First Time Buyer. Help!

I bought my plane at about 25 hours. I was incredibly bored with the
planes
I was renting. The new plane was so much nicer to fly. I flew much
more
often, and enjoyed it much more.

How long have you owned this plane? If you have owned it 5+ years, then
yes, it was a good deal. If that time has not yet elapsed, then time will
tell if it meets your needs as your flying habits evolve.


You rely on the statement that I am challenging to defend itself. Its the 5
years that I am challenging, so using it as a comeback doesn't help me make
sense of what you are trying to teach me.

I can assure you that if I were to trade up ( which I may do), I would still
be ahead due to tax savings. My plane is on a leaseback, and its not really
costing much at all. So what if it doesn't meet my needs anymore, my point
was that it takes much less time before the penalty for trading up is too
much. Also, how many hours does one have to fly before they are ready to
move up in ANY case? Renting a plane at $80 an hour for 200 hours is
$16,000 plus two years rental insurance for a total of $16,800. If you buy
a 60k plane, put 200 hours on it in 2 years, what is the worst you will lose
out? Maybe it will end up costing you an extra $4,000 or $5,000, IF you
really did buy the wrong plane. In the meantime, you had a lot of value you
get by being the owner and not having to schedule, pay daily minimums, etc.

Also, if you buy a new plane, it can make sense to move up much sooner
than
5 years because of depreciation rules. If you buy used, you can usually
get

A student pilot buying a new plane?!? $200K invested in a very recently
aquired hobby?

Newly acquired hobby only if you don't count time spent from childhood
through adulthood building models, reading about aviation, looking up at
every plane flying by, and wishing I were able to fly. Are you full time in
the aviation business? You seem to have lost the passion, man! Certainly,
without knowing the income of the person you are working with, its hard to
tell what they consider a reasonable loss, but to anyone in the flying hobby
an extra couple thousand a year can't be a huge mistake.



most of what you paid for the plane if not more (assuming you don't get
taken on the buy). So I really don't get your 5 year rule.

If you sell a used plane within a few years of buying it, you will no
doubt
have spent more money in catch-up maintenance than you can realistically
recover when you sell it.


Aha! This could be a gem of info. I am completely inexperienced here.
Tell me more. What kind of bill are we looking at on a 50 to 100k basic
plane like 182, arrow, mooney etc. I know the common wisdom on avionics is
that adding them to an old frame gets a poor return, but what about other
repairs and fixes. Are there any rules of thumb like 20% or 50% or what
not?


On the other hand, if what you really want is an Archer, and it meets
your
needs, then why wait?

Because at 25 hours it is unlikely you will know what you really want.
Your needs will change, you will prefer X-ctry or aerobatics or you will
need to go into short strips or you will need extended range or who knows
what else will change.


Perhaps I mistated. I think you may not know what you WANT. What you NEED
will be much easier to identify though. Where you are going to travel
shouldn't change because you get more hours. You can talk about your mission
with other pilots, instructors, FBO owners, plane salesmen, etc.. I got a
LOT of info from these sources when I bought. Much of it contradictory, but
it was easy enough to weed through. I suppose if you really don't know what
you want or need, then you should wait. However, that seems to be a matter
of maturity and research over pilot experience.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

See my disagreement with this above. In my mind, a pilot should get
over
a
hundred hours (more is better) before stepping up to anything more than
a
180hp or less trainer. Most people take 2 years to fly that 100 hours.

Absolutely... Beyond a doubt a pilot with under 100 hours does not know
yet
what his/her long-term flying mission is and buying an airplane at that
time
is probably not a good idea.


Ahh, but what if what they buy is a trainer or trainer like plane? You see,
you jumped a step in your logic. I have seen several older pilots stepping
down from their higher powered machines to Archers, Skyhawks, Stars, Tigers
etc. These planes do meet the wants and needs of many pilots with enough
hours and skills to fly more "advanced" planes. The Star and Tiger are
really good examples because the are nearly as fast many more powerful
planes.


Perhaps your advice is too general? Maybe its even best for the
majority,
but in my mind, not the overwhelming majority.

It is the very rare pilot indeed who at less than 100 hours has a good
feel
for what airplane will suit his long-term flying missions.

And it is the very rare pilot indeed who at less than 100 hours has a good
grasp of the economics of airplane ownership.


I think that you and Jay have found the mark above. It can be a seperate
skill set. Many students don't know anything about larger planes, while
nuts like me read everything we could get our hands as soon as we started on
our private.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

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

More like "over" than "in".

How do you plan to get "over" the clouds in the winter?


Around here they top out at 10-12K during winter. Besides, I'd rather not go
_through_ mountain during winter (or summer for that matter) even with
deicing equipment.

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

Hmm...in looking around, I'd say I've seen ZERO known-ice singles
around.

Do you mean you do not see that many for sale or you do not see them on
the
ramp?

For Sale..but as for "on the ramp", Is say I haven't taken that much notice
(not that I won't now that the suggestions been offered).


If the former, just look at Mooneys, 210/T210/P210s, Malibus, and
Commanders.
If the latter, do they fly practical cross-countries multiple times per
month?

Maybe for the winter months, but that's our slow season (custom home
building).

April is the most common month for icing accidents.

Yes, and that's the start of our work season in the more northern latitudes.


For that money I'd look at a known-ice turboprop.

Probably not a bad idea for someone with the mission profile you
describe...
either you will end up spending more money on charters or airplane
ownership
or you will decide your mission is not so critical and cancel some trips
or
you will drive or fly commercial on a good number of your trips.

Where we work, commercial flights are not really an option. When we go to a
site, there's at least two of us and sometimes three. We judiciously avoid
the larger metro areas where there's a lot of competition.

Except for flights restricted to the non-mountainous parts of the
Southwest
or the warm parts of the South, the odds of realistically completing
multiple monthly mission-critical cross-country business trips in a
non-deiced piston single are nil unless you are willing to accept regular
cancellations.

So far we've had just a few cancellations (and WE make the determination of
when to visit sites in progress, but clients make the determination for
first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition for
going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily work for
has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our group.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition for
going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily work
for
has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our
group.

I think a really nice compromise would be using something like a Bonanza or
even a C182 for VFR or benign IFR flights but having access to a twin
turboprop like a KingAir for days when weather is a challenge. This sort of
arrangement would allow the economic advantages of a piston single combined
with the weather capability of a twin turboprop.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dude" wrote in message
news
You rely on the statement that I am challenging to defend itself. Its the
5
years that I am challenging, so using it as a comeback doesn't help me
make
sense of what you are trying to teach me.

What I am saying is that there are a lot of random expenses involved in
airplane maintenance so that a year or even two years is not enough to get
an accurate cost of maintaining a given airplane, but these things tends to
average out over 5 years.

In other words, if I were to look at my airplane maintenance expenses for a
given year they might differ by as much as a factor of 3, yet a running
5-year average would be fairly predictable.


I can assure you that if I were to trade up ( which I may do), I would
still
be ahead due to tax savings.

What tax savings do you get by owning instead of renting? If you mean
depreciation, then you have to balance that against the cost of capital of
buying an airplane. Rental prices spread the cost of capital over many
users, so an accurate comparison of rental vs. owning usually favors renting
from a purely economic perspective.


My plane is on a leaseback, and its not really
costing much at all.

Well the only leaseback model I have seen that works well is where the owner
is an A&P or otherwise can tightly control maintenance costs.

A new airplane has much lower maintenance costs, but the value of a new
airplane depreciates and thus creates a high risk of a loss.


So a 60k plane, put 200 hours on it in 2 years, what is the worst you will
lose
out? Maybe it will end up costing you an extra $4,000 or $5,000, IF you
really did buy the wrong plane. In the meantime, you had a lot of value
you

You could lose much more than that. A new engine could cost twice your
estimated maximum loss. New exhaust, corrosion repair, new prop are others
which could cause very significant blips in maintenance costs.

every plane flying by, and wishing I were able to fly. Are you full time
in
the aviation business? You seem to have lost the passion, man!
Certainly,
without knowing the income of the person you are working with, its hard to
tell what they consider a reasonable loss, but to anyone in the flying
hobby
an extra couple thousand a year can't be a huge mistake.

I haven't lost the passion at all; I am as addicted to airplanes as anyone
else. I have, however, been around enough to have a sense of the economic
reality of owning an airplane.

I only wish the risk of airplane maintenance were only an extra couple
thousand dollars per year. I have known any number of instances where
surprise maintenance cost a pilot 20% of the value of an airplane -- no
matter if the airplane is a Piper Cub or a Gulfstream, that is a lot of
money.



Aha! This could be a gem of info. I am completely inexperienced here.
Tell me more. What kind of bill are we looking at on a 50 to 100k basic
plane like 182, arrow, mooney etc. I know the common wisdom on avionics
is
that adding them to an old frame gets a poor return, but what about other
repairs and fixes. Are there any rules of thumb like 20% or 50% or what
not?

A typical rule of thumb is to expect 5% to 10% of an airplane's cost in
"catch up" maintenance with a possible upper limits of 20% if you get really
unlucky.


Perhaps I mistated. I think you may not know what you WANT. What you
NEED
will be much easier to identify though. Where you are going to travel

Most students do not have a good sense of what avionics they will need.
They also tend not to have enough perspective on weather patterns to make
judgments on items like weather avoidance equipment vs. a nice paint job,
turbocharger vs. extended fuel tanks, etc.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Ahh, but what if what they buy is a trainer or trainer like plane? You
see,
you jumped a step in your logic. I have seen several older pilots
stepping

I agree completely that a training airplane fits the bill for many pilots.
But I also see lots of pilots with trainers who get bored after they get
their private certificate because they decide that cross-country flight or
aerobatics are what they really enjoy. So they buy a trainer but fly it
less than 50 hours per year, whereas perhaps they would get much more
enjoyment out of an aerobatic Citabria or a faster cross-country airplane in
which they can visit family.

Flying patterns change considerably after one gets a private certificate.
One huge factor in this is family support -- the pilot whose spouse is
thrilled with his/her first flight in an airplane may go on to buy a
cross-country flying machine, while the pilot whose spouse is terrified of
airplanes might be better off with a 2-seat aerobatic airplane. These sorts
of things cannot usually be predicted while a pilot is in training.


I think that you and Jay have found the mark above. It can be a seperate
skill set. Many students don't know anything about larger planes, while
nuts like me read everything we could get our hands as soon as we started
on
our private.

That is absolutely true, but no matter how much you read it is hard to have
a sense of weather patterns on your likely routes until you start flying.
If you discover that icing typically blocks Thanksgiving trips to visit
Grandma in the Northeast, that could have a radically different effect on
your airplane choice than if you lived in Texas.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition
for
going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily work
for
has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our
group.

I think a really nice compromise would be using something like a Bonanza
or
even a C182 for VFR or benign IFR flights but having access to a twin
turboprop like a KingAir for days when weather is a challenge. This sort
of
arrangement would allow the economic advantages of a piston single
combined
with the weather capability of a twin turboprop.

Thanks for the points.

Our missions run typically two types:

1) Initial contact with clients or sub-contractors; entails three and
occasionly four travelers. These are MUST be meetings.

2) Followup's and periodic inspections - one or two people and can be
delayed.

For a turboprop, we've got experience with a Jetprop 900 (1000 conversion)
and that thing is sweet. Maybe a 690B or a 840...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
first contacts, negotiations...), but you've given me some ammunition
for
going to my partners for a second aircraft. The company I primarily
work
for
has a nice stable of aircraft, but they're ten times the size of our
group.

I think a really nice compromise would be using something like a Bonanza
or
even a C182 for VFR or benign IFR flights but having access to a twin
turboprop like a KingAir for days when weather is a challenge. This
sort
of
arrangement would allow the economic advantages of a piston single
combined
with the weather capability of a twin turboprop.

Thanks for the points.

Our missions run typically two types:

1) Initial contact with clients or sub-contractors; entails three and
occasionly four travelers. These are MUST be meetings.

2) Followup's and periodic inspections - one or two people and can be
delayed.

For a turboprop, we've got experience with a Jetprop 900 (1000 conversion)
and that thing is sweet. Maybe a 690B or a 840...

(Too quick on the SEND button.)

This one might possibly be placed on leaseback so that it does get full
utilization.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:35:54 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

Does your FBO actually have a limit on how far away you can take the
airplane in miles?

Yes. 100 nm for rentals. The owner prefers to do all work on his
aircraft and that is the distance he is comfortable flying out in the
event of needed repair.

That would be quite odd and would seem to defeat the
point of flying.

I agree. Hence, this thread. :-)

If the problem instead is that the FBO has a minimum number of hours for a
daily rental, then I suspect that even if you took the airplane for a week
at a time occasionally with say a 3-hour daily minimum, you still would come
out way, way ahead financially compared with owning your airplane.

I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable minimum. It is availability for
longer trips that I'm looking for.

Not only that, but if you are known to the FBO as a responsible renter and
frequent customer, I suspect you might well be able to negotiate more
flexible cross-country rental terms than the official terms offered to the
public.

I am still hopeful that negotiation for the Arrow will be possible for
some cross countries moderately over 100 nm this summer. Pittsburgh
to Sandusky, OH comes immediately to mind.

Richard, thank you for all your thoughtful posts to me on this
subject. You and the other experienced pilots in the group have given
me a *lot* to think about.

I'm taking a cross-country flight from my home field in Pittsburgh to
Chicago with my instructor tomorrow. Yes, that's far beyond the
normal 100 nm rule, but the owner realizes the educational value of
such a trip and we got an exception.

At the least, I think I need to discuss an arrangement with him
regarding the Arrow. You are correct: it is seldomly rented. Perhaps
with generous renter's hull insurance and an agreement regarding
potential repairs on the road, something may be worked out.

Again, to you and to all the others: my many many thanks.

--
Kay
Student Pilot
email: remove "ns" from "aviationns"









-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----