N64027

Essays & Resources

 

 

For anyone considering buying this (or any other) airplane, I've written the following short pieces about my decision to purchase this airplane, the safety features on it (and that one might consider when airplane shopping), and some thoughts and lessons learned along the way to buying my first aircraft.  

 

I've also included some links and resources that were valuable to me as I researched the Cessna 182, and the 182RG in particular.  As always, please drop me a line with comments, corrections or feedback.

 

An Ironic Airplane (why this airplane scares away the people who should value it most)

Safety, Safety, Safety (a detailed discussion of the airplane's many safety features)

Thoughts on Buying My First Airplane (things I learned along the way)

 

Various Resources for Skylane Pilots

 

 

An "Ironic" Airplane, or "How a Low-Risk Guy Got Comfortable With a Scary Number".

 

I believe that the next owner of this airplane is probably going to be someone a lot like me:

 

• Relatively mature (I’m going on 50, relatively established in my profession and financially, with a wife and three children).  A young tech executive probably won’t be interested in this plane – that’s what Cirrus is for. 

• A well-trained, conservative flyer; safety-conscious above all else, and unlikely to fly in situations that entail a great deal of risk.  (I got my commercial rating in January, less than two-and-a-half years after my first solo.  I like being current in all aspects of flying, and spend a lot of time learning and reading so I can be a better, safer pilot)  An aerobatics-rated pilot looking to impress the boys around the FBO will probably end up with an RV, or a Mooney.

• Analytical and value-conscious; (my background is finance and accounting, and my primary focus when buying an airplane was value, not price).  Value-consciousness implies that I was willing to pay as much as necessary for the right airframe, as long as I felt I was getting as much as possible for my dollar.   I am not particularly COST-conscious; I happily pay for the best equipment and mechanics, and eliminate squawks as fast as they pop up.  A cost-conscious pilot is typically looking for a CHEAP airplane.  This isn’t the cheapest 182RG on the market, but it surely represents the best value. 

 

If none of those descriptions seemed to fit you, I can assume you’re probably not reading this page anymore.  If you are, thanks for sticking around.  The real purpose of this page is to describe in more detail how this airplane fit MY mission, how I got comfortable with it, and how it might fit yours.  I’m also going to try to include information that I wish someone had shared with me when I started the process of buying my first airplane in 2012.

 

One last point before I go on; of course, everything here is my opinion.  I’ve done a lot of research, but realize that there are differences of opinion about certain aspects of aircraft ownership that will never be reconciled. 

 

An “Ironic Airplane”?

 

Safe, conservative, value-conscious pilots like you and I are the best fit for this airframe.  (More on that later).  But, ironically, we’re also the people most likely to immediately remove it from consideration due to the amount of time it’s been flown. 

 

I’d like to spend some time describing what I’ve learned about how these planes were flown, how they were maintained, and what it really means to be “high time”.  This is the research I did before buying, and it converted me from someone who felt like they were “taking a risk” (the last feeling I want to have associated with aviation) into someone who was “getting a deal” (the true goal of my plane-shopping).  Whether or not this page has the same effect on you, I sincerely hope it will position you to be a better buyer when you make the decision to join the ranks of airplane owners.

 

In Retrospect, and In Summary

 

The decision to buy N64027 has paid off for me tremendously. Being an airplane owner has been an incomparable experience, one I’m planning to continue.  This airplane has been completely reliable, safe and solid.  It’s taken me, my family and friends all over the Southeast in comfort, efficiency and in relative speed.  My cost of ownership has been reasonable, and I’ll probably sell it for just about what it cost to buy it in the first place.

 

What is TTAF – and What is it Not?

 

My first instinct, and that of many others, is to consciously or unconsciously associate total airframe time to miles on an automobile.  To a certain extent that’s an accurate comparison.  An airplane with more TTAF has covered more miles – and has been up in the air longer - than one with fewer airframe hours.  But in many important respects, that analogy is flawed. 

 

First, when we think “miles on a car” we consider three primary items; miles on the engine, wear and tear on expensive chassis and electronic components, and cosmetic wear on the interior.  A “high miles” auto is usually on its first engine, has major repairs lurking in hidden places and has a worn-out interior. 

 

As we all know, an airplane is a different beast.  Engines are replaced or rebuilt (this airplane is currently on engine #5 I believe).  From the perspective of the powerplant, this airplane is no different than a very low-time Cessna 182 with only 1500+ total hours.  (In fact, it’s probably in better shape than an airplane that is still equipped with its first engine.  A lot of usage is good for aircraft engines, while idle time leads to possible issues involving corrosion.) 

 

Chassis and electrical components in an aircraft are, obviously, also replaced when they fail certain tolerances.  This aircraft has had most, if not all, of the wear-sensitive parts and electronics replaced at least once.  The government’s refurbishment process ensured that anything remotely worn was replaced in 1999 and/or 2004, and that anything that was subject to wear was replaced on a strict schedule during their ownership.

 

A major refurbishment took place in 1999, when the plane had 5834 hours on the airframe.  It has flown approximately 3,800 hours since then, which matches the average total time of most 182RGs flying today.  There is some comfort to this replacement cycle; I would rather be flying in an airplane where these items have been replaced (by a very good shop) than in an airplane in which these items are original equipment.

 

(A quick note – there is at least one seller claiming TTAF on these airframes from refurbishment date.  I understand the intent behind that practice, but don’t believe that is an accurate way to portray an aircraft.  Buyer beware.)

 

There are too many examples to list coherently, but if you look at the document titled “N64027 Airframe Log 1.pdf”, you’ll see exactly how many items were replaced on this airplane 3,800 hours ago.  While the airframe itself wasn’t brought to “new”, each of those items works as well as a comparably-aged component on an airframe with less total time.

 

At that same time, the interior was replaced and the airplane was painted.  It has been kept indoors since that time.

 

Cycles

 

In the world of pressurized aircraft, records are kept for the amount of “cycles” a plane has experienced.  With the expansion and contraction of an airframe as it goes through pressurization cycles, it’s established fact that such planes are subject to fatigue over long lifetimes.  But no such cycle applies to a non-pressurized aircraft.  The integrity of the airframe itself (skin, bulkheads, spars, rivets, etc) isn’t affected by airframe hours, unless those airframe hours include “incidents” that haven’t been repaired properly.  (This airplane doesn’t have any associated damage history)

 

A Relative Youngster

 

Finally, it helps to remember that this is a 1985 model of the airplane, serial 2021 of 2043 built.  Despite its hours, it has fewer years than 98.9% of the 182RG fleet, the vast majority of which were built in 1978 & 1979. 

 

Here are the major changes by year for naturally-aspirated 182RGs:

 

1979 - Fuel bladders replaced by "wet wing", and alternator and over-voltage sensor was swapped for an alternator control unit, and the high-voltage warning light was switched to a low-voltage light.  

1980 - New latch and pin system for doors introduced.  Avionics cooling fan becomes standard, oil cooler relocated from the left forward baffle to the firewall.  Battery moved from the firewall to the tailcone for easier access and longer battery life.  New muffler for better cabin heating, and redesigned wing root ventilators.

1983 - Amber "gear up" light replaced by a red "gear in transit" light.  Beefed-up flaps allow 20 degrees of flaps at up to 120 knots.  Nosegear doors redesigned to eliminate occasional problem of them getting stuck on the cowling skin.

1984 - New composite fuel caps.  Rear-seat shoulder harnesses become standard equipment.

 

FBI Flight Operations, and Maintenance

 

I am not, and never have been, employed by the FBI.  When researching this airplane, I came across several online mentions of how they were operated, and managed to talk to a couple of people who have either worked with the airplanes or who actually flew them.  I learned enough to get comfortable with how this airplane had been flown, and maintained.  But a certain veil of secrecy still lies over these airplanes for obvious reasons:

 

Sacramento "Mystery Plane"

Mystery Flights over Quincy

Portland Oregon Video

 

(If each mission they flew got as much attention as the links above demonstrate, then the FBI would have a tough time doing its job.) 

 

Typical flights for these aircraft seem to have been for the purposes of observation of particular areas; in short, they generally flew in circles, at low power, and often at night.  They seem to have carried anywhere between 2-4 people on-board, and specialized electronic equipment was installed in the airplane for the purposes of observation and for recording.   It would seem that most of these missions were relatively long (several hours) and uneventful.  The pilots who flew them were probably commercially-rated.

 

The airplanes were apparently purchased new from Cessna, sometimes under a corporate umbrella designed to protect the identity of the operator.  (The logs show that a pipeline company bought this plane from the factory, but an authority I spoke with said that it was probably a cover story).  This airplane has also had three separate tail numbers, but I'm not sure if that's standard practice or not.

 

Based on maintenance documents, it appears to have been operated primarily in and around the middle U.S.  (I see avionics work and minor repairs being done in places like Texas, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas and Michigan).  The logs are complete, and show a remarkable amount of attention.  Oil changes took place every 50 hours, and for much of its life it also underwent 100-hour inspections.  Standard practice appears to have been to hangar these aircraft when they weren't flying, and it's not an exaggeration to state that they were maintained to the highest standards possible - no expense seems to have been spared with regards to equipment, regular maintenance or to extraordinary services like the 1999 teardown/rebuild.

 

(The fascinating thing about reading these logs is that the letters "FBI" don't appear very often - I think there are only one or two places where someone slipped up and identified the real owner.  Otherwise the cover was maintained well. )

 

 

On to the Good Stuff…

 

The main impact of TTAF is a slight diminishment of value against the same plane with fewer hours.  A 9,600-hour airframe will be worth approximately $17,000 less in retail value than a 3,500-hour airframe, all other things being equal.  When one considers that higher TTAF may also capture more damage history (planes that are flown more are more likely to be involved in incidents, or to lose their logs), that seems like a fair adjustment.  But in practical terms, when considering that this airplane has all its logs, no damage history and an exemplary maintenance record – I actually considered this airplane a better value at a price $17k less than an identical ship with fewer hours.    

 

TTAF was one of two negative aspects to this airplane that I considered when I first started evaluating it.  After going through the thought process you see described above, I actually grew to see the high airframe time as a benefit, reducing my cost of acquisition for an airplane that was – otherwise – equipped better than any other comparable GA aircraft I could identify at twice the cost.

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

Safety, Safety, Safety

 

As mentioned above, I consider myself a very safety-conscious pilot.  When I began my search for an airplane, a major goal was to purchase a plane that would provide as many layers of protection and mitigation as possible.  Having a very good autopilot was non-negotiable, and I was going to install some form of anti-collision protection whether or not the plane I chose came equipped with such equipment or not.  For the benefit of you who may have read this far, I’m going to highlight some obvious and not-so-obvious safety features of the airplane in more detail than the “list view” you see on the front page. 

 

• KFC-200 w/GPSS– A good autopilot is almost essential to IMC flight, and this is still considered one of the very best units produced.  Due to the cost of these units, you’ll almost never see these in small GA aircraft.  

• Flight Director – Another big factor in making IMC flight safer.  If you got your instrument rating the way I did, or fly larger aircraft for a living, you’ve grown to expect a flight director to “show you the way” when things get hairy.  I wouldn’t want to fly without one.

• SkyWatch SKY899 TCAS 1 Active Traffic System, tied to the audio panel.  If you fly in congested airspace, you'll grow to appreciate SkyWatch.  Better than TIS, better than ADS-B Traffic, and the single most important reason I bought this airplane in the first place.  (Universal ADS-B Traffic, due in 2020, will not eliminate the usefulness of SkyWatch.)

• WX-1000 EFIS Stormscope.  200 mile range, gimballed so you don't have to reset it when you change course, and slaved to the GPS so you can see your route portrayed on the face of the instrument.

• GEM 602 Graphic Engine Monitor.  Much better for managing engine temps than the standard Cessna gauges.

• Shadin Mini-Flow Fuel System - accurate, and coupled to the GPS so you can see fuel to destination and actual reserves.

• 12V power in the instrument panel and at both rear seats.  Very handy to keep a navigational iPad charged, and if your passengers/family entertain themselves with electronic devices in-flight.  Hard to appreciate until  you've flown without it.

• Standby vacuum pump is an obviously welcome backup, especially for the IFR pilot.

• Carb Temp Gauge although these Lycoming engines rarely ice up, having a picture of the carb temp available at all times is nice to have.

• Gear Mirrors – STC’d.  Another small feature that improves your comfort level while flying. 

• Skylights – Installed in 1999, and replaced at least once, these help eliminate the biggest blind spot for high-wing Cessnas.  If you include them in your scan, you’ll worry less about the potential of the “high wing / low wing” collision where neither airplane sees each other in VFR conditions. 

• BAS Harnesses – Most 182RGs have been retrofitted with fixed shoulder belts, the kind that don’t allow you to lean forward once they’ve been tightened.  These fully articulating shoulder harnesses allow you complete freedom of movement until they’re needed (and anyone who’s survived an unexpected off-field landing will tell you that shoulder harnesses may be the most important piece of safety equipment in the airplane)

• Pulselight – Flashes the landing light on and off when selected, and when landing or taxi lights aren’t turned on.  Amazingly effective at helping other aircraft, and tower controllers, spot you.  I use this feature when I get within the Mode C veil of the busy Atlanta airspace as an added anti-collision measure. 

• CO Monitor – These aircraft can produce carbon monoxide in the cabin in certain conditions.  For that reason, I added a high-level monitor that beeps loudly when certain CO levels are reached. 

• Lift Reserve Indicator – the primary cause of accidents/incidents in this fleet involves runway loss of control.  Like most high-wing Cessnas, 182RGs will “float” if approach speeds are too high, and the small wheels on this plane can make a squirrely landing very hard to handle.  The LRI is a simple instrument that allows you to (among other things) approach at exactly the right speed for the conditions and for your weight/balance.  I had this installed when I first bought the airplane, and using it has made my landings much better and safer.  In addition, the FAA has started to recommend them for the GA fleet due to the protection factor from stall/spin incidents they provide. 

• Heated Stall Warning Vane – you won’t see this in the general fleet, and I’d hate to find myself in a position where I needed to use it.  But turning on pitot heat also heats the area around the stall warning tab, keeping it from freezing up and creating a condition where one inadvertently stalls an iced-up airplane. 

 

Very few airplanes available today will have more than two or three of these features installed.  But each of them adds some measure of safety and comfort that I wouldn’t have otherwise, and combined they represent an airplane uniquely configured for the safest possible operation.

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

Thoughts on the Airplane Buying Process

 

For those of you strongly considering buying your first airplane, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on how I came to own this airplane - the options I considered and the factors that caused me to buy this plane.

 

Now What?

 

In late 2012 I found myself newly instrument-rated, relatively established professionally and financially, with a growing family and with lots of places to go.  I was a renter, choosing airplanes from the same well-run flight school that had helped me gain my PPL and Instrument rating.  As a person who came to aviation later in life (I was in my mid-40s when I started flight training), I wasn’t interested in the cheapest route to my license – I wanted to be safe along the way, and I wanted access to the latest in technology.

 

The Cessna 172's at the flight school were state-of-the art, but their (lack of) speed and load-carrying capacity made them impractical for covering great distances with my family.  The flight school also had a brand-new, G1000-equipped C182, and a 1979 182RG, and after completing my instrument rating, I got checked out in both of them.  Both were a huge step up from the 172 in complexity and performance, and after flying them I found myself no longer interested in renting the smaller airplanes.

 

As you can imagine, the new 182 was *really* expensive to rent.  The 182RG was practical, but popular.  Between maintenance and use by other guys like me, it was almost never available when I wanted it.  I found myself flying less and less, which is exactly the opposite of what I’d hoped would be the case when I started work on my instrument rating.  I had to do something - I couldn't just let my newly-minted skills die away, or let them be held hostage to the schedules and pricing of the flight school.

 

Buy a Whole Airplane - Me?!

 

But going from "Renter" to "Owner" seemed like a huge step.  I'm not a mechanic, nor was I inclined to become one.  I didn't have a place to put the airplane, and the waiting list for hangars at my local airfield was estimated to be 10 years long. I didn't know the first thing about insurance.  And it was hard to make the numbers add up when I wasn't planning on flying 200+ hours a year.  I also knew that buying a new, or new-ish airplane put me in a situation where depreciation was going to add substantially to my total cost of ownership.

 

The idea of buying an airplane was quickly discarded.  I was going to try another way to get access to the plane of my dreams.

 

Narrowing it Down / Strange Criteria

 

“Which airplane?” took a while to figure out as well.  (Spreadsheets were committed). In the final analysis, I narrowed my choice of airframes down to the following list, in rough order of preference:

 

• Cessna 182RG

• A36 Bonanza

• Cessna 210

• Various Pipers

 

As a member of both the Beech and Cessna online forums, I’ve become keenly aware of the relative merits of these various airframes.  I've flown Bonanzas and Cessnas, and can state that both have strong points.  For me, the issue came down to a conscious decision not to buy an airplane in which I could fit my whole family.  I was a relatively low-time pilot when this process started, and I promised myself that I wouldn’t be the “inexperienced pilot who wiped out his entire family by stuffing them all into a high-performance aircraft and then getting in over his head.”  Whichever airplane I ended up with, I planned to fly a lot and to get my commercial rating in it.  With more hours, and more advanced instruction, I believed that one day I’d be ready for something bigger, faster and with more seats.  

 

My impression was that Bonanzas were “slicker” than Cessnas, with higher approach speeds and more ways to get into trouble. Cessna 210’s fly a lot like 182s, but the insurance premiums on them are dramatically higher than on the other two airplanes.  And since there weren’t a lot of 210’s made, the market for these airframes wasn’t as robust as it could be.  There just aren’t a lot of them around, and the good ones tend to be very expensive.

 

"Fifty Blind Dates"

 

Partnership – that’s the ticket.  From a practical perspective there's no way to deny the financial advantages of sharing fixed costs among a group of like-minded people.  It was very clear to me that a good partnership, consisting of between 2 and 5 partners, was the ideal way for me to own an airplane.  Now that I knew which airframes interested me, and had an idea about what I was looking for in a partnership, I was ready to go find one.  Or even start one. I live only five miles from a busy metropolitan airport.  There are hundreds of planes on the field, and thousands of pilots within a 10-mile radius of my home.  Not only was a partnership the best thing for me, but finding one was going to be a pretty simple process.

 

Without going through every step of my partnership search, which took most of six months and included many meetings, airplane viewings, and two or three almost-concluded transactions, I now know that my initial optimism was misplaced. 

 

While buying into a partnership is, in principle, a terrific way to own an airplane, I learned that the practical aspects of either buying into an established group, or setting one up on your own, can be very difficult to overcome.  First, the timing has to be almost perfect; you have to want to buy in at around the same time that someone wants out.  Or you have to gather together a bunch of guys (or at least one other guy) who wants exactly the same thing you do on the same timeframe. And even if those factors line up, then you need to consider your compatibility with your prospective partners, their goals for the airplane and their financial health over the projected ownership period.  

 

And if you get that far there are still documents to draw up and sign, and all sorts of practical details to be addressed to get a well-functioning partnership underway. 

 

(If you haven't reached this point in your airplane-buying process yet, I don't want to discourage you.  There are great partnerships out there, and some of the happiest pilots I know own and fly airplanes through a partnership structure. Partners can also be friends, providing the benefit of social *and* financial support.  Just be aware that they can be fiendishly difficult to consummate)

 

But after a long evaluation process I found myself a weekend away from buying into an established partnership that owned 2 A36 Bonanzas.  I was excited to have the evaluation and courtship phase concluded, and to soon have access to two very nicely-equipped airplanes.  Insurance requirements for this partnership required me to have 40 hours of dual before I could fly by myself, but that was fine by me.  I’d use that time to get close to my commercial rating, to build hours and to get more comfortable with the airplane.  My hard work had paid off, and I was going to get exactly what I was looking for.

 

My call to the lead partner on Monday went unreturned, as did my emails.  I tried to reach him several times that week to arrange our closing, but I wasn’t getting any response.  My reaction was to think something happened…and it did.  Over the previous weekend, one of the partners had totaled one of the airplanes (everybody was fine, but the plane was a writeoff).  The lead partner was hip-deep in insurance issues, and with buying a replacement airplane.  I had put all of my chips on a particular outcome, and found myself back at the starting line.  Summer was close and I still didn't have a good plan for getting many hours.  At that moment, I resolved that I was going to buy an airplane on my own.  The inconveniences associated with pursuing a partnership, and with renting, had gotten in the way of doing what I really wanted to do - which was fly.  A lot.

 

Back to Square Two

 

I had done a lot of research and analysis already, with the thought in mind that I might be buying an airplane and seeking partners in it.  I had identified what I believed to be every single Cessna 182RG on the market (using sites like this and this, which are invaluable tools for an aircraft buyer), and had rated each of them based on specific criteria that were important to me.  

 

My goal was, as I mentioned above, to identify the best value in the market by giving different criteria different values based on my personal preferences.  For example, a bad interior or paint job brought about a larger deduction than did VREF for the same issues. First, I knew my wife and children would be less likely to fly with me in an airplane that looked shabby, and second I was leery of the time required to paint or re-upholster one.  I placed a large premium on anti-collision systems, based on my experiences in crowded Atlanta and Orlando airspaces, and also bumped up those aircraft that had very good autopilots.

 

I did not give a premium to airplanes that had been equipped with glass cockpits.  I have extensive experience with the G1000 suite, but had conducted my instrument training in an aircraft equipped with the standard "six pack".  I was comfortable with both methods of portraying navigational data, but thought that the premium associated with the newest technology was too high...and that the risks associated with aging systems were significant too.   I wanted WAAS, but also realized that the only times I've flown LPV approaches was in training - they don't happen much in the "real world" in my experience.  And so on.

 

When I finished crunching all of those numbers,  several airplanes stood out as being relatively good values.  I talked to one owner extensively, and flew down to the Georgia coast to ride in another one and to inspect its logs.  Then, two months passed as I got busy with work, and life, and with the pursuit of a partnership.  When the Bonanza partnership finally fell through, I picked up my spreadsheet again and checked to see if there were any new entrants to the market since I'd last looked.

 

Boom

 

One of the airplanes I'd liked very much when I was evaluating candidates for purchase had been an FBI surveillance aircraft. The only problem with it was that the owner wasn't willing to sell it to me at a price that represented a real "value", as it was relatively close to TBO.  

 

When I went back over the market I found that another FBI plane had been recently listed.  This one had fewer hours on the engine, and was one of the rare models equipped with a SkyWatch system.  When I plugged that data into my formula, and compared it to the asking price (somewhere between retail and wholesale), I realized that this was the best value I'd seen so far. I made an offer quickly, conducted a thorough pre-buy, and became a first-time airplane owner within a month.  A good plane (according to my personal preferences) at a good price was exactly what I was looking for, and after six months it all came together "overnight".

 

Lessons Learned

 

Understand your criteria - as I mentioned above, your particular needs or mission may be very different than what the market values.  Get a sense for what's really important for you, and for what you can do without, when you look at aircraft.  It can help you weed through the listings quickly, saving a lot of time.

Understand the maintenance and usage - if you're conservative, and value-oriented, you'll really try to avoid any major surprises at that first annual.  There's never a guarantee that surprises won't pop up, but minimizing the chances is good for your wallet and for your safety.

Do a pre-buy - I started down the road to using a maintenance service organization to conduct my pre-buy.  I was, and remain, a big believer in how these firms work.  But there were technical and communication issues along the way that almost killed the deal (they had a particularly tough time finding a pre-buy shop within reasonable distance of where this plane was based).  Instead, I took a detailed pre-buy list that they helped create, and had a local mechanic conduct it.  Their report was thorough, and I feel that it was money well-spent.

Remember, You're Going to Sell the Airplane One Day - No one wants to pay over VREF for an airplane, because selling it again will be difficult.  Some of the best advice I received was "don't fall in love with a particular airplane, because another will be along soon."  Price is important, and executing a deal as close to VREF wholesale as possible will help you with financing, and when you want to sell it and upgrade.

Brokers - they all tended to be very nice folks.  But adding them to the mix seemed to decrease price flexibility, and sometimes slowed down the negotiations.  They often knew more about the airplane than owners did.  I placed a premium on aircraft that were privately-owned and marketed, but wouldn't hesitate to buy the right airplane for the right price from a good broker.

Avionics - evaluating avionics suites was the toughest part of this process.  There are so many possible combinations of instrumentation installed in GA aircraft that making sense of them can be a real struggle.  Read everything you can, especially on the forums (I like the Cessna Pilots Association, Beechtalk, The Pilot's Purple Board, AOPA Forums, and Pilots of America.  If you type "STEC-60", as an example, into the search function at these sites, you're sure to receive a dose of real-world knowledge about how they work, how much they cost, how they compare to competitive products, and much, much more.  Some of these may require membership to read.)

Discounts and Negotiations - Prices in this market, at least in my experience, aren't terribly flexible.  If you're trying to figure out what a plane will sell for, don't discount any more than 5% for your target number.  If you're watching the market closely, a price change on an aircraft you like is a signal to jump quickly - there are more people than you waiting for the right deal.

Insurance - Talk to a good broker before you commit to buying an airplane.  They'll let you know about the insurance implications of a particular airframe (for example, learning about the huge cost premium for Cessna 210s altered my choice of a first airplane)  My insurance broker has handled my CFI's business - which includes jets and large turboprops - for over 20 years.  The CFI has the agent's number in his speed-dial.  I didn't need to know any more.  There's probably a guy like this near you too.  Put yourself in his hands and the process will be an easy one.

 

And finally, if you're seriously considering ownership of an airplane, please don't hesitate to call or write me if I can be of any assistance as you go through your search.  There aren't many people in this world who can call themselves "airplane owners".  Which means that there aren't a lot of solid data points upon which to base your analysis, or uninterested parties who can give you unbiased insight along the way.  Whether or not you pursue ownership of this airplane isn't terribly important to me- but I would like to tell you that owning an airplane has been one of the best decisions I've ever made.  Having your own aircraft waiting for you whenever you decide to go somewhere, or when you just feel like flying, is a profound experience that justifies so much of the  time an expense that we put into the pursuit of our license and ratings.  In the grand scheme of things, owning an airplane isn't particulary expensive, or complicated, and it adds so many dimensions to your life that didn't exist before.   In the immortal words of Ferris Bueller,  "If you have the means, I highly recommend it".

 

 

Return to Top

 

 

 

Various Files and Resources