Becoming a Pilot at a Discount
Let’s be honest, cost is the single most prohibitive attribute of becoming a pilot. Sure there are other reasons like fear, air sickness, and lack of interest, but for the vast majority of people I talk to, cost is the biggest issue, me included.
So how on earth can we make flying cheaper?
It is quite the tall order with fuel and insurance costs being as high as they are. Not to mention the fact that airplanes themselves aren’t exactly cheap. I actually just got a hold of a copy of The Pilot’s Guide to Flying on a Budget which is a great resource that I will be writing about more in the future, but it relates to the system as it currently exists rather than an actual reduction in cost across the industry. The closest comparison that we can make might be to driving, but it isn’t quite the same.
Gas for your car costs approximately half as much as gas for a plane, depending on where you live obviously. Insurance is also substantially higher due to the inherent risks of flying, as well as the greater cost of an airplane. However, I think there is one major difference between the two markets that ultimately causes these costs to be as high as they are.
Simply put, there are a lot more cars and drivers out there than there are planes and pilots.
I don’t claim to be an economics expert, in fact I’m pretty sure I had to take one of my economics classes in college twice. However, there is a principle that I think I understand, at least in very simplistic terms, and that is economies of scale.
For those of you that lack economic savvy like me, economies of scale means essentially that by producing something in larger quantities you can reduce the overall cost. This is largely based on the fixed costs being distributed across a larger number of goods.
The best example that most of would recognize is stores like Costco and Sam’s Club. It is cheaper to buy 10,000 diapers or 500 lbs of cheese because it only costs marginally more to manufacture, package, and ship that much than it does to do the same with 20 diapers or 2 lbs of cheese.
Please pardon my exaggeration, but that is the principle in essence. In getting back to comparing driving and flying, there are a ton more cars out there than there are planes, thus pretty much everything associated with them costs more. Driver’s Ed courses are a dime a dozen, which makes them cheaper than a flight instructor. Cars are almost more common than people, which makes them much cheaper than a plane. Think about it.
A brand new Cessna 172 costs somewhere in the vicinity of $300,000. Even one that is 40 years old can cost $60,000. Comparatively, a car that costs $300,000 would be a Bentley or something of that nature. Thus, it is the people who can afford these types of cars that can also afford flying.
Now, my point in this was not so spend an hour comparing cars and planes, but rather to point out that if we could increase the number of people flying we just might be able to reduce the costs to make it easier for people to afford.
As luck would have it I came across two articles today that related to just that topic. The first is about how China is easing the rules to become a private pilot. Prior to this announcement, which took effect last Sunday, obtaining a private pilot license in China was comparable to getting a commercial pilot license in the US, which is substantially more time-consuming, and thus more costly.
China is also working to open up its airspace to general aviation. At the moment only about 20% of Chinese airspace is open to public use with the rest being restricted by the military. In comparison, approximately 85% of US airspace is open to public use. While these barriers are not present in the US we have barriers of our own, but there is a movement that is gaining steam that could lead to the growth we need, and thus possibly the reduction in cost that we want.
Dan Pimentel of the Airplanista Aviation Blog wrote about his Christmas wish for aviation in his contribution to December’s Blogging in Formation series. In his article Dan expresses his lofty wish of having 1,000,000 active pilot certificates in the FAA database by the end of next year. Just to give you an idea of what that would mean, there were approximately 610,000 certificate holders in 2012. That includes pilots as well as student pilots.
While Dan admits to the loftiness of his goal he also provides a legitimate solution to this problem which includes three parts. First, we need to tie aviation and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) together. Second, the big 7 aviation organizations (EAA, AOPA, NBAA, HAI, GAMA, the Ninety-Nines, and Women in Aviation International) need to form a “power collective” as he calls it, to promote aviation. Finally, that collective needs to push that STEM/aviation message to women and girls in junior high, high school, and college.
The number varies slightly depending on the report you read, but women pilots only make up about 6% of the pilot population. That is just ridiculous when you think about it. That means that of the approximately 610,000 certificate holders only 36,600 are women. Now imagine we increase that number up to 50% of certificate holders being women, and we will get dang close to that 1 million that Dan dreams about.
Increasing the number of pilots is good for everyone in the industry as it helps to provide the variety that makes aviation so much stinking fun. If increasing the pilot population also leads to a reduction in cost than all the better as that will only lead to even more growth thus more pilots, and even lower costs. That is the type of cycle that I can buy into.
If that scenario did ever play itself out, then maybe the headline in The Beijing News associated with the article about China above may just become a reality:
David,
Great article! I am also encouraged by some of the things coming down the line to get us closer to the goals you mention. The whole ecosystem of general aviation has changed substantially and it will take the combined influence of many little wins to get us back to where we need to be.
It is encouraging to see the efforts being made. Even if they aren’t all as good as we would like the fact that they are working on it is reassuring. It is fun to be a part of the change, even if it is just as an observer.
I’ve been wondering if perhaps the competition from China (and the fact that they’re buying up American GA assets) might start a race. Sort of like the space program in the 60’s — but primarily run by the industry itself rather than government. I could see growth and infrastructure improvements coming from something like that.
Well, a guy can dream, anyway…
I have thought about the same thing when it comes to Asia. While the Middle East is playing a much larger role in the airline industry I think Asia is the area where GA will gain the most benefit. They have the economies and education to do it. It would be awesome to see growth and infrastructure improvements come from that improvement. With any luck maybe they would work together to make that happen rather than true competition. It would benefit everyone.
Thanks for the comment Ron.
Good idea, however, the reality is that airplanes still cost from $100K to $500K, not affordable to most folks. Annual inspections, maintenance and insurance guarantees a monthly expense of $500 BEFORE you even start flying the bird. I can fly from Denver to Las Vegas with one of the discount airlines for $100 round trip. Can’t do that in my Cessna 182.
I don’t foresee planes ever reaching the level of cars for the exact reasons that you mentioned. Nor will it ever be practical for most families to travel that way. I have a pretty small family and we would need two small planes so that is out.
However, if we can get the initial costs of learning to fly down then maybe more people will get involved and catch the aviation bug. Even if we can’t get it down to where everyone can afford it, just increasing the pilot population is good for everyone in the GA industry.
Thanks for the comment Haiko.
I think people don’t realize it, but originally aviation was “sold” to the public via the mass media. There were dozens of high profile movies made from the 20’s to the 60’s, often directly pushed by branches of the military, pumping up male pilots as heroes. I grew up watching Sky King on TV, and have no doubt that’s why I’m a pilot now. We don’t see such media produced today.
I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that in the firearms industry, the biggest growth has been in women, at a time when women portrayed as warriors has become a common theme in the movies.
Like men in previous generations, we will get women into the cockpit when they’re often portrayed positively in the mass media as pilots.
If we have no mass media portrayal of pilots of any gender as something other than bored bus drivers in airline cockpits, we can kiss non-professional aviation goodby. At some point, it will no longer be worthwhile to produce fuel, parts and maintain airports to even keep the existing fleet airborne. I fear we are close to that point today.
That is an excellent point Dennis. I know media along with a father that loves aviation is what got me hooked. Watching movies like Top Gun and Iron Eagle still get me excited about flying. I wonder why things shifted away from aviation so much to the crap they mostly put out now.
I can appreciate your concern about reaching the point where GA dies sooner than later, but I have hope that there are enough people out there that are willing to fight for it that we will never see that day. It will take a concerted effort from all of us, but I think we can bring flying back to the forefront of adventure.
Thanks for the comment Dennis.
More pilots always helps, but the key is lowering expectations! There are a lot of affordable planes out there – just not new ones. We need to make it attractive to fly a 70’s Piper/Cessna with steam gauges and a $400 iPad “glass panel” in place of the $30k Garmin. Hopefully the recent government actions will make it easier and cheaper to maintain these planes. Then, since planes are not used like cars, we need more pilots PER plane. We need fractional type ownership on $20k – $30k airplanes so the cost becomes comparable to buying a snowmobile or a four-wheeler.
I bought my IFR plane for under $30k, operating cost is less than $100/hr, my insurance is under $1k, my last annual was under $1500. Even with the ’08 crash, I can get 95% of the purchase price back on the plane today. It is doable (looking forward to reading the book mentioned) for a reasonable cost. When I talk to friends about flying, very few are afraid of anything but the expense. When I show them those numbers, they ask where to sign up.
Wait, I need a WAAS GPS and ADS-B to fly after 2020? Sorry, I take it all back. Anyone selling a boat?
There is always something isn’t there Cory? I think you are spot on in your analysis. The reality is that the wonder of flying is still present no matter what plane you are in. Outside of airlines, I have flown in a C-172, DA-20, T-6, T-1, and C-130H and every single one of them captures the wonder of flying in it’s own special way. It really is just a matter of education like you mentioned.
I hope you do read The Pilot’s Guide to Flying on a Budget as it talks about some of the things you already mentioned, as well as tons of other great ideas to make flying more attainable for everyone. The reality is that there is a way for ANYONE to get into flying if you can just get them to catch the flying bug. It will likely take some sacrifice and hard work but it can become a reality for anyone if they want it bad enough. We just need to do our part in educating others so they see the opportunity instead of only the stumbling blocks.
Thanks for stopping by Cory.
Funny, I was just thinking that the 18 year old boy that stole the 150 and flew it for weeks without any lessons might inspire people to think that flying is easy to learn and then they’ll all want to do it! Of course flying is easy, it’s the stuff that comes along with it (landing, FAR’s, responsibility, good judgement etc…) that make it hard, along with the costs!
That has to be the most common phrase in movies when it comes to flying, “flying is the easy part, it’s the landing that is hard.”
I don’t think anyone who has pursued flying would argue that there are plenty of challenges to flying beyond the cost, but I think cost is the hardest to overcome. If you can get someone into a cockpit and let them control a plane it leaves an impression that is hard to beat. Most people don’t even think it is possible until they actually do it. That is the stigma we need to change so that young people will go out and take those discovery flights and get hooked on flying.
Thanks for the comment Bob.
David is completely right. The high prices of new airplanes and aviation gas has its origin in the small numbers sold. And perhaps in a lack of healthy competition too. The motive to buy a new airplane might be new technology but most important to have the security that maintenance costs are much lower, if at all, for a new airplane as for an older plane.
To get to much less expensive flying we would have to use parts, gas, and equipment what is produced in much more bigger volumes as what we use today in our small aviation segment. What is the closest to powered small airplanes which is produced in big volumes? Very easy: It is the automobile market. I recommend:
For parts: New planes based on automotive or other wide spread construction materials, technical solutions and experience should be used.
For gas: Automobile gas in the same quality and the same origin of street automobile gas should be burned.
For equipment and instruments: Origins of the automobile market und electronics from the ordinary computer industry should be taken. For example fuel meters from autos and navigation with tablet devices and common internet/mobile connections. And conventional instruments. Do I read that right that AOPA recommends conventional instrumentation for learning to fly including IFR and not glass cockpits anymore?
For engines: Cheap basic modern water cooled automobile engines are recommended. Some more weight is not so important compared with the much lower costs.
Then we have to found a company what produces new metal 4 seat airplanes with automobile engines, which sell for about $ 60,000 with VFR conventional instruments.
I can buy AL 6061T6 sheets in airplane thicknesses and extrusions in China for about US $ 3,600 per metric ton CIF Florida. 8 ton minimum per dimension. A 4 seat airplane is build out of about 500 lbs AL materials and about 10,000 rivets. The rivet offers I get are about US $ 12 per 1,000 industrial rivets. That means the main basic Al materials to build such 4 seat airplanes are about roughly US $ 1,000 only. So much to get a basic idea of a price for what a complete airplane produced in bigger numbers and sold direct to end customers should be possible to manufacture and to offer.
Where is the company or organisation who realizes such a 4 seat plane for $ 60,000 retail? Perhaps can a non profit organisation which sells wine and other merchandise and has a lot of aviation experts, make the step to build complete airplanes on a non profit base, preferred for their members, to keep private pilots flying in the further future. And perhaps in bigger numbers again. But is that really wanted?
Those are all very interesting ideas Dietrich, and some of them are starting to become a reality. I just learned about a single seat light sport aircraft that sells for $50,000, operates for about $12/hr, and can be insured for $20 a month. Come back and visit and look for the article I am writing about it. Not quite the four-seater you are looking for, but definitely a move in that direction. Thanks for the comment.
Maybe the way to go about making flying less expensive is to get a group of aviation minded kids/adults together to rebuild an airplane they can learn to fly in. I bought a Hatz biplane project that had been flipped over on floats two winters ago off ebay. I and my next door neighbor (I live on an airstrip community) rebuilt it over the winter and had it flying in less than 7 months on wheels for $13,500. There are plenty of Champ and Tcraft projects that wouldn’t cost a fortune to get flying again and the old taildraggers are great for training basic airmanship (I would know I started on them in the late 1960’s and now fly a Airbus 330). May of those same airplanes are LSA so no medical required, and if you want to see glass cockpits get a Ipad and have GPS/EFIS/traffic and weather at your fingertips for about $2000. All of these old engines run 80 octane and Petersen aviation or the Eaa have auto gas STC’s (ethanol free auto gas can be found, I get mine on the Indian reservation nearby, try looking at Pure-gas.org for the nearest to you). That cuts my fuel cost nearly in half. Even if you have to rebuild an engine it’s not rocket science, there are videos on line and it’s easy to down load or buy a manufactures rebuild manual and work with a friendly AI to get it signed off. I did a Lycoming O-290D2 (135-140 hp) with my neighbor, got the engine for $3200 with 80 hours and 30 years of dry/heated storage and have it flying (on my neighbors Pacer, while he rebuilds his engine) for less then 7 grand with new lifters and bearings, piston pins and spacers, reground cam and polished crank, new stretch rod bolts and all AD’s complied with and a total time on the engine of less than 2000 hours and good logs.
Now if anyone can help me figure out how to get my kid (male 13) off his butt and away from computer games and out with me so he can fly these airplanes, I would be great full. I also have a C172 (another cheap airplane with 50 hours SMOH, and not requiring any work, just upgraded radios/digital oil press and temp and fuel scan and still I have less than $30,000 in it) that he could be flying now but he isn’t interested so I fly with a guy who is another airline pilots son(funny how they get out of college and have to find a job and all of a sudden flying like dad did looks pretty good).
I hope someone can get more people interested in flying, they have a great program for gang kids at Flybob airport in Riverside, California and the new aviation High School in Seattle at the Boeing air museum is great but we need more of that. Some EAA chapters are into rebuilding airplanes but it’s usually a bunch of us old guys not kids. I retire soon and there are going to be some massive retirements in the next 10 years at all the major airlines and a lot of really good jobs available (UPS, FedEx, and Alaska air still have Pensions, the rest just 401k’s). I wish I could get some of the kids around her interested in them, but they all want to be computer game testers.
I love your passion Jeff. That is exactly why the next time I move I will be looking long and hard at a flying community. I just want to be around like-minded people. I love the idea of rebuilding a plane, much the way that a lot of my parent’s peers rebuilt cars with their dads. There is so much more to be had from that experience than just flying. Talk about instilling a passion for aviation.
It is unfortunate that so many youth are becoming so boring in my opinion. I enjoy a good computer game as much as the next guy, especially if it involves flying, but there are so many more adventures to have out there if you can just get them to go. I hope that I can instill that in my kids early so that they will be excited to get out and explore rather than me forcing them too.
Thanks for sharing your ideas Jeff. If you ever fly into Arkansas I am happy to go fly anytime.
GAS prices need to come way down. It now costs me $60.00 per hour just for fuel in a PA28-180 at cruise power. Fuel cost is the greatest expense for continuation of long term flying. The person that drives a Chevy can no longer learn to fly or continue to fly if you know what I mean.
It is pretty crazy how expensive fuel has become for these little planes. There has to be some way to get it cheaper, or come up with an alternative. Switching planes like Jeff mentioned to one that burns 80 octane is not an option if you already have a plane, neither is buying a new one most likely. So how do we get the fuel cost down short of using a different fuel entirely?
I buy my fuel at the Indian Reservation(they give me a discount of 8 cents a gal because of the quantity I buy, 3 or 4 drums at a time, I use a dividend credit card that gets me 2 to 3 % back) for about $3.30 to $3.80 a gallon (this year). A two seat Champ or Tcraft you burn 3.5 to 4.5 gals an hour depending on if you have a Continental A65 or C85 (I do use some 1ooLL about twice a year to keep some lead on the valve stems and seats but only a few gallons). If you really just want to fly and don’t care how fast you get there then you can get that down to 2.5-3.5 gph. That’s about $12 a hour for gas at 75-80mph, and Champs and Taylorcrafts are fun to fly tailwheel airplanes that will teach you a lot about flying the airplane all the way to the tiedown. They will teach you want a rudder is for and how to do a slip to get down or move the aircraft sideways in the wind (since they have no flaps). Even with the A65 the performance is adequate to get you into and out of 1200 ft strips and learning how to be safe around a prop. Starting an engine by hand is good for you. I have a 1941 Piper J5A cub cruiser that I have in line for rebuild now but I flew for the last 15 years. Maintenance on airplanes is not a big thing, new control cables every 50 years or so, no electric system or radios to repair and annual run me about $400 and I do the grunt work of opening it up and closing it and all the dirty work of repacking bearings and whatever else the IA finds. The biggest expense on these old fabric airplanes is a hangar and that can be cut down if you makes some friends and share a hangar. Around here you can still find a enclosed hangar for $100 a month at a few airports, not the big airports with services, but the little ones that are fun to fly out of and are full of true characters. I have had 2 old (1959,1962)Cessna 172 and over 5 years I never spend more than a couple hundred dollars a year on maintenance. The FAA allows you to do preventive maintenance and that is just about everything except replacing structural members. With a good IA you can work with you can do that too. So if you can fly about 10 hours a month, hangar is $10 an hour, annual is $4, fuel is $12 and insurance is $7, that’s $33 for 100 hours in a year it’s about $3500, if you split that with a partner and do 50 hours each then it’s $1750. Project airplanes are going for near to nothing right now, I see Tripacer/pacer going for $5000 and Champs for $3500, on ebay. I got the Hatz biplane for $6200, sold the floats even with dings in them for $2400, bought the original wheel landing gear from the former owner for $1700, it bolted right on. There are a lot of good deals out there right now if you are willing to do the work. ?Barnstormers.com and ebaymotors.com are full of them. The guys at the EAA hangar are really helpful and the fact that 1930-40’s vintage aircraft are not rocket science, just steel tubing and fabric (I recommend Stuart Systems for covering it’s like covering a big model airplane). We just need to get pilots to get off their butts and rebuild those projects. Get a mentor to help you find something you are capable of doing, most of the work is something you can do after you see it done once.
David,
Appreciate your big thinking and even the strategies that you propose (stronger tie to STEM and the big seven groups “promoting aviation”) I’m not sure what you mean by promoting aviation and, frankly, I’m not confident that the big 7 would know either. The relatively fresh Capcomm project thru AOPA under Adam Smith to promote flying clubs is a solid start, but can never bring the thousands of people you and Dan Pimentel wish. Hence, using your economics, we’d never get the economy of scale.
I do have a plan. I’ve shared it with Dan and Adam Smith for that matter. It creates a big definition for “promoting” aviation. I’d be happy to share it with you if you’d like. Press on.
Thanks for the comment Tom. I would love to hear your ideas if you want to share them. I will send you an email.
I don’t know that I have the answer for what exactly the organizations should do, but I think the biggest thing is that they need to find a unity of purpose and actually do it together. I feel like they have many of the same objectives, but because they are all working by themselves they are getting less accomplished. I also get the feeling that there is a lot more time and effort put into legal stuff at the government level than there is grass roots effort with people. Don’t get me wrong, regulation is an important part of the equation, but if you can inspire someone to fly and foster that love then they will find a way to do it no matter what the government does.
I realize that these are very generalized statements, and I spend a lot of time thinking about what I can do personally to have even a small impact. I must say I have felt more empowered in these last few days than ever before. I still haven’t found a simple answer, but I at least feel like I am moving in the right direction.
Curse you Jeff. My wife also hates you now too, though she doesn’t know you. I just spent most of a night looking at airplanes and figuring out how I can buy one. I love all of your suggestions. These are exactly the types of ingenuity that it may take to get people flying, but I don’t think many people even realize that they are an option.
I seriously spent a couple of hours just now talking with my buddy about how we could actually buy a plane like this and make it happen, because those amounts you are talking about are extremely reasonable. You have entirely changed my perspective on making flying a reality for me so thank you for that.
To Dave Wood, yes avgas is expensive and in relative terms it was about 60 cents a gallon when I started flying in the late 1960’s but then I only made $1.50 and hour then. I’m not sure what series engine you have on the Cherokee 180 but several of the O-360’s are rated for 91 octane auto gas, see the Petersen aviation website and the Cherokee will need a fuel pump mode( if you have a 12volt system then it’s $2975 for the fuel pump mode) to get it flying on ethanol free gas but it could be worth it if you fly locally a lot and have ethanol free auto gas available near by. Pure-gas.org would have local stations and airnav.com or flyunleaded.com have lists of airports that sell auto gas in in most cases it is $1 to 2 cheaper than the 100LL.
But here is a better idea, first how many times have you ever really carried a full load of people in your airplane, do you really us the extra capacity you are flying around? I know the argument that the best 2 place airplane is a 4 place airplane, but do you need to be flying around with all those empty seats. Maybe you do most of us can’t even find one person that wants to fly with us. I have an old C172 because they have pretty good performance with 2 people and can carry 3 or 4 in a pinch if you have a long enough runway. I wouldn’t want to fly a full airplane over the Rockies where I need the extra horse power but it’s a fine airplane for near sea level, short fields, grass and for 2 people. I flew one up to Alaska about 10 years ago delivering it to a friend, when I got there took out the back seat and put it in my friends garage so I could keep him from doing something stupid, he still did some stupid things with it but he didn’t kill anyone (like loaded it with so much stuff to go out to Naknik to set net salmon that he could only get to 9000ft with 2 people in it, he didn’t lean it so burned 10 gph and wondered why he only had two gallons of gas left after 3.5 hours of flying). Maybe it’s time to look for something smaller or slower that burns less gas and can get the auto gas STC. The other option is fly you Cherokee slower, an O-360 at 65% power will burn closer to 8 gph, granted you won’t be cruising at 130-140mph but then again your engine will be accumulating less tach time and you wallet will hurt a little less.
To Dietrich Fecht: Over they years I have looked at a lot of auto engine conversions and few of them worked out well, your Honda my put out 150hp but at a high rpm and that doesn’t work well on a propeller that has to have a low rpm. On the old VW engines they would limit the Rpm to 3200 and have a 3ft long prop so the tip speed didn’t get above 80-85% of super sonic. I had a friend who decided a Mazda Wankel engine would do 160 hp so he bought the gear box, fabricated a way of leaning the engine and put it on a Whittman tailwind, and expected it to do 170mph. It didn’t in fact it was more like 140mph at best and did it burn fuel, specific fuel flow on Wankels is much like a 2 stroke engine, very high. He said after putting 3 years getting the Wankel working (and two engines, the turbo charged one is better to start with) one engine failure just after takeoff and a crash in the sagebrush that flipped it over, that he would have been better off just buying a airplane engine and paying the money. Guys with O-320’s were getting 160-170mph out of them on the tailwind and he could have got 140 with a Lycoming O-290. Auto engines may work well at getting a lot of power out of the engine for acceleration but then when they are cruising they only run at 25-30% power. They aren’t really designed for producing 100% power continually if needed or even 75% power for cruise. Auto engine conversions are always very heavy, granted a car engine could be made light but with the radiator and plumbing and gear/belt shaft reduction it usually isn’t worth it. Lycoming and Continental are still in the airplane engine business after all these years because they have learned a lot about how to build them and make them reliable. The Rotex engine is really good to at least the 912/914 has seen some use and has proven it’s design works well with the water cooled heads and geared engine, but it was designed to be an airplane engine not a modified auto engine. The diesel engines coming out of Germany that are modified auto engines could be the one exception but only time will tell how cost effective they are, you may save on fuel but spend it all on the cost of a rebuild.
I still think the best way to get a cheap airplane is build it or rebuild it yourself. Currently, I’m involved with my neighbor in a rebuild or a poorly built kitplane, a Mustang 2 with a O-320 (150hp) that should be able to cruise in the 180-200mph range on 7-8 gph. We got it for about what the engine with prop, oil cooler, mags , starter, vac pump and alternator was worth and had to disassemble it down to just about nothing due to poor workmanship and a lot of Bondo used to hide mistakes but it’s coming together well and should be close to flying this next summer. It will have a Dynon EFIS, plus the original round gauges as backup,and AOA, heated pitot on the round dial. 37 gallon tankage so about 1000 mile range (more than I would want to sit in it at one time). It’s a very economical airplane and should get close to 30 mpg (see Kent Pacers book on Mustang 2 modes for speed, he gets 225-230mph out of his on 150hp). We are hoping to have it flying for under $20,000. Projects are the way to go in this economy, they are plentiful and if you can read a book and have any talent you can have a nice airplane for minimal money.
David, find a mentor if you are looking for an airplane to buy/ rebuild, even if you find something flyable have someone with some knowledge of the type of aircraft to check it out with you (if he is an A&P or AI even better). There is a lot of experience at the EAA hangar and they are in almost every major city and a lot of minor ones to (I’m in Olympia, WA and they have one). Have the hangar avalablity figured out before you buy the airplane. Airplanes that spend a lot of time outside have corrosion and bad paint and a lot of times are just a bunch of junk. If you can afford It, buy the best airplane you can get. If someone else has done all the work and gets little for all the time they put into it (if you rebuild one then you have to realize you must do the work, hiring it out is to expensive except for things that are rocket science). Find a good IA that you can work with that will do the inspections and sign offs.
If you have a partnership on the airplane get it in writing and make sure it is someone you trust. If you have more than one partners consider a Limited Liablity Corperation (LLC), there are several books out on how to start a flying club that could help you set it up right (there are several flying clubs that I know of that have been around for 50-60 years and are a very reasonable way to fly). Consider a very simple airplane less to go wrong and annuals are cheaper. Cessna made so many airplanes (120/140/150/152/170/172/180/182) that parts used or new are cheap compared to a lot of other makes. Piper made a lot of Pacers and Tripacers and Cubs great airplanes as longs as your not really large and heavy.
Type clubs can get you a lot of information on the airplane and modes(STC or 337’s) that can be done to the airplane. Oh sure, you can buy a Bonanza (a really old one with a E185/205/225 engine, parts availability is a problem) for very little money but the fuel (12 gph and no auto gas STC) and maintenance (constant speed or electric prop, retract gear and hydraulic struts, corrosion and magnesium metal on the control surfaces) will eat you alive. Parts for Beechcrafts are like parts for Rolls Royces. There are lots of books on choosing and airplane, it might be worth reading one of them. Don’t be afraid of Wood spars on wings they are low maintenance if you keep the airplane hangared and they are varnished well. If it’s an all wood airplane have someone who knows wood check it over and expect to do some work on it over time, especially if it was ever left outside. Again find a Mentor to help you buy the right airplane!!!
[…] more attainable for everyone. If you haven’t been following the comments on my post about Becoming a Pilot on a Budget, I would highly encourage you to do so because it has gotten me even more excited about flying than […]
To Jeff regarding auto engines: At first it is clear that a more simpler engine like the flat airplane engines are simple, mostly reliable (cylinder cracks?) designs, and it is easy to work on.
They get their power out of torque based on the relative big displacement at low RPMs. But with the old fashioned magnetic ignition, carburettors or mechanical injection, and the big friction losses do to the big surfaces of the moving parts in this big displacement engines, the efficiency is not very good. This engines waste fuel. A benefit is that this engines don`t need a reduction gear to have a prop operating without supersonic tip speeds. But to avoid super sonic is not an absolute must. Some props can work near supersonic tip speeds (and somewhat above). But t is better to avoid super sonic, whithout any question.
Auto engines are not all equal. Big engines designed for 65 mile cruising speeds, may be not so reliable when they have to deliver high power for a permanent time. But auto engines designed for other requirements, for example engines with smaller displacement in cars and light trucks which pull a heavy and aerodynamically unfavourable trailer, sometimes in mountainous areas, like usual in Europe, deliver 80 – 100 % of their power very often and continuously without any damage or reduction of the live span. It is not uncommon to reach more than 150,00 miles before any repair is needed. I had a car driving with this conditions what reached 300,00 miles before an overhaul was necessary.
Reduction gears are not always needed. When auto engines are operated at lower RPMs the power output is lower according to the specific power curve. An auto engine with 350 HP at 4,500 RPM could deliver about 200 HP at 2,500 RPM without any reduction gear or may be 180 hp at 90 %.
When the designer has the wishes to use a reduction gear because he want to get the benefits of high RPM at lower weights and better efficiency, a mechanically reduction gear is not the only solution. A belt drive reduction gear would do the job as well like in small and bigger helicopters proven.
When I recommend auto engines, or the derivates as industrial engines what could be bought from some automobile manufacturers, my main reason is to get engines in much cheaper future new planes which cost only a fraction of that what the existing airplane engines from the bigger three manufacturers cost today. I don`t recommend that any auto engine could be taken from a hobby converter in only one or a few applications successfully, what actually are more testing designs. I am talking from a situation when a manufacturer modifies an auto engine in a professional, reliable and well tested manner.
And please don`t forget, auto or industrial engines have the benefit that they can operate with street auto fuels, when it would be necessary, for a much cheaper price as with a specific aviation fuel. Perhaps with automobile gas what is sold “through the airport fence” to automobiles as well as for planes.
Dietrich, Since reliability is most important right up there with weight aircraft engines fuel efficiency is not all that good. But it can be improved. I’m reading a book by Kent Pacer called “Speed with efficiency”(economy) where some tricks are available to increase the fuel economy. One is expansion cones at the exhaust fitting from the head this saved him the loss of fuel when the valve overlap (when both the intake and the exhaust valve are open) and fuel mixture leaks straight through the valves to the exhaust side without burning. He got 1 less gph burn with this mode. fuel injection is even better and with a good egt/cht system like EI or JPI make you can lean the aircraft to within a few degress of peak. Lazar ignition can cut the chance of detonation down at high power and increase efficiency a lot at altitude as well since it adjusts the timing and uses knock sensors to keep the engine within a safe range. So you not stuck with the normal Lycoming set spark advance.
Altitude can be your friend, that is if you can get to that altitude, Kent gets his airplane a Mustang 2 (fixed gear 2 place side by side with a rate of climb of nearly 2000fpm at sealevel) down to about 6 gallons and hour at 13,000ft which is about 55% power of less and he is doing 225-230mph (O-320) that figures to 35mpg better than I can get on any car I own. Kent took his airplane up to 24,000 ft with his normally aspirated engine at that point the fuel flow is 2.2 gph but the speed is down to 80mph indicated and the true is in the 120mph range, but given a oxygen system and a 100 knot tailwind it still might be a good way to get your mpg up. It’s a very interesting book and written by a real Rocket scientist (Sky lab) who built a Mustang 2 in the early 1970 (180mph airplane) but by the 1990’s he had gained 63 mph on his top speed with the same engine and a lower fuel burn. Any airplane can be cleaned up and be made more effiecent.
There might be some good car engine that would work, like the German diesels, but I don’t see many of them around and the first ones from Thele didn’t work out to well on rebuild and were very pricey for parts and maintenance. If you could find the right engine they you could buy a large enough quantity to modify to aircraft standards then it could be possible but engineering changes (mixture controls, carb heat or induction heat if needed) isn’t cheap besides if is a spark ignition engine then it would require a second spark plug and ignition system and that might not be easy to do. I think the Austrailian’s have the right idea, on the Rotax Radial engine and the Jaburu engines, designed for the purpose. I was raise in the town(Longview, WA) that Molt Taylor built the Aerocar flying automobile in the 1950, he used a Lycoming O-320 derated to 140 hp due the torque that was produced as a car with front wheel drive, it could lay rubber in any gear and had to be handled carefully on wet roads. Airplane engines aren’t very good automobile engines either.
[…] namely Dan Pimentel and Brent Owens, has inspired me to commit to finishing my PPL this year. I already shared Dan’s article about increasing the number of pilots on the FAA records to 1 million which is really where this […]