From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: (naive?) Buyer enters used plane market
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:46:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO

In rec.aviation, jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhardt) 

responds to rosinski@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) on purchasing on
aircraft:

>My recommendations are first a C-182, straight leg, no turbo, then a
>Piper Cherokee 235 (PA-28-235), then a Piper Cherokee 181 (PA-28-181).

Very solid recommendations for your price range, particularly since
older versions of all of these aircraft are readily available.  You will
have to look at relatively old versions of the '235 and the 182 however.
Prices on newer versions of both of these highly desirable planes are
*really high*.

>The Piper Arrow (PA-28-200) is an ok plane in the mountains for 2 or 3
>people, but the retractable gear just costs too much unless someone else
>is paying part of your costs (poor bang for the buck for a mountain
>airplane, ok for a cross-country machine).

I'd agree that the PA-28R-200 is probably not the best of mountain
planes (though it is acceptable) but I should, just for the sake of
clarity point out that the PA-28R-201 and PA-28RT-201 (normally
aspirated Arrow III and Arrow IV) aren't too bad.  They introduced the
semi-tapered wing to the Arrow line which substantially improves climb
performance and service ceiling.  These aircraft are, however, probably
well out of Jim's stated price range.

Several people in this string have noted retractable gear costs as being
prohibitive and I've got to confess that I don't really understand the
issue.  As I examine two years of maintenance records, and the
aircraft's log books, I note that the incremental cost owing to the gear
itself is *very* slight.  Admittedley, the additive costs of owning a
*complex* aircraft (retract, CS prop, turbo [in my case], larger more
expensive engine, and better avionics] is significant.  But gear alone
(except maybe on Cessna wangle-dangle gear :-) just doen't add much
expense.  I'll be more than willing to bet that my operating expenses
are fairly comparable to you fixed gear 182 and Dakota drivers out
there, especially if we leave off expenses related to my turbo-ed
engine.

>You might consider buying into a partnership in one of these craft, fly
>it for a few years and decide your likes/dislikes vs cost at that time.
>Buying a too-small airplane will cost you twice...  buying it the first
>time, selling it, then buying what you really needed in the first place,
>but were originally shy to spend the money on.

Again, excellent advice.  The one thing I can almost guarantee is that
buying less plane than you really think you need/would like to have will
be very frustrating.  There's always a temptation to say, "well gee, I
really need X but Y is all I can really afford, and anyway at this point
I'll be happy owning anything just so it flies."  Now I'm not talking
about wishing I could afford a King Air, I'm talking about a realistic
evaluation of what you want to own an aircraft for.  If you're buying
substantially less than what you need to suit your stated flying
purposes, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
 
I was lucky enough to be able to buy exactly the aircraft that my
needs evaluation told me that I should have.  Even at that, I sometimes
crave more plane :-)  Had I not been able to afford what I have, I'm
absolutely convinced, now, that my best move would have been to a partnership.
(BTW, I would never have admitted to that 2.5 years ago when I was plane
shopping.  I wanted *my own plane* and didn't and still don't want to
share).  But it would be better than owning less that I'd be satisfied
with.


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation