Is ownership worth it?

Dan wrote:

some EuroGA folks really do get up early… even on Sundays

Some EuroGA folks actually work on Sundays, even if they are off the 0200 VV002 variety. But you can go flying now, it’s gone Dan wrote:

LSZK Speck is one example where one can have a back row space, and ends up pulling up to 6 airplanes before being able to access one’s own.
I for sure would not want one of those spots, OTOH still better than outside.

Yep. The number actually was 8 if I am not mistaken.

Dan wrote:

Re these full covers for aircraft… well, some of them are really heavy and cumbersome to install/remove. Expensive to buy too, and will wear out in 10 years. And a good way to get scratches on any plexi parts and abrasive action in all corners and edges. They also do promote corrosion.

I was fine with a set of “Bruce’s” covers until the airplane was immobilized for almost a year after the prop strike. That really hurt it. Otherwise the fact that I had the plane 5 mins from my front door was quite nice, despite the fact that it was outside. And of course, I could go by every day and take care. That is over now.

My observation is that the Rotax / ultralight community couldn’t care less

Sure. The problem is that stuff changes over time.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

That has a lot to do with your personal needs. If you are ok with 2 seats and to stay within your local area, basically no travelling and just joyriding, ULMs work just fine provided you are the right size for them. The moment you wish to travel internationally and need 4 seats, you are totally reliant on either EASA and in some cases N-Reg planes, particularly if you wish to fly IFR.

I can repeat what RV14 wrote, and in which I fully agree: And I do appreciate that my point of view sitting here on the edge of Europ might be different to yours.

What exactly do you mean by travelling? Switzerland is about the same size as my home county of Trøndelag. Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark cover an area of about is about 1.5M square kilometers. I don’t know of any native person who considers going from one of those countries to one of the other as going “abroad” or travelling “international”. Yet, technically I bet I have been going in and out of EU more than 99% of people on this forum

1.5M square kilometers is roughly the same as Spain, France and Germany combined. More or less the entire western European continent.

I would say based on what I see that 60-80 % of all GA “international” flying in Europe is done in UL or experimentals today. Why do you need 4 seats to fly “international” ?

There was a time when GA consisted mainly of 4 seat certified aircraft. That time is long gone. Today, the added extra you get with a larger certified aircraft is simply shot down by cost, bureaucracy and other nonsense. ULs are not particularly plentiful in Switzerland, so certified aircraft are still somewhat strong there. But, go to any neighboring country, and the situation is turned upside down. Anywhere ULs and sometimes experimentals has been given viable living conditions, they have more or less killed certified aircraft when comparing the numbers. Look at Spain, Italy for instance.

There are still some niche areas of GA that ULs (and sometimes experimentals) have not yet entered. However, neither local flying or longer “international” travelling in Europe are parts of those niche areas. Local flying is what makes up at least 70-80% of flying anyway. Besides, what is local flying anyway? How would you define it? I would define it as any flying that starts in the morning and ends sleeping in your own bed at night. This is the same no matter if you fly a 50 knot garden chair variety UL or a biz-jet, even if both cases are technically “international” flights.

RV14 got it right. What you do down there on the continent, and how you perceive things, is of very little relevance and concern to me. Up here in the north we have one of the best GA environments in the world. Surpassed only by US and Australia, perhaps Canada (much longer distances, if that’s a criteria). But, weather, darkness and cold in the winter, as well as scarce population makes things a bit difficult. Scarce population makes maintenance difficult. You have to be self sufficient, able to fix things yourself, or cost and grounding over long periods of time will put an end to the fun. Darkness makes flying difficult. ULs and experimentals solves all of it. You can fix things yourself, and in exactly 3 days we can also fly in the dark with ULs What cannot be done in an UL is IFR. If that’s your cup of tea, then an RV is the thing people go to.

The question is whether ownership is worth it or not. For an EASA aircraft, I cannot imagine how it will ever be “worth it” here in the “middle of nowhere”. You simply have to step up a few notches to turbine powered stuff, fixed wing or rotary, mostly because there’s nothing money cannot solve, including the “worth it”. The worth it tends to take on a different meanings with different disposable amounts of money.

For 90% of GA pilots, an UL or an experimental on the other hand, will be worth it. Somewhat oddly it’s the same all over Europe. Also somewhat oddly for some people on this forum perhaps, the (real and imaginary) restrictions of ULs and experimentals does not seem to stop people from travelling, it’s almost the opposite. But, it stops people from travelling in an old 4 seat Mooney, that I agree with, even if that airplane is better suited for it.

LeSving wrote:

But, it stops people from travelling in an old 4 seat Mooney, that I agree with, even if that airplane is better suited for it.

If I had a Mooney I can’t see a single reason stopping me from taking the full advantage of it traveling to anywhere in the whole Europe. I’m still under my first two years of having a license so I must be missing something? But I have already flown from Luxembourg to Dubrovnik and back in a C172, and some other trips that worked out basically perfectly.

So I really don’t understand what would stop people with a Mooney from travelling??

LeSving wrote:

But, weather, darkness and cold in the winter, as well as scarce population makes things a bit difficult. Scarce population makes maintenance difficult.

Sounds more like that’s a problem for you up in the North rather than anywhere else more populated?

In GA, the cost of fuel dominates. That is the 1st thing. Fly across Europe and quickly you are into 4 digits on avgas.

Whether it is a Mooney is secondary. They just go a bit faster for the fuel flow – mainly because the cockpit cross-section is a bit smaller. But most of the fleet is now very old, so unless it has been very well looked after, you are into unscheduled maintenance… The biggest thing for touring is range, and a TB20 is very hard to beat.

Extra factors are whether you are in a relationship which is supportive of your flying. A large % of pilots are not. And if you talk of longer trips, by implication staying in interesting places, most people do not want to do that alone. Most men don’t like it much, practically zero women like it. Finding flying companions is really hard. Most men have to work hard otherwise they end up in the gutter (no option of being supported via marriage), and those who don’t work either can’t afford to even buy a fish, or they are retired and most of them can’t afford to buy a fish either. And if you are a man in a relationship but one where your partner is not flying with you, 50% of the population (in fact well more than 50% if you look at who has more time) is denied to you as a passenger. I’ve had many years of practice findind this out

Emir wrote:

Dan wrote:
My humble guess is that CH must a world record holder (🤣) in aircraft being stacked above each other to max hangar space

Or in Dan’s case:

I have to, for once, fully agree to post #283 (yes, let’s swing) 😉

Thread drift cont:

Whether it is a Mooney is secondary

No. Why?
As demonstrated by Terbangs, and others myself included, I will oppose this fact… the standard Mooney is a 2 seater. It is a good, reasonably fast IFR reliable airplane for 2 up. More than that will have cramped pax with folded knees and no space/view longing to stretch their legs and take their golf clubs along iso the toothbrush with no paste.
Yes, if I had to fly/file IFR legally, a Mooney would probably top my list 👍🏻

The TB20 is also a 2-seater on a long trip, especially with full TKS.

LeSving wrote:

What exactly do you mean by travelling?

Most of this class of airplane is made for travel, not for local burger runs. Otherwise, why would even a measly PA28 have 500 NM range? Mooneys, TB20, C182/210, are not planes you buy in order to go from Bergen to Stavanger and back. What I mean with travel is the kind of stuff Peter does up to the trip the terbangs just did. That is what those airplanes in the right hands are capable of. And yes, you can do this kind of stuff also with the right experimental, see Dan’s trip to Canada/US even VFR. THAT is travel. And most people who do this do so IFR.

Whoever is happy to just go fly on a sunday afternoon may do so, no question, and then you don’t need a plane like that. Otherwise, you need a plane and equipment up to the task. And in my view, there is not a lot which beats a TB20/Mooney in the 4 seat SEP sector and a C210 in the six seat sector.