First Time Buyer. Help!

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


You might add a (6) Ability to take overnight trips.

I would only add that if your overnight trips require IFR equipment not
available in a rental airplane.

That's my point. At least around here, the rentals have only basic IFR
equipment. Under that, the overnighters must be frequent enough to justify
the costs of ownership.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Ben Jackson wrote:

If you're "in PA" (instead of, say, CO)
most of the time the Turbo isn't going to matter at all.

Depends on where you're going. It will be real handy getting over the top
of the many
class-B airports in this area.


Which is generally how high? How bout the MEA's in the area?


--
"Flying an airplane is just like riding
a bike -- it's just a lot harder to put
baseball cards in the spokes" -- Capt. Rex Cramer

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...


You might add a (6) Ability to take overnight trips.

I would only add that if your overnight trips require IFR equipment not
available in a rental airplane.

As much as it is frustrating to pay 9 hours minimum rental for a 2-3 day
trip, almost certainly this would be cheaper than buying an airplane.
Suppose your rental airplane costs $80/hour and you have to pay for 4
hours
you do not use -- $320 is nothing compared with surprise maintenance bills
you could get owning an airplane. Suppose you make 10 such trips in a
year
for $3,200 in rental "overcharges" -- you will pay far more in
maintenance,
hangar/tiedown, and insurance for an airplane you own.

In my case, it's more like two or three a month. And around here, anyway,
$80 an hour will get you a VFR equipped 172 - not something I care to take
frequent trips from the Colorado front range to SLC, PHX, GTF, etc. Even the
flat land trips are usually 300nm or more.

I equate rental aircraft to rental cars: you pay all the maintenance costs
along with the profit margin of the rent-a-car company. Fine if your trips
are infrequent, especially if those infrequent trips are merely pleasure
trips rather than business. In my case, each business trip has $100K-$250K
or more on the line.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

In my case, it's more like two or three a month. And around here, anyway,
$80 an hour will get you a VFR equipped 172 - not something I care to take
frequent trips from the Colorado front range to SLC, PHX, GTF, etc. Even
the
flat land trips are usually 300nm or more.

In that case your flying hours and the difficulty of your typical missions
are substantially above that of most general aviation pilots. No doubt that
mission justifies owning an airplane. Given frequent trips to Colorado I
would think the minimum airplane for the mission is probably a turbocharged,
known-ice Mooney if a 4-place will do or else a known-ice Cessna T210/P210
if 6 seats or high payload is required. Renting this type of airplane is
virtually impossible except from the West Valley Flying Club in California.

I equate rental aircraft to rental cars: you pay all the maintenance costs
along with the profit margin of the rent-a-car company. Fine if your trips
are infrequent, especially if those infrequent trips are merely pleasure

Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning an
airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper. Very, very few general
aviation pilots fly that much.

trips rather than business. In my case, each business trip has $100K-$250K
or more on the line.

In that case does it make sense to fly yourself in a piston single? If that
much is on the line and these are "must be there" trips, would it make more
sense to charter a twin turboprop for better weather capability?


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article m,
Richard Kaplan wrote:

Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning an
airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper.

And I'd guess that very few renters fly 100-150 hours/year. So if you
fly your own plane enough to 'break even' versus renting, odds are you
are spending more in absolute terms than you would have as a renter.
You just get to fly more.

It's almost impossible to justify owning based on cost. What I did was
work out how much I thought it would cost per year, all told, and decided
I was willing to spend it. At around 100hr/yr many 4 place singles come
in at around $100/hr. If you are willing to spend $10,000/yr on flying
then you can probably be a happy owner. And remember that's going to be
lots of relatively painless fuel receipts and a few bills like maintenance
and insurance that will top $1000-2000.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

In my case, it's more like two or three a month. And around here,
anyway,
$80 an hour will get you a VFR equipped 172 - not something I care to
take
frequent trips from the Colorado front range to SLC, PHX, GTF, etc. Even
the
flat land trips are usually 300nm or more.

In that case your flying hours and the difficulty of your typical missions
are substantially above that of most general aviation pilots. No doubt
that
mission justifies owning an airplane. Given frequent trips to Colorado I
would think the minimum airplane for the mission is probably a
turbocharged,
known-ice Mooney if a 4-place will do or else a known-ice Cessna T210/P210
if 6 seats or high payload is required. Renting this type of airplane is
virtually impossible except from the West Valley Flying Club in
California.

I'm looking at an F33A and will likely add turbonormalization (TATurbo),
amybe SKS but I'm not sure that latter one's a necessity.


I equate rental aircraft to rental cars: you pay all the maintenance
costs
along with the profit margin of the rent-a-car company. Fine if your
trips
are infrequent, especially if those infrequent trips are merely
pleasure

Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning
an
airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper. Very, very few general
aviation pilots fly that much.

trips rather than business. In my case, each business trip has
$100K-$250K
or more on the line.

In that case does it make sense to fly yourself in a piston single? If
that
much is on the line and these are "must be there" trips, would it make
more
sense to charter a twin turboprop for better weather capability?

Charter costs for six or eight flights a month would be a killer I suspect.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
I'm looking at an F33A and will likely add turbonormalization (TATurbo),
amybe SKS but I'm not sure that latter one's a necessity.

For flying in the Colorado mountains on a regular mission-oriented basis?
Known-icing would be the first item on the list. Is the TKS on the F33A
STC'd yet for known-ice? I know they were aiming for it but I am not sure
if they achieved it.

Charter costs for six or eight flights a month would be a killer I
suspect.

Not if $100K to $250K are really "on the line" for each trip... it all
depends how mission-critical your trips are.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Which is generally how high? How bout the MEA's in the area?

The New York trio is 7,500', Philly is 7,500', and the Baltimore/DC trio is 10,000'.
Of course, the ADIZ reduces the utility of being able to get over the DC class-B.
Glancing at the IFR chart for this area, I see one MEA as low as 1,600' and a high of
14,000. Most are in the 2-5 thousand foot range. There have been noises about
increasing the NY class-B to 10,000'.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

That would be an awfully slow Mooney. My 1967 'C' model (the slowest
model of the mid 1960s Mooneys) does 140-145 kt. The 'E' models are 5-
7 kts faster.

I am talking "real" cruise numbers at realistic power settings below
10,000 feet. I used to own a 1967 Mooney M20C and if I flight planned
for 130 knots it would work out just about right.

I flight plan my 'C' model Mooney for 140 kts. 140-145 kts is a real
world number for me. I typically fly at 10-12,000 ft. WOT and 2500 RPM
in cruise, which are realistic power settings for me. Out west, not many
MEAs are less than 10,0000.

KR

Kudoos Ben. You hit the nail on the head. I made the same decision. I was
willing to pay the extra to own the plane rather than rent it. In my case,
I started flying so much more, that it has really been worth it. And I
bought a new plane!


"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:EH2cc.76692$JO3.40893@attbi_s04...
In article m,
Richard Kaplan wrote:

Agreed... except it takes 100-150 hours per year of flying before owning
an
airplane even slightly approaches being cheaper than renting and probably
200 hours before owning definitely is cheaper.

And I'd guess that very few renters fly 100-150 hours/year. So if you
fly your own plane enough to 'break even' versus renting, odds are you
are spending more in absolute terms than you would have as a renter.
You just get to fly more.

It's almost impossible to justify owning based on cost. What I did was
work out how much I thought it would cost per year, all told, and decided
I was willing to spend it. At around 100hr/yr many 4 place singles come
in at around $100/hr. If you are willing to spend $10,000/yr on flying
then you can probably be a happy owner. And remember that's going to be
lots of relatively painless fuel receipts and a few bills like maintenance
and insurance that will top $1000-2000.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/