Some of the recent posts have got me thinking about this.

I'd rather list the Mrs and the baby on craigslist than sell my Cessna 140 but I would like something with four seats, IFR capable, and tricycle gear for flight instruction. I was thinking about adding a Tri-Pacer in four or five years when I might actually have a family need for the plane and being able to instruct in it would offset some of the costs.

So, does anyone keep two planes to satisfy wide mission requirements? Or should I just cry myself to sleep for 3-4 months and sell the 140, which I doubt I could get back my investment in, and buy a 170, PA-20, or Stinson? My dad already offered me his 182 but with his upgraded engine the idea flying at 15 GPH has me worried especially since I am solo 90% of the time.

Hey Swindler - I'm in the process of buying a second plane. I travel every week to Phoenix and various places in the midwest that literally take an entire day if I fly commercial; so having a good, fast x-country platform makes a lot of sense. My Maule isn't a great x-country or IFR platform, although it is IFR certified. I'm looking for a bonanza, Mooney or a 210 that has the same avionics platform as mine (430W, 250XL, Stec, etc.). I've narrowed it down to a few planes and already bought the T-hangar behind mine. Fingers crossed one of them will come through.

Jim

Actually, we all need 3 or 4 planes. A good back country plane with a great useful load for hauling people and toys to our favorite back country strips should be at the top of the list. An inexpensive cruiser for spending more time in the air (like your 140, or an LSA) would be #2. An aerobatic toy ranks pretty high on my drool list at #3. A high speed XC machine would be great for those occasional long cross country trips at #4. I might exchange the inexpensive cruiser for a motor glider if I couldn't have 5 planes.

Unfortunately, my wallet and I live in the real world where the cost of owning, insuring, hangaring and maintaining 1 plane is a challenge. As a result, I have pursued serial ownership of planes with radically different abilities. The first 2 planes I owned were in partnerships, and I had good experiences with each partnership I was in. I would seriously consider sharing my Maule with someone that had a comparable aerobatic toy, but I can't seriously consider owning more than one plane by myself. Just the insurance cost of second plane would take money away from my flying kitty.

Good luck with your decision. As an old friend once told me: "If your biggest problem is which plane to own, you have nothing to complain about!"

I certainly would like something aerobatic, a warbird, something on floats, and a airplane fast enough to ensure I never have to consider flying on an airline again. With a fleet like that I'd either have to be an A&P or need to hire one part time.

I would consider going into a partnership but I move around a little too much these days to keep one together. I also don't see a lot of partnerships on the types of aircraft I am interested in. They tend to be ridiculously expensive aircraft with 20 part owners or a really bland 172 or Cherokee from what I have seen.

I figure with a flying budget of $80k I could either own a 180 or two smaller type aircraft. Paying for two annuals and two insurance premiums would be rough. Hangar costs could get expensive as well.

I'd rather list the Mrs and the baby on craigslist than sell my Cessna 140

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My dad already offered me his 182 but with his upgraded engine the idea flying at 15 GPH has me worried especially since I am solo 90% of the time.

If the deal is right, and the plane is good, and it's a known quantity...hard to see a downside IMHO. If you really do want to go tooling around, you can throttle back. If you are just trying to get somewhere, the fuel burn is offset by the added speed. At least in theory.

I own a PA-22-150 and it may be THE most airplane for the dollar. If you look on barnstormers they are going for a song. There are also a number of stc's that allow you to adjust the mission a bit (e.g. float fittings). Your IFR avionics may cost more than the plane.

If you were going to burn that kind of fuel/hr travelling cross-country (and cost of #2 plane was no object ) then better to do it in a Mooney / Glasair / Lancair / Corvalis (in order of cost) and really go places at 240kts for your 15gph. I can't see the point of bringing that many cubic inches to bare x-country and only doing Cessna 182 speeds. Why not go 100kts faster with the same fuel burn - at least then your net mpg is about the same as a 140 ??

Troy Hamon wrote:

I'd rather list the Mrs and the baby on craigslist than sell my Cessna 140

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My dad already offered me his 182 but with his upgraded engine the idea flying at 15 GPH has me worried especially since I am solo 90% of the time.

If the deal is right, and the plane is good, and it's a known quantity...hard to see a downside IMHO. If you really do want to go tooling around, you can throttle back. If you are just trying to get somewhere, the fuel burn is offset by the added speed. At least in theory.

The engine is 200-300 over TBO which might be a problem if I want to use if for instruction. The panel would need a little money thrown at it to make it IFR. I owned a 172 before the 140 and while it did everything I needed except go above 90kts I was never that excited to fly it.