PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Pilot Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on November 02, 2015, 07:31:39 AM
-
After some reflection, I realized that I have never properly understood and thusly communicated my true mission as a pilot. When I flew, it was usually with full passengers and bags to get to a destination 1hour away. Other times I fly, its just to maintain 90 day currency so I can do my typical mission.
Due to changes in my family life, my mission profile has changed. I've also disposed of my ownership stake in a C-172SP that I've had for the last 4 years. I didn't put as many hours on it as I envisioned. Now, my 80%+ mission should be to simply to burn AvGas (or MoGas, which I'm not sure is locally available) experiencing the joy of flight and improving my aviation skills. In order to do this more often, my ideal airplane should be inexpensive to purchase, own and operate.
With that stated, I should be looking for a two seater airplane in the low power category, but also something that possibly I can train for my IR and take the checkride in. I think 3hrs endurance (2 + 1hr reserve) should be sufficient for calculating gross weight along with 2 grown men. Since it will be based inside the DC-FRZ I require a radio and Mode-C capabilities as a minimum.
I can live without /G or autopilot, but it was certainly nice having them in the Skyhawk. I haven't thought about a budget yet, but I've seen many really cheap airplanes with decent equipment on some of the sales websites.
Any suggestions?
-
How about going back into your ownership share of the 172SP? It sounds like a perfect match for your "new" mission, with 4 seats if necessary. Am I missing something?
I trained in an OMF Symphony - N380MF. It has a 160hp Lycoming, a stick, and a nice, simple panel. But it only had two seats, despite being more like a 172 than a 152.
Here's one just like it:
http://m.controller.com/ListingDetail/Index?listingId=1391245&categoryId=6
-
The based location was the largest of my grippes. It was inconvenient for me to just hop over to the airport and get in a quick flight, so I never did. I need to be able to maintain better than minimum standards and get on to flying just for the fun of it. Lowered expenses would help also. I'm reading about the Liberty XL2, which allegedly would cost about $5700/yr for a pilot who flew 100hrs/year. For those same 100hrs, the 172 would cost me ~$9300
-
If it were just me flying by myself, I'd probably look for a Grumman AA1/A, B, or C. Inexpensive to operate, and a few knots faster than similarly powered trainers. They are a blast to fly, also and have nice handling characteristics.
-
Anthony- I knew I could count on you to mention the AA-1 series. From what I've seen of those, wouldn't it be a trivial cost differential to just buy a Cheetah or maybe even a Tiger, then I could capture more of my mission profile (those occasions I need to fill all the seats)?
-
Anthony- I knew I could count on you to mention the AA-1 series. From what I've seen of those, wouldn't it be a trivial cost differential to just buy a Cheetah or maybe even a Tiger, then I could capture more of my mission profile (those occasions I need to fill all the seats)?
You really pay a premium for the extra seats and HP, especially in the Tiger. A Cheetah or even a Traveller would be a good compromise though, and you could at least carry three pretty easily. I found the back seats of my Tiger was usually empty or just had bags on the seats, but I did like having the higher performance and load carrying capabilities, but it does come at a cost up front, and to operate (mostly fuel burn).
When I am in the market for another plane, I may try the Mooney M20 series, but I want to get more hours in them.
-
IIRC the Traveler had 150HP, the Cheetah 160 and Tiger 180. So fuel burn should be around: 8, 9, 10.5 respectively @ 75% power. Is that about right? I've seen Travelers for 25k and Cheetahs for 35k and Tigers for 55k.
-
Instrument equipped RV-4/RV-6 or Thorpe T-18 - fun, practical (enough), and the Thorpe's can usually be had pretty cheap.
'Gimp
-
Instrument equipped RV-4/RV-6 or Thorpe T-18 - fun, practical (enough), and the Thorpe's can usually be had pretty cheap.
'Gimp
Yea, but then you'd have to tell ATC that you're a Thorpe. ;)
-
Instrument equipped RV-4/RV-6 or Thorpe T-18 - fun, practical (enough), and the Thorpe's can usually be had pretty cheap.
'Gimp
Yea, but then you'd have to tell ATC that you're a Thorpe. ;)
Hey, with 100 posts I'm now a "Full member"! Does that give me voting rights?
-
IIRC the Traveler had 150HP, the Cheetah 160 and Tiger 180. So fuel burn should be around: 8, 9, 10.5 respectively @ 75% power. Is that about right? I've seen Travelers for 25k and Cheetahs for 35k and Tigers for 55k.
Yes, that is pretty much spot on for the fuel burn. I think your prices are pretty close too, but as I am sure you know avionics, time, condition, etc all make the costs go up and down.
-
If 80% of your flying is just to have fun and goof off I'd find a 150. If you have some $ hanging around, man that Symphony looks good. I craved one when they first came out.
Fly a cheap 2-seater to keep in practice and rent a 172 or PA when you have passengers.
-
You have defined the mission, but not the budget. What is most important is the overall annual operating budget, not purchase price. With the market is now, people will have you in a Mooney, or Bonanza in a heartbeat, but those are not the cheapest operating budget.
You also mentioned getting your IR in this new plane. If you are serious about this idea, it should weigh heavy on your selection choice. The problem with nearly universally all experimentals and also the Grumman AA-1 is they have "sporty", light handling. In VFR this makes them lots of fun. Learning instrument flying it makes them nightmares. Yes these types of planes can be successfully flown on instruments, but I would highly suggest learning in something that handles like a 182 (a dump truck on railroad tracks) to learn and then later get a plane that is "sporty" once you are virtuoso on hand flying IFR.
Given a very low budget for operations and acquisition, I would recommend the very tried, true and tired old advice of a Cherokee 140. However I would also look at Piper Tomahawks, Beech Skippers, possibly Alarus 2000s and Cessna 152s if you like high wings. I think any of the smaller trainers will be more of a challenge under the hood, or in IMC, but doable. Light weight = easily off course and over control, but light weight also = cheap to run.
-
After some reflection, I realized that I have never properly understood and thusly communicated my true mission as a pilot. When I flew, it was usually with full passengers and bags to get to a destination 1hour away. Other times I fly, its just to maintain 90 day currency so I can do my typical mission.
Due to changes in my family life, my mission profile has changed. I've also disposed of my ownership stake in a C-172SP that I've had for the last 4 years. I didn't put as many hours on it as I envisioned. Now, my 80%+ mission should be to simply to burn AvGas (or MoGas, which I'm not sure is locally available) experiencing the joy of flight and improving my aviation skills. In order to do this more often, my ideal airplane should be inexpensive to purchase, own and operate.
With that stated, I should be looking for a two seater airplane in the low power category, but also something that possibly I can train for my IR and take the checkride in. I think 3hrs endurance (2 + 1hr reserve) should be sufficient for calculating gross weight along with 2 grown men. Since it will be based inside the DC-FRZ I require a radio and Mode-C capabilities as a minimum.
I can live without /G or autopilot, but it was certainly nice having them in the Skyhawk. I haven't thought about a budget yet, but I've seen many really cheap airplanes with decent equipment on some of the sales websites.
Any suggestions?
/G will be required on second thought to get into my preferred airport on low ceiling days.
-
You have defined the mission, but not the budget. What is most important is the overall annual operating budget, not purchase price. With the market is now, people will have you in a Mooney, or Bonanza in a heartbeat, but those are not the cheapest operating budget.
You also mentioned getting your IR in this new plane. If you are serious about this idea, it should weigh heavy on your selection choice. The problem with nearly universally all experimentals and also the Grumman AA-1 is they have "sporty", light handling. In VFR this makes them lots of fun. Learning instrument flying it makes them nightmares. Yes these types of planes can be successfully flown on instruments, but I would highly suggest learning in something that handles like a 182 (a dump truck on railroad tracks) to learn and then later get a plane that is "sporty" once you are virtuoso on hand flying IFR.
Given a very low budget for operations and acquisition, I would recommend the very tried, true and tired old advice of a Cherokee 140. However I would also look at Piper Tomahawks, Beech Skippers, possibly Alarus 2000s and Cessna 152s if you like high wings. I think any of the smaller trainers will be more of a challenge under the hood, or in IMC, but doable. Light weight = easily off course and over control, but light weight also = cheap to run.
Very thought provoking post.
-
Instrument equipped RV-4/RV-6 or Thorpe T-18 - fun, practical (enough), and the Thorpe's can usually be had pretty cheap.
'Gimp
Yea, but then you'd have to tell ATC that you're a Thorpe. ;)
Hey, with 100 posts I'm now a "Full member"! Does that give me voting rights?
Only if you vote early and often.
-
Instrument equipped RV-4/RV-6 or Thorpe T-18 - fun, practical (enough), and the Thorpe's can usually be had pretty cheap.
'Gimp
Yea, but then you'd have to tell ATC that you're a Thorpe. ;)
Hey, with 100 posts I'm now a "Full member"! Does that give me voting rights?
Only in Chicago after you die.