For $90k, you could check all of your boxes with ease. Have you thought about a couple of partners?

Brian M wrote:

Cary wrote:...actually, you need to fly at least 110 hours to justify owning over renting the same airplane

I assume that's based purely on financial justifications? I'm not questioning your numbers, but obviously there is more to the value in owning a plane than pure finances regarding owning vs. renting. The freedom in being able to fly when you want without having to schedule the plane in advance, being able to leave the plane at a destination for a day or five without having to coordinate that with others, not being constrained by agreements to not land at off-airport locations, etc.

stolkid94 wrote:
As you can see, financially, it's illogical for me to buy an aircraft. However, no one ever bought an aircraft to be financially logical. Owning your own just has this dreamy romantic feel of freedom to it and that's really why I'm so motivated to have my own.

Of course it's financially illogical, but there's so much more to it than finances. Do it. I'm not nearly as knowledgable as many on here, so I can't give you any insight as to the bird that will fit your mission. As a relatively low-time pilot, though, I can say that there is way more to owning a plane than just finances. I likely couldn't have made most of the memories I've made in recent years if I was renting a plane.

Do it. You won't regret it. And if you do end up regretting it financially, at the very least you'll build a pile of memories in the process.

Absolutely. I only fly an average of 62 hours a year these days, so there's no financial logic to owning my airplane. But I love my airplane, for all of the reasons you've mentioned, and I love to fly. In the 46 1/2 years I've been flying, there were only a few years in there in which being able to fly at all was financially justifiable, and owning an airplane even less so. But I didn't learn to fly for financial reasons, and I haven't owned any of the airplanes I've owned for financial reasons. I got out of ownership for awhile due to financial reasons--it was a whole lot more than I could handle for awhile. But now I don't plan to get out of it again until either my doc or my regular instructor says that it's time to hang it up--and hopefully I'll figure that one out myself without their input.

But that doesn't change my advice. Flying is expensive, and ownership is expensive. Being able to afford the expense without shorting the family's needs is really important, no matter how illogical both may be.

Cary

contactflying wrote:I owned several Tri-Pacers because they were the best poor mans mountain airplane. 172s were good as well but had to be flown more carefully.

contact, could you please expound on this statement a bit? It's got me curious as to why the 172 has to be flown more carefully. I have a couple of friends with Tripacers and they have both said they wished their planes could land as slow and as short as I can in my stock 172A.

Wwhunter,

40 degrees Fowler flaps make the 172 do pretty good with a stabilized approach to round out if speed is kept minimum. It does really good using the apparent brisk walk rate of closure on short final to eliminate the need for the round out. The Pacer or Tri-Pacer, or any short wing airplane, absolutely requires the apparent rate or some power/pitch approach to touchdown slowly and softly on the beginning of the landing zone.

Short wing airplanes often approach considerably faster than 1.3Vso. 1.3 is too much on short final and going faster is going completely the wrong way. Their pilots don't like the greater sink rate, given the same airspeed, as longer wing airplanes. The problem is compounded by a stabilized throttle orientation. Thus the greater percentage of prop blast over the total wing length is thrown out with the wash.

Using the apparent brisk walk rate of closure on short final, or any power/pitch to touchdown slowly and softly on the beginning of the landing zone works equally well with short wing and allows the Tri-Pacer to touchdown at the same place at near the same speed as the 172s.

The 172 disadvantage I meant was greater gross with the same size engine making takeoff more dicey, especially at high density altitude. It doesn't engine climb as well making energy management and wind management more critical. It is important to consider terrain and drainage egress with any airplane. It becomes more critical with more weight to energy available: engine, downhill takeoff, headwind takeoff, down drainage egress, obstructions that cannot be rudder turned around in low ground effect, and such old pilot stuff.

Both airplanes have worked extensively "in" the mountains as long as they have been around.

The trick with the Tri-Pacer approach is to get it slow enough, on short final, to sink enough to really require lots of throttle to maintain glide angle. Now leave the dammed aileron alone except to level the wing or bank sufficient to control drift. All controls get spungy at slow airspeed, but prop blast on the rudder makes it work well. If we keep the centerline between our legs, the wing will be level ( no crosswind.) All aileron will do is cause adverse yaw which will yaw the nose off target.

stolkid94 wrote: Still looking for any info of the Aero Commander Lark 180.

Curious about the Lark as well. Has anyone in here flown one much? Wondering how they perform as far as short field take offs & landings, and climb rates.

Thanks contact on the very thurough and detailed response!

The Lark is heavier but with enough extra engine thrust. The flaps are not Fowler and not 40 degree so not as slow on landing and therefore more needy of a power pitch to touchdown as with the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach. It is a strong steel tube and tin airplane. Don't quote me but I think the nosegear attaches to the tubing like a Tri-Pacer.

Everyone is mentioning that renting is cheaper, especially at the rates you can get...but, some rental companies and local flying clubs restrict usage. Such as "no off-airport landings" or Unimproved strips. I have seen that in many places..
Have you considered a partnership with a like-minded individual? All of the sudden your costs are cut in half !! AND- your 30K budget may become a 60K budget..That will be the only way I ever afford a plane myself..

"I don't want to fix a bunch a stuff" Anything that cheap you will be. Maybe not an engine, but I bet tires, brakes, ratty interior, cracked mouldings, noisy turn coordinator etc. You are constantly fixing a bunch of stuff on old airplanes - the difference is do you have the skills to do it yourself? or the money to pay someone to do it? You will not find a turnkey $30k airplane that is trouble free.


Will anyone even train you anymore for an ifr rating with two vors, a glideslope and a adf? Getting pretty archaic now .

contact, thanks for all that info that really good stuff to think about for some off airport stuff, and also a good point that the lark doesn't have 40 flaps. so far I've been practicing my short field landings with all 40 flaps in the 172 with the stall horn blaring on touchdown, which would definitely be faster with less flaps

As far as fractional ownership is concerned, It just doesn't really interest me. I've had enough of trying to schedule time in between required maintenance and open availability to where I would sacrifice having a much nicer plane for one I could fly whenever I want, of course this becomes dependent on the maintenance of my own aircraft. And being a young guy I'll be moving around here and there the next few years and It would become exceedingly difficult to have a part owner who was okay with me taking our airplane to where I am ( I'm not just going to let the other guy fly it all the time am I?)

My flight school has so many new pilots that the airplanes go in for the oil change almost every 8-10 days and that means the 100 hr is done every 3rd week or so, especially now that the weather is nicer. At this point, the scheduling is the hindering factor more so than my finances and I believe being able to fly less often will cost me more money for my ratings in the long run any way.

Yet another reason against renting is that pesky renter's agreement where I can't land on a non-paved runway without an instructor present. I may be nit picking the renting a bit, it's not all that bad and the airplanes, when they aren't in maintenance, always fly great so there is some added confidence in the general reliability of the airplanes I rent.

My instructor has told me that she would gladly teach me with just 2 VOR's as long as the airplane has its IFR cert, if only to get the hours in, then I'd probably end up flying a bit of time in one of our trainers and working out some of the GNS430 programs online to learn the GPS system and fly the checkride in a rented airplane.

Maintenance, I feel, will continue to be my biggest issue whether I rent or buy. I'm comfortable tackling any problems that don't require an A&P although I'm sure any problems will take more time and money than anticipated but hey, Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome!

There is nothing wrong with staying with the 172. So many guys get wrapped up into the "I gotta be cool and fly a TW". Fly that 172 until you know it inside out and you will be amazed at what you can do with it. I've flown mine with a bunch of TW guys and various fly ins/outs and they are oft times surprised at what the plane will do.

I was getting the annual done yesterday (owner assisted) and there was a younger guy that came into 'shoot the shit' and found out he had a couple of TW aircraft. After he left the hangar, the IA mentioned to me that the guy has ground looped both of them and has no business owning a TW aircraft. Seems he just can't get in tune with it. I will mention that the airport I was had seems to always have a nasty burble crosswind and the runways is not overly wide. Transition from a large lake to forest and during the day there are some bumpmy thermals.
Guess I am just mentioning that one can do a lot more with the venerable 172 that most think. You can find early models for sale in the $25-35K range.

Do we have any members that have flown a Lark 100-180? There's a cheap one on Barnstormers and I'm thinking about reaching out to hear some more about it. The O360 is at TBO, but the owner claims no corrosion or damage. Might be worth an overhaul if sold at the right price.

Steve

lawndart wrote:Do we have any members that have flown a Lark 100-180? There's a cheap one on Barnstormers and I'm thinking about reaching out to hear some more about it. The O360 is at TBO, but the owner claims no corrosion or damage. Might be worth an overhaul if sold at the right price.

Steve

That might work. The seller could give it to you for free then you could dump about 30 to 40k into overhauling the engine and all the other stuff you will discover when you dive into it, maybe more then you will have a ho hum hard to sell airplane worth about $5,000 less than what you have into it and that is if you got it for free. I know you think you are “handy” due to your job in the Army but there are many experienced A&P mechanics that wouldn’t even consider some of the projects you consider or ask about. I realize you are just learning and are asking questions but finding a sound airplane that wont need much except for some simple cosmetic stuff would be the best way to go. Fixer uppers are not the money saving airplanes they may appear to be unless you REALLY know what you are doing.

Kurt

stolkid94 wrote:As far as fractional ownership is concerned, It just doesn't really interest me. I've had enough of trying to schedule time in between required maintenance and open availability to where I would sacrifice having a much nicer plane for one I could fly whenever I want, of course this becomes dependent on the maintenance of my own aircraft. And being a young guy I'll be moving around here and there the next few years and It would become exceedingly difficult to have a part owner who was okay with me taking our airplane to where I am ( I'm not just going to let the other guy fly it all the time am I?)

Having been both a renter and involved in two different partnerships, I can say that there is a night and day difference. Renting is very tough to schedule; partnerships not so much. Most of us just don't fly that much. I was involved in a Stinson on floats, wheels & skis for several years and with four total partners the plane only flew about 80 hrs/year. It did help, however, that all four of us also had access to at least one other aircraft.

Find a partner who has similar views on maintaining and utilizing the aircraft. It helps if your usage pattern differs. I used to fly mostly during the week while two of the partners flew mostly on weekends.

If you're concerned about moving in a few years, an exit plan should be part of any partnership anyway. Put your membership up for sale and your partner(s) have to approve the new partner. Or your existing partner(s) could buy you out. But agreement up front smooths the way.

There is a lot to be said about dividing your fixed costs by the number of partners. The make it or break it parts of the partnership are being able to see eye to eye on spending money (maintenance) and scheduling that is equitable.

Ross

Consider an asymmetric partnership. I own the majority of a 205 in a partnership. I get first right of refusal, and can buy the other partner out at any time for an agreed upon price, my choice or my partner's. We split fixed costs equally (Annual, Hangar, Insurance) and capital costs proportionally. This would give you the flexibility to move with your airplane and still have the benefits of another funding stream. I benefit in that the fixed costs are lower, my partner benefits from access to more plane than he would likely choose to afford alone.

G44 wrote:..... I realize you are just learning and are asking questions but finding a sound airplane that wont need much except for some simple cosmetic stuff would be the best way to go. Fixer uppers are not the money saving airplanes they may appear to be unless you REALLY know what you are doing. Kurt

I agree. I'd add this....
And can do all the work yourself. And can sign it off yourself.
And don't mind it being a (possibly extremely) long time (months or maybe even years) before you can fly your new airplane.
I've seen others go down that road.
The same applies towards building an experimental.

G44 wrote:

lawndart wrote:Do we have any members that have flown a Lark 100-180? There's a cheap one on Barnstormers and I'm thinking about reaching out to hear some more about it. The O360 is at TBO, but the owner claims no corrosion or damage. Might be worth an overhaul if sold at the right price.

Steve

That might work. The seller could give it to you for free then you could dump about 30 to 40k into overhauling the engine and all the other stuff you will discover when you dive into it, maybe more then you will have a ho hum hard to sell airplane worth about $5,000 less than what you have into it and that is if you got it for free. I know you think you are “handy” due to your job in the Army but there are many experienced A&P mechanics that wouldn’t even consider some of the projects you consider or ask about. I realize you are just learning and are asking questions but finding a sound airplane that wont need much except for some simple cosmetic stuff would be the best way to go. Fixer uppers are not the money saving airplanes they may appear to be unless you REALLY know what you are doing.

Kurt

Hahaha...ain't that the truth. Ask Pilot Ryan what a free airplane costs. Granted, he took it to the extreme, but still...

So Lawndart...for the next several years you really don't have anywhere to go in the backcountry, or any performance requirements other than ones you make up for yourself, and which are frankly very random. You want to go IFR, but unless someone else is paying you to fly or you have a VERY compelling reason to fly in IFR conditions, that license is a complete waste of money.

In a few years you might move someplace that actually has backcountry flying opportunities, and you can go there with the skill set to transition into any backcountry airplane you want and money set aside for that airplane, or you can go there with a very restrictive skill set which will limit you to some of the least desirable backcountry airplane designs, and have paid a lot more for those "skills" than you needed to.

There's a reason backcountry airplanes are virtually always high-wing, and that tailwheel airplanes are better represented in backcountry circles than anywhere else. If backcountry flying is what you want to do, spend the next few years learning to fly a wing rather than an engine and using your feet rather than a nosewheel. Stick and rudder skills are what's needed...load, horse power, climb rate, cruise speed; they're not your friends right now. They'll just retard the learning process and drain your bank account at the same time.

A 2-way partnership seems like a great idea to me – provided you find the right partner, and with the right partnership agreement. But my approach would be to still purchase a plane that I could afford on my own. That way, I have more options if one of us needs to move to a new city / state, or one us decides we want / need a bigger / better airplane, or we realize we're not quite as "compatible" as we thought we were. In any of those situations, I could still afford to keep "my" plane, even without taking on another partner. In the meantime, I would be saving half the fixed costs every month, and cutting the cost of any "maintenance surprises" by 50%...

Let's face it, there is a high likelihood that eventually one of you is going to want out – for some reason... If you buy more airplane than what you could afford on your own, it does come with some benefits to you, but it also raises your risk. If you need to dissolve the partnership, you basically have to give up "your" plane – either by selling your share to your partner, or by selling the plane outright to a third party – because you just cannot afford to own that airplane by yourself. (As as a retiree, I'm not expecting massive increases in my income over the next few years...)

By purchasing the plane I CAN afford to own without a partner to begin with, I've got more options. I can buy out my partner and just keep the plane for myself. I can replace my original partner with a new one. Or I can sell my share to my partner, and use the proceeds from the sale to purchase a similar plane of my own. Of course, we still have the option of an outright sale of both shares to a 3rd party.

So, if I found the right partner – one who is interested in the same type of flying that I am and wants to fly the same type of airplane – I would go for it in a heartbeat.

Just my 3¢ (inflation).

lawndart wrote:Do we have any members that have flown a Lark 100-180? There's a cheap one on Barnstormers and I'm thinking about reaching out to hear some more about it. The O360 is at TBO, but the owner claims no corrosion or damage. Might be worth an overhaul if sold at the right price.

Steve

Define "right price". Check out overhaul prices......and, consider that all sorts of things MAY be found in that overhaul, like the case doesn't pass, crank doesn't pass, etc. All of which make that overhaul even more expensive.

But, if the "right price" is indeed right enough.....maybe.

MTV

From the perspective of a CFII, I'll offer this suggestion:

You're trying to do too much with one airplane. You're going to need a fairly well equipped airplane for the instrument training, and for the Commercial, you're going to need either a TAA or a Complex aircraft. Your $30K plane isn't going to meet any of those criteria.

SO, Buy a good "starter airplane", that's VFR only, but in reasonably good shape. The best you can find for your price point. A Pacer or early 172 or?? fits this price range.

Now, do your IFR training in a rental. You can't operate your own airplane for $75 an hour. So, use the FBO airplane for that. In the meantime, you're building time on YOUR schedule in your own airplane toward the Commercial, which is going to require total time. ALL the time as PIC counts towards that.

Then, when you're ready to prep for the COMM, find another rental, or use the school plane if it's TAA qualified. You'll need ten hours in that and you'll have to take the checkride in it.

All the while, you'll be building time in your personal plane. May take a little longer, but the point is, NO $30K airplane is going to even come close to what you want to do.

Take advantage of that $75 an hour rental.....Seriously, that's a DEAL!

MTV