Owning airplanes

[Kycntryboy]

I am just wondering if anybody on this forum owns or plans to own their own plane and if they are practical or not.

 

[matt6599]

I am looking into buying a cessna 172 with one of my friends. The only way we could find it to be practical was to buy it and to put it on a lease back deal with one of the local flight schools. Lease back is only good if it flies enough though.

 

[Fly Navy]

I'd like to buy a plane eventually, provided I have enough money.

 

[bcatcher5]

I'd like to buy a plane eventually, provided I have enough money.

Millionares don't have to read this-

Well, you should look at the aircraft as an investment. Provided you do have enough money, maybe you could set up a business around the aircraft, so you can write off maintainance, depriciation, and other taxes against the business instead of your personal finances. If you don't have enough money to buy the aircraft in one lump sum, I am sure there is money floating around to finance the asset (just like a car). My friend bought his airplane through a time share program with another parter and will eventually buy it in the future. Also, to really justify buying/owning a plane, one would assume you are going to use it often. Not once a week or once a month.

I want to own my own plane someday, and the fact of the matter is, you could buy a farrari with that money too. So it's not a small investent.

 

[jg5343]

I really looked into it one time and the bottom line is that you will never be able to justify the cost of the plane unless you buy a $12k 152 and fly it everyday. Even then, rental on a 152 is $45/hr so after hangar fees and maintenance its still hard to justify financially. There are other forms of justification that will prompt me to but one eventually. Right now the best thing going is flight clubs and time share partners.

 

[airpirate25]

Since leaving active duty, I've been an employee of a general aviation service provider. Most of our customers who own aircraft fit the following demographic: 45 or older, private business owner 10yrs+, single engine, high performance 75-04 model, 110K base price, 400$/m hangar fee, $3.75/gallon avgas, 25-36 gal/hr, fly two-three times per week. In the last year, I've seen a spike in "sport pilot" aircraft (following ratification of the new sport pilot rule from the FAA). These guys ususally operate small, fabric covered or composite homebuilts, sometimes classic Aeronca's or Ercoupes. The cost for one of these planes ranges from 15K for a fair to 30K for top notch kitbuilt. Most of the pilots are early middle aged corporate types without families, but you do see the occaisional 25 yr old father of two contractor out here in a 7AC. Bottom line, "mainstream" GA has gotton way outta hand with maintaining and fueling and housing aircraft that cost as much as a new Italian sports car. The trend seems to be going with cheaper airfrmaes, engines and more hands on maintennance training...the trade off being you aren't going to take offf at night and fly cross country over the mountains in an Ercoupe.

 

[Sabre170]

I know of a person that owns a 182 and flys for several different drop zones flying skydivers. He leases the plane and in the contract, he is paid a set amount per jumper.

The dropzone, I jumped at leased a Super Otter under the same conditions.

 

[airpirate25]

Patmack: Kitfox looks and sounds like a great alternative to the bigger, more complicated ( but powerful) and infinitely more expensive Citabria. I'm looking to buy a 7AC, probably a '46-'49 65hp model. The biggest expense I've counted on is the fabric, which even after restoration needs to be babied if you want it to last well past 15 yrs. I actually pipe-dreamed for a day or two on the new Titan "T-51", a 3/4 scale, Rotax powered P-51 replica...it looks like the real deal, sounds pretty bad arse, but the little engine that could reminds you you're just a "mere mortal" . Good luck with the Kitfox...I hear they even have an amphib kit out for it

 

[airpirate25]

We've got a salty old guy here at the FBO who really lives the dream, A&P for 20yrs, owns a C140, has the old hound dog, the works...I mean this guy's like Waldo Pepper or something...anyway, he saves alot of money by doing his own work of course.

 

[Pitz]

I've owned 2 airplanes. Both 172's. It's wonderful to have the option to head out to the airport anytime you feel like it and go flying for a while. Or the flexibility to fly around for an entire day just airport hopping. And then long trips are great because you can take your time, drop in on grass fields or whatever looks interesting, and you are not charged a minimum daily fee.

But no matter how you slice it, renting is aways cheaper. Try as you may, you can't beat the cost of renting. Hangar, annuals, maintenance, insurance, surprises, it's always costs more than you planned.

Next time I get an airplane I'll get a partner. Planes sit most of the time so cut your fixed costs in half with a partner or two. But you shouldn't think about doing that now either. Rent for now.

Fying a small plane is a thrill and I still enjoy it after about 1,500 hours in the two 172's I've owned. For instance, last year I flew the Lewis and Clark Trail. Took them three years round trip. Took me 40 hours in a 172! You can't do that in a rental! Oops, there I go again, trying in vain to justify owning an airplane (I'm sure it's a disease).

Forget about owning right now. Just go rent. Fly as much as you can. The more you fly (certain maneuvers), the better you will do in Primary. The T-34 is just a glorified 172 and you can simulate T-34 maneuvers very well in a 172 or other small plane. It flies almost exactly like one except it climbs a little slower and isn't aerobatic. As for the T-6, it's a glorified T-6, so still basicly the same.

Keep on renting, you'll get much more flight time in the short-run if you rent. And that's what you need right now. Solid flight time while concentrating on the specific maneuvers.

Once you get to flight school you won't even think about flying civilian airplanes for a long time. There's much more work to do.

Don't worry about getting checked out in more expensive higher performance aircraft either. Practice in the 172. Don't go joy riding, practice! The Navy trains on every flight, so should you.

 

[airpirate25]

Pitz said it best...if you're still a stud, you got enough on your plate; fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it), I'm just happy to get up on a Saturday am and swat some skeeters over the tobacco fields Thanks for the reality check

 

[Fly Navy]

The T-34 is just a glorified 172 and you can simulate T-34 maneuvers very well in a 172 or other small plane.

I've only got 150 hours total time, so take my comment for what it's worth (not much), but in my opinion, a T-34C is not a glorified Cessna 172. There is quite a bit of difference between a 160 HP piston powered fixed-gear simple aircraft and a 550 SHP turbo-prop complex high-performance aircraft. While you can of course do the same manuevers, most students, including me, found their head exploding the first time in a T-34C.

That's just my input on that.

By the way, I'd like to hear more about flying the Lewis & Clark trail!

 

[Kycntryboy]

I wasn't thinking about doing it now, but I gave it some thought after I got stationed. Thought it might be a good way to travel back and forth. Also after my career is done with the Navy and I was fortunate enough to get a job of a Airliner or UPS, I thought that I could travel from my house via a local small airport, to the larger airport.

 

[airpirate25]

Yes, the T-34C was definitely more challenging than a 172 from a cockpit management standpoint, and the power difference really does show on take-off and landing. I've flown 150's, Pitts biplanes, 172's and even got a little stick time in a B-25 on top of my T-34 experience. I think Pitz's main point was that understanding the core elements of a specific maneuver and how the various inputs of power and configuration play in is the same. There's little doubt that practicing power off stalls in a Cessna until you can explain not only how, but why it works will be of infinte value when trying to learn the same drill in another airframe. Now, of course, complex trainers like the T-45 and follow on aircraft are very systems orientated, and in that respect...an entirely different story. Not knowing Pitz'z resume, I'd assume he'd agree that flying a 172 or even a T-34 like a pro doesn't mean your first ride in a GE rocketship with computer controlled flight surfaces will be a gravy train.