Owning a plane on a grassroots budget?

I fly with a lot of people who started later in aviation and they love it just the same. Airlines don't care if your time is 152 or some experimental hot rod. You need time in a powered airplane with a mix of single and multi-engine. Whatever method you choose to meet the minimums that are expected to be 1500TT in August is fine. I think American Eagle requires 500 cross country and I'm not sure about the rest. Of course cross country just means landing at another airport for these purposes so that's not hard to do in 1500 hours.

If you're going corporate the key is to network like crazy and just get to know people. Your local airport is the best way to get that done.

For building time the 152 is a great option as well as something with four seats. Sure there are more complex aircraft out there and you'll need some time in those but get your total time up in something cheap. My uncle did his private, instrument, and commercial in his 150. He rented a Cutlass for the complex portion of the commercial check ride. Later he sold the 150 for a profit. Learn how to change oil and other maintenance tasks owners are allowed to do per 14 CFR to save some money too. It's a great way to learn your airplane.

Look at good partnerships too. The partners should welcome someone who's willing to keep the airplane flying as it tends to make engines last longer. Of course if I was in a partnership I'd just want to make sure you knew how to take care of the equipment. Renting is an option but if you know how to take care of an airplane you'll end up money ahead buying something.

If you have airline questions I'm happy to answer. I've grown up around GA since I was a toddler as well.

Oh man, mine is costing me a fortune! But it is a lot of fun and saves on the commute.

My advice is to stick with a single engine, and skip the VTOL.

A boat is a hole in the water into which one throws money--so goes the old saying. Is there a similar expression used to describe the expense of owning an airplane?

1988RedT2 wrote: A boat is a hole in the water into which one throws money--so goes the old saying. Is there a similar expression used to describe the expense of owning an airplane?

A hole in the sky...

bluesideup wrote: For building time the 152 is a great option as well as something with four seats. Look at good partnerships too.

+1 on both the 152 and the partnership. 150 is a good airplane too. A 150 Aerobat is stupid fun.

The key with an airplane for the purposes of building time is a good pre-purchase inspection and cheap operating costs. You don't need a 152 outfitted with G1000 and a bunch of other stuff. People go nuts vaporizing money on stuff they don't need when traveling 2 miles a minute. For an IFR training machine you need the basics of VOR navigation and instrumentation. Maybe an ADF if it's already in there and maybe an IFR GPS if you are willing to spend the cash to keep it current.

I had a student with a great Cherokee 140, as an occasional 4 seater it was a nice airplane.

Even if you go with buying into a partnership you should consider a pre-purchase, they might be bringing on a partner because the airplane needs a top end or more.

Beer Baron wrote: Edit: Or aero-commute to a job in an expensive area like LA, NY, or the Bay. Then live in a far away suburb with much lower housing costs. The pay bump to normally cover people living in those ridiculously expensive areas can offset or cover the cost of operating a plane. A nice 45min-hour flight to work, bike to the office. No rush-hour stress.

You bastard... you just had me seriously wondering if getting a pilot's license and a Cessna would be a good way to cut down on my commute time. Thankfully, this thread also gave me a clear enough idea of the cost to realize it would be a bad idea.

I know a guy who was quite young, got a job with Flight Safety maintaining trainers, and eventually got his type rating for Part 25 jets and is a test pilot over at what was Hawker Beechcraft. Said that a lot of the other dudes were ex-Airforce and initially didn't like that he didn't go that route to get all the hours required to fly.

Of course, they just changed gears pretty hard and are going to stop all jet production, so I'm not sure what his future looks like, but that's a different issue.

In reply to Spinout007:

The revised aircraft you're showing, which has recently re-started production with some improvements including Garmin avionics (Avidyne was in there before) is interesting, although I've always thought I'd look for a Mooney for similar costs. Having flown nor even sat in either (I'm not a pilot).

Osterkraut wrote:

Javelin wrote: In reply to Osterkraut: I, will?

Cool! Also tell him I hope he enjoyed his flight to the Bahamas last fall.

Be nice.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: Edit: Or aero-commute to a job in an expensive area like LA, NY, or the Bay. Then live in a far away suburb with much lower housing costs. The pay bump to normally cover people living in those ridiculously expensive areas can offset or cover the cost of operating a plane. A nice 45min-hour flight to work, bike to the office. No rush-hour stress.

You bastard... you just had me seriously wondering if getting a pilot's license and a Cessna would be a good way to cut down on my commute time. Thankfully, this thread also gave me a clear enough idea of the cost to realize it would be a bad idea.

You also need to be sure you can land at a private strip that allows you a flight path well clear of Class B airspace.

I also do not own a plane, so take this for what it's worth. When we were racing, one of our team members had a T210 that we flew to most races. At the time, I was also looking for a plane. Basically when I found out all the costs involved, and his real costs of ownership, I bought another race car instead since it was much cheaper.

There are certainly cheaper ways to go with this, but a few things to keep in mind. The more seats you have the more expensive your insurance. And rebuild costs are quite high. Fuel was not that bad, neither were landing fees, but storage, maintenance, and insurance seemed pretty high in my opinion for what I was going to get.

I suppose if I had made a lot more money at the time it might be different, but on a normal salary, it would have consumed a huge amount of my disposable income,

By contrast, the plane I had found was not that expensive. I found a nice Beechcraft for only $18k.

1988RedT2 wrote: A boat is a hole in the water into which one throws money--so goes the old saying. Is there a similar expression used to describe the expense of owning an airplane?

It only takes two things to fly, airspeed and money.

People have the idea that building an experimental is somehow cheap.Unless you're building something like a Fly Baby or similar hateful contraption it really isn't. The statement "the devil is in the details" was made for this subject. I've built 2 Pitts Specials, and assisted my step dad with 2 Pitts, a Corsair replica, an FW 190 replica, and helped friends build many others over the years. Each one I've built or helped build has taken 2 times or more the original budget. The most popular series of experimentals today, the Vans RV, could eat up $75k in parts and materials before you even know what happened unless you build it out of junk.

People also get caught up with the idea of using automotive engines in aircraft, when the reality is that you spend more money on the conversion than you would buying a good used aircraft engine, it's heavier and more complex, the time between overhauls is greatly reduced, and you'll get half as much when its time to sell as compared with using a proper Lycoming or Continental aircraft engine. L like the saying "the best aircraft engine is an aircraft engine"

Beer Baron wrote: Edit: Or aero-commute to a job in an expensive area like LA, NY, or the Bay. Then live in a far away suburb with much lower housing costs. The pay bump to normally cover people living in those ridiculously expensive areas can offset or cover the cost of operating a plane. A nice 45min-hour flight to work, bike to the office. No rush-hour stress.

Now you're giving me really bad ideas.

Mind you, the Sierras got Steve Fossett so that might not be the best idea I've had today.

Here's how I will summarize my experience of over 25 years of on again/off again aircraft ownership---

There are airplanes out there for any budget level. They all cost about 15% more than you can afford.

I hear that daughters are about the same

In all truth , I've found solo aircraft ownership to really only start making sense if you are flying at least 100 hours a year-- which means you need an airplane you'd want to do 100 hours in a year, which for me, means an airplane that you and your significant other want to travel in. Also, in addition to the $ investment that requires, 100 hours per year means that the airplane is soaking up pretty much all your free time, especially when you start looking at travel time to/from the airport, cleaning the bugs off after flying it, assisting in the maintenance, etc.

Aeromoto wrote: People have the idea that building an experimental is somehow cheap.Unless you're building something like a Fly Baby or similar hateful contraption it really isn't. The statement "the devil is in the details" was made for this subject. I've built 2 Pitts Specials, and assisted my step dad with 2 Pitts, a Corsair replica, an FW 190 replica, and helped friends build many others over the years. Each one I've built or helped build has taken 2 times or more the original budget. The most popular series of experimentals today, the Vans RV, could eat up $75k in parts and materials before you even know what happened unless you build it out of junk. People also get caught up with the idea of using automotive engines in aircraft, when the reality is that you spend more money on the conversion than you would buying a good used aircraft engine, it's heavier and more complex, the time between overhauls is greatly reduced, and you'll get half as much when its time to sell as compared with using a proper Lycoming or Continental aircraft engine. L like the saying "the best aircraft engine is an aircraft engine"

Oh yeah I don't plan on building it myself, I'd be buying used. Building takes entirely too long and costs entirely too much.

Only homebuilt I have any desire to build comes from Rotoway.

Edit: I take that back, some of the flying wing plans look like a riot.

Spinout007 wrote: Only homebuilt I have any desire to build comes from Rotoway. Edit: I take that back, some of the flying wing plans look like a riot.

My friends sailplane is a flying wing, it's a trip seeing it in the air, looks so weird.

It's a pioneer II D

Used some of my limited mental budget on this thought exercise today and surmised 'WHERE IS THE APEX? Exercise over, that and I haven't enough dollars to be an abliator.

Used some of my limited mental budget on this thought exercise today and surmised 'WHERE IS THE APEX? Exercise over, that and I haven't enough dollars to be an abliator.

Someday, if I ever gather enough energy and money for another experimental project, I'd love to build an open cockpit Steen Skybolt for my son and I to buzz cow pastures with

I once looked into buying a sail boat through The Moorings. Put some money down and use it whenever you want. However, when you're not using it, rent it out. The Moorings will do the maintenence, provision the boat and see that all is well. Money gathered from the rent goes to the Moorings and to your monthly boat payment. If business is good you could have an almost free boat.

I wonder if there's something like that for small aircraft.

Dan

http://www.moorings.com/moorings-ownership

There are programs like that for newer planes, and "lease back" type arrangements at some FBOs.

The owner in a lease-back assumes a whole lot of risk. Do some googles on it and I'm sure you'll find a lot of horror stories.

The programs for newer planes are not GRM budget levels. Mostly of these emphasize "managment" of the aircraft and charge a pretty considerable monthly fee for it.

Here's an example of one: http://www.planesmart.com/fractional/shared-ownership-overview/

Anyone else notice the abscence of an elevator? There a new, high performance ship called a Genesis; very similar.

e_pie wrote: It's a pioneer II D