To go light or not?

[old man emu]

I got one hell of a shock today. I went to one of the flying schools at my local airport to see what the hourly rates were on either a C-152 or a Tomahawk. I've got a Class 3 medical and a PPL. I just need to sharpen my skills.

 

Would you believe that they wanted just over $300 per hour for either one? I went next-door and found I can fly a Piper Sports for $200, or a select from Citabrias, Warriors etc for much the same. No wonder the first flying school doesn't do much flying.

 

OME

 

 

[Vev]

The 152 rates are lower at Tyabb and you'll get more airtime as there's no taxi time to speak of... If you fly their new 162's, which are a cheaper hire rate than the 152, you can get both your GA and RAA completed at the same time.

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[Mark11]

A second hand jab is no more than a commodore

 

If you want to fly alot, RAA registered jab is going to be cost effective

 

But, I'm a hopeless financial wizard

 

 

[old man emu]

The killers with ownership are the fixed costs - hangarage, insurance, registration, foregone return on capital investment (plus depreciation), annual maintenance (offset a bit by inclusion in hourly operating costs). These are what make ownership a "rich" man's game. However, having said that, ask around amongst your friends and acquaintances who have hobby cars or boats. I bet some of them spend similar amounts on their toys as you would on yours. Then there's the golfers and such. Even going to a football game with the family would cost nearly as much as an hour's flying.

 

OME

 

 

[fly_tornado]

A family pass at the Broncos is at most $1750 which gives you 12 games.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

A GFPT on its own only lets you fly in the training area and with the approval of the instructor for each flight. Yes you can take a few passengers for a joy flight and the plane you hire will be LAME maintained instead of L2 maintained.

 

But 25 miles in any direction is better than just flying the training area and if you go the cheaper way and get a RA cert + Nav then, with your experience with handling the heavier aircraft already under your belt you might just be able to convert over to the PPL with little fuss.

 

I just don't think the GFPT on its own is worth having. I had no interest in getting a GFPT but was told I had to do it as a formality prior to doing the flying test for my PPL.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

I guess we all face the same dilemma in a way and "doing it cheap" depends on how many hours you want to do and how often you will be taking passengers and how many passengers.

 

To fly a fair bit on your own, owning a cheap single place machine will work out cheap per hour. If you want to just fly occasionally, you could hire a nice RA two seater for a small amount each year or even convert to PPL and take a 182 or something a few times a year.

 

The bigger planes don't cost that much more to hire per seat and they generally get along well so per seat per mile they can be cheap (if you cost share with all your passengers rather than shout them a ride)

 

 

[greybeard]

I had no interest in getting a GFPT but was told I had to do it as a formality prior to doing the flying test for my PPL.

I think you may have been led astray regarding a GFPT being required for a PPL. It isn't a prerequisite for a PPL.

 

I never bothered with the GFPT and completed my PPL without ever having sat a GFPT.

 

 

[old man emu]

It is interesting to do the calculations of aircraft hire on a $per seat/mile basis. It's a long time since I did it, but I think you will find that it comes out with a very similar result from the two-seater upwards.

 

According to Boink, his Mini Cab cruises at 80 kts burning ~16 lph.

 

16 litres avgas @ $2.10 per litre = $33.60

 

140 ml oil per hour @$10 per litre = $1.40

 

Total Fuel & Oil = $35

 

Fuel/oil cost per NM = 35/80 = .44 per NM

 

Cost per seat mile = 22 cents (with a tailwind)

 

OME

 

 

[djpacro]

GFPT holders are still students therefore treated as such however the GFPT will be replaced by a licence soon per the new Part 61 so much more freedom.

 

I just don't think the GFPT on its own is worth having. I had no interest in getting a GFPT but was told I had to do it as a formality prior to doing the flying test for my PPL.

Many students take a while to complete the nav training so it is useful to get a stake in the ground with the GFPT. Also, a typical student doing a typical flying school syllabus for nav training may bump up against the frequent check requirements for a student without GFPT. So doing the GFPT is generally recommended in my opinion. However, it is not required so anyone pedalling quickly with their lessons can save some $$ by skipping it.

[djpacro]

Volksy. Thats an interesting point of view. Ill take a 5 year old tecnam over a 50 year old 152 any day.

I agree with Volksy. After 48 years of flying (and doing aerobatics in) 150s and 152s plus having recently seen a broken fuselage frame on a Tecnam. (Incidentally, there is no such thing as a 50 year old 152).

[kaz3g]

GFPT holders are still students therefore treated as such however the GFPT will be replaced by a licence soon per the new Part 61 so much more freedom.

Back to the future, then?

 

Kaz

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I agree with Volksy. After 48 years of flying (and doing aerobatics in) 150s and 152s plus having recently seen a broken fuselage frame on a Tecnam. (Incidentally, there is no such thing as a 50 year old 152).

Sorry Dave. Tecnam probably wasn't the best example;) and your very right there aren't any 50 year old 152's.So I wonder how you have been doing aeros in them for 48 years when the 152 wasn't developed until 77;) teehee, just stirring you mate. But, Are we seriously trying to say that airframe integrity is a deciding factor when talking about raa/ ga? Seriously?

 

 

[68volksy]

I personally think that airframe integrity is a very good start to the deciding factors between GA and RA. The only deciding factor i have ever heard so far has been cost so it's about time some of the reasons behind it being cheaper were brought into the discussion!

 

Depreciation is a factor in RA that many are only just starting to realise. From all the sums i've done if you pay someone (L2/LAME) to maintain a J170 and factor in depreciation the costs work out very similar to maintaining a GA aircraft. We did the sums on a J170 and a $30k Piper Cherokee and it was about dead even on a dollars per hour basis and 200 hours use per year. Major difference was that the $80k J170 was not worth $80k after 10 years where the Piper won't have lost a cent.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Volksy. Modern RAA acft have comparable, and sometimes greater, g load limits on the airframes. Indeed a quick google of the modern RAA trainers compared to GA shows the average Jab type has a higher G rating. So if the airframe integrity is your starting point in deciding then RAA is on par and in fact better in lots of cases. :) What maintenance cost for the old cherokee did you factor in?

 

Some more "reasons to consider RAA'

 

* Less hassle (red tape)

 

* Less rediculous medical requirements

 

* Greater choice of training orginisations (more RAA schools than GA in australia now)

 

* Greater choice of 'modern aircraft'. Most of which were built in the last decade,

 

* Hours count towards a PPL

 

* Ownership of an RAA aircraft is more user friendly (apart from current rego problems)

 

* Generally, RAA instructors are there because of the love of flying, as apposed to hours building for that big shinny jet job

 

* Club support and camaraderie is much more prevalent in RAA. Its more than a social implication, its a mentoring and safety one aswel having suport of more experienced pilots.

 

* Skills gained learning in RAA acft are much higher (stick and rudder) than GA, which makes the pilot a more rounded and capable pilot when converting to GA later on.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I personally think that airframe integrity is a very good start to the deciding factors between GA and RA. The only deciding factor i have ever heard so far has been cost so it's about time some of the reasons behind it being cheaper were brought into the discussion!Depreciation is a factor in RA that many are only just starting to realise. From all the sums i've done if you pay someone (L2/LAME) to maintain a J170 and factor in depreciation the costs work out very similar to maintaining a GA aircraft. We did the sums on a J170 and a $30k Piper Cherokee and it was about dead even on a dollars per hour basis and 200 hours use per year. Major difference was that the $80k J170 was not worth $80k after 10 years where the Piper won't have lost a cent.

If you are starting to make that sort of comparison, then the one to make is a comparison of forced landings between the two classes

 

 

[Guest nunans]

as far as forced landings go. i'd rather be looking below for somewhere to park a 60 knot ultralight than a heavier 120 knot ga aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

The landing speed is more important than the cruise speed so you are looking at 38 knots v/s say 65 knots ( though some are higher) Some GA planes ( like a Bonanza) are pretty tough but you are coming in at about 85 knots (when Heavy) so you need a bit more room. Forget landing a Lancair off field and not bending it. In fact I reckon you wouldn't have a good chance of surviving. Jabiru's are tough as a compartment/ capsule. Most RAAus airframes will never make the age of the GA aircraft. The skin is too thin on sheet al ones. A Cub or Auster could be kept going for ever. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

... I wonder how you have been doing aeros in them for 48 years when the 152 wasn't developed until 77;) teehee, just stirring you mate....

I included 150s in my statement. I learnt in a 150 back then and I think they are still great training airplanes i.e. classic behaviour per "the book" and good stick and rudder skills required to fly them well. Plus they will stand up to student abuse.

[motzartmerv]

Plus they will stand up to student abuse.

Aahhh...But can the Instructor??...teehee

 

 

[facthunter]

Flew VH-RNX June 1962. would have been very new then. 150's are good trainers but a bit "squeezy' for two big people who don't know each other that well. " Student abuse" You could only do that if no one was around. Nev

 

 

[68volksy]

If you are starting to make that sort of comparison, then the one to make is a comparison of forced landings between the two classes

Be handy if the RA-Aus numbers could be relied upon. There's been 5 forced landings at Goulburn airport in the past 12 months alone in RA-Aus aircraft and I'm yet to see even 1 of them turn up in an RA-Aus report!

 

 

[facthunter]

All landings are "forced" one way or another. What were the issue(s)? That is a bit poor. You will get as much valuable information from those sort of incidents as you might get from some more serious mishap. Nev

 

 

[68volksy]

At least we're starting to look at some different angles now! There are so many variables between different aircraft types in the same category let alone comparing two different categories!

 

We had 12 years of Cherokee/Warrior data and 2 years of Jab data to work with in our comparisons. Cherokee was VFR only which saved a massive amount in maintenance and also allowed for a more accurate comparison.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Be handy if the RA-Aus numbers could be relied upon. There's been 5 forced landings at Goulburn airport in the past 12 months alone in RA-Aus aircraft and I'm yet to see even 1 of them turn up in an RA-Aus report!

were they carb ice or fuel starvation? I flew into goulburn for the first time last week and the ra people there seemed a bit gun shy about icing with the gazelles.

I was very happy to be able to buy unleaded for cash on the spot though, i wish more places would do it.