What would you buy with a 50k budget?

Kirk Ellis wrote:


I have seen those ads, but from the reading I have done I am getting
the impression that we would need perhaps 15k to 20k in cash lying
around for any used airplane that we purchase plus the down payment.
On a monthly basis we could easily afford the payments on a ten year
note for a 50k aircraft and be able to afford the fuel,


$50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
maintenence outside the annual. You don't need any cash "laying
around", that's a foolish way to keep an asset like that anyways. You
just need access to cash if you should happen to need it, no need for
there to be instant access. Get a home equity line of credit but never
tap it.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:29:18 -0600, Newps wrote:

$50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
maintenence outside the annual. You don't need any cash "laying
around", that's a foolish way to keep an asset like that anyways. You
just need access to cash if you should happen to need it, no need for
there to be instant access. Get a home equity line of credit but never
tap it.

Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

The point about the cash is well taken. I may be able to work that
out....of course the "partner" I share the boat with will have
something to say about the equity line of credit.

I have had my mid-fifties Bo for three years and love it.I trust it
with my families lives. I don't fly it much but the guy I bought it
from was putting over 200hrs a year on it.
As long as it has been well maintained and has no corrosion problems,
there is nothing scary about a 50 year old airplane.
Robert


On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:41:16 -0400, Kirk Ellis wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:29:18 -0600, Newps wrote:

$50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
maintenence outside the annual. You don't need any cash "laying
around", that's a foolish way to keep an asset like that anyways. You
just need access to cash if you should happen to need it, no need for
there to be instant access. Get a home equity line of credit but never
tap it.

Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

The point about the cash is well taken. I may be able to work that
out....of course the "partner" I share the boat with will have
something to say about the equity line of credit.

In 1967, I bought my first airplane, a 1947 Cessna 120. Flew the sucker for
a half a thousand hours from San Diego to Lake Tahoe a dozen times, St.
Louis twice, and Boston once...not a lick of problems. Swapped that one for
a 1948 Cessna 170 in 1969 for 1500 hours. Flew that one from San Diego to
Oshkosh half a dozen times, no sweat. When I started teaching, I swapped
that one for a 1964 172 in 1975. Flew that one from San Diego and Grass
Valley from '64 to '98 to Oshkosh every year, up and down the coast a few
dozen times, 3000 hours, but finally had a "character building experience"
that totalled the airplane but not a scratch on me or my passengers. Took
the insurance money from that one and bought a derelict '58 182 that I found
in a farmer's henhouse (literally) down in Fresno for $4500, completely
steamcleaned the chicken **** out of it, completely stripped every wire,
nut, and screw off of it, replaced everything with all new wiring and
hardware, did a "new" used radio stack, had all the instruments overhauled,
upholstered, painted, and still had cash left over in the bank from the 172
insurance payoff. For all intents and purposes, since 1990 it has been a
"new" airplane (except for motor, and we've done a pristine top about 200
hours ago), it's been all over the western USA and Oshkosh more than a dozen
times, with around 1500 hours and only one minor glitch.

Ask anybody that has seen it - Jay, Jack, Bob, Montblack, Dan, Mike, and
all the rest of the Oshkosh Mafia. It isn't a "show" airplane, but it is
right up there with anything the factory has ever put out.

So, no, I have nothing but good to say about older airplanes. After all,
they've been "proven" for half a century and most of the nastys have been
taken care of. Fatigue is a factor, but not as much as you might think.
Clyde Cessna built one hell of a machine back in those days. So did Bill
Piper.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle



Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

Kirk Ellis wrote:


Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't
look at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then
inevitably they pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are
inefficient. They have their missions but cross country isn't one
they're good at.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
Kirk Ellis wrote:


Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.

And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't look
at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then inevitably they
pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are inefficient. They
have their missions but cross country isn't one they're good at.

Yeh

C182. Just a terrible cross country machine.

Sometimes Usenet just astounds me.

Howard

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:56:20 -0700, "Howard"

C182. Just a terrible cross country machine.

Sometimes Usenet just astounds me.


That's not how I read it at all. He said "efficiency".

Lots of folks only look at GPH, and don't give airspeed or the typical
load, proper attention.

There are airplanes that are a lot faster for just a tad more fuel,
especially with a light load. In reality, more efficient.

B A R R Y wrote:


That's not how I read it at all. He said "efficiency".

Exactly.



Lots of folks only look at GPH, and don't give airspeed or the typical
load, proper attention.

There are airplanes that are a lot faster for just a tad more fuel,
especially with a light load. In reality, more efficient.

To compare apples to apples you have to do MPG. I had a 67 182, at top
of the green, 23"/2450, it would indicate about 135 MPH in the summer
and about 140 in the winter at 4500 feet(11 mpg). That's burning about
12 to 12.5. In the Bo I indicate 145-150 MPH at 8.5 GPH at my 45%
setting of 19"/2100(17.5 mpg). At 75% like the 182 the mpg drops to 13
but your going 55 mph faster.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:40:57 -0600, Newps wrote:


And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't
look at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then
inevitably they pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are
inefficient.

A terrific point.

GPH is only half of the equation when actually going places.

Kirk Ellis wrote:
..


Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
buying something that is almost as old as I am.


Never fly anything younger than you are, someone has to have experience :-)

More to the point a well maintained older airplane is just fine. Mines
a 1950 and until the engine swallowed a valve it was just fine. We had
an odd-ball engine (GO-435) and decided to reengine, then we just kept
going, but if the budget had been tighter we really didn't have to all
the stuff we did to the plane (new just about everything). I like Jim's
idea of buying a decent, but ragged out plane and fixing something every
year (if you have the time to work on it without negatively impacting
flying time too much). Ideally a nice long "vacation" period that goes
to the airplane is great.

Margy