Buying an Aircraft beyond one's capability

[Mach1]

What are the alternatives? It was recently brought to my attention that there are no ‘intermediate’ aircraft for rent in Canada. Go ahead and try to find a C-210 (or something along those lines) for rent. You can easily find that aircraft for rent in the USA, Australia, or Austria for that matter, but not here in Canada. It is difficult to model the idea that one should learn to crawl, walk and then run when the only options available to you as a pilot are to crawl and then to run with no intermediate steps available unless you have the cash to buy. If you have the cash to buy, you are going to want to buy the end product so you don’t have to buy and sell 3 different aircraft to get where you want to be eventually.

So, why don’t flight schools/rental places offer some higher performance singles or even rent their twins out? Insurance? Since other countries offer this service, I say that is a weak argument.

[Shiny Side Up]

What are the alternatives? It was r It is difficult to model the idea that one should learn to crawl, walk and then run when the only options available to you as a pilot are to crawl and then to run with no intermediate steps available unless you have the cash to buy. If you have the cash to buy, you are going to want to buy the end product so you don’t have to buy and sell 3 different aircraft to get where you want to be eventually.

This is the very essence of the problem as posted. Guys who have the money are the only ones who want to step up to the level, but they don't want to take the appropriate steps to get there. That does indeed mean that they sould have to own some intermediate aircraft, but most don't want to. To be honest if cash is the reason, then they probably don't have the money really to step up to the level they want. If time is the issue, then its not the owning the intermediate airplane that is the problem, its they don't want to take the time to train. Ten times out of ten in my experience, guys of this level really have a low interest in learning flying skills and are interested solely in how fast they can get to this level. For example, the Cessna 414 (or substitute your high performance plane of choice) has the performance they desire, the question becomes "how fast can I get into it so it can fulfil my other needs" rather than "what is the route I need to go to enjoy the benefits of that airplane safely"

So, why don’t flight schools/rental places offer some higher performance singles or even rent their twins out? Insurance? Since other countries offer this service, I say that is a weak argument.

Quite simply there is not enough of a market for it in Canada. Those who can buy often do. Those who can't afford to buy, often also don't have enough to rent such an airplane. OF all my customers I would say only one (out of about a hundred) falls into the category of "enough money to rent a larger single and wants to, but doesn't own." Insurance is only a sort of round about part of the explanation. Would you rent a Cessna 210 to someone who could only afford to fly it once a year? I should say that the US commercial pilot's licence also requires time in "complex aircraft" which gives student pilots much more onus to fly such airplanes and much more sense to have one on their flight line.

[Hedley]

Hence the runaway success of the Cirrus SR20/22 and Columbia 350/400.

The target market for these aircraft are guys with some coin, but really
not much flying ability (or experience) past the private pilot level.

They can't even get insurance for retractable-gear single (eg Mooney,
Bonanza, Comanche) let alone retractable-gear piston 6-cyl twin (Aztec,
Baron, Cessna 300/400).

So these guys buy these plastic nosewheel fixed-gear airplanes that have
big colour screens and minimum drag for a decent cruise speed, even with
the fixed gear hung out. Generally easy to fly, but they crash a lot anyhow.

I don't know about you, but whenever a Cirrus or Columbia lines up
on final, I like to watch, because they generally put on a pretty good
show if there's even a hint of crosswind. And they sure like to pull
that ballistic chute lever when they get near a cloud.

It has been my experience that people who spend their time earning
piles of dough, generally haven't spent much time learning to fly,
and it shows. Other guys have spent a lifetime flying, are pretty good
sticks and know their way around a cockpit, but don't have a pot to
p1ss in.

You make your choice as to how you are going to spend your time,
and what skills you are going to develop.

Generally good things happen when you can team up two of these
opposite guys.

[GoinNowhereFast]

Food for thought: next time you see an F-18 doing surface
level aerobatics at an airshow, remember that he almost
certainly doesn't have enough flight time to fly left seat
in a clapped-out king air in the civilian world. Hmmmm.

And they do single pilot M-IFR in those too!

1) The pilots who fly the Hornet aren't your typical pilots with your typical training.
2) The aircraft is virtually un-stallable and has a ton of excess thrust.
3) They aren't carrying passengers.
4) There is an oh-sh!t handle.

That's exactly my point. Those guys are the best in the world at what they do, they are trained for it and therefore it is safe. If you feel comfortable, are compenent and are properly trained to fly single pilot MIFR, then why not? The problem is most people over estimate their abilities and get themselves into trouble.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Food for thought: next time you see an F-18 doing surface
level aerobatics at an airshow, remember that he almost
certainly doesn't have enough flight time to fly left seat
in a clapped-out king air in the civilian world. Hmmmm.

And they do single pilot M-IFR in those too!

Actually TC does not recognize the CF 18 as a Multi engine aircraft because the engiens are mounted side by side on the aircraft centerline.

[altiplano]

they are trained for it and therefore it is safe.

First time I ever heard that being a fighter pilot was a safe choice for an occupation.

[Strega]

Actually TC does not recognize the CF 18 as a Multi engine aircraft because the engiens are mounted side by side on the aircraft centerline

So does TC not recognize a skymaster as a multiengine airplane either?

This is the dumbest thing Ive heard all day...

[shitdisturber]

Food for thought: next time you see an F-18 doing surface
level aerobatics at an airshow, remember that he almost
certainly doesn't have enough flight time to fly left seat
in a clapped-out king air in the civilian world. Hmmmm.

And they do single pilot M-IFR in those too!

Actually TC does not recognize the CF 18 as a Multi engine aircraft because the engiens are mounted side by side on the aircraft centerline.

The Hornet, like the Mixmaster is recognized by TC as a multi engine aircraft; but they are in the centerline thrust category.

[Mach1]

This is the very essence of the problem as posted. Guys who have the money are the only ones who want to step up to the level, but they don't want to take the appropriate steps to get there. That does indeed mean that they sould have to own some intermediate aircraft, but most don't want to. To be honest if cash is the reason, then they probably don't have the money really to step up to the level they want. If time is the issue, then its not the owning the intermediate airplane that is the problem, its they don't want to take the time to train. Ten times out of ten in my experience, guys of this level really have a low interest in learning flying skills and are interested solely in how fast they can get to this level. For example, the Cessna 414 (or substitute your high performance plane of choice) has the performance they desire, the question becomes "how fast can I get into it so it can fulfil my other needs" rather than "what is the route I need to go to enjoy the benefits of that airplane safely"

Quite simply there is not enough of a market for it in Canada. Those who can buy often do. Those who can't afford to buy, often also don't have enough to rent such an airplane. OF all my customers I would say only one (out of about a hundred) falls into the category of "enough money to rent a larger single and wants to, but doesn't own." Insurance is only a sort of round about part of the explanation. Would you rent a Cessna 210 to someone who could only afford to fly it once a year? I should say that the US commercial pilot's licence also requires time in "complex aircraft" which gives student pilots much more onus to fly such airplanes and much more sense to have one on their flight line.

The market isn't serviced at all so no one knows for sure what the actual market size is.

I think that your assumptions are not exactly valid. I would consider it an enormous pain in the ass to buy an aircraft, lose money on it and then move onto the next aircraft to do that over again to finally arrive at the third aircraft that I really wanted in the first place. The economics of that don’t make any sense. Renting a series of increasingly complex aircraft to arrive at the point where I buy the one aircraft I want makes a good deal more sense. But I know what the entrenched attitude of the flight schools/rental companies are. I know of one or two places that offer a next step aircraft (C-182/Arrow) and they can’t keep up with the bookings. So, the market is there but no one wants to get into that market. Fair enough.

Dual time makes money. People fly dual on a C-172 or similar aircraft. That’s all we offer. I know it is the economics of the game. So, don’t blame/point fingers at the guy who buys the end product of his desires because he isn’t following your interpretation of the route he should take when there are not alternatives available. Buy, or rent what slim selection is available.

I have trained a few of these “rich” guys who bought high performance aircraft and every one of them was a serious student who had no problem spending the time and effort it was going to take to learn to fly properly. All of them are still alive. So, there are some pretty broad and general statements/assumptions being made here on this board. I am not alone in having made some large jumps from one aircraft type to the next. It’s all about the individual and easing into the airplane until you are comfortable with it. It’s not about the airplane it’s about the pilot.

[Strega]

The Hornet, like the Mixmaster is recognized by TC as a multi engine aircraft; but they are in the centerline thrust category.

Does the hornet have a VMC? Wheres auxbat? I seem to recall an accident a few years back that suggested it did.. ( have a VMC )

[iflyforpie]

According to a former Hornet driver I talked to, originally the Hornet was categorized as centerline thrust but they had it changed because of the large amount of asymmetrical it produces on one engine.

[akoch]

So what would you guys recommend as a first aircraft for somebody finishing his PPL? I would think a lot of people like me are naive beginners and looking for guidance.

I only know what I don't want this airplane to be:
- preferably not Cessna (sorry can not afford a Mustang)
- not old design. Would much rather prefer something designed and manufactured within the last 10-15 years (yes, I'm aware of the notion that airplanes have not changed over the last 70 years. I personally don't find this to hold the water)
- not too too difficult to fly, with high cockpit workload
- not too expensive to maintain. Anything Cessna 172/182-like is acceptable, but not much beyond.

What I would want this airplane to be:
- under 200k, 250k max, the lesser the better
- stabilized depreciation
- manageable yearly cost/cost per hour (again 172/182-like)
- reasonably safe for beginner (not looking for a magic carpet, but safe within reason such as good mechanical and survivability record)
- reasonably fast 135-170 knots?
- well under 15 GPH burn rate
- comfortable, XC capable

Don't mind retractable at all (that's what "real" planes do anyway). 2 person min, more realistically 4 person capacity. Ideally something I would not grow out of quickly if continue to fly.

What's your (subjective's good) opinions then? Thanks.

PS Renting is a way to go, but I do like to own a plane and not to think about going XC if I like to.

[Big Pistons Forever]

So what would you guys recommend as a first aircraft for somebody finishing his PPL? I would think a lot of people like me are naive beginners and looking for guidance.

I only know what I don't want this airplane to be:
- preferably not Cessna (sorry can not afford a Mustang)
- not old design. Would much rather prefer something designed and manufactured within the last 10-15 years (yes, I'm aware of the notion that airplanes have not changed over the last 70 years. I personally don't find this to hold the water)
- not too too difficult to fly, with high cockpit workload
- not too expensive to maintain. Anything Cessna 172/182-like is acceptable, but not much beyond.

What I would want this airplane to be:
- under 200k, 250k max, the lesser the better
- stabilized depreciation
- manageable yearly cost/cost per hour (again 172/182-like)
- reasonably safe for beginner (not looking for a magic carpet, but safe within reason such as good mechanical and survivability record)
- reasonably fast 135-170 knots?
- well under 15 GPH burn rate
- comfortable, XC capable

Don't mind retractable at all (that's what "real" planes do anyway). 2 person min, more realistically 4 person capacity. Ideally something I would not grow out of quickly if continue to fly.

What's your (subjective's good) opinions then? Thanks.

PS Renting is a way to go, but I do like to own a plane and not to think about going XC if I like to.

C182: Reasonably fast and a good ROC, will carry anything you can stuff in it , reasonable and predictable maintainance costs, insurable for a low time pilot, solid resale market so you can easily sell if you want to move up

[GoinNowhereFast]

My vote is also for a C182, but two others that come to mind are the Piper Arrow and Diamond DA40.
Both burn less than 15gph, they have similar engines.
The Arrow has retractable gear and was origionally designed in the 60s, but has been modernized. It is also the slower of the two.
The Diamond is a pretty fast airplane, especially given fixed gear. It is also the more expensive option.

[Big Pistons Forever]

As a brand new PPL you may find insurance on a retract is not available at any price.

[Hedley]

- reasonably fast 135-170 knots?
- well under 15 GPH burn rate

Certified, you may have to go RG to get those numbers
eg 4 cyl Mooney. Not sure you'd like the gph of a
6 cyl Mooney or Bonanza. 4 cyl Comanche is antique.

Even a retractable Cessna or Piper single sure won't go
170 knots, and the faster ones will again have 6 cyl and
higher gph.

An RV might do it for you, but you probably don't
want a homebuilt.

[akoch]

Yes, I realize the retracts may not be the brightest idea. It is just attractive, but can live without it.

Already two voices for the C182 (and not 172?). Is this because everyone is so familiar with them? Or do you really prefer it over other options? Say DA-40, Socata Trinidad, Commander 114 etc?

[Hedley]

Rockwell Commander 112/114 won't meet your numbers,
neither will 6 cyl Socata, though maybe if there is a 4 cyl
RG Socata (not sure if there is) it might meet your numbers -
think 4 cyl Mooney, just slower.

Dunno how you're going to get your numbers with fixed gear.

[akoch]

Well, it does not have to be 170. Say if it is better than 135 it is already sort of acceptable for XC, is not it? If it is around 140-150 - you can live with it, right?

[Hedley]

172 is 105 knots

182 isn't much faster

177RG might touch 140K with 4 cyl (again with the RG), but MUCH slower than 4 cyl Mooney

185/206 will scratch at 140K with fixed gear burning prodigious amounts of fuel.

172RG and 182RG are oddities. Not many of them around. The 172RG is used
almost solely for complex training down south, and the 182RG will burn far too
much fuel for you, going far too slowly than you specify.

If you are only looking at certified aircraft, you are looking at 4cyl & RG to get
the numbers you want.

Hey, I forgot about the SR20 - it's fixed gear, 4 cyl. It might do what you want!
Unfortunately you have to throw it away at 4000TT - plastic airframe.

[ywgflyboy]

PA28-200R (retractable gear though)... Will get you around 135,140 if you fly her right.

[akoch]

Hedley, thank you.
You seem to suggest taking a look at Mooneys then?

The SR22 is more than I can spend. And I'm reading these don't seem to have the best track record on both safety and maintenance. Optically it sure looks good though.

[Hedley]

Not sure if RG is an option for you.

Look at Cirrus SR20 (not SR22). It might meet your numbers.

[akoch]

"If you are only looking at certified aircraft, you are looking at 4cyl & RG to get
the numbers you want."

Would you be comfortable with an experimental category aircraft? You mentioned an RV....?

[iflyforpie]

The SR-20 is limited to 12,000 flight hours; which is more than most private owners will fly in 240 years...

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... 0009CH.pdf