Owning a plane on a grassroots budget?

e_pie wrote:

Gasoline wrote: ??? Airplane 1974 GRUMMAN AA1B N8877L - $17500 http://atlanta.craigslist.org/atl/for/3694215891.html

Except in the ad it says it is in my neck of the woods, Huntsville.

In reply to 914Driver:

There was one of those that crashed at reno in the 90's. It was a hoot watching it as well. I'm pretty sure the guy survived the crash. Engine failure while running the pylons if I recall correctly. It's been 20 years and there was too many other things distracting me and too little time to see it all. Though I will NEVER forget the sound of that P-38 flying by on all out attack mode.

Edit: first time to see an aircraft break the sound barrier as well. I'd heard the booms before, but seeing it first hand within a 100 yards was pretty Damn cool.

Short answer, yes. And since you asked, I'll tell you more...

It's built like a fricking ax head, and with it's relatively high wing loading, is exceptionally stable on approach and is probably the easiest airplane to land I've ever flown-- as long as you keep up with the fact that an approach to a sufficiently long runway is flown at 90 knots indicated.

It's got extended wingtips and slotted flaps, so it will stall at around 55 kts, but the sink rate at a 70 knot approach speed is over 1100 fpm. I've landed it easily in half the length of a 2600 foot (hard surfaced) runway using a 70 knot approach speed, but you have to carry power to reduce the sink rate-- in other words, if the engine fails on approach in this situation, you're screwed.

Rolls and turns such that you feel you're wasting the airplane at bank angles of less than 60 degrees. Have pulled enough g's to leave my brother-in-law screaming "I'm awake, but I can't see!"

Cruises at an easy 165 knots true at less than 10 gallons per hour. My recollection is around 900 pounds of useful load. I've arrived 3000 feet overhead an (uncrowded) destination airport at cruise speeds, loaded up in a turn to slow down and been to burn off the altitude in no time at all between the constant speed prop and the flaps. Dramatic arrival!

Downsides-- it does hunt a bit in yaw at cruise, and the most likely reason my Dad will have to quit flying it is that he won't be able to get in or out of it. Biggest downside is that my Dad took the airplane with him when he retired to New Mexico...

Driven5 wrote:

nocones wrote: It sounds like your assesment of costs is correct. Driven5 on here I know is planning to make this move at some point in his life so you may reach out to him and see if he has any information to share (He is big into spreadsheets and I am fairly sure will have one that would help pinpoint the costs to buy, own and operate several popular sport planes )

Well I don't expect I have a lot of practial advice to offer vs the far more knowledgeable/experienced people that have already chimed in. And as shocking as it sounds, I actually don't have such a spreadsheet yet either...Damn, now I need to start one! I've seen some separate discussion on grass fields, and on Mooneys...I would just like to point out that while I've never even ridden in a Mooney, from my observations of Mooneys on grass I would be very apprehensive to combine the two. We simply called them flying lawnmowers. EZ's are very cool, and I've always had a soft spot for the Dart Dragonfly even though the kits are no longer available. While they're rather homely looking, the Sonex aircraft seem to have impressive bang for the buck even compared to many (most?) other kits planes. Due to my combined enjoyment of powered and gliders, the idea of 'touring motor-gliders' is rather intriguing to me. As such their Xenos has caught my eye as a sort of interesting possible alternative, even though it's definitely a compromised option. Not as efficient for rapid cross country travel or for building hours towards a carreer, but potentially quite good for getting more time in the air while able to use less fuel. Although admittedly I may not have thought this idea all the way through just yet, but it is still fun to daydream about. This particular narrow bodied Sonex (SubSonex) could be quite interesting: . Speaking of gliders and Cessna 152's...Back when I spent some time learning in gliders, I always got a kick out of being towed by the camo painted 152 hot rodded with a STOL kit and the engine out of a 172. It was very GRM-esque!

Wow, I wasn’t aware of the SubSonex’s existence until now. I hope they didn’t have to move the wing position back to account for the loss of the engine off the front and the addition of the jet to the back…if so, the aircraft may have pitch sensitivity issues as the empennage appears stock. I’ll assume they were able to maintain the CG just by moving the pilot forward….what’s the acronym for assume again???

Funny how everything old is new again…here’s an aircraft from the mid 70’s by the same designer (Monnett) called the Moni which used an 18 – 22 Hp two cylinder four stroke. Aside from the coolness factor of having a jet, it’s probably a superior aircraft.

Karacticus wrote: Short answer, yes. And since you asked, I'll tell you more... It's built like a fricking ax head, and with it's relatively high wing loading, is exceptionally stable on approach and is probably the easiest airplane to land I've ever flown-- as long as you keep up with the fact that an approach to a sufficiently long runway is flown at 90 knots indicated. It's got extended wingtips and slotted flaps, so it will stall at around 55 kts, but the sink rate at a 70 knot approach speed is over 1100 fpm. I've landed it easily in half the length of a 2600 foot (hard surfaced) runway using a 70 knot approach speed, but you have to carry power to reduce the sink rate-- in other words, if the engine fails on approach in this situation, you're screwed. Rolls and turns such that you feel you're wasting the airplane at bank angles of less than 60 degrees. Have pulled enough g's to leave my brother-in-law screaming "I'm awake, but I can't see!" Cruises at an easy 165 knots true at less than 10 gallons per hour. My recollection is around 900 pounds of useful load. I've arrived 3000 feet overhead an (uncrowded) destination airport at cruise speeds, loaded up in a turn to slow down and been to burn off the altitude in no time at all between the constant speed prop and the flaps. Dramatic arrival! Downsides-- it does hunt a bit in yaw at cruise, and the most likely reason my Dad will have to quit flying it is that he won't be able to get in or out of it. Biggest downside is that my Dad took the airplane with him when he retired to New Mexico...

What's the baggage storage space like behind the seat, big enough to be useful?

In reply to e_pie:

Comparable in both size and capacity to the floor baggage area of a 172. Just not as easy to load/unload, as everything has to go over the seat back

Karacticus wrote: In reply to e_pie: Comparable in both size and capacity to the floor baggage area of a 172. Just not as easy to load/unload, as everything has to go over the seat back

Good to know, it's hard to tell how big it is in all the pics I've seen.

It looks like it's coming down to the Glasair I or a Mooney of some early vintage. Either would fit my mission quite well.

Pros and cons of each that I can think of

Mooney Pros: A little bit cheaper than the Glasairs

Easier to find one IFR equipped

4 seats

200lbs more useful load than the Glasairs

Certified aircraft

Mooney Cons:

Wouldn't be able to work on it myself which would add a lot of cost

Non-aerobatic

10kts or so slower and 1-2gph more than the Glasair

Possibly more expensive maintenance and annuals due to complexity

Difficult to take to grass strips because the prop is so low

Glasair Pros:

Would be able to work on it myself and save money

Aerobatic, rated to +6/-4g, would be more fun on non-cross country flights

10kts or so faster at 1-2gph less than the Mooney

Less powerful engine that would be cheaper to overhaul when the time came

Looks a little better IMO

Glasair Cons:

2 seats

Not as much interior space

Hard to find IFR equipped, at least within my budget

Not a certified aircraft (this could also be a pro depending on how you look at it)

Insurance would likely be a toss up between the two, on one hand you have an experimental, on the other you have a complex retractable.

If you are seriously looking at leasing it to the aero club the certified aircraft would be the way to go. Get a feel for the pilots at the club, how many of them would want to build time/ rent for CC or local joyrides in a something like the mooney. Would they even consider the experimental? Glassair or rv would be a hoot for a good time/short hop hot rod and be cheaper to operate.

Another thought is what's the burn on the mooney at 55-60% throttle? You don't HAVE to use all that motor.

The Glasair is also most definitely not a grass strip airplane. Much like the EZs, tightly faired tiny wheels need a smooth paved surface.

I really really hate you guys sometimes. I needed to reignite this want/dream/passion right now like a hole in the head. Found several certified mid time aircraft for less than a new compact car, if you're willing to deal with tube and fabric machines there are 4 place machines out there for that kind of money. Get into BMW money and you can find complex aircraft, viper money will put you in a IFR twin. Even found a built and flying experimental for avg NB miata money. Time to seriously start looking at this I guess, especially if I can find something that can be STC'd for auto fuel. Even 4.30 a gallon is better than 7+