Sanity check on plan for 1st airplane

D

deaston

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 3, 2012
Messages
60
Display Name
Display name:
Dan
I like to plan out significant investments, but I'm a low time PPL holder and no airplane expert. Below is my plan however it is based on limited flying experience and lots of Internet lurking so likely has significant holes. That's where you come in.... Any help or tips from those more experienced would be greatly appreciated.

Is this reasonable? Can I tighten my budget? Is there anything you would change based on experience? Also, given my position (newbie) would you recommend a buyer's agent? Finally, would you hold out for specs below, or compromise on purchase and then add/update the plane to bring it into specs?

Mission:
- IFR training
- Regular (12-24X per year) 240nm trips done in 2 hrs for biz travel over flat land. Reliability (within reason for a 182 IFR) is important. Aesthetics not being perceived as "scary" important to biz pax.
- Occasional longer trips with family of 4 (pax weigh 530 now, 650 fully grown), possibly in some mountains although I'll need a lot more experience and training
- Fly 50-100hrs/year (excluding IFR training)
- I like high wings for ease of entry, loading, shade, and familiarity (athough I should admit I have almost no experience with low wing)

Cessna 182N or newer

Engine:
- Mid-time or less
- GAMI injectors

Airframe:
- "Normal" TTAF or better (<5000 hrs)
- Useful load 1200+
- No corrosion
- Any Damage history properly repaired/documented
- All logs
- Paint 7+
- Interior 7+ (leather, clean, no holes/tears)
- Good, clear windscreen
- Rosen visors
- fuel caps/bladder issues resolved

Avionics:
- IFR certified
- Garmin 430W or better IFR capable GPS/NAV/COMM
- 2nd, reliable NAV/COMM
- Reliable mode C transponder
- good 2 axis A/P slaved to GPSS and VOR, w/ ALT hold
- Engine monitor with cylinder probes

Budget
- $80k investment
- $10-15k/year total "cost" (including fuel, hangar, engine/prop reserve, fuel, MX, etc)
 
That would work fine... maybe not for mountain IFR flying, but it would work for everything else. Actually a 172 would work fine as well.
 
Aesthetics not being perceived as "scary" important to biz pax.
Click to expand...

How important to the success of this program is getting "biz pax" into your plane? You will find that most people are adverse to getting in small planes, and requiring someone, even an employee, to fly with you may prove to be an impediment to your business. Make sure the people that you need to get in the plane to make it viable are willing to get in the plane.

Your budget is doable for a decent 182 up to Bonanza or similar.
 
Especially for 80k, expecting GAMI injectors (and maybe Rosen visors) might be too much. They are less common than desirable and might boost the sale price (altho the visors are more common). Also, for 80k, windscreens might have minor crazing.
You won't find a 172 with a useful load of 1200# and that will be tight for a 182, unless it is more bare-bones than fully equipped

(compromises, compromises)
(if useful load is really that important, you might look at/or add to consideration some 206's)
 
Henning said:
How important to the success of this program is getting "biz pax" into your plane?
Click to expand...

Really just 2-3 at most to travel for biz, however not required (they are free to make the 6 hr drive if they choose, but I'm done with it).

One has already flown with me in a borrowed plane. Experience wasn't ideal though (awful paint, fuel selector knob came off in my hand while on the ground, transponder didn't work trying to get flight following, radio went out going into TRSA). It was manageable, and he took it in stride, but I learned that you don't want PAX to experience stuff like that. As you said, most are already a nervous.
 
deaston said:
Really just 2-3 at most to travel for biz, however not required (they are free to make the 6 hr drive if they choose, but I'm done with it).

One has already flown with me in a borrowed plane. Experience wasn't ideal though (awful paint, fuel selector knob came off in my hand while on the ground, transponder didn't work trying to get flight following, radio went out going into TRSA). It was manageable, and he took it in stride, but I learned that you don't want PAX to experience stuff like that. As you said, most are already a nervous.
Click to expand...

Good, as long as they have an option.

The $80k budget puts you in older planes of the capability you are seeking, not really old ones, although if you spend $80k on a real old one, you'll likely have an exceptional copy. You'll get more for your money with a twin, but you'll experience higher operating costs which in a business setting could offset themselves, but that is situationally dependent.

In order to get in a newer generation of airplane like an SR-22 you have to up the budget to $125k to get into a six pack version, add $80k to get Avidyne glass. So that is a bit out there given your budget.

A clean 182 will get you and one or two more to the site unless everyone is a really big boy and you need to take a good load of tools or supplies with you, then a 205 fits your budget and requirements. These are old planes, but good ones, and even with an $80k budget, you should be able to get in one and set it to rights so it's not "scary". The Bonanza is another good choice with nice S models being available in your price range.

The one thing that is a major concern to mission fulfillment is icing, so where you live makes a big difference in the viability of a plane that isn't deiced.
 
deaston said:
I thought engine reserve and fuel for a twin would be out of budget. No?
Click to expand...

Sounds like 5800 miles, 310 gets right at 10mpg, 580 gallons*$5gal=$2900 in fuel. Typical annual maint $7500, figure the miles, 5800/170kts avg speed rounds up to 35 hours with a $35h overhaul fund for engines and props makes for $1225 totals up to roughly $11,625 leaving us within the stated budget.
 
oldShar said:
Especially for 80k, expecting GAMI injectors (and maybe Rosen visors) might be too much. They are less common than desirable and might boost the sale price (altho the visors are more common). Also, for 80k, windscreens might have minor crazing.
You won't find a 172 with a useful load of 1200# and that will be tight for a 182, unless it is more bare-bones than fully equipped

(compromises, compromises)
(if useful load is really that important, you might look at/or add to consideration some 206's)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughts. Perhaps I'm pushing the boundaries of my budget. I can probably live with some crazing. Rosen visors have sure been handy.

The GAMI and engine monitor thing is based on reading (folklore perhaps...) about LOP operation. I've read enough to appreciate the science and logic behind it, but also know that I don't want this to degenerate into a holy war on the subject.

Could probably live with 1100#, but more is clearly better, $ being equal.
 
deaston said:
Thanks for the thoughts. Perhaps I'm pushing the boundaries of my budget. I can probably live with some crazing. Rosen visors have sure been handy.

The GAMI and engine monitor thing is based on reading (folklore perhaps...) about LOP operation. I've read enough to appreciate the science and logic behind it, but also know that I don't want this to degenerate into a holy war on the subject.

Could probably live with 1100#, but more is clearly better, $ being equal.
Click to expand...

I operated 2 I0-470s hard LOP with factory injectors, however, any 182 in your budget does not have fuel injection, it has a carb, GAMIs don't apply.
 
Henning said:
The one thing that is a major concern to mission fulfillment is icing, so where you live makes a big difference in the viability of a plane that isn't deiced.
Click to expand...

This is in the south and flatlands, so I don't think icing would be a big issue.
 
Henning said:
I operated 2 I0-470s hard LOP with factory injectors, however, any 182 in your budget does not have fuel injection, it has a carb, GAMIs don't apply.
Click to expand...

AH... Great point. Didn't think of that. now I understand what oldShar was saying.

That's a pretty big "hole" in my plan. ;)
 
Dan...my mission was almost IDENTICAL to yours and wound up in a 1973 182P and could not be happier. Understand that you will be at max gross at the edge of a 182's limitations and range for some of your missions, but for your budget you are spot on.

There is a premium for all of your requirements turn key. Do your homework and know what each of your requirements/wish list would cost to add to a plane then go shopping. Your best bet is to find a plane that is missing something and add as your need it. Paint, interiors, accessories even simple avionics can be added. Engines can be rebuilt. Just know your costs going in.

I found a 182P with awesome interior, new paint, 430W, AP with GPSS, and partial glass panel...WAY more equipped than I was expecting or looking for. Problem was it had a run out engine past TBO and no one would touch it. When I took the asking price of the plane PLUS a new engine I was not finding anything close to this plane turn key for anywhere near that total price, so for me it was a steal and it landed just over your budget.
 
Last edited:
deaston said:
AH... Great point. Didn't think of that. now I understand what oldShar was saying.

That's a pretty big "hole" in my plan. ;)
Click to expand...

At $80k you will make compromises in the plane either age, equipment, engine time, or airframe condition.

Regardless what model you end up buying, and I suggest 260hp min for the load you want to carry (Cherokee 6 is in your budget, but barely for a nice one. 260 or 300 will haul the load, the 300 will haul it a bit higher. Leave those to the guys operating in the mountain west, the straight valve IO-540 260hp engine is a cheaper engine to keep and overhaul), you want to prioritize the different attributes of each plane when making the comparison.

Personally, first thing I go for is airframe condition. Any airframe repairs are non recoverable at resale, and may even reduce resale value/sell-ability for having been done. Plus they take forever. First and foremost I am looking for a clean airframe, and there are still a lot of good ones, so no need settling for a mediocre one.

Next thing is Avionics. Modern avionics are wonderful, but have a poor return on resale value, usage value is extremely high though, so the more that's in the plane when you buy it, the more you save in what you don't have to upgrade. With the Flight Stream 210 and Garmin Pilot (or a 796 for a more reliable platform) upgrading from a 430W is no longer a priority issue. I would spend extra money for a G-500/600 equipped plane, not sure I would for an Aspen though. ROI in glass is proving out around 10%-30% depending on what it is, and I have not personally been impressed with the Aspen. I know a guy who had it 2 weeks before getting 2 G-600s. If you could buy his Comanche it would be a heck of a deal, but you have to almost double your budget to get equipment like that, and you have to be there when it's upgrade time.

Engine/prop time is the most flexible because it prorated almost directly to 75% TBO where it maintains the same core value until it is sent for overhaul or self destructs. The best engine time to buy at IMO is 75% TBO, and depending on engine and inspection, for the right deal I will buy beyond TBO. At 75%TBO, the engine values as a "run out", however, depending on the engine and condition, you may still get another 1000+ hours of service from it. Since Pt -91 operations do not mandate adherence to TBO recommendations, we can operate them "on condition" for as long as we desire. Rare is it that if not for resale considerations, that keeping an engine properly repaired is far more economical than doing overhauls. This is where you find "bonus money" in ownership, but don't let me mislead you, it's still a gamble. It's just that if you buy it as a run out, it's a free bet monetarily.

So, find the cleanest airframes first, then look at the avionics and buy the best pack you can with the engine closest to 75% TBO, and you'll get the best value for your budget. Don't fuss the details like windshields and upholstery, these don't cost a lot of money and you can do them any time.
 
Shawn,

Thanks for the info. A 1973 182P sounds right in line with my thinking.

Very encouraging and great point about knowing the upgrade costs. I've noticed that while VREF assigns values to different components/attributes, it seems very different (a lot less) than the real world cost of adding the same component. For example, it lists $4000 as the value for a 430W, however my understanding is more like $8-10k installed. How did you figure out those values? Have a pricelist you'd be willing to share?
 
Henning said:
So, find the cleanest airframes first, then look at the avionics and buy the best pack you can with the engine closest to 75% TBO, and you'll get the best value for your budget. Don't fuss the details like windshields and upholstery, these don't cost a lot of money and you can do them any time.
Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense. Thank you!
 
#1 requirement - get the wife on your side !!! :)
 
Mason said:
Hangar cost and to a lesser extent fuel cost, will depend partly on your geographic location.
Click to expand...

Not just that, but even by airport in an area. Sometimes 15 minutes extra driving can save you 50%.
 
Sounds doable to me, might have to be patient for a nice 182 for that price though, tons of them out there so I'm sure you will end up finding a good one.
 
deaston said:
I didn't think it would handle useful load req.
Click to expand...

I used to rent a 172 with a 180hp conversion. 800 payload with 36 gallon tanks topped off. If you want to save money (less fuel, no adjustable prop,cheap insurance,etc) it may work out. You will have cash leftover for paint and upgrades.
 
10-15k for 100hrs/y all in? I thought the common consensus was that you should be prepared to drop that on the first annual alone...
Sounds low to me, am I just a pessimist?
 
mtuomi said:
10-15k for 100hrs/y all in? I thought the common consensus was that you should be prepared to drop that on the first annual alone...
Sounds low to me, am I just a pessimist?
Click to expand...

Yes. Always be prepared to be in a situation pessimism predicts. However careful selection of the aircraft can heavily influence whether the pessimism becomes reality. You need to be financially ready for it to happen, but it doesn't have to.
 
someone mentioned a 182P. You can get an STC for P and Q models that allow you an extra 150 lb takeoff weight. Its simply a paper STC with no mods to the plane. Of course, you have to burn enough fuel to get below landing weight.

80K can get you in a P or Q, but you'll be lucky to meet all the criteria. You're probably looking closer to 100K to get everything you want, but you never know.
 
teejayevans said:
A plane is NOT an investment.
Click to expand...

A plane is a time machine. If the time it buys you is more valuable than the money, your plane is an investment. Not everything in life is about money, it's about what money can do.
 
I think a 182 will fulfill your mission pretty nicely. Good luck in your search.
 
deaston said:
Thanks for the thoughts. Perhaps I'm pushing the boundaries of my budget. I can probably live with some crazing. Rosen visors have sure been handy.

The GAMI and engine monitor thing is based on reading (folklore perhaps...) about LOP operation. I've read enough to appreciate the science and logic behind it, but also know that I don't want this to degenerate into a holy war on the subject.

Could probably live with 1100#, but more is clearly better, $ being equal.
Click to expand...

Living with crazing IMHO is not worth it, but it wouldn't stop me from buying one that needed a wind screen. It is a fairly easy fix, an AMU +/- should take care of it. One of the best things we have done is replace the one in our 172.

Same with the Rosen's they are great to have but easy to add.

Buy a good airframe, and preferably the avionics you want if you can find them, almost anything else is easily fixable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top