Airplane Ownership

unicate (Shirley) wrote in message ...
Anyone here buy their own airplane to do their training in before being
licensed? I am a glider pilot transitioning to power. Any
suggestions/recommendations, advice, cautions? Thanks in advance.

Bought mine one month after getting PPSEL. Then used it for
instrument training. Given the frequent conflicts with weather,
maintenance, other users, it really helped to have my own plane, not
to mention the familiarity with the plane's performance, settings etc
that comes from flying your own plane. That is very nice for
instrument training and flying.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
longer true.

I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.

Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
$50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
of premium for just the pretty boxes.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Cessna sold out an entire years 182 and 206 production in one hour following
the announcement that they would have the G1000. That tells me that people
desire glass cockpits. You should also know that the glass cockpits are
cheaper than the analog gauges that they replace. I would hate to be the
guy who bought the last non-glass 182.

Mike
MU-2





"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
longer true.

I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.

Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
$50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
of premium for just the pretty boxes.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Yes, but Cessna also cut their production in half this year. Also, it's the
dealers that are buying these. If you look on the various aircraft for sale
websites, you'll see that the dealers are advertising them as available.
So, it remains to be seen exactly how fast they will be snatched up.
Although, I'd tend to believe that they'll go quickly.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Cessna sold out an entire years 182 and 206 production in one hour
following
the announcement that they would have the G1000. That tells me that
people
desire glass cockpits. You should also know that the glass cockpits are
cheaper than the analog gauges that they replace. I would hate to be the
guy who bought the last non-glass 182.

Mike
MU-2





"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
I believe that the reason that airplanes have appreciated is that
the older ones have been, for all practical purposes, equal to the
new ones. With the advent of the glass cockpit, his is no
longer true.

I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.

Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
$50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
of premium for just the pretty boxes.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Go on......

"Dan Luke" wrote
I don't agree that the glass cockpits add a tremendous amount of real
value over old instruments combined with an MFD. Consider the
experience of Cirrus Designs, which believed, naively, it turned out,
that glass cockpits would make their airplanes notably safer than older
designs. The only thing I find really exciting about the new designs is
the electronic AHRS which finally supplants the old pneumatic gyros.

Sheer pizzazz is selling new glass cockpit airplanes now, but when they
get old enough for the used market, it's uncertain that they will
command a large premium. Will prices of used 2003 Skylanes be depressed
$50K vs. 2004 ones? It's hard for me to picture myself paying that kind
of premium for just the pretty boxes.
--

It may, in the long run, not matter about "real value." "Perceived value"
might move the market. Think how many times the threads about VORs going the
way of the NDB have been posted in the rec.aviation.* newsgroups.

Gig G

I bought a cherokee (180hp) after I solo'd (then had to get signed
off and solo again because I'd solo'd in a cessna). Reduced considerably
the four conditions to fly

1) my schedule
2) instructor schedule
3) weather
4) aircraft schedule

One of my big problems in training was the scheduling. With my
own aircraft, #1 and 4 became irrelevant.

As much as I'd like faster or 2 engines, the cherokee is just
fine for 90% of my flying.

Kyler Laird wrote in message ...
unicate (Shirley) writes:

I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice, suggestions,
cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to avoid,
red flags, etc.

Take a look at previous threads on the topic. There are several.

I started my Private with the intention of just boring holes in
the sky when I was a kid. When I finally got serious about it, I
bought a twin and finished. I fly because it allows me to make
trips I couldn't make otherwise. It's very rare that I make a
flight that I could have reasonably made in a "trainer" (or even
in a "step-up" plane like an Arrow or C-182).

I think it's important to decide early whether you're going to
eventually want something more than a "trainer". If so, do you
really want to buy a trainer for your primary instruction? If
you do, think *hard* about resale value and don't go nuts on
avionics. Also consider how your experience is going to look to
an insurer. (It might make more sense to get a low-end
retractable now if you're going to want insurance for a
retractable later.) Long-range insurance planning can make a
*big* difference.


I have to disagree here. The best advice I was given before I
purchased my first airplane was "Buy for the next 5 years...not the
next 30". I know quite a few people around the airport who bought
expensive 'touring' planes (A-36s or Barons) that just sit on the
tarmac because they cost $200 an hour to fly. They bought them with
the intention of flying them on long trips etc., but they almost never
fly them because it sosts too much to bore holes in the sky, and
unless you bore holes in the sky, you aren't current enough to handle
a Bone.

Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
hours, and for these things, an hour in a $30/hour 152 is the same as
an hour in a $150/hr A36.

Since planes like this don't depreciate much (if at all), then all
that will be lost by buying a cheaper, small plane to train in is the
opportunity cost of the money, which right now isn't all that much and
interest expenses, which are more than outweighed by the cost savings
of owning a plane that you fly 125 hours per year.

If I was in this persons shoes, I'd go out and buy a $25,000-$35,000
four seater. A 1960s vintage 172, or a Beech Musketeer. You get much
more functionality out of it that you would a two seater, and the
operating costs are not that much higher. Both of these planes are
inexpensive to operate and own, and will certainly do for training,
local flight and XCs of less than about 400 NM.

This is basically what I did do myself, altho I waited until I
finished my private license to buy it. A couple friends and I bought a
1963 Beech Musketeer for $26,000 and flew the heck out of it. I did my
instrument and commercial training it it, and some of my CFI. Took it
all over...we put over 500 hours on it the first year we owned it. And
it eneded up being *much* cheaper than renting one of the FBOs beater
172s. While they wanted $72 an hour for a 172, the fully loaded costs
of the Musketeer over almost 3 years came out to be right around $47
per hour, wet, including some fairly expensive maintenence items.
Right there, that saved me thousands of dollars.

After you use this plane to get your license, *then* decide if you
need something more. I'm buying another plane like this (sold my
Musketeer to a club for a very tidey profit and a membership in the
club). The Club has a nice touring plane (A Cessna 206) and may be
getting a twin. Given that I need these planes maybe 5 times a year
for longer trips, it makes more sense for me to own a 'cheap' plane
(i.e. a $40 per hour 172 or Musketeer) and fly the club plane (at $80
or $125 an hour) than to own a more expensive plane.

Different strokes for different folks tho, so this is just my two
cents worth

Cheers,

Cap



It might be quite a bit better in the long run to go somewhere
else (like an intensive course?) to finish your Private and just
save for the plane you really want. It *could* even work to get
*that* plane for your primary instruction because insurance will
probably require a bunch of dual in it anyway. (You won't hear
many people advising that you get a high-performance retract for
primary training. I'm just saying that you should consider it.)

Bottom line...decide what you're likely to want out of your
plane before you start looking at buying one, then learn about
the possibilities for *your* situation.

--kyler

Where did you get your Musketeer? Is there enough of these around still for
second hand purchases?

Richard

"dlevy" wrote in message
...
I bought a Musketeer at the exact same time in training. It has worked
out
well for me. I finished up my training and still own and enjoy the plane
four years later.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...

Thanks. Good advice. I have my medical, have taken and passed the
written
and
have done the initial training and soloed in a Cessna 150. Made the
decision to
stop flying that airplane due to unresolved maintenance issues. Still
have
to
do the x-countries, hood work and finish the solo time. Have independent
CFI
friends but no airplane, and not comfortable picking a random
school/CFI.

I wasn't specific in my other post, but am asking for advice,
suggestions,
cautions, tips on the airplanes themselves -- what to look for, what to
avoid,
red flags, etc.

(Captain Wubba) writes:

Since the original poster is just finishing their private license, for
the next 2 or 3 years (at least) they will be working on their
instrument ticket, their Commercial ticket...stuff that requires
hours,

How do you know? *I* certainly didn't. Within six months of getting
my Private, I was touring the country with my family in my Aztec. Had
I been limited to putting in hours in some little plane, there's a
good chance I would have given up flying (again). That would have been
a lousy investment.

I think it's silly to pretend that all pilots are going to be
motivated by the desire to "get hours."

--kyler