Buying a plane...How flamin' hard is it?!?

[skippydiesel]

Those days the panned can be anything from basic to eye wateringly capable, with associated cost/value - you need to get a good "handle" on this area.

 

What about prop hrs and type??

[turboplanner]

Panel?

[KRviator]

On 21/05/2021 at 8:36 PM, skippydiesel said:

Those days the panned can be anything from basic to eye wateringly capable, with associated cost/value - you need to get a good "handle" on this area.

 

What about prop hrs and type??

The listing shows LH Propeller TSO 80.1 due 2024 & RH propeller TSO 0.0 due 2029. If it has the 'standard' props on a Comanche, I thought the overhaul period was 2,000hrs or 5 years, however, CAsA AD/PROP/01 says a 2,000h or 10 year TBO if I've read it right.

30 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Panel?

IT's got the following that I'd probably keep:

• GNS430 - but they don't say what suffix, so it might be a 'straight' -430 or a -430A (and thus only TSO-C219) or it might be a -430W (TSO-C146) which means I can use it for sole-means navigation in IMC
• It has what looks like an STEC-50 autopilot and;
• An Icarus SAM GNSS steering module.

Everything else is straight from the 1960's. I have a quote to put a full Dynon installation in a Comanche 260C that was about $50K including autopilot, but without the AP it would likely be around $30-35K for EFIS & EMS, so I'd probably go for that. I have the full Dynon setup in the RV and love it. The only thing I would lose if I go that route is Heading Hold, and Alt Capture, as the Dynon won't talk to the STEC. I would have wing-leveller and Alt Hold, as well as VOR/GPS Nav which is suitable.

 

The big question is whether it will meet book speeds & endurance, but with 120USG of fuel testing endurance might be a big ask! 😆

[RFguy]

I reckon keep the RV. upgrade to IFR maybe ?

tell your kids to learn to fly get their own plane...

 

 

[RFguy]

KRviator  - do you need de icing  in a plane you want ?

[KRviator]

Nope! FIKI is definitely not on the agenda. Too much added weight and complexity for something that's not needed. If the weather's that bad, I'll drive. Or wait it out.

[RFguy]

Apart from minimum installed equipment, are there any other regs showstoppers that would prevent an VH-experimental aircraft being IFR compliant/ eligible ?

[Thruster88]

Just now, RFguy said:

Apart from minimum installed equipment, are there any other regs showstoppers that would prevent an VH-experimental aircraft being IFR compliant/ eligible ?

It can be done legally. There was a guy training locally for IFR in a RV6a.

[KRviator]

I could put a C146 GNSS in the -9 and fly IFR no problems, but it doesn't solve the 4 seat issue. 

[RFguy]

Arrow III ? Turbo Arrow 3 ?

just thinking of what is fairly common.

How big are these kids going to get over the life of this airplane ? and bags, comfortable a required distance and gross weight ?

or a 182....

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by RFguy

[RFguy]

I've weighed it all up (for you) . From my POV, Cherokee-six is (almost) sort of too big. larger PA28s maybe dont quite have the payload when you want to carry a lot of stuff as well..

 

If I was flying my whole family around, I'd buy a C182 for a few reasons.  Lower empty weight, Lower stall speeds, lower fuel burn, comfy cabin, and  I like strut based monoplanes from a structural POV, and room for a ballistic chute if you really wanted.   Otherwise I'd buy a low wing .... for me flying the family is a completely different ballgame ....

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

KRviator  - do you need de icing  in a plane you want ?

He's talking about GA aircraft. GA opens up NIght VFR. 

There's a very scary story on one of the ATSB reports of a pilot flying into Canberra airport one night; an uneventful flight with just a few minutes to landing, I've forgotten the exact detail but at about six minutes out he starts to feel the airctraft stall, wrestles it back and calls an emergency, he drops altitude as fast as he can, but it gets out of control again, and he just manages to get it back - this is ice, not a flight into VMC - he has clear sight of the horizon at all times, and he just manages to get it down. While Facthunter has mentioned that de-icing can be misused where you finish up with them working but encased in ice and you go in anyway, this would be an option I would choose if I decided to go NVFR.

[RFguy]

Flying into canberra in his GA plane, from the west over the mountains, (MSA ~ 6000)  a mate of mine has had a couple of icing scares, middle of the day, IMC.....finding the wings werent working so well.  . I  think NVFR is very scary around here.... fog at night.  , engine failure -- you wont know where the ground is until you hit it.....

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, RFguy said:

I've weighed it all up (for you) . From my POV, Cherokee-six is (almost) sort of too big. larger PA28s maybe dont quite have the payload when you want to carry a lot of stuff as well..

 

If I was flying my whole family around, I'd buy a C182 for a few reasons.  Lower empty weight, Lower stall speeds, lower fuel burn, comfy cabin, and  I like strut based monoplanes from a structural POV, and room for a ballistic chute if you really wanted.   Otherwise I'd buy a low wing .... for me flying the family is a completely different ballgame ....

 

Cherokee 6 is good if you want a rugged aircraft for outback strips around Australia. The fixed UC stands up much better and the Maintenance cost is always significantly lower than retracts. Speed is lower, but flying VFR, speed is not usually your limit on the enbd of day destination. There's a lot less chance of this aircraft getting ahead of you. I know of one which went for sale for $25,000.00 with wing corrosion. The buyer got all corroded sections replaced for $16,000.00 and as far as I know is happily transporting the family to exotic destinations for the holidays.

 

With all these aircraft, like the Jabiru, if you want to do touring with luggage a rough rule of thumb is to dump the rear passengers, so a 172/182 would take 2 people, Cherokee 6 or 206 four people.

 

I did an analysis a few years ago and the Cessna 206 came out in front even though it's hourly cost was higher.

 

If you decide what type of flying you want to do, then spreadsheet the specifications, its surprising what comes up as economic flying.

[poteroo]

I've owned 13 aircraft over a 44 year period, and only once did I make the mistake of buying one with 4 seats to cope with children.  Apart from a couple short hops around the wheatbelt, we never did get to do any long 'family' trips because the kids developed their own interests and were not so interested. They later learned to fly, but not in the 170, 180, or 182 for very sound reasons. In hindsight, get a 4 seater, and remove the back seats so that it becomes a lovely large baggage compartment.  In an emergency, you can layout the sleeping bags and camp the night until the wx blows thru.  Kids grow up, and if flying isn't their thing - they'll make your trip misery!

 

My advice is to not consider a retractable, especially the ancient stuff.  Something like a PA-28-235/6 is a great load carrier,, does 130KTAS and has vg range. In the high wings - nothing beats a C182 for load and capability - same performance.  Both of them are thirsty and you'll wince every time you refuel: but, they are far cheaper to maintain than RGs.  Next - do you really need to be IFR?  It's really a nonsense to think that as an amateur pilot with an IR that you can get through any weather. Wrong, there's a lot of wx where the wise and prudent pack it in, and stay overnight, even if it's inconvenient.  Boring holes thru winter fronts, and summer monsoon stuff is strictly for those who have to do it.  If you get over the IFR desire, then you'll have money to fill your tanks instead of spending it on avionics, radio techs and probably a complete rewire of the aircraft anyway. 

 

As for NVMC, well, you need to consider it to require near IFR skills, as it can be very, very scary when you lift the nose on takeoff at Woop Woop and there is nothing but black for the next 100nm.  If you really want to night fly, go get an IR to start.

 

happy days,

[RFguy]

It's good when the well experienced like Poteroo and Turbs, Facthunt ,  come out and add something. Valuable stuff.

[lee-wave]

Superb video of an IFR flight in a 182T   

 

[facthunter]

My days of flying in IMC without a reasonable cloud base on a piston single are well over (I hope) You are trusting everything to your engine IF you don't get visual before hitting the ground.  The only way to cope with ice like that is to  descend and get above freezing by a couple of degrees.. You have to be aware of LSALT in those situations. Using a Flight Level Below 10,000 feet? Transition height/level is 10,000 feet onto a valid QNH.. THAT way you have separation with other traffic  That vid made it look easy. The weather at destination would have required an alternate  on the x wind alone especially when the runway is wet.  Nev

[RFguy]

As not to polute the airplane buying discussion (any more) I replied in new topic :

 

 IMC topics - AUS/NZ General Discussion - Recreational Flying

 

 

 

 

 

[KRviator]

18 hours ago, RFguy said:

I've weighed it all up (for you) . From my POV, Cherokee-six is (almost) sort of too big. larger PA28s maybe dont quite have the payload when you want to carry a lot of stuff as well..

 

If I was flying my whole family around, I'd buy a C182 for a few reasons.  Lower empty weight, Lower stall speeds, lower fuel burn, comfy cabin, and  I like strut based monoplanes from a structural POV, and room for a ballistic chute if you really wanted.   Otherwise I'd buy a low wing .... for me flying the family is a completely different ballgame ....

 

I've seriously considered a 182Q, and it's like the RV-10, not great at anything, but good at everything, but...using the figures from the Redcliffe Aero club's 182 (simply the first one I found), shows it has a useful load of only 1,000lbs, or 217Kg after loading full fuel. A Comanche C I missed out on by a weekend could load full fuel (90USG), 305Kg of people and 29kg of baggage and not be overweight or out of balance, and blow the doors of a 182 for next-to-no difference in fuel. A 206 would be good, but the few for sale are all mega $$$ or mega hours. There's no in between.

While I'm not planning flying IMC routinely, NVFR is definitely on the agenda. Hence me considering that Twin-Co, even though I'm not twin rated yet. For the same reason I'll be installing an EFIS in whatever I do end up getting. The Dynon (and Garmin equivalent) provides massive safety benefits over the standard 6 pack, in addition to ADS-B out and EMS functionality - as well as spoken "gear down, d*ckhead!" alarms in your headset if you forget to dangle the dunlops.

 

And to bring this back on the initial topic, it's now the 24th May, making it 4 days since I left a voicemail asking a broker to call me back, 6 days after I replied to another broker's email seeking some more info on a Debonair, and 6 days since I sent an email to a third broker following up an email I'd originally sent on the 3rd May - so that's now 3 weeks since I initially enquired about a plane he has listed, with no contact from him.

At what point does it transition from laziness to incompetence? 🤨
 

Edited May 24, 2021 by KRviator

[facthunter]

A few people probably think being a broker is just advertising it and the buyers will come through the doors. Your biggest problem with the situation re purchase  is the age of them NOW.

      Comanche's are nice but they are laminar flow wings. Short landings and take-offs  are not so safe or effective as the very forgiving Cessna  and the Pipers have a full flying tail. Efficient but structurally  a "keep your eye on it" Item.  THOSE early Pipers were very well corrosion proofed which is a help.

  . IF your not a capable and recent "Multi" pilot the two engines just make a engine problem twice as likely.. A gap seal kit can help the assy flying by reducing drag. It is comforting to look out each side and see an engine there purring away but you are paying real dollars for it and it's  deducting performance  and extra drag when it stops and there's a lot of directional imbalance to handle for a while. Nev

Edited May 24, 2021 by facthunter
more content.

[RFguy]

I think If you really must fly over the un-landable, get a Cirrus, or put an airframe  chute in a 182 or 206...

I used to think that chutes encourage 'moral hazard', but now I'm not so sure.

 

 

.

 

[facthunter]

Just don't FLY in those situations. You DON'T HAVE to and that's a fact.  Night VMC is more hazardous than Having a IF rating .. They nearly had a war with their CASA testing officers about being forced to do the checks. Nev

Edited May 24, 2021 by facthunter

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Just don't FLY in those situations. You DON'T HAVE to and that's a fact.  Night VMC is more hazardous than Having a IF rating .. They nearly had a war with their CASA testing officers about being forced to do the checks. Nev

Today you can fly Jetstar IFR through heavy weather right across the country, and when you reach clear weather still hire a good GA touring aircraft to go off the main routes locally. you get more destination time and a much lower total cost, so the day of the optioned up Singles and Twins may well be over.

[facthunter]

IF any lighties (non Jets) have adequate de and anti icing capability I have no knowledge of it. It would be heavy and add drag.  On Bigger jets it just uses fuel (Bleed the engines) AND sometimes you can increase climb speed. At cruise levels you are heated around 30 plus degrees C by your speed through the air, but at very high levels there's usually very low humidity. Similar to the poles. Less moisture than deserts they say.. Nev