Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Is ownership worth it?

ivark wrote:

why does it have to be certfied?

I love the idea of homebuilts and would love to build one. Don’t want to restart here the discussions on the feasibility of IFR and night flying with homebuilts around Europe, which seems to be the kind of flying discussed in this thread

ivark wrote:

Also legal for IFR in lots of places.

Yup, “lots” != “all”. But like I said, academic questioning :-) How low can you go? Is there anything cheaper than that Vulcan?

EHLE, Netherlands

hmng wrote:

ivark wrote: why does it have to be certfied?

I love the idea of homebuilts and would love to build one. Don’t want to restart here the discussions on the feasibility of IFR and night flying with homebuilts around Europe, which seems to be the kind of flying discussed in this thread

ivark wrote:

Also legal for IFR in lots of places.

Yup, “lots” != “all”. But like I said, academic questioning :-) How low can you go? Is there anything cheaper than that Vulcan?

1. VFR Spain requires approval…
2. IFR – Germany, Spain, France – they all require special approval, AFAIK.

@ivark, what about IFR in foreign Permit aircraft in Baltic countries?

EGTR

ivark wrote:

You can buy RV-10 assembled by a glider factory for 300K .. And might be even safer than SR22, if you operate mainly from short strips.. Also legal for IFR in lots of places..

Do they have certified AP for approaches in RV10s now? I know some can fly IFR but their low wing load and fast speed precludes hard IMC operation, an SR22 on long IFR runway is way more preferable IMO

For IFR in short grass, one should get C182 (G1000+GFC), sadly it’s slow and greedy but should not be underestimated in weather, it does a pretty good job punching through harsh weather, even better than a “faster FIKI”: it can take load of ice, turbulence, wind, gusts, rain, mud, snow…I personally, never asked for vectors to avoid or cancelled or divert in a Skylane, getting tossed in them is a pleasure

Obviously, it’s an ugly fat high wing Cessna, so it can’t compare beauty to an RV10, but it can fly from any grass as long as you can close the doors and walk to the aircraft in the mud, and way more performing when it comes to weather & safety than most GA SEP fleet !

Last Edited by Ibra at 11 May 15:07
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I think we have already a gazillion other threads on homebuilts/permit and IFR :-) At least I’ve seen a bunch.

EHLE, Netherlands

arj1 wrote:

what about IFR in foreign Permit aircraft in Baltic countries?

Legal in all three. I was actually quite impressed how fast my friend got his registered- imported from LAV, together with IFR approval..

EETU, Estonia

Let’s say someone turns up with a 100k budget. In that case I would advise to look in the range of 50k and keep the rest for upgrades and flying.

That’s probably true, but it seems to me that if you buy a “really old plane” and keep it for say 10 years, you will spend as much in total as if you bought one (same model but newer) to start with using the same money which you spent over the 10 years, but crucially (as Bosco points out) with the second route you will have had much less downtime and you will have enjoyed your flying a lot more.

There will be a considerable variation on the above according to how good the prebuy was. The prebuy (assuming one was done at all) remains the weakest link in used plane purchase.

I know of so many dreadful downtime stories. One thread here although almost everybody on it was well sorted; normally if a mod/admin starts a thread, the responses tend to be contrarian This is a fun one to read. Most of the really bad stories can’t be posted, due to embarrassment, destruction of relationships with people, with maint companies, etc. This is what tends to happen if you have a bad mishap but had no spare budget to sort it out.

I think we have already a gazillion other threads on homebuilts/permit and IFR :-) At least I’ve seen a bunch.

Yes – search.

The viability of this is strongly dependent on where the owner is based and where he wants to fly. In most of Europe, this is not viable if you want to freely fly around. Well, if you want to be legal (nobody is actually checking since it is a somewhat subtle area)

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Let’s say someone turns up with a 100k budget. In that case I would advise to look in the range of 50k and keep the rest for upgrades and flying.

This was basically my strategy, and at the moment I’m glad it was. Had I spent the 100k on the airplane and been faced with the extra expenses I’d (read my wife—I don’t care) be even more frustrated. I’d have jumped at the chance to spend that money on the perfect plane ready to go, but it’s just not there to be had. The pre-buy guy told me it wouldn’t be cheap to get it where I wanted, but that it had good bones, so I went for it. And it won’t break me if the airplane turns out to require more than I expected, even if it is frustrating.

EHRD, Netherlands

Quote boscomantico wrote:

Regarding old vs. new: people who buy new (or almost new) aircraft are sometimes looked upon as “unclever” on forums like this one. People say “you can buy on old one of these for a fraction of the cost, but the same capability”, or “for the same money, you could buy a 40 year old, but much more capable type of airplane”.

Regardless of cost, for some specific capabilities there are no alternatives to a used aircraft.

That was our case with the P210 and our pressurization, load, seating, range and grass field requirements or could be the case for someone looking for a pressurized piston twin or a travelling four-five seat taildragger or…

Antonio
LESB, Spain

Peter wrote:

There is a big variation in maintenance costs. If you buy an old dog, it may be cheap to buy but it could cost tens of k in year one. Same if you got conned and didn’t spot it on a prebuy. I bought my TB20 new and spent relatively “nothing” on it since in terms of unscheduled maintenance. Wrote a long article here which is worth a read for anyone buying a plane even if quite a different type because the basic principles apply equally.

It is not as simple as that. Yes a new airplane usually ensures some initial period of high reliability.

However, properly maintained aircraft are like the proverbial broom with stick and head replaced over the years…
Avionics and engine are the main items and they are typically renewed during the life of the aircraft. The issue is be more with non-renewable airframe parts.

Then reliability and maintenance costs come down to how much it has been cared for rather than whether it is 10YO or 50YO.

Peter wrote:

The biggest issues with any metal plane is worn / damaged airframe parts (which have no PMA etc sources and are costly irrespective of brand, and somewhat more so with Socata), and corrosion.

Exactly. And those are the items I cared most for in my search for and aircraft which was to be 40YO due to the type’s limited production period. Unlike avionics and engine which can be corrected via adjustments in the purchase price, condition of airframe parts may be beyond a cost matter. This is only avoided with a new aircraft.

Antonio
LESB, Spain

Vref wrote:

The age of the airframe is not the problem. It’s the previous owner TLC which is a major factor. I think peoples focus is too much on (glass) avionics and not enough on the airframe/engine itself.

Exactly that was my point above. The market does not typically value those factors, but those who know what they are looking for in that sense are happy to pay a premium because they know they will save it in the subsequent operation and maintenance costs and avoid the groundtime.

Most of those well TLC’d aircraft either do not go out on the public market when changing hands or they dissappear quickly.

OTOH there is a lot of crap in the market…which is why it is so important to do a proper prebuy and anyway budget for some unforeseen items

Antonio
LESB, Spain
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top