, and as long as I am badmouthing engines, I don't like two strokes either.

Some people appear to get reliable service from them, others apparently don't.

I do fly behind a Rotax 912. But I don't typically take the shortcut across the corner of Lake Erie.

YMMV.

And I am a cranky old, geezer.
 
Last edited:
Another vote against the Subie engine in a plane. Not that it can't be done right, and safely but the fact is that few are ever engineered to the point where I would consider it anything like commutable. If it were for a knock-around plane, that spend 90% of it's time within gliding distance of an airport, or field then maybe, but not for something you are going to put your wife in(unless there's something I don't know about your wife:) ). Scotch that idea, and move on to something a bit more mundane, even if it is in the EXP section.
 
What you need are two planes. You need the commute plane which hauls butt, and has only one or two tight seats, then you need a spacious cruiser for the fam.

Double your pleasure, and fits in one hanger would be a Vari-eze for commute and an old Bonanza for cruising.
 
Hahahaha. Now we are telling him to buy TWO planes.

Where's The Fonz, some water skis and a shark?
 
Another option would be a Midget Mustang or mustang II. Fast and efficient!
 
when i grow up i'm getting an IFR 150D. back window, straight tail. and i'm not going to ask anyone their opinion until AFTER i buy it :D:D
 
tonycondon said:
when i grow up i'm getting an IFR 150D. back window, straight tail. and i'm not going to ask anyone their opinion until AFTER i buy it :D:D
Click to expand...

You don't care about anyone's opinion anyway, so why does it matter? ;)
 
well, i do care. i care greatly that everyone elses opinion is different than mine :D

oh, and it will be a shiny 150D too. preferably with long range fuel tanks and a towhook.
 
tonycondon said:
well, i do care. i care greatly that everyone elses opinion is different than mine :D

oh, and it will be a shiny 150D too. preferably with long range fuel tanks and a towhook.
Click to expand...

http://www.cessna150-152.com/aotm/coverplane200512.htm

200512_1.jpg
 
ah no. i've already served my time in a club with a tailwheel towplane. it was fun for me to fly the towplane but i'd rather have lower insurance rates and a larger pool from which to pick towpilots. plus the 150 converted to tailwheels seem to be a handful even for proficient tailwheel pilots.
 
bnt83 said:
Read the OP's post. He was looking at a Cessna 152 for heavens sake!

There aint much availabe thats faster on that budget.
Click to expand...
...except a Grumman AA-1. And you can get the 2x5-gallon aux tanks to give you the endurance for a 280nm flight with IFR/alternate reserves if you're flying solo -- and you can leave them empty to fly with a passenger over shorter legs. Further, $30K will get you one with the aux tanks and an O-320 STC engine conversion for extra climb in the summer.

If I were buying a dirt cheap plane and cheapest to maintain here is what my requirements are:

#1 Venturis NOT a vacuum pump (certainly not a dry vacuum pump)
#2 No remote mounted oil cooler or remote oil filter (eliminates the hoses)
#3 No engine driven fuel pump (eliminates hoses and pump)
#4 If I don't need it for the commute, no transponder (eliminates the 91.413 test)
#5 Bendix magnetos
#6 No panel mounted avionics that require databases or subscriptions
Click to expand...
That pretty much eliminates IFR operations, and that reduces the dispatch reliability a lot.
 
Last edited:
JHW said:
I would say the process and concerns involved with buying an extablished design like an RV or Glasair are exactly the same as with buying an old factory-built plane. There is a possibility of poor workmanship in either case.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a possibility of poor workmanship with any airplane (even the "new" Cessnas had some ADs for poor workmanship when the line first reopened), and yes, any airplane can be turned into garbage by bad maintenance, but the possibility of a really big surprise is way higher with any E-AB than any production certified airplane built since the FAA was established.
 
Toddvg said:
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...

When you look at normal category certificated airplanes the fuel economy numbers are kind of a wash - in general, an airplane that burns half as much fuel in an hour is going to go half as fast. Even when you factor in winds a 30 kt headwind is going to cost a 100 kt airplane 30% whereas it will only cost a 200 kt airplane 15% but turn that around and make it a tailwind and you see what I'm getting at.

As mentioned above the Mooney is one of the best when it comes to mpg figures but among the standard crowd of Pipers, Cessnas and Grummans you're not going to find a slam dunk winner. As for the maintenance costs, if you are looking for a $30k four place aircraft then you're looking at something that's anywhere from 20 to 40 years old and maintenance cost is going to be directly related to what condition the aircraft is in - something that can be all over the map.
 
bartmc said:
Just leave the power in about an inch or two for landing and you can use up as much runway as a Mooney. :D
Click to expand...

Heck Id stack the ol Mooney up against most bonanzas because I can leave the speedbrakes out - and it doesn't float when you do that.
 
Ron Levy said:
You take my meaning, sir. :yes:
Click to expand...

:D

Ken Ibold said:
It always strikes me as odd when I see people post pics of something they're trying to sell and they use 4-year-old photos.

"This is what it USED to look like, before the paint faded and the corrosion set in ... "
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of sale ads are poorly done. One of the issues of dealing with people selling their own aircraft. Hard part is looking through them to see if there might be a plane worth buying. I didn't bother to look at this one closely enough to see.
 
Ken Ibold said:
It always strikes me as odd when I see people post pics of something they're trying to sell and they use 4-year-old photos.

"This is what it USED to look like, before the paint faded and the corrosion set in ... "
Click to expand...

Nahh, he just painted over the Air Force livery and doesn't want to lose a sale to a guy wearing chest hair accentuating Nomex. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top