Help a newbie

[A10haSnackbar]

I think that the budget may be a bit too optimistic for the mission you are describing. While you may be able to squeeze into the purchase price limit, it will probably not be a top notch bird that you would lke and you may have to add substantial amount for keeping it airoworthy. 
$5k per month will barely cover the gas at 500hrs/year if we consider current prices about $7/gal (depending wher you are, of course) and burn rate of 15gal/hr, you are looking at over $50k in gas alone per year. At that rate of flying, you wil likely have to either overhaul or replace the engine in 4-5 years, assuming you get a plane with ovrecently overhauled or new engine (unlikely for the price you indicated as your budget). Depending on engine, you may be looking at 60-100k for that project alone. Amortize it over 4 years and there is additional $1600 or so per month, add hangar, costs of annuals and ordinary maintenance for wear and tear, etc,.... 
I wish you the best in search for teh plane that will fit your needs. Jimmy Garrison at G-Max is a great place to look https://www.gmaxamericanaircraft.com/ Jimmy will give you straight answers to your questions.

Really looking into more of the C models. I don’t think I’ll be needing a 6 cylinder just to move me and my wife around.

I’m really looking at this aircraft to bridge the gap between her finish her 141 school and initial CFI/pipeline/whatever flying gig. And to supplement flying hours for both her and me. I still need some good cross country hours (I can only get so much playing around in the dirt at 45 AGL).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A10haSnackbar]

I wish you the best in search for teh plane that will fit your needs. Jimmy Garrison at G-Max is a great place to look https://www.gmaxamericanaircraft.com/ Jimmy will give you straight answers to your questions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A10haSnackbar]

@IvanP

I’ll be sure to give jimmy a call


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jackk]

One last bit

I have two planes, one burns 15GPH of 100ll, the other 4GPH of non ethanol car gas (or 100ll), I fly the little plane more, as a CFI I have also worked with my significant other, who is a pilot) in it, the low power planes teach sooooo much more.

 

 My skywagon you can just power out of lots of things, the smaller plane not so much.  
 

Later on when she gets her first pilot job and is flying a loaded 206 on high DA day, I ain’t too worried with her experience in the 65hp plane flying at 4+k DA with both of us in it.

 

Consider something that can burn auto gas, and don’t think more plane will make her a more better pilot, quite the opposite 

You should also look into registrations and sales tax for the plane, also look into putting it into a LLC and renting it from yourself for the write offs, talk to a CPA who knows aviation.   With Trumps BBB aircraft used for business (rentals?) enjoy 100% depreciation now, but I’m just a pilot not a CPA

[Paul Thomas]

Get two airplanes. One to enjoy and travel in, the other to build hours. You don't need to go fast or burn a lot of fuel to build hours.

[Pinecone]

5 hours ago, IvanP said:

$5k per month will barely cover the gas at 500hrs/year if we consider current prices about $7/gal (depending wher you are, of course) and burn rate of 15gal/hr, you are looking at over $50k in gas alone per year

I agree that the budget is low for 500 hours per year.

IMO, $7 per gallon is a bit high in much of the country.  As of right now, the overall average is $5.99.

For a 360 engine (even TSIO-360), 15 GPH is pretty high fuel flow.  I cruise at 10.1 in my 252.

So more like $30K for fuel

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, A10haSnackbar said:

Really looking into more of the C models. I don’t think I’ll be needing a 6 cylinder just to move me and my wife around.

C models are very high bang for the buck, with a nice alternative in J models.   If you don't need the mid-body cabin size or the extra few knots that you get with a J, a C model is an excellent choice.

[IvanP]

43 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

IMO, $7 per gallon is a bit high in much of the country.  As of right now, the overall average is $5.99.

I envy you the cheap gas. In our neck of the woods, $6-7 is considered normal   thanks to the environuts who run California. 

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, IvanP said:

I envy you the cheap gas. In our neck of the woods, $6-7 is considered normal   thanks to the environuts who run California. 

OUCH!

I'm in Southern California (LA area) and it's easy to find under $6.  SZP is under $5!

[IvanP]

11 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

OUCH!

I'm in Southern California (LA area) and it's easy to find under $6.  SZP is under $5!

I can find cheaper gas here as well in some places (Nor Cal), but would have to go to other airports to fuel up. By the time I add the fuel burned for the fueling flight, time wasted on unneeded fuel stop, etc., it is a wash. Also, I do not want to leave the plane full of gas in the hangar - the gear pucks are not cheap these days and I jsut replaced mine about a year ago. 

Edited July 30 by IvanP

[Hank]

52 minutes ago, EricJ said:

C models are very high bang for the buck, with a nice alternative in J models.   If you don't need the mid-body cabin size or the extra few knots that you get with a J, a C model is an excellent choice.

My C is great. Cruise is usually ~145 knots True, and above 8000 msl, fuel burn is 8.0-8.3 gph, measured at the fuel pump.

16 minutes ago, IvanP said:

I envy you the cheap gas. In our neck of the woods, $6-7 is considered normal   thanks to the environuts who run California. 

Gas just dropped for me in Sweet Home, from $5.60 to$ 5.06, so I'm happy!

[Paul Thomas]

We've been under $5.00 all year in SWFL.

[Schllc]

If the sole purpose is hours, then why not get something slow and cheap. 
takes you a bIt longer each time but that’s hours, and you won’t have to go as far from home to get the same time in the seat.
A 172 or a Cherokee sound like your best choice. 

[Pinecone]

12 hours ago, IvanP said:

 Also, I do not want to leave the plane full of gas in the hangar - the gear pucks are not cheap these days and I jsut replaced mine about a year ago. 

Gear pucks or tank sealant????
 

[Pinecone]

11 hours ago, Schllc said:

If the sole purpose is hours, then why not get something slow and cheap. 
takes you a bIt longer each time but that’s hours, and you won’t have to go as far from home to get the same time in the seat.
A 172 or a Cherokee sound like your best choice. 

There is a lot to be said about this method.

You don't build complex or retract time, but insurance will be cheaper.  Annuals will be cheaper.  Fuel burn about the same as a C, but you will be going slower.

Although I remember the trip in my friend's Cherokee 180D where the trucks on the interstate were passing us.

[Paul Thomas]

31 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

There is a lot to be said about this method.

You don't build complex or retract time, but insurance will be cheaper.  Annuals will be cheaper.  Fuel burn about the same as a C, but you will be going slower.

Although I remember the trip in my friend's Cherokee 180D where the trucks on the interstate were passing us.

I'd be aiming slower and more fun. Get a cub, acro plane, etc. Just cruising around is boring, especially when doing 500 hours/year.

[IvanP]

47 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Gear pucks or tank sealant????
 

Compromise...leave some fuel in but not full. I cannot take full fuel on most of my missions anyway due to weight limitations. My tanks hold 118 gal (Monroy STC) and with that load my plane essentially becomes 1 person plane. There is no perfect solution.   

[Hank]

55 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Fuel burn about the same as a C, but you will be going slower.

I plan 9 gph in my C, while friends' 172s run about 7-7.5 gph. I'm usually 30% faster than them, and use 10-15% less fuel on the same trip.

So yes, a 172 will build time faster, but also cost more fuel.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

So yes, a 172 will build time faster, but also cost more fuel.

If the goal is to build TIME, then the 172 will be cheaper.  Any airborne conveyance builds TIME the same

[Planegary]

And then there is the option to pull the power back, less fuel is consumed and more hours are flown and since the logbook registers hours and not miles per hour it is a win win situation for the timebuilder

[Jackk]

We are about $4 gal for non ethanol auto fuel, less if you also file to refund the road taxes. 
 

If I was buying a plane, especially on the enviro crazy west coast, I’d really lean towards something that can burn mogas

Edited Wednesday at 06:31 PM by Jackk

[Jackk]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

I plan 9 gph in my C, while friends' 172s run about 7-7.5 gph. I'm usually 30% faster than them, and use 10-15% less fuel on the same trip.

So yes, a 172 will build time faster, but also cost more fuel.

 Huh?

So for his wife to build 100hrs

 

 that’s 900 gal in the C

or

thats 700-750 gal in a 172

 

 Unless one has the ability to manipulate space and time, the clock ticks 60min at the same rate for both planes, ie 1hr is 1hr

 

 Both planes build time at the same rate, but the 172 costs 22% less in fuel alone.

[bonal]

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that snack bar A10 wants a Mooney.  After all we all love our Mooneys I know I love ours.  I can cruise at 172 speeds and am probably not more than 6gph. But if I want to go 140 plus knots it’s available to me. Our D has a useful load of 1010 pounds.  Hope you find something that works for you.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Jackk said:

Huh?

So for his wife to build 100hrs

 that’s 900 gal in the C

or

thats 700-750 gal in a 172

 Unless one has the ability to manipulate space and time, the clock ticks 60min at the same rate for both planes, ie 1hr is 1hr

 Both planes build time at the same rate, but the 172 costs 22% less in fuel alone.

Unless they are flying in circles, to reach the same destinations and return, they will log 100 hours for 900 gal in a C, and 135 hours and 1012 gal of fuel in a 172.

Math is math, you only did hours and fuel, but omitted that if I fly from A to B in my C in one hour, a Skyhawk will land in a cow pasture 35 miles short of B in that same hour . . . .

Of course, the C can throttle back to Cessna speed and match it hour-for-hour and burn something less than 690 gal in 100 hours; my Performance Tables don't go below 19.9"/1950 at 7500 msl for 144 mph and 6.9 gph at solo weight, but that will still outpace many 172s at 7.5 gph. So same flight hours, and less fuel for the Mooney, while still being capable of faster travel for going places when desired.

[Paul Thomas]

35 minutes ago, Hank said:

Unless they are flying in circles, to reach the same destinations and return, they will log 100 hours for 900 gal in a C, and 135 hours and 1012 gal of fuel in a 172.

Math is math, you only did hours and fuel, but omitted that if I fly from A to B in my C in one hour, a Skyhawk will land in a cow pasture 35 miles short of B in that same hour . . . .

Of course, the C can throttle back to Cessna speed and match it hour-for-hour and burn something less than 690 gal in 100 hours; my Performance Tables don't go below 19.9"/1950 at 7500 msl for 144 mph and 6.9 gph at solo weight, but that will still outpace many 172s at 7.5 gph. So same flight hours, and less fuel for the Mooney, while still being capable of faster travel for going places when desired.

My understanding is that most of the flying is not to get to place but to build flight time and experience toward an aviation career which is why I'd look for the cheapest airplane to operate per hour or something that's really fun to fly.