Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Looking for Plane Advice

  1. #1
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default Looking for Plane Advice

    I have the worst of all worlds, a son in college in an aviation program getting ready to start the flying portion of the program. I'm also licensed, but not currrent (for a long time). A cursory examination of the costs show that it should be a good deal for me to buy a plane for my son to get his ratings (oh, and I can fly too? ), with the idea that as long as he doesn't wreck it I could sell it later and recoup the investment.

    I'm looking for other's thoughts on a plane selection. Budget is less than $40K, which obviously places a lot of limitations on selection. Also, we're both 6'4 250#, so itty bitty planes are sort of a no-go (I remember during my training days in a Tomahawk, where the instructor and I couldn't filll the tanks due to weight . . .).

    I have no preference towards either tricycle or taildraggers (although I have to admit I'd prefer a taildragger), and would prefer side-by-side seating instead of tandem.

    I like the Champ, the Pacer, and C-170(2) ac, which seem to be in ready supply. Thoughts, comments, criticisms?

    Thanks for your time,

    SH

  2. #2

    Default

    It seems like a 170 or 172 are exactly what you need. The problem with most 170s is that they are not IFR equipped, and were not intended to be. You can always add all the IFR equipment, but that is pretty expensive and I doubt that it would add much to the resale price- not too much demand for IFR 170s in AK with our MEAs.

    I agree that it makes sense to buy a plane for training/ time building- I wish I had done it that way.

    Good luck.

    Doug

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Kasitsna Bay
    Posts
    109

    Default stinson 108-2 108-3

    Don't overlook a pretty decent airplane...Stinson 108-2 or 108-3. Roomy, easy to fly, taildragger, great time builder, and they seem to hold their resale value. 30-40k will get you a nice Stinson. You can even do a little bush work after some experience. The flight manuals are very conservative as far as take off and landing distances, so don't count it out by numbers. I know that there has been 1 for sale on craigslist in Anchorage and 1 on the Soldotna field.

  4. #4
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Thanks. I'll look into the Stinson too . . .

    Regards,

    SH

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    520

    Default

    If your primary concerns are instruments, room and price, you might want to look at a Beech Musketeer....Louis

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2

    Smile skyraider

    Try looking at a super skyraider im at skyraiderllc.com or you can go to youtube.com and type in skyraiderdemo they are a nice plane and affordable thanks skyraider

  7. #7
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,029

    Default c-172

    Parts availability, cheap mx costs, forgiving to fly, used to play.
    The 172 is pretty hard to beat in that price range. Engine (0-320 in the newer ones, not 0-300 models!) and airplane are very common. Mechanics are familiar, parts are available. No surprising flight characteristics.
    You'll save money come mx or annual time with a 172. Put big tires on and you can go about anywhere you want to play if you use your head. If you HAVE to have a tailwheel, the Pacer is the most under valued plane in the bush. (get with o-320 or better yet 0-360 and long wings) I would caution on the other planes listed (though they are both ok airplanes) you will pay dearly when you have to do work on it. My .02
    a&p, IA, Commercial

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    75

    Default

    I would have to agree that if you have to have a tailwheel that the Pacer is a pretty good buy for the money. Meaning you get a lot of plane for the price and you can take the rear seat out and have a comfortable two place with room for camping gear. BUT....the short wing Pacer is fast on final for any real bush work. Those wings just don't want to fly any slower than, I think, an indictated air speed of right around 50. No prob if you stick to long gravel bars and beaches or put skis on it in the winter and you can go alot more places. The ones I've seen needed around 750ft to get off the ground. If you go that route try to find one with the 160 horse engine, or at least a wide deck 0-320 that can be up graded later to 160 horse with high compression pistons.

  9. #9
    Member Sierra Hotel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Thanks for all the input . . I'm leaning towards the 172 based on AK-HUNT's input re: most common airframe, lowest maintenance costs, etc. But I'm also looking hard at a Maule M-4 that's up for sale right now . . .

  10. #10
    Member mit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    702

    Default 170

    I prefer the 170. Floats wheels and Skis. 172's don't do all three as well. Look for 180hp on either one. But the 145 will get you by and they cost less.
    Tim

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    Do you plan to insure it? The 172's rates will be very, very hard to beat, particularly if a student pilot/new pilot is involved. Call an insurance company and get a few quotes. The Maule insurance rates will probably scare you.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •