What's the least expensive airplane you would fly?

Tom-D said:
When you have a 65k budget, and travel is your goal there are a bunch of aircraft on the market now that will fill your needs.
Click to expand...

On, and also I want one that's relatively inexpensive to fly (if I am going to spend 65K on it).

My reason for that figure, is to try and acquire an aircraft that I want to take, because it make economical sense to fly it.

I know I could get a Mooney for a lot less then that, but I don't want to say to my wife "Hey, let's go to Ottawa this weekend", and my second thought be the hundred dollar bills I am about to burn doing so.

I want higher sunk costs, and lower operational costs. Even if in the end, I end up paying more for it, my frame of mind will be a lot better in the long run :)
 
i'd fly a lawnmower if it had wings
 
bullwinkle said:
I keep liking the Luscombe 8A, that would probably be the minimum I'd own (about $20K).
Click to expand...

A Taylorcraft runs about the same. (Assuming you are willing to take on a "certificated" airplane)

If you don't mind all of the medical nonsense a Cessna 120/140 is a pretty minimal easy to maintain / fly ride.

Lots of rough around the edges 150/152s out there too.
 
Mafoo said:
On, and also I want one that's relatively inexpensive to fly (if I am going to spend 65K on it).

My reason for that figure, is to try and acquire an aircraft that I want to take, because it make economical sense to fly it.

I know I could get a Mooney for a lot less then that, but I don't want to say to my wife "Hey, let's go to Ottawa this weekend", and my second thought be the hundred dollar bills I am about to burn doing so.

I want higher sunk costs, and lower operational costs. Even if in the end, I end up paying more for it, my frame of mind will be a lot better in the long run :)
Click to expand...


LongEze
 
Mafoo said:
On, and also I want one that's relatively inexpensive to fly (if I am going to spend 65K on it).

My reason for that figure, is to try and acquire an aircraft that I want to take, because it make economical sense to fly it.

I know I could get a Mooney for a lot less then that, but I don't want to say to my wife "Hey, let's go to Ottawa this weekend", and my second thought be the hundred dollar bills I am about to burn doing so.

I want higher sunk costs, and lower operational costs. Even if in the end, I end up paying more for it, my frame of mind will be a lot better in the long run :)
Click to expand...

My advice for your traveling machine would be to buy the Cozy, save the difference to operate. It will be an easy aircraft to maintain the 0-360 is a very dependable engine and the airframe is a well built aircraft, the designer was Nat Puffer and he supervised the build on this one.

The Cozy is fast enough to make the journey in 1 day, that means a lot more than you think,
 
I would happily fly around Puget Sound in a 1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D. as long as the hammock seat had new stitching!
 
Tom-D said:
My advice for your traveling machine would be to buy the Cozy, save the difference to operate. It will be an easy aircraft to maintain the 0-360 is a very dependable engine and the airframe is a well built aircraft, the designer was Nat Puffer and he supervised the build on this one.

The Cozy is fast enough to make the journey in 1 day, that means a lot more than you think,
Click to expand...

Yea, I spent a lot of time looking into that after you posted on the first page.

Seems like a great fit, and the ability to carry 4 people on day trips is a nice bonus.

Interesting read:

http://www.cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/2012_Zeitlin-Soup_To_Nuts.pdf
 
Flew this for a year. Bought it for 6k. Had 2 seats.

104makk.jpg
 
Mafoo said:
I am here to be a safer pilot. I am aslo on track to get my license in 40 hours, because I have done the pre-work it takes to be efficient in an aircraft.

I find this mildly insulting, strictly because it implies I care little for my wife's safety.

I have every intention of being far above average with respect to operational safety. I do everything I put my mind to well, or I don't do it at all. Striving for excellence is something I definitely have a passion for.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear it. But striving for excellence on a budget seems contradictory. You can be a safe VFR pilot in a 40K plane very easily. You can't meet the stated goals of reliably executing your mission with the described payload and carrying cheap operating costs. Reliable, safe travel means known icing capability and an instrument rating. These do not come on the cheap.
I do not speak with a goal of insulting, but from years of experience looking for those who weren't prepared.
 
It's not a matter of how much, it's a matter of finding a few aircraft that fit your mission then finding the best deals.

There are some aircraft that are way over priced for what they are (like a skycatcher)

and there are some deals to be found as well (need to sell because of xyz)
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Glad to hear it. But striving for excellence on a budget seems contradictory. You can be a safe VFR pilot in a 40K plane very easily. You can't meet the stated goals of reliably executing your mission with the described payload and carrying cheap operating costs. Reliable, safe travel means known icing capability and an instrument rating. These do not come on the cheap.
I do not speak with a goal of insulting, but from years of experience looking for those who weren't prepared.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your concern. I have two missions stated in this thread. One is for an aircraft for travel, with a budget of 65K and the desired goal of efficient operating costs. An example of such an aircraft is a Vans RV-6. I would suspect many people who own one do so for the same reasons I wish to. Does that desire contribute to unsafe pilots?

My second mission, is for an inexpensive aircraft for just me to fly around locally, (take off and land at the same airport) in order to keep my skills up, and keep me flying. Provided I buy something with a rudder ailerons and elevators, time in it is maintaining much of what I will have learned. I also would like some basic instruments for at least airspeed and altitude.

As you can see from this report, IFR does not make you that much safer.
http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueSO02/Hangar91002.html

In fact, I would suspect if you remove the VFR pilots that went up in weather they should not have been in, you will find VFR pilots are safer.

The #1 cause of death I suspect from that report, is inexperienced pilots too low on final, pulling up to gain altitude without powering up, and stalling.

The best way to make sure you don't do such things, it to keep current. I plan to do that, with a small plane I can fly every week, if for no reason other then to do 10-15 touch and goes in an afternoon.

Part of the point of this thread, is to make me a safer pilot.
 
You're missing the point about IFR. The reasons you need it for the trips you mentioned is not because you intend to fly in weather that you can't handle, but because the rating provides immensely better planning capability. IOW, you want to be able to fly scheduled trips on less-than-perfect VFR days when VFR would be imprudent or impossible based on actual weather conditions or forecasts.

And basing your opinions about IFR on a single article makes almost as much sense as basing your purchase decisions on a single post on an internet forum, especially if you don't have the rating or experience necessary to fully understand the issues.



Mafoo said:
Thanks for your concern. I have two missions stated in this thread. One is for an aircraft for travel, with a budget of 65K and the desired goal of efficient operating costs. An example of such an aircraft is a Vans RV-6. I would suspect many people who own one do so for the same reasons I wish to. Does that desire contribute to unsafe pilots?

My second mission, is for an inexpensive aircraft for just me to fly around locally, (take off and land at the same airport) in order to keep my skills up, and keep me flying. Provided I buy something with a rudder ailerons and elevators, time in it is maintaining much of what I will have learned. I also would like some basic instruments for at least airspeed and altitude.

As you can see from this report, IFR does not make you that much safer.
http://www.swaviator.com/html/issueSO02/Hangar91002.html

In fact, I would suspect if you remove the VFR pilots that went up in weather they should not have been in, you will find VFR pilots are safer.

The #1 cause of death I suspect from that report, is inexperienced pilots too low on final, pulling up to gain altitude without powering up, and stalling.

The best way to make sure you don't do such things, it to keep current. I plan to do that, with a small plane I can fly every week, if for no reason other then to do 10-15 touch and goes in an afternoon.

Part of the point of this thread, is to make me a safer pilot.
Click to expand...
 
The consensus is that an instrument rating is an excellent choice for people who use their aircraft for travel.

To me, travel means occasionally flying at night and trying to make flights on schedule to meet hotel reservations or get back to work on Monday. Assuming you are weather wise, current and make safety minded decisions, the instrument rating will seriously improve your experience. I'd argue it will also improve safety, if only based on the bad record of night VFR x/c flying
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
and basing your opinions about IFR on a single article makes almost as much sense as basing your purchase decisions on a single post on an internet forum, especially if you don't have the rating or experience necessary to fully understand the issues.
Click to expand...

Do you truly believe, I would be doing either of those two things?

I have nothing against IFR, and I see the value in it for travel. However I don't think every pilot who does not have one is flying unsafe, or having one means your a safe pilot.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
A Taylorcraft runs about the same. (Assuming you are willing to take on a "certificated" airplane)
Click to expand...

Certificated is my standard - beyond that, there's no bottom level I'd pay for a safe airplane. Especially if someone wants to give it to me. Or pay me to take it.

Yeah, that's it - I'd take one for just about any negative amount.
 
Mafoo said:
Do you truly believe, I would be doing either of those two things?

I have nothing against IFR, and I see the value in it for travel. However I don't think every pilot who does not have one is flying unsafe, or having one means your a safe pilot.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get involved in the safety debate, but I'll point out that IFR flying is fun.
 
Dunno. You started with the premise that flying was a means an end and were pretty quick on the draw with that single reference, and now you've signficantly lowered your budget and criteria for your "traveling" airplane so it's hard to know what you might or might not do.


Mafoo said:
Do you truly believe, I would be doing either of those two things?

I have nothing against IFR, and I see the value in it for travel. However I don't think every pilot who does not have one is flying unsafe, or having one means your a safe pilot.
Click to expand...
 
Weather ,,, Weather ,,, Weather is the limiting factor even in IFR flying.

The northeast corridor is some of the worst winter weather anywhere.

The pilots that do it regularly declare the emergency when they are down to 1 engine,1 vac system, and 1 electrical system.

My minimum aircraft for that mission would be a de-iced twin.

Believe me, IFR in nasty weather is not fun.
 
Tom-D said:
Weather ,,, Weather ,,, Weather is the limiting factor even in IFR flying.

The northeast corridor is some of the worst winter weather anywhere.

The pilots that do it regularly declare the emergency when they are down to 1 engine,1 vac system, and 1 electrical system.

My minimum aircraft for that mission would be a de-iced twin.

Believe me, IFR in nasty weather is not fun.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't take a Cirrus into that situation?
 
I think a lot of people are getting hung up over the two separate aircraft/missions that Mafoo has mentioned in the thread.

This thread was intended to be about his local time/experience building plane. NOT about his long distance travel plane. This thread was about the minimum aircraft that you would be comfortable flying in order to maintain/build time/experience/proficiency. NOT about flying in all kinds of weather.

It has been my experience that on the internet, and especially in multi-page threads, it is best to aggressively limit the subject matter to a single well defined topic. Otherwise people tend to skim over the first post, skip immediately to the last post, and thread drift sets in. Once that happens, it is almost impossible to do a course correction and the thread is destined to eventually auger into the ground.

This thread experienced pre-stall buffeting at post # 5 and fully stalled at post # 8. Recovery was attempted in post # 9, but PIC pulled back on the yoke in post # 10. Thread went in to a flat spin in post # 11, and by post # 16 recovery to cruise topic was no longer possible.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
I think a lot of people are getting hung up over the two separate aircraft/missions that Mafoo has mentioned in the thread.

This thread was intended to be about his local time/experience building plane. NOT about his long distance travel plane. This thread was about the minimum aircraft that you would be comfortable flying in order to maintain/build time/experience/proficiency. NOT about flying in all kinds of weather.

It has been my experience that on the internet, and especially in multi-page threads, it is best to aggressively limit the subject matter to a single well defined topic. Otherwise people tend to skim over the first post, skip immediately to the last post, and thread drift sets in. Once that happens, it is almost impossible to do a course correction and the thread is destined to eventually auger into the ground.

This thread experienced pre-stall buffeting at post # 5 and fully stalled at post # 8. Recovery was attempted in post # 9, but PIC pulled back on the yoke in post # 10. Thread went in to a flat spin in post # 11, and by post # 16 recovery to cruise topic was no longer possible.
Click to expand...

lol. nice post.

And yea, two planes, two missions :)
 
bflynn said:
Certificated is my standard - beyond that, there's no bottom level I'd pay for a safe airplane. Especially if someone wants to give it to me. Or pay me to take it.

Yeah, that's it - I'd take one for just about any negative amount.
Click to expand...


I agree with the certificated part. I'm sure there are many people flying many hours in uncertificated aircraft, but I prefer certificated. Still leaves lots of economic choices.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I agree with the certificated part. I'm sure there are many people flying many hours in uncertificated aircraft, but I prefer certificated. Still leaves lots of economic choices.
Click to expand...

In reading more up on it, without a certification, I can't fly it outside designated ares, so I would not want one anyway. So yea, min is cert. :)
 
Mafoo said:
In reading more up on it, without a certification, I can't fly it outside designated ares, so I would not want one anyway. So yea, min is cert. :)
Click to expand...
That is true, with out a certificate you can't fly, Period, but E-AB aircraft are certified in the EXP category.

ultra lights part 103 are the only flying machines that do not have a certificate or "N" number.

that are flown legally, that is
 
Mafoo said:
In reading more up on it, without a certification, I can't fly it outside designated ares, so I would not want one anyway. So yea, min is cert. :)
Click to expand...

??? I can fly my E-AB purd near anywhere.

And, I don't have to pay an A&P to sign the book for every stupid little thing I do - like re-lining the brake pads (re-installed yesterday before work, flew today before work). $27.44 for the "official" pads and rivets, $25.95 for the tool (but that is a one time purchase). (OK, plus shipping)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top