What would you buy with a 50k budget?

I'm just sort of curious, Mike. What is there on a 1958 airplane that is
going to break after 500 hours flying it that isn't going to break on a 2008
airplane after 500 hours flying it. No handwaving. Point to parts.

Jim

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



Anyway, it comes down to how badly you want it and how much you are
willing to risk going in with a limited budget. Sure, you can buy a cheap
bird from Trade-a-Plane. Sure, you can buy something from before the
Kennedy administration. It might fly around for a while, might not. Choose
newer and/or well maintained (pricier) equipment and the risk tends to go
down along with the unexpected "surprises".

RST Engineering wrote:
I'm just sort of curious, Mike. What is there on a 1958 airplane that is
going to break after 500 hours flying it that isn't going to break on a 2008
airplane after 500 hours flying it. No handwaving. Point to parts.


This is a good point. 18 years of ownership have taught me that airplanes
from the 70s/80s have about the same maintenance requirements as planes from
the 50s/60s. Once a plane is more than a decade old with a few thousand
hours on the clock, maintenance requirements are more affected by how it has
been treated, rather than its chronological age.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200805/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com blithered dramatically whilst picking the
gonad hairs from his teeth once fluffy on the testicles of his retaded
son :
RST Engineering wrote:
I'm just sort of curious, Mike. What is there on a 1958 airplane that is
going to break after 500 hours flying it that isn't going to break on a 2008
airplane after 500 hours flying it. No handwaving. Point to parts.


This is a good point. 18 years of ownership have taught me that airplanes
from the 70s/80s have about the same maintenance requirements as planes from
the 50s/60s. Once a plane is more than a decade old with a few thousand
hours on the clock, maintenance requirements are more affected by how it has
been treated, rather than its chronological age.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Much too sweeping of a statement. Age of avionics, any other
electromechanical device, consider age related metal fatigue/failures,
quality of rebuilds........the older the greater thechance for misuse.

Wing Flap wrote:


Much too sweeping of a statement. Age of avionics, any other
electromechanical device, consider age related metal fatigue/failures,
quality of rebuilds........the older the greater thechance for misuse.

Age of avionics is independent of the airframe age. These tend to be
updated over the years.

Metal fatigue is more related to the number and quality of hours on the
airframe (I'm talking about non-pressurized GA) than chronological age.

the older the greater thechance for misuse.

This is much too sweeping of a statement. Some of the most abused
aircraft belong to FBOs and tend to be of the newer variety. One of my
neighborhood FBOs has several PA28 trainers from the 80s that are pushing 15,
000 hrs. on the airframes.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200805/1