All you aircraft owners (aircraft financing)
08-01-2010, 11:38 AM
#21
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
The guy who runs the Gliderport here in Wichita is an A&P and that is how he keeps his two ships in the air on a shoestring budget. They are both rat traps but they run most of the time. When one goes offline he gets the other one out until all the work is done on the other one without spending any real money. Neither is good for anything but glider towing, which represents the fact that keeping an IFR plane online is more expensive than maintaining a pattern beater. I would say an older 182 is about the best deal all around for a low end airplane owner because it is not a bad cross country airplane, usually easy to keep in basic IFR shape, and it does all the things a small family airplane should do. But you may need to share it with a few other pilots to be economical.
08-04-2010, 08:46 AM
#22
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Skycatcher
An idea I had was to sell my cessna 150 and use the proceeds as a down payment for a brand new Cessna Skycatcher.
As we have learned older planes can nickle and dime you to death. By my loose calculations one can easily spend more on upgrading, repairing and maintaining an old plane or they could buy a new one that comes with a new engine, paint, avionics and interior and make a monthly payment instead.
Airplanes seem to be closer to a real estate investment than a consumable. They have proven to be able to last 30 years or more if they are well maintained. The Skycatcher is in the LSA category. As such an owner can maintain their LSA plane after a 6 week course and inspect it after a 16 hour class.
I am a member of a cessna club. Guys there commonly shell out 20K for an old rat trap and another 22K on a new engine plus 15K on paint then comes a new interior and avionics. By ther time they are done they have blown 60K on a 35 year old rat trap that is still only worth maybe 25K.
When you add it up over time I believe there is a compelling case for purchasing a new plane now if you are planning to fly for the next decade or two. Interest rates are low. Old planes will start to accumulate a pile of AD's. A new plane is better positioned for the future. Even at 120K for a new Skycatcher.
Just an idea.
Skyhigh
As we have learned older planes can nickle and dime you to death. By my loose calculations one can easily spend more on upgrading, repairing and maintaining an old plane or they could buy a new one that comes with a new engine, paint, avionics and interior and make a monthly payment instead.
Airplanes seem to be closer to a real estate investment than a consumable. They have proven to be able to last 30 years or more if they are well maintained. The Skycatcher is in the LSA category. As such an owner can maintain their LSA plane after a 6 week course and inspect it after a 16 hour class.
I am a member of a cessna club. Guys there commonly shell out 20K for an old rat trap and another 22K on a new engine plus 15K on paint then comes a new interior and avionics. By ther time they are done they have blown 60K on a 35 year old rat trap that is still only worth maybe 25K.
When you add it up over time I believe there is a compelling case for purchasing a new plane now if you are planning to fly for the next decade or two. Interest rates are low. Old planes will start to accumulate a pile of AD's. A new plane is better positioned for the future. Even at 120K for a new Skycatcher.
Just an idea.
Skyhigh
08-04-2010, 11:22 AM
#23
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Years Ago
Many years ago I came to a road block in my aviation career. I was laid off during the recession of the early 1990's from my instructing job in Anchorage. There were no instructing jobs to be had. My solution was to buy a Cessna 150 and instruct out of it. The problem was that I did not have much money.
To make a long story short I ended up living in my truck and flight instructing out of my own plane for cash without being fully insured. I lived on the run from airport managers and had to keep moving from airport to airport.
My students commonly bought me lunch and I did some odd jobs on the side to bring money in. In the long run it worked out. I sold the plane for a small profit two years later and built a few hundred hours in it. I never had a major maintenance issue.
It was especially useful for job hunting. I would fly from airport to airport dropping off resumes wherever I went. I flew it out into the bush and met with several part 135 operators and ended up getting a job that way.
Skyhigh
To make a long story short I ended up living in my truck and flight instructing out of my own plane for cash without being fully insured. I lived on the run from airport managers and had to keep moving from airport to airport.
My students commonly bought me lunch and I did some odd jobs on the side to bring money in. In the long run it worked out. I sold the plane for a small profit two years later and built a few hundred hours in it. I never had a major maintenance issue.
It was especially useful for job hunting. I would fly from airport to airport dropping off resumes wherever I went. I flew it out into the bush and met with several part 135 operators and ended up getting a job that way.
Skyhigh
Last edited by SkyHigh; 08-04-2010 at 02:36 PM.
08-04-2010, 04:49 PM
#24
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
During the Golden Age of GA (roughly 1955 to 1970), small business owners were the prime buyers in the light piston category- they were not hobby flyers they were motivated business travelers with people to meet. Most of the current cadre of light piston airplanes we keep using today owe their existence to small business owners of the time, a buying demographic barely exists any more. Light piston twins as a fresh commodity have almost disappeared in their absence. They travel now by airline or by interstate and the remaining cargo is much cheaper UPS or by Part 135 box hauler. The small businessperson no longer needs and airplane of their own. It still is an excellent way to get around, it just isn't the cheapest way any more. Many or most of the small airports in this country are turning into subdivisions, and buying a new airplane that can haul a thousand pounds now means getting a Cirrus, Corvalis, or perhaps a Piper product but not a twin. Safety has increased but sales are way down.
A new Cessna 150 was $15,000 in 1975 or about $60,000 today, so the relative selling price has doubled. You get a somewhat better airplane now in a Skycatcher or similar LSA, but light pistons selling so many less is pretty obviously due to their costing too much. On the other hand, if you split the cost with a single partner then you are back to the single owner levels of the past, and that's probably ok since they do not tend to fly very much.
A new Cessna 150 was $15,000 in 1975 or about $60,000 today, so the relative selling price has doubled. You get a somewhat better airplane now in a Skycatcher or similar LSA, but light pistons selling so many less is pretty obviously due to their costing too much. On the other hand, if you split the cost with a single partner then you are back to the single owner levels of the past, and that's probably ok since they do not tend to fly very much.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 08-04-2010 at 04:59 PM.
08-05-2010, 07:10 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 193
I agree with Skyhigh on the purchase of a new Cessna Skycatcher vs. a Cessna 150/152.
I was not aware of this and this adds another "pro" to my LSA list. Overhauls still seem to be the biggest cost to the owner. Could an LSA owner perform an engine overhaul?
Another question I have is that the 51% rule in homebuilt aircraft gives the owner the right to perform all of his/her own maintenance if it's registered as an experimental?
As such an owner can maintain their LSA plane after a 6 week course and inspect it after a 16 hour class.
Another question I have is that the 51% rule in homebuilt aircraft gives the owner the right to perform all of his/her own maintenance if it's registered as an experimental?
08-05-2010, 07:21 AM
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by aviatormjc
I agree with Skyhigh on the purchase of a new Cessna Skycatcher vs. a Cessna 150/152.
I was not aware of this and this adds another "pro" to my LSA list. Overhauls still seem to be the biggest cost to the owner. Could an LSA owner perform an engine overhaul?
Another question I have is that the 51% rule in homebuilt aircraft gives the owner the right to perform all of his/her own maintenance if it's registered as an experimental?
I was not aware of this and this adds another "pro" to my LSA list. Overhauls still seem to be the biggest cost to the owner. Could an LSA owner perform an engine overhaul?
Another question I have is that the 51% rule in homebuilt aircraft gives the owner the right to perform all of his/her own maintenance if it's registered as an experimental?
With experimental, the owner can perform all their own maintenance with the exception of the conditional inspection (same as an annual inspection). If the owner is also the builder of that specific plane (not just type) then they can get a repairman's certificate for that plane and do the conditional inspection also.
If you did not build the plane, then you need an A&P for the conditional inspection. No need for an A&P IA.
08-06-2010, 03:14 PM
#28
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Relevant opinion from AOPA email.
Can we build them less expensively?
(AOPA Online, 8/6, Bruce Landsberg) Does anybody, besides me, think the cost of new aircraft is a bit high? Those who know better have constantly advised that it’s not the absolute cost but the value that one derives from the purchase. And how does this tie into safety and training anyway? Hold that thought. Up to a point, the value argument is true. However, when one gets far enough up the economic pyramid the equation becomes moot for most of us. I just can’t stand that much pleasure or utility out of whatever the product purports to offer. Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I came across the pricing of a 1980 C172 (with Navpak II option – basic IFR) at approximately $40,000...
Can we build them less expensively?
(AOPA Online, 8/6, Bruce Landsberg) Does anybody, besides me, think the cost of new aircraft is a bit high? Those who know better have constantly advised that it’s not the absolute cost but the value that one derives from the purchase. And how does this tie into safety and training anyway? Hold that thought. Up to a point, the value argument is true. However, when one gets far enough up the economic pyramid the equation becomes moot for most of us. I just can’t stand that much pleasure or utility out of whatever the product purports to offer. Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I came across the pricing of a 1980 C172 (with Navpak II option – basic IFR) at approximately $40,000...
Last edited by Cubdriver; 08-07-2010 at 06:31 PM. Reason: tidying things up
08-06-2010, 10:32 PM
#29
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
New planes
Originally Posted by Cubdriver
Relevant opinion from AOPA email.
Can we build them less expensively?
(AOPA Online, 8/6, Bruce Landsberg)/10) Does anybody, besides me, think the cost of new aircraft is a bit high? Those who know better have constantly advised that it’s not the absolute cost but the value that one derives from the purchase. And how does this tie into safety and training anyway? Hold that thought. Up to a point, the value argument is true. However, when one gets far enough up the economic pyramid the equation becomes moot for most of us. I just can’t stand that much pleasure or utility out of whatever the product purports to offer. Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I came across the pricing of a 1980 C172 (with Navpak II option – basic IFR) at approximately $40,000. By comparison, a mid-priced car was about $7,500. In 2009, the Skyhawk, admittedly with Garmin 1000 and perhaps a larger engine was about $280,000. It appears that the market is not quite convinced that the performance and utility benefits are worth the differential. The car weighed in at about $30,000. That works out to a four-fold increase for car and seven-fold increase for aircraft. We could certainly indulge in the value discussion and this is NOT intended as bash of the manufacturers. Business these days is expensive and the government, despite adding lots of benefit, doesn’t make it any cheaper. Light Sport Aircraft are much less expensive but even they are not cheap and then the discussion turns to why buy a new LSA for $130,000 when perfectly good used Skyhawks or Warriors are available for $80,000. My point is that somebody, at some time, HAS to but new aircraft. We won’t survive on recycling forever. Why focus on redesigning or incrementally improving the product instead of figuring out how to build an existing aircraft more affordably? When NASA and various organizations sponsor design competitions they invariably look to newer, faster, more capable but I don’t recall anybody looking at how to build a Cessna 182, Warrior or Bonanza (all mature designs) with fewer parts and reduced labor cost. Getting back to training and in looking at the cost of becoming a pilot, the only thing that appears to be disproportionately expensive is the aircraft. This all ties into our initiative to address the shrinking pilot population. Fuel, instructor pay, basic avionics and course materials have either kept up or lagged with inflation. So, what am I missing?
Can we build them less expensively?
(AOPA Online, 8/6, Bruce Landsberg)/10) Does anybody, besides me, think the cost of new aircraft is a bit high? Those who know better have constantly advised that it’s not the absolute cost but the value that one derives from the purchase. And how does this tie into safety and training anyway? Hold that thought. Up to a point, the value argument is true. However, when one gets far enough up the economic pyramid the equation becomes moot for most of us. I just can’t stand that much pleasure or utility out of whatever the product purports to offer. Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I came across the pricing of a 1980 C172 (with Navpak II option – basic IFR) at approximately $40,000. By comparison, a mid-priced car was about $7,500. In 2009, the Skyhawk, admittedly with Garmin 1000 and perhaps a larger engine was about $280,000. It appears that the market is not quite convinced that the performance and utility benefits are worth the differential. The car weighed in at about $30,000. That works out to a four-fold increase for car and seven-fold increase for aircraft. We could certainly indulge in the value discussion and this is NOT intended as bash of the manufacturers. Business these days is expensive and the government, despite adding lots of benefit, doesn’t make it any cheaper. Light Sport Aircraft are much less expensive but even they are not cheap and then the discussion turns to why buy a new LSA for $130,000 when perfectly good used Skyhawks or Warriors are available for $80,000. My point is that somebody, at some time, HAS to but new aircraft. We won’t survive on recycling forever. Why focus on redesigning or incrementally improving the product instead of figuring out how to build an existing aircraft more affordably? When NASA and various organizations sponsor design competitions they invariably look to newer, faster, more capable but I don’t recall anybody looking at how to build a Cessna 182, Warrior or Bonanza (all mature designs) with fewer parts and reduced labor cost. Getting back to training and in looking at the cost of becoming a pilot, the only thing that appears to be disproportionately expensive is the aircraft. This all ties into our initiative to address the shrinking pilot population. Fuel, instructor pay, basic avionics and course materials have either kept up or lagged with inflation. So, what am I missing?
Skyhigh
08-07-2010, 06:28 PM
#30
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
I must say.
I must say that I really enjoy being a Cessna 150 owner. It gives me great joy on many levels. I am the chief pilot, director of maintenance, ramper, dispatcher, Flight Attendant. Simple, fun, low stress. It does exactly what I want which is to get into the sky once in a while.
Tons of fun.
I do not miss my Taylorcraft or Piper Apache though.
Less is truly more.
Skyhigh
Tons of fun.
I do not miss my Taylorcraft or Piper Apache though.
Less is truly more. Skyhigh
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
