Please? My license says it's ok.

If you got the cash for your own airplane, you can still do it. It is very frowned upon in the FTU world to lose aircraft, deal breaker so to speak.

Hell, most of the ultralight community still trains on tailwheel this way. Have an oops, get out the duct tape, carve yourself a new prop and mum's the word, give it another go.

Are you trying to bait me into saying bad things about the ultralight community? I've never got very close to those guys but some of the things I've heard sound scary. Obviously I never hear about the many hours of safe relatively normal operations.

I wasn't that interested in Huskeys and cubs before. I'd love to get a Maule or Helo Courier. I'd like to be able to take my kids in case they found out they enjoy flying in a small plane or my Dad who did enjoy flying with me before I got married. DA 40 would probably be a good choice. I suspect the place that rents it is crazy expensive, they don't even put prices on their site. Makes me think of the saying "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."

Money seems to be my barrier and we don't even have hockey or orthadontia yet.

Shiny Side Up wrote:Cost of purchase, cost of operations and Marketability. Cost is the bigger of these two. Ask Michael P why they use the DA-20. Training on plastic airplanes sells. It looks new, it feels futuristic. Production wise a castoring nose wheel is the cheapest and easiest to maintain landing gear set up. If Cessna and Piper find a way to retrofit the 172, 182 and Cherokee line ups this way I'd almost guarantee the production line would change.

I was just looking for a Piper cub for $283 or less on controler.com (exaggerated wishfull thinking) and ventured into the "light sport aircraft" area. The new C-162 looks like it might have a castoring nosewheel.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 0437&guid=

Money seems to be my barrier

Weren't you looking at a single-seat Pitts in the USA for $20k? Not sure how it gets any cheaper than that!

I thought $35K was cheap last decade. I'm going to wait it out.

I don't think a single seat plane is practical enough to talk my wife into or I would have tried more. I understand what you're trying to tell me. It just won't fit the confines of my situation.

I don't think a single seat plane is practical enough to talk my wife into

Hold on a sec. Trust me when I say, wifey won't want to go flying aerobatics with you, even if you had a two-seat.

Are you telling wifey that if you bought a two-seat airplane, she will fly aerobatics with you?! That's completely insane. Would you want to ride on the back of a motorcycle ridden by Valentino Rossi around Laguna Seca? I think not.

With a partner, it's $10k each for that $20k Pitts. You can't buy much of a car for $10k.

You're making choices.

Hedley wrote:Are you telling wifey that if you bought a two-seat airplane, she will fly aerobatics with you?! That's completely insane. Would you want to ride on the back of a motorcycle ridden by Valentino Rossi around Laguna Seca? I think not.

.

Look what happened when Ricardo Patrese took his wife for a drive...

You're making choices.

Bad ones I suppose.

I would like to learn a couple of positive G manouvers and get some tail dragger time but flying aerobatics isn't important to me. Those Pitts are a seriously good deal and make me go, "Hmmmm." even still. Looking at the cubs and seeing that $60 000 is a less expensive one puts them back in the, not that interested in catagory.

I don't care if my wife doesn't go flying with me ever again but she claims she does. So if she's buying a plane it needs more seats regardless of their potential to be vacant. I think if she wanted to fly we'd fly. Catalina was a perfect example. What I think should have been "Gee that sounds fun." turned into "You're going to ruin this trip by flying instead of spending time with me and the kids." Fine, consider it ruined.

I just want to fly more than once every 4 years again, my Dad likes to go along, doubt he wants the pitts either and I would much rather he went for a ride than anyone's wife. I'd settle for circuts once a month, going some where warm when it's cold here would be nice once in a while. In a way maybe it has been a choice that I couldn't afford the $150 every third month for an hour C-172 to stay current.

Plus some taller poppy bought that pitts I showed you. Looks like I'm just a mini van away here.

Look what happened when Ricardo Patrese took his wife for a drive...

Imagine what she would have done if he had tumbled it

God, she never shut up, did she?

but flying aerobatics isn't important to me

Then you made a very good choice not buying a Pitts, because it doesn't do anything else very well.

I'll just be over her being sad with my very good choice.

Yesterday, for his first time in the circuit, a student agreed to go fly in turbulent conditions, 10kt crosswind. And did a pretty job of it in the end, with all instruments hidden. He was up for the challenge, he was sweating, but he did it.

Then he asked to go up again just after.

After a few easier circuits the wind had calmed down, the ceilings had improved, we had fun in the practice area he eventually did stalls at full power in a turn, spins with power left on for a couple of rotations, spiral dive, slipping turns. Just because he wanted to get good.

He's not thinking of quitting his job, he just wants to fly for fun, but he wants to be good at it.

Another student doesn't take much time to study and read by himself, acknowledges it and always comes with a lot of questions. We answer them, and some more that I ask him. After each of his solo flights he spontaneously comes to tell me each little thing he was not satisfied with during his solo flight. We discuss each of these.

Another one just completed a VFR OTT rating with a 3+ hour cross-country instrument flight. All his instrument training after the PPL was done at night, each time he would come with his notes from the last flights neatly typed and organised, the relevant material well-read and understood, and eager to learn new things.

Yet another one was on holiday in Florida and took the opportunity to go for some basic aerobatics in a T-6 Texan. He doesn't have his PPL yet.

Luckily, almost all of my students have a good attitude, and most of them want to learn taildragger and aerobatics, unfortunately the school doesn't have a plane for that yet. Instead of being in a hurry to get the paper from TC, they are enjoying the journey, the apprenticeship of becoming a pilot.

There is hope.

Beefitarian wrote:Looking at the cubs and seeing that $60 000 is a less expensive one puts them back in the, not that interested in catagory.

That's the problem, you were looking at 'Cubs'.

For some reason, when you put the word 'cub' in the name of an aircraft, it inflates the price at least 100%.


For example, you could buy an Aeronca Champ 7AC or a Taylorcraft BC12D for around $25,000. Both solid little taildraggers that are easy to fly, no fancy systems that require expensive parts and maintenance, and dependable 65, 75, or maybe even 85 horsepower Continentals. Except for a few nuances, the same as a J3 Cub, some examples of which I've seen over $50K.

For $50K, you can pick up a Citabria 7GCBC with flaps and a 150HP Lycoming that is nearly comparable in performance to a Super Cub. Except the Super Cub will be north of $100K. Sure the Citabria is limited in what it can carry compared to the Super Cub because it is burdened with Aerobatic certification, and it doesn't quite have the STOL performance (put some VGs on and there'll be enough for 90% of the pilots out there). But you can't argue with the price!

Also look at other Pipers that don't suffer from 'cub' inflation, like the Clipper, Vagabond, and Pacer, most of which hover between 20-30K. Or get a Tri Pacer or Colt and throw a tailwheel on the back.

iflyforpie wrote:

Beefitarian wrote:Looking at the cubs and seeing that $60 000 is a less expensive one puts them back in the, not that interested in catagory.

That's the problem, you were looking at 'Cubs'.

For some reason, when you put the word 'cub' in the name of an aircraft, it inflates the price at least 100%.


For example, you could buy an Aeronca Champ 7AC or a Taylorcraft BC12D for around $25,000. Both solid little taildraggers that are easy to fly, no fancy systems that require expensive parts and maintenance, and dependable 65, 75, or maybe even 85 horsepower Continentals. Except for a few nuances, the same as a J3 Cub, some examples of which I've seen over $50K.

For $50K, you can pick up a Citabria 7GCBC with flaps and a 150HP Lycoming that is nearly comparable in performance to a Super Cub. Except the Super Cub will be north of $100K. Sure the Citabria is limited in what it can carry compared to the Super Cub because it is burdened with Aerobatic certification, and it doesn't quite have the STOL performance (put some VGs on and there'll be enough for 90% of the pilots out there). But you can't argue with the price!

Also look at other Pipers that don't suffer from 'cub' inflation, like the Clipper, Vagabond, and Pacer, most of which hover between 20-30K. Or get a Tri Pacer or Colt and throw a tailwheel on the back.

Yep, Cub inflation is a brutal thing. I've got a ragwing piper that I can jam 4 people into, carry 750lbs of useful load while burning 7GPH at 100kts and it didn't cost 1/3rd of what a Cub would. Sure it might use a little more runway, but not much.

Caution on converting a Tri-Pacer or Colt to TW config though: it ain't cheap. Best bet is buying something with the wheels in the right place to start with.

If I was going to "do it right" I'd get a Tri-Pacer fuse and wings. Throw a set of the new Dakota Cub slotted wings on it, the Trimmer PA-18 gear and extend the fuse about 18" then license it as an experimental. Build it light and all but the most modded Super Cubs would be hard pressed to follow you in somewhere.

-Grant