Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes New Member. Help me buy my first airplane.

Hi all,
This subject was fascinating to me, as I'm starting the process of purchasing, though VERY slowly. Just ordered the book from the club. I'm a fairly new pilot, though a very old flyer. I currently belong to a club with several planes. One plane we purchased about 18 months ago, due to it's extremely low airframe time. The rehab of that plane has set new records for money down a rat-hole. I've come to the conclusion (very unscientific)that planes that are not used deteriorate at 3 times the speed of planes that are used. Thus I'm not too impressed by low airframe times...and I have all of one example to back up my conclusion! With this sort of logic I should b e a politician.
Thanks to all for the incredible insight into jumping of the edge and landing in your very own plane.
Rodg

Welcome to the Club, Rodg. From what I read, the plane that Tim is looking to purchase was carefully preserved during its period of unuse. That's a lot different from one just being left neglected for a long time, and I've seen some of those at my airport too. Sad sights!

Rodger, I'm appalled!! Actually, I really like your quote but, I've opted against using this one:




...for I, as a prime example, have asked my share!!!!

Bengie

Since there have been some general subjects raised, I thought I might add my 2 cents worth (if its worth that much).

I learned to fly in a high time but well maintained later 150 and a refurbished 152 aerobat. Generally, I liked the atmosphere of the 150 better because, though it was a very plain and basic plane, it was nice. The 152, though it had a nice paint job and better radios, it was kind of scruffy. The main color scheme was red, but the seats were blue, as an example. It also did not have a panel mounted intercom. A niggle, but one that niggled at me.

In the type of flying I do, I have come to love the simpler, more plain, "feel" of the 150. I miss the climb rate of the 152 (Sensenich prop), but I love the plain panel and simplicity of my '69 150.

One strange phenomenon ... up to the day we purchased Juliet I struggled with landings. Greasers were rare for me, and though my landings were "safe and accurate" (as stated by my instructor) they were rarely pretty. That difficulty disappeared with Juliet. I don't know why, but so far, EVERY landing in Juliet has been a greaser.

I think I would love to have a 152, equipped with the Sensenich, but the simple panel of my 150. It is a plain black panel, without the hideous "wood grain" lower section. Avionics include a Val 760 radio, a basic transponder and an intercom. Oh, yeah, and it has a Narco VOR, which works fine (many don't) but I rarely use it. The Val may someday get changed for a true flip-flop.

I could easily live with an even simpler panel. I rarely use the AI or the DI. My main tools are the ASI, Altimeter and VSI. Most of my navigation is by looking at the sectional and looking at the ground. Here in Puget Sound country terrain features are so distinctive, its pretty easy to figure out where you are, where you want to go, and how to get there. Maybe someday I will do some cross-country flying outside the Puget Sound area, but there is still so much to see here.

I dunno, maybe the next airplane will be a cub ...

Reg

Reg,
I certainly agree with your assesment of Puget Sound...lot's to see. I mainly use the sectional-compass form of migration myself...but love the GPS when it comes time to skirt around all of our "fly here and we kill you " zones.
Regarding you landings. A couple of weeks ago I was visiting my cousin and a friend of her's had a cessna 172. We went up for a bit and I was in awe. Our club has a couple of 172s and I really like 'em. This plane flew very very well. He had taken the thing down to Southern California and had a fellow "rig" it. He said he flew down at 104 knots, and flew back at 111 knots, same rpm.
I land ed this plane twice and they were right up ther with my best ever.
When I do get a plane, think I'll invest in this "rigging" thing.
rodg

Hung,

You ARE the man! You always manage to come up with the right answer-technical or philosophical! I need to talk to you sometime about my marriage-

**************

Congrats Tim, on your future purchase. I too am glad that you "did the right thing". The GA community is small and tight and we need to take care of each other. Your "former seller" clearly recognized this and that's why it was easy to explain the situation to him.

And my compliments to that gentleman, whoever he was.

Its fortunate that 22741 was "pickled" and that its been recently flown (200 hours in the past 2 years is a good amount). I'm sure that it's in excellent condition, now. I just felt that it should be mentioned.

But someone had to pull it out of its mothballs and my experience with "preserved" parts and planes is that its like sleeping - sure, its not as tough on the bird as sitting in the puckerbrush, but ya both wake up in the morning a little bit older. "Pickled" is not the same as "no passage of time".

When I was first contemplating buying a plane, a wise-old mechanic said, "Don't do it unless you're going to use it. Planes have big props and little wheels because they were born to fly and not sit on the ground."

Just one more pithy thing and then I'll shut-up: ANY airplane which has your name on its registration is a beautiful and well loved plane; your joy and your friend. Which brings me back to why I need to speak to Hung . . .

Good luck with your new love.

Roger

Send him some Omaha Steaks. They are yummy and there is something about getting raw meat packed in dry ice that is exciting to a man.

Way to go Tim!!! Congratulations!

And Hung - once again, you amaze me, Bro. You da man!

A double fistful of thumbs up to ya both!

Roger:

I have had the chance to fly a 172 a couple of times. They really are easier to fly than the 150, which is nice for X-country, but really not quite as much fun. And quite a bit more expensive.

I orinally viewed the 150 as a stepping stone to the 172, but now I am not so sure.

It has been said that the 150/152 is easy to fly, but difficult to fly well. That could be, and that is what makes it such an excellent trainer.

Reg

What??? Nothing is easier to fly than a 150! Granted my experience is limited, but I've got about equal time in 150's and 172's, plus about 50 hours in a T206. The 150 takes the cake for simplicity and enjoyment, hands down! Generally it only needs one trim setting for take off, cruise, and descent... it coordinates itself... and even poor landings are "squeakers."

Of course, I've moved up to a 172 because it hauls more weight.... As I said in another post, it's like trading in an MG for a minivan. Too bad I can't have both.