First plane

Jim Carter wrote:


I call BS on that. I bought a grumman cheetah while learning to fly.
It was a great learning experience. Where do you get the data for

"most

cannot handle the added distraction?"

I would not recommend that a student of mine be trying to learn to fly
our trainers while at the same time looking for a different aircraft of
their own. First, they should be concentrating on the make and model
they will be flying for their tests. They should know the systems cold
and become intimately familiar with that aircraft. Then by the time they
get their license (usually only a couple of months) they understand what
they should expect to learn as they move to other makes or models.
Trying to do that all at once leaves gaps. I sure wouldn't want a
student to be learning in a PA-28 or a C-152 and be looking at or trying
to buy a Grumman. I've taught in all of them and they are different
birds. Let's learn one thing at a time, and learn it very well.


90 HP to 180 HP single engine fixed gear planes are all about the same.
I am not sure why this is a problem. (excepting tail draggers) It is
pretty simple - teach the speed to fly at the different phases of flight
and all is straightforward. Teaching a specific aircraft is problematic.

Again, what is it about your experience with students that leads you to
believe they cannot handle "the distraction" of owning an airplane?

snip

Apparently your position is that if one can handle the workload than all
should. I and others have suggested that most (not all) students would
be better served if they concentrated on the particular topic at hand,
which is learning to fly.

I stand by that position. Learning to fly is a complex and very
expensive endeavor. In the interest of both the learning curve and the
pocket book, students would be well served to focus on the learning
rather than the buying.

Besides, if the student is still learning to fly, how in the world does
he or she have the experience to know which make or model is right for
him or her? Sure they can post "what do I buy" questions on newsgroups,
but that too adds to the distraction of learning.

It is too bad that neither of us can substantiate our position with
data. It would be interesting to see the numbers on student pilots that
buy before getting licensed and how long they are happy with their
decision versus pilots that have rented for a while before they buy and
their happiness duration.

I also take issue with your position that 90 to 180 HP fixed gear
aircraft are all about the same. There is a tremendous difference in the
handling of a Cessna 177, an American Yankee AA1A, a Piper Cherokee 140,
and a Beech Skipper. Flaps on the Yankee were ornaments and the
non-steerable nosegear was a challenge for most at first. The elevator
ran out of effectiveness on the C177 before the slotted elevator came
along. The Cherokee was interesting in July and August in Texas and
Oklahoma and came down pretty fast until that low wing hit ground
effect.

The point is that each aircraft model has its own peculiarities as well
as systems and speeds. Learning one set before taking the PP check ride
is usually enough for most students with limited time and money.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim ]
Posted At: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:51 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: First plane
Subject: First plane

Jim Carter wrote:


I call BS on that. I bought a grumman cheetah while learning to
fly.
It was a great learning experience. Where do you get the data for

"most

cannot handle the added distraction?"

I would not recommend that a student of mine be trying to learn to
fly
our trainers while at the same time looking for a different aircraft
of
their own. First, they should be concentrating on the make and model
they will be flying for their tests. They should know the systems
cold
and become intimately familiar with that aircraft. Then by the time
they
get their license (usually only a couple of months) they understand
what
they should expect to learn as they move to other makes or models.
Trying to do that all at once leaves gaps. I sure wouldn't want a
student to be learning in a PA-28 or a C-152 and be looking at or
trying
to buy a Grumman. I've taught in all of them and they are different
birds. Let's learn one thing at a time, and learn it very well.


90 HP to 180 HP single engine fixed gear planes are all about the
same.
I am not sure why this is a problem. (excepting tail draggers) It
is
pretty simple - teach the speed to fly at the different phases of
flight
and all is straightforward. Teaching a specific aircraft is
problematic.

Again, what is it about your experience with students that leads you
to
believe they cannot handle "the distraction" of owning an airplane?

snip

In article . com,
says...
I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

Traveller, Traumahawk, C152, even a 150 - how many seats do you want?

--
Duncan

Fred - you may want to consider a C172 w/180 hp. The extra hp will get
you no more then 5 knots, but what a lift you'll get. Climbs with
gross weight (2550 lb) easily 1000 fpm.
I have LRT, which allows me at about 65% bhp to cruise for 5 hours.
Don't know if your
bladder will hold up, but it's very close to you specs.

My payload is 735 lb. That's not a bad payload figure. With the same
hp in a Piper, you will not get close to this figure or the 1000 fpm
either. I burn about 9.5, but use 10 gph. Now if go to a C182, you
will get close to the same payload, but burn rate is much more and the
cost to maintain is great.

I love my hybrid





fred wrote:
I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL.
People tell me that if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously
look into purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
renting.

If I buy (used, of course, but I'm open to the possibility of
joint ownerships/partnerships),
I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of luggage.
Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to about 500 miles.

I'm learning in a Cessna 152. My gut tells me that I'd like something
with a bit more speed than a C172, but I'm not seeking a high
performance aircraft.
High wing vs low wing is not a major issue.
Cost could be an issue.

What I seek is a table laying out performance and
payload characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic?

Thanks in advance.

5pguy wrote:
Fred - you may want to consider a C172 w/180 hp. The extra hp will get
you no more then 5 knots, but what a lift you'll get. Climbs with
gross weight (2550 lb) easily 1000 fpm.
I have LRT, which allows me at about 65% bhp to cruise for 5 hours.
Don't know if your
bladder will hold up, but it's very close to you specs.

My payload is 735 lb. That's not a bad payload figure. With the same
hp in a Piper, you will not get close to this figure or the 1000 fpm
either. I burn about 9.5, but use 10 gph. Now if go to a C182, you
will get close to the same payload, but burn rate is much more and the
cost to maintain is great.

/pedantry on

You must mean your "payload with full fuel" is 735 lbs. Otherwise with 5
hours of fuel at 10 gal/hr that's 600 lbs and leaves only 135 lbs. for
passengers or freight.

"Payload" is usually used to mean the total weight of fuel, passengers,
and freight, so that you can adjust the amount of fuel carried to fit
the mission. Payload is a better measure of an aircraft's capability
than "payload with full fuel".

/pedantry off

DB

I suppose I'm reviving a dead string on an active thread, but I think
most here would agree that "payload" refers to the weight available for
passengers and baggage with full fuel. "Useful load" is, as you
describe, "the total weight of fuel, passengers, and freight." The
only difference being that "useful load" only includes usable fuel,
because unusable fuel is included in the empty weight.


Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, IA
ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC



On Dec 19 2006, 8:11 am, Dave Butler wrote:
*****
"Payload" is usually used to mean the total weight of fuel, passengers,
and freight, so that you can adjust the amount of fuel carried to fit
the mission. Payload is a better measure of an aircraft's capability
than "payload with full fuel".

/pedantry off

DB
*****

Chad Speer wrote:
I suppose I'm reviving a dead string on an active thread, but I think
most here would agree that "payload" refers to the weight available for
passengers and baggage with full fuel. "Useful load" is, as you
describe, "the total weight of fuel, passengers, and freight." The
only difference being that "useful load" only includes usable fuel,
because unusable fuel is included in the empty weight.

I'd argue though, that "payload" refers to the weight of passengers and
baggage period. I've removed the word "available" and the reference to
fuel. Nevertheless your criticism of what I wrote previously is valid.
Thanks.

There isn't any real airplane equivalent to the Corolla or Civic.
Those machines provide high quality for reasonable price.

172s and Cherokees are the closest to mass produced airplanes, but they
are more like Fords and Chevys - they're noisy, they corrode and leak,
and cost a lot to maintain, particularly if you live in an urban area.

As others have said, you need to fly at least 100 hrs a year to break
even, and that's a lot of flying.

Having said that, there is nothing like owning a well maintained
airplane. I started looking for one of my own when every airplane I
rented seemed to have something on the squawk list.

"fred" == fred writes:

fred I'm a newbie working on getting a PPL. People tell me that
fred if I'm serious about flying, I should seriously look into
fred purchasing a plane - in the long run it'll be cheaper than
fred renting.

Yes, but after your initial training.

fred I'd need something that seats 4 adults and a small amount of
fred luggage. Expected useage would be trips of a few hundred to
fred about 500 miles.

Keep in mind that most aircraft can't realistically fill the seats
they have: you'll be overweight typically. Especially as Americans
have supersized themselves since these aircraft were designed and
built. So if you want to fly 4 adults, even without luggage, they
better be slim and trim OR you will need a 6-seater OR you will need a
real hauler airplane, like the C-182.

Also, it might be slower, door-to-door timing, to fly to places
instead of driving, less than 300-400 miles away, depending on a
number of factors.

fred What I seek is a table laying out performance and payload
fred characteristics for your basic single engine prop planes.

There are some books out there that offer this information, though not
as handy as a single table.

fred So what is the airplane equivalent of a Toyota Corolla or
fred Honda Civic?

Well, that's the problem. There are no Toyotas or Hondas in the used
airplane market, only 25-50 year old Fords, Chevys, and Buicks. And a
few of us on these groups remember how much maintenance the old cars
required.

You're doing the right thing. Continue to take your flight training
and also continue to investigate a plane that fills your needs. I
don't know how much money you're willing to spend, but you'll probably
find that the initial cost, in the long run, isn't the big factor,
though it naturally seems so. Instead, it's the operating and annual
fixed costs, which you won't recoup, that you should be watching.

Others will know the different planes and performance better than I,
but it sounds like you might want to look at a C-182, or equivalent in
the low wing aircraft.
--
"If you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if
you teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a
lifetime."