Buying first plane [Archive]

Pirke

20th Apr 2014, 22:42

I'm looking to buy my first plane and I can use some advice/sparring partner.

My main mission is fun flying, $100 burgers, day trips in the weekend, etc. Because we have 2 big dogs and busy jobs we'll probably not use it for long cross country vacations across Europe (at most once a year for 1 to 3 weeks if/when we find a home for the dogs).

I'm a low hour PPL holder with experience on the Cessna 150/152/172. In most cases 2 seats will be fine as we don't have kids (yet). Four seats would be nice of course but it makes things much more expensive.

I also want to be able to rent it out to others (friends or perhaps the local flying club). Not to earn a living of it, but to share the fixed costs a bit. That means no experimentals but EASA certified planes only. I also don't have time to do all maintenance myself so I'm happy with paying someone else to do it.

I've considered shared ownership but when things don't work out in the group (I've heard some horror stories) I want to be in control and veto people from using my plane. Call me bossy but I like to be in control ;)

So the first planes that come to mind are the ones I've trained in: 150/152/172. I also know a Robin ATL that's for sale. My home field is a bit short (630m) so I need to be comfortable using it there. Low wing planes usually need more runway than high wings, so I haven't looked at most low wing competitors (Piper etc). I did a test flight in a Tecnam p2002 but found the cockpit too small (not enough headroom, I bumped my head on the canopy a few times).

From a financial perspective I don't want too big an investment. So no 100k euro for a new CS-LSA. The cost of capital investment (5% interest and deprecation) will buy me a lot of fuel and maintenance for an older plane. And if I can happily afford flying, I'll be flying it more often instead of only paying the fixed costs.

For fixed costs I calculated the following per year:
- hangar: 4k (actual cost at home field 5 minutes drive away)
- insurance: 1k to 3k
- maintenance: 2k to 5k

So that's between 7k and 12k per year, depending on the type of plane.

Hourly I budget the following:
- fuel: mogas at 2 euro/liter (between 13 liter for Robin ATL and 36 liter for 172)
- engine fund: 10 euro
- other maintenance/tires/oil/etc: 10 euro

The Robin would be the most economical, followed by the 150/152. The reason I also consider the 172 is because I find it more comfortable than a 150/152 and I think it's easier to rent it out (much more all round capabilities, everybody can fly it) so my fixed costs will be compensated more, leaving me with a much more capable aircraft for only a higher hourly cost. On the other hand the initial investment is also higher. The Robin will be 10-15k, a decent 150/152 can be found for 20-30k, while a decent 172 starts at 40k.

The Cessna's can be maintained by everyone, while the Robin is a bit exclusive. Its JPX engine only has 1000 hours TBO compared to 2400 for a 152 and the JPX only has a single ignition... The range and speed of the Robin is also the lowest. You get what you pay for :) BTW, does anyone know what a JPX overhaul costs?

I know I can easily afford the Robin. The 150/152 will also be no problem. The 172 is still doable but of course much more expensive. But when I want to tour for a day I'll be happy to have the speed, range and luxury of a 172.

So... these are my thoughts on the situation. I'm sure you can give me some good advice, or at least ask the questions I overlooked. Just writing this post has already helped me reflect on my own thoughts :)

AdamFrisch

21st Apr 2014, 00:10

My rule has always been to stretch and go for something I can grow into and that can serve my needs down the road as well. The SID's for the Cessnas in Europe are going to be a problem you'll have to deal with, but everything else speaks in favour of them. They're easy to maintain, easy to rent out or put in a flying club and they're solid machines. In that case I'd go for a 172 - if you want to fly 2 people with luggage, you'll need a 4 place aircraft. 2 place can't actually load up and have much useful range at the same time.

But for the money you're willing to spend, I'd also look into an older fixed gear 182. They're great performers and have much more room than the 172. An older Bonanza is also an option. Solid planes. Have you looked at the Grumman AA5's? A lot of bang for the buck.

A and C

21st Apr 2014, 00:26

Forget the ATL & C150/152 they will not be what you will want to fly in a years time as your flying horizon expands and any C152 worth owning will be too expensive as it has become the only game in town for those who are not going for the DA40 as a primary trainer.

As you intend to keep it in a hangar have you considered the Robin DR 400 ? It is a very nice aircraft to fly and will lift a lot of weight for the horsepower off a short runway and cruise 10-15 KTS faster than the American equivalent metal aircraft.

For the private user I would look for a DR400-140B ( a 160 HP aircraft without the wing tanks) a DR400-160 or DR400-180. The 140B & 160 are the most economical to run and only give away a few KTS in cruise speed to the 180 but the payload of the 180 is better.

The big problem is that any aircraft that you buy cheap will cost you a fortune in maintenance and a well refurbished aircraft will cost a lot but the maintenance costs are predictable for the next ten years.

I do know of a DR400-140B that is being rebuilt at the moment and will be for sale shortly that I could recommend.

I would point out that I have no financial interest in this aircraft apart from being paid for signing the B1 release to service and as such am very happy with the work that has been carried out.

tecman

21st Apr 2014, 01:47

I would second the commentary by A&C. For most of us, an aircraft is a pretty big investment in terms of cash, time and energy. Buying something you're going to be happy with for a few years has a lot going for it. Either that, or get something very simple and resolve to just enjoy it, regardless of limitations. My first aircraft was a C150 and, despite all the negatives one could write down, it took me all around eastern Australia, in reliable and cheap 'style'.

I'm not an expert on the Eu market but with a spend of euro40k, I'd be a bit concerned that you're under-estimating the maintenance costs of what would likely be old and/or relatively high-time Cessnas. SIDS is a really important thing to consider and, leaving aside the regulatory mandates, there are quite a few nasty surprises turning up in aircraft which look OK during regular inspections. Also on the maintenance issue, you need to check carefully the maintenance you can yourself actually perform, for a given class of operations. But perhaps you meant standard pilot maintenance items, which is fair enough.

You could certainly do a lot worse than consider a DR400. Although I'm pretty tall, these days my Sunday bug smasher is a P2002JF, which I bought second hand. With the seat correctly adjusted I'm just about OK, and am better off than in e.g. a Mooney. The only reason I mention it is that the economics of the higher capital investment, versus much lower operational and maintenance costs, swung the balance to the newer aircraft, at least in Australia and for the simple flying life.

You won't get anything for nothing in the aircraft ownership game: lower capital equals more operational and maintenance, and vice-versa. Providing you go in with your eyes open and without too much optimism bias, you can work with any scenario. For example, we did not grudge spending quite a bit of money on a lovely PA24-250 but you also need to be OK with the time and energy investment as well. Good luck with your selection.

Pirke

21st Apr 2014, 07:28

Thanks for the replies so far.

I'm aware of the SID inspections, and if it's necessary for safe flight (which I suspect it really is) then so be it. Preferrably they've already been done of course.

I haven't really considered a DR400 yet. How does the maintenance compare to a ATL or Cessna?

As I mentioned, for most of my flying 2 seats is good enough, and we usually don't need the extra baggage space. The 2 extra seats would mainly be a bigger advantage for renting it out. A 182 is in that sence too much plane compared to a 172 and too expensive. Avgas is 3 euro/liter, mogas "only" 2.

For annual fixed costs my estimates are around 10k. These are largely independent of the type, but maintenance can be a tricky one. That's why I really want a good pre buy inspection.

As I can't look into the future I don't know what my flying behavior will become. I do know that I want to own a plane, this has always been a dream and I can afford it even without renting it out if I don't get surprise maintenance of 10k each year on top of my estimated fixed costs. Once or twice can happen, but at some point if it keeps being a maintenance drain then the fun will stop. A $100 burger can easily become a $1000 burger that way.

What's the short field performance of a DR400-140B? And what would the initial purchase cost be for a good one?

A and C

21st Apr 2014, 08:26

The DR400 will lift more payload than a PA28 with the same engine, it will fly about 10-15 KTS faster and do this from a runway about a third shorter.

The 140B is not quite a versatile as a 160 with the same engine as the 160 has two wing tanks (40lts) and a centre tank (110lts) the 140B has the centre tank and another under the baggage bay ( 50 lts). The result of this is slightly shorter range and more critical loading of the rear seats due to C of G issues.

As your intention is to use the aircraft mostly for two people this should not be an issue but if you fill the rear seats the effective endurance is cut to 2.5 hours ( with a 45 min reserve ) from 4 hours with the tank under the baggage bay full.

You can expect to cruse at 120 kt IAS.

The aircraft I know about has a zero time engine and prop, the airframe is like new but I think it will bust your budget for buying an aircraft however it is likely to be cheaper over the first ten years of ownership.

Pirke

21st Apr 2014, 09:37

Cruise speed is not really important for me. I fly because I like flying, not because I want my burger sooner :) That's why I'm not dismissing the ATL and 150/152, as they fit my current mission. I don't know if I should factor in an unknown future mission as well.

My first car also didn't run 240+ on the German Autobahn, but I have many good memories of it (also of it breaking down a lot).

Many people who have owned the ATL and 150 have been very happy with it due to the friendlier economics.

A and C

21st Apr 2014, 10:22

Owning a € 20-30 K C152 is unlikely to provide a maintenance budget that you are looking for............ I know I own two of them ! They are used in a long term lease to a training company and both have just been through the SID's at a cost of around €20k, these aircraft were always considered by my customers to be good clean aircraft so it is anybody's guess what an average C152 will cost to maintain properly even if you only do the SID's items that are critical to flight safety.

So to get an average C152 to a state at which it will meet your annual maintenance budget it will cost around €45K and another €25K to put a zero time engine in it.

Or you can look at this particular DR400-140B, it will meet your annual maintenance budget for the next ten years, is a much more capable aircraft and I am guessing will cost around €80K, the economics are such that it is worth borrowing the extra money as it will be cheaper in the long run than taking a gamble on an airframe that may have hidden problems.

Unless training is your mission the C152 is not for you because that is all it does well, you will find that you will want to do more than just fly locally and you may also find that your dogs will fit in the back seats of the DR400 !

dubbleyew eight

21st Apr 2014, 10:39

just a heads up on the roller coaster ride.

when you are contemplating buying you will have moments when the factors pointing to a successful purchase all seem to click together and provide a state of euphoria that the purchase will be the best you can imagine.

then some doubt will creep in. you will start to feel some doubt and eventually convince yourself that the idea is the worst thing that you could have ever contemplated.

then you'll realise that you are being somewhat pessimistic and you will start to re-evaluate the purchase with some optimism.

when you are in the middle of this it will be quite an emotional roller coaster ride as you alternate between doubt and confidence.

take your time.
there will always be another aircraft that comes available if you miss out on this current one.

the only consolation I can give you is that your second and third aeroplanes will involve less of a roller coaster ride. :ok:

Jan Olieslagers

21st Apr 2014, 11:18

Cruise speed is not really important for me.

That's what I thought, too, when I bought my microlight. Cruising at 80 kts, I have now found that speed is not only important to get your burger sooner, it also determines your maximum range and fuel burn for a given distance.

Take Prague for just an example: at 80 kts I can barely do it in one day, if the morning haze lifts early enough. With a 120 kts cruiser I could depart just before noon and still easily make it - and burn 33% less fuel too. Added advantage: one less intermediate stop - more savings on time and fuel. Cruise speed IS important, especially if flying VFR only.

dont overfil

21st Apr 2014, 11:31

Ha! dubbleyew eight I recognise that! It goes with any big purchase.

Don't rent to a club/school. It is the worst of both worlds. The aircraft is booked when you want it and on the other hand you will be concerned about talking it away when it could be earning money. Some renters are incredibly thick when it comes to looking after an aircraft.

I understand your feelings about a group however it really is a good compromise. All the groups I have been involved with had a principal who was the origional purchaser and shares were then sold. The principal still had the last say.

Pick a common type to prevent months of down time and surprise expense. The Cessna SID is less of an issue now as in most countries it is not compulsory. It is however a great bargaining tool.

The other guys here have offered some good advice. I agree with A and C and Adam that you should look ahead as you can outgrow an aeroplane very quickly.

Finally, you mentioned that you were not concerned with speed. Please do consider this if you intend to go anywhere. A 90 knot aeroplane may sound OK. Remember a 20 knot wind on the surface will be much stronger at altitude and may prevent you from getting home the same day.

D.O.

Pirke

21st Apr 2014, 11:31

and you may also find that your dogs will fit in the back seats of the DR400

They are both golden retrievers, 30-35kg each... and they are young (1 year and 3 years) and *very* enthusiastic and energetic. I don't think they are good flying companions, especially in a low wing fabric covered plane :)

@dubbleyew eight: I'm definitely not in a hurry. I'm already keeping my eyes open for over a year now to see the turnaround time of the different ads on all the known websites. And yes, I recognize the emotional question "is it all worth it?", and every time I look up into the sky on a nice day with bits of cumulus floating by I say: I wish I had a plane I could take up right now, knowing it's waiting for me in the hangar which is a 5 minutes drive away (no rentals there) instead of driving an hour to the next field finding all planes already booked for the next week or so. That's the most valuable aspect of ownership to me: it's available when you want it.

Ownership is expensive, I'm aware of that. But I'm not a big fan of borrowing too much money for it, and I don't have a spare 80k lying around. So my plan was to start small with something I can easily afford, and if my mission changes, well, that's something I'll have to deal with then, not now. But I didn't suspect the SID inspections were 20k either (10k at most). All the information on different internet forums suggest a yearly budget of 10-15k for insurance/hangar/maintenance for a simple small plane. Next to that an hourly reserve fund for engine overhauls, oil, and the regular wear and tear due to usage.

Break even compared to rental is suggested at 150 hours a year. I don't necessarily need to break even, as the availability is worth it in my opinion. I do expect to fly about 75-100 hours a year.

BTW, rental at the field an hour away of a 152 is 175 euros an hour. An old 172 is rented for 220 an hour or so. The flying club (20 minutes further) is 50 euro/hour cheaper, but usually overbooked and you can't easily take it away for a day (while only flying 2 hours). Anything cheaper and better available is at least 1,5 hours drive away, that's 3 hours round trip just to get to the airport. My home field is 5 minutes driving, so I'm much more likely to go up there and go fly on a nice day.

@Jan: I don't have plans to fly VFR to Prague. I want to give my dogs some attention as well while I'm not working. Overnight stays are rare due to the dogs. A higher cruise speed and better range does allow to go further on a single leg, that's a good point.

dubbleyew eight

21st Apr 2014, 11:51

pirke own something interesting.
just because you own an aeroplane doesn't mean you can't still hire one if the desire is there.

I have owned a homebuilt Wittman W8 Tailwind for about 15 years now.
I've never found it boring to fly.
I cruise at about 120 knots on 21.5 litres per hour behind an old Continental O-200. (brilliant engine)

In australia we don't have the stupidity of mandatory insurance so my flying costs are pretty well fuel and oil costs. all in about $aus55 per hour.
annual maintenance I just do and accept whatever the cost is.
as an owner you don't have to be stuffed with amortisations if you don't want.

hangarage is the saving of an aeroplane. I have had people tell me that it isn't worth the cost but hangarage will slow the deterioration and keep the aeroplane dry. over time water or condensation is the greatest slow deteriorator an aeroplane will be exposed to.

it is actually worthwhile owning an aeroplane.
if you ever get bored a trip down to the airfield to talk to friends and polish the prop is good balm for the soul.
your fellow pilots are often your best friends.
just keep on looking. a good one will come up eventually.

btw a single seat homebuilt is really great for doing the biennial flight review in.:ok:

btw I would never take dogs flying. they have very sensitive hearing and the aircraft noise would be like battering them with a baseball bat all flight.
if you love your dogs just don't do it.

ChickenHouse

21st Apr 2014, 11:52

Many good things noted already, so I do add only a little bit from my own experience. If you already are well trained on the Cessnas, I would advice to go Cessna. They are cheap, widely spread and when enroute, you will always find somebody able to help you.

First, forget the Cessna 15x, because you spend 75% of the money for a 172 at only 50% usability. Good mid-time 172s you will get for about 35+-k Euros.
Second, Cessna SIDs are troublesome, but Cessna was only the first to release such programs for older planes. Due to regulations all other manufacturer must follow on the "aging planes" rules.
Third, some maintenance organisations will rip your pocket empty for SID. Calculate between 3.500 and 5.000 Euros for a 172, plus things which might be found to fix. If your maintenance org does offer you a 15-20k estimate for the inspection, go for Hungary, Czech or Poland - there are some pretty good mechanics doing a great job on little money. BTW: my complete SID was about 6.000 Euros in Germany for a C172, including minor corrosion protection.
Forth, the SIDs are a good thing and even my Reims C172 had some surprises, we would never have found without the inspection. There was no dangerous area found, but a couple of things to fix now to get the plane ready for another 40 years. If you know corrosion is monitored, your feeling on the plane is better.

I am flying an old O-300 with about 27l/h Mogas STC and do derive a TCO cost monitoring. At 100h per year I have total costs monitored at about 190 Euros/h, with all buying depreciation, avionics upgrade to GNS430 and SID included.

A and C

21st Apr 2014, 12:25

The SID's inspections can be done for € 5 K but the rectification of the defects found can't !

Pirke

21st Apr 2014, 14:33

I am flying an old O-300 with about 27l/h Mogas STC and do derive a TCO cost monitoring. At 100h per year I have total costs monitored at about 190 Euros/h, with all buying depreciation, avionics upgrade to GNS430 and SID included.

This is within my budget. If I can fly a nice 4 seat C172 for that money, I'm happy. Unfortunately, most 172's I see for sale at the regular website don't give me the confidence of a good deal. I suspect people who own a good maintained plane are not very willing to part with it without asking a very steep purchase price. I haven't seen any good mid-time 172 with SID done for 35k.

cumulusrider

21st Apr 2014, 16:41

You say you want an EASA aircraft so that you can rent it out to offset costs.
But they tend to be more expensive than Annex 2 for similar performance.
So what about something like a Jodel? Good short field performance, available as 2 seater, 2+2 or full 4 seater, all for a fraction of the price of a span can. Or am I talking out of my fundemental:O

thing

21st Apr 2014, 17:02

Trouble is with Jodels/Robins etc is they they really need keeping in a shed. I have nothing against them, indeed I think the DR400 is a superb aircraft.

A and C

21st Apr 2014, 17:17

I have found that you pay for Hangarage one way or the other, you have the option of keeping it in the shed and out of the weather this cuts the maintenance bills.

Or park the aircraft outside and have the extra depreciation and maintenance that goes with leaving the aircraft out in all weathers.

There is no easy answer but keeping an aircraft outside is not the free ride in might seem, the DR400 or any other wooden aircraft will not give you the option of keeping it outside however over five to ten years of cost of ownership it is not the problem it might at first seem.

thing

21st Apr 2014, 17:35

Yes, can't argue with that it's just that hangerage isn't always an option at some places and you have to tie them down whether you want to or not.

Desert185

21st Apr 2014, 17:59

Pirke

Buy what you like that fits your needs, what you can afford, get a good pre-purchase inspection done by a mech experienced on type and enjoy the burgers.

I followed my advice and have enjoyed the same airplane for 14 years. ;)

Pirke

21st Apr 2014, 18:29

I only have the option to hangar @ 4k/year (includes unlimited landing fees), no tie downs as far as I know.

Dan the weegie

22nd Apr 2014, 02:00

Piper cub, Maule, Citabria are all good planes for 630m grass, need hangarage and are relatively cheap to run and good fun to fly, they will long survive after the others have gotten boring.

As for your point on Experimental, there is nothing preventing you paying for an engineer to do the work for you, what you do not have to pay for is the CAMO or the signature or the other paperwork bull. You also do not have to buy certified parts which makes them orders of magnitude cheaper... The money you save flying experimental will be far, far more than you will earn from renting to a school or club - who will not treat your plane well and will always want it on the days you want to fly.

My main tip for ownership is to keep it all as simple as possible and avoid stretching it so that if something else happens you wont be in a situation where you need to sell it in a hurry or even worse, stop flying and maintaining it.

A and C

22nd Apr 2014, 05:15

The owners of LAA aircraft are very quick on these pages to tell you how cheap the LAA way of doing things is, in some cases it is cheaper but with this lack of expense comes a lack of flexibility in the way the aircraft can be operated.

To some this is not a problem, to me it is so I don't own an LAA type because the cheap LAA aircraft are lacking in technical ability and the technically able LAA aircraft are not much cheaper than one with a C of A making the small price saving a poor investment for me due to the lack of operational flexibility.

ChickenHouse

22nd Apr 2014, 06:54

To find a well maintained plane, get in contact with the maintenance shop of your choice. Usually they have a couple of owners willing to part from their plane, but unwilling to dig though the mud of weird replies on advertising their machine. In most cases they will just pass you to the old guy at the corner without charging for the contact - mostly because by this they keep the plane on their maintenance ...

Don't look for the asking price on most internet portals, they are with no contact to reality. Look at the interesting plans and then decide what they are worth. I rarely hear planes changing owner on asking price ;-).

If you want to go for a ready SID'ed 172, look at the hungarian and czech ads. They have some pretty good mechanics over there and currently they buy cheap, do the SID on their low hourly rates and sell ok. There are some 172 in the 35 region advertised right now. A 172 does have the advantage of being the most common. Cups, Maule, Citabria are quite nice planes, but not as common and especially the Cup is darn slow.

Pirke

22nd Apr 2014, 09:28

Experimental might be cheaper, but if I rent it out I'm a commercial business. I get VAT back and the fixed yearly costs are tax deductible from my personal income (at least where I come from, might be different in other countries). Of course when I fly, I have to bill myself as well for the hourly cost, but I can "rent" my own plane at a much greater discount then what I would charge for others. So in the end, I still think certified is cheaper, and better for the local flying economy here. I'd rather sponsor them instead of the government with taxes :) They just throw it away anyway.

As for the DR400, I've done some reading on them and they seem like very nice planes. Everybody seems to love them. I've also seen there are many versions. From 110hp effective 2 seaters to 200hp beasts. The O-320 and O-360 can also be flown slow for greater economy when time to get there is not important. A 10% reduction in speed saves 20% fuel or so, resulting in similar economy as the O-235 at similar speeds. They don't reach the ATL 13 liters mogas/hour, but they are a much more capable plane. Can all DR400s use mogas?

Wood doesn't have corrosion, so no expensive SID program to keep corrosion in check (except for the bolts here and there). I suspect rotting can be an issue when not hangared properly. I would be terrified for passengers to misstep on the wing and damage the fabric though.

How does the maintenance of wood/fabric compare to metal?

What's the difference between a -140B and a -160? Both seem to have the same engine.

Dan the weegie

22nd Apr 2014, 13:31

A and C is correct, although I was responding to the mission as opposed to waving the LAA flag. Day VFR, 2 seat, easy to own and find parts for, fun to fly. The only thing I was suggesting is that you look again at the experimental thing because largely the aircraft you are looking at, are not that cheap or easy to run and are of limited fun.

You are right, you can recoup costs as a VAT registered business but hassle comes associated with renting and hassle removes fun. I was merely trying to point out that doing so changes the focus of ownership to commercial rather than fun and as such removes not a small amount of the fun from owning. I've owned 6 aircraft, only one of them experimental the most fun, easiest and cheapest was the experimental and I am suggesting as an experienced owner that you keep things simple as your first purchase :)

Incidentally, I was given the same advice as I just gave you with the same needs, I have seen it in other first time owners and also thought the same as you, I turned out to be wrong. Keep your options open and whatever you do, keep it simple :) but you, like me, will ignore such advice and convince yourself that you are right :).

I now own a lovely Piper Cub, 2 seat, fun, great for the expensive burger runs and you don't need a lot of space to have fun in it. It costs me £2000 a year to run plus maintenance time which is mostly free. It is, relatively hassle free and therefor fun :)

So long as you have a good maintainer who can do wood and fabric, the aircraft you buy is well maintained and has always been hangared and you get a really good inspection then wood is easy to maintain, no guarantees :)

A and C

22nd Apr 2014, 14:24

The DR400-140B & 160 are identical except for the fuel system both have the main take mounted in the centre section that holds 110 lt the 140B has another tank at the rear under the baggage bay that holds 50 lt. The 160 has in addition to the main tank two wing tanks that each hold 40 lt.

As to people stepping on the fabric, I have never had it in thirty years of DR400 ownership, the walkway structure extends a long way outside the anti- slip area as it does with most metal aircraft, step out side this area on any aircraft and you are into a repair that will probably cost more on a metal aircraft.

Maintenance of wood aircraft is less well known within the industry but the costs are usually slightly below metal aircraft.......... But not by much !

Piper.Classique

23rd Apr 2014, 06:12

Ok, you have a hangar available at home. An odd night or two on tiedowns won't be a problem, it's the continuous rain/sun/wind that will hurt an outside aircraft. The DR400 is a lovely aircraft, nice handling and good performance. All the Jodels are nice to fly, especially the tailwheel ones, but you would need to be more careful who you rented them to.
Speed does matter if you need to be somewhere by a given date.....I go touring at 75 kts TAS but I have less dispatch reliability than I wold have in a faster machine. I suspect I may also have more fun and make more friends. I take a tent :)
I have two seats. If I need four I can rent. You could also consider one of the faster microlights such as the Pioneer 200, or the 300 retractable. forget the tent, in that case....

foxmoth

23rd Apr 2014, 07:44

Whilst an LAA machine might not be much cheaper in engineering, parts mostly will as they do not need to be approved, this approval often multiplying the cost by 10! Beagle Pup brake pads, for example, used to cost 10x the Exact same cost as the (IIRC) Jaguar ones without the CAA stamp on, only difference was that stamp - even coming in the same box! Also, you do not get the problem some Robin owners are having ATM of approved parts just not being available for a simple switch - you just find a suitable alternative.:ok:

Pirke

23rd Apr 2014, 09:27

How does the Robin HR compare to the DR? Being all metal I would suspect similar performances to other all metal planes, but with a better view.

tecman

23rd Apr 2014, 09:50

Glad you're getting some useful commentary. As I mentioned before, I also like the DR400. I first flew one not long after getting my PPL 30 years ago and it seemed to defy what I'd come to expect in terms of the trade-off between stability and agility. It remains one of my favourite aircraft and I see that there are a few on the register here in WA, where a hangar no doubt prevents spontaneous structural combustion in high summer :)

One additional suggestion is to do a bit of polling of people who rent out their aircraft, perhaps comparing private and flying school arrangements. You mentioned control-freak tendencies, which many of us would surely relate to. Leaving aside the potential availability issues, it's not easy to stand by and watch what some people do to your aeroplane. I've never had anyone damage an aeroplane on cross-hire but, just the same, the endless list of small things can get annoying. Nowadays, my grumpiness is such that I object to anyone adjusting my seatbelt, and woe betide anyone who doesn't wipe their feet! I'm exaggerating for effect, but many of us do reach a point where we opt for a less favourable financial arrangement, just so the right level of TLC is maintained.

All that said, I have several friends who own a rental aircraft and are quite happy to see it as just another investment. But I note that the rental aircraft is usually not regarded as part of the family, whereas the RV (etc) in the back of the hangar enjoys full one on one affection!

Pirke

23rd Apr 2014, 13:19

Some background: I already started a company over a year ago, with the honest intention to try to make money in aviation (I had just started with the PPL training). By now I know what it takes to get an AOC, so rental is my only realistic alternative.

Because I was a company, I could buy a company car. As it's a luxury eco friendly car, I got about 30k euro cashback in tax and other benefits. If I would stop now, I have to pay back about 20k euro, and that's not something I want :)

So I'm honestly gonna try to make some money on a plane, and if after 4 or 5 years that's not feasible (my rental rate might be too much, too few customers, bad economy, etc), I can always stop trying and stop the company. By then I would no longer be obliged to pay back the environmental subsidy on my car, and it has deprecated for 95%.

For now I myself will be the biggest renter of the plane, followed by my wife, friends and colleagues who I will happily be flying around for free (no monetary reward for acting as a pilot). They just rent the plane from a company, and I'm even gonna share 25% of the rental cost with them (for a 4 seater) from my personal wallet so there is no mistake that I'm not invalidating the PPL. As I expect to make about 100 hours myself, I'm already closing in on the break-even point from a business perspective, so the company isn't loosing too much money.

And who knows, there might be people at the airfield who see my lovely plane and want to fly in it. If I know and trust them, I'm happy to let them rent it. Planes should be in the air, not on the ground.

Sometimes the picture is bigger than only just the plane. Regarding TLC, I think that's covered :)

Bob Bevan

23rd Apr 2014, 15:09

The OP suggested budgeting between £1,000 and £3,000 for insurance. As this looked quite high and covers a fair price span I thought it might be useful to give some more accurate premiums indications based on different scenarios.

1) A single, low hours (100) pilot, private use only in a 2 seater with a hull value of £20k and combined liability cover of £1m = £510

2) A single, low hours (100) pilot, private use only in a 4 seater with a hull value of £40k and combined liability cover of £2m = £890

3) Open pilot cover (PPL minimum) including rental use in a 2 seater with a hull value of £20k and combined liability cover of £1m = £1,050

4) Open pilot cover (PPL minimum) including rental use in a 4 seater with a hull value of £40k and combined liability cover of £2m = £1,450

I’ve made a bunch of assumptions (UK based, claim free, hangared, EU territorial limits etc) but hopefully the above will give a better guide for budgeting purposes on the cost of ownership. I’m happy to churn out some other scenarios if that would be useful.

Cheers

foxmoth

23rd Apr 2014, 15:24

with the honest intention to try to make money in aviation

And we all know the quote about how to make money in aviation!:}

Dan the weegie

23rd Apr 2014, 17:48

Hi Pirke,
Okay the mission is a bit different than what I read originally. :) the main aim of your aircraft is good rental machine, as everything else kind of comes with it.

Making money on an airframe requires finding the sweet spot in terms of usage, which should probably be 200-300 hours a year. Obviously running costs go up with usage but fixed costs are reduced by hour. For a rental machine check the hours on the engines and the airframe before you buy.

In this case, if the SIDs are taken care of a nice 172 or 182 will make an attractive make for a reliable rental machine. Relatively low purchase costs, easier and cheaper to buy and run than the equivalent Piper. Good parts availability and plenty of choice for maintenance, also easy to resell. Largely good to fly and capable. The 182 makes for an excellent machine and while more expensive to run you can offer something different to the local school, the school if renting from you would want a backup or the possibility add something totally different to the fleet, talk to them if they are in the picture but be aware they have their own interests at heart. 2 seat machines can be a bit difficult to rent as schools quite often have sufficient to cover whereas the flexibility and comfort of a 4 seater makes it a bit more attractive. That said, purchase and insurance is quite a bit higher.

Robins are lovely machines to fly but potentially some pain in finding parts.

Pipers are all basically fine if a bit more limited than the equivalent cessna.

The main headache with low wing aircraft is the oleos on the main gear, the seals have a habit of rolling and can be a pain because they always fail on aFriday night :).

Making money from light GA is hard, lots of competition around and for the return it is quite a lot of investment of time and money. If you expect to be able to cover the cost of your own flying I think you will be disappointed but as you say, I don't know the whole picture but I agree with Foxmoth making a little money from an airplane, usually starts with spending a lot :)

Good luck