Message-ID: <3660E9E8.7652@ibm.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 00:30:00 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Cessna 152 as a trainer thru Inst rating????
References: <3660A207.62A8@ibm.net> <19981128232341.29379.00001754@ng151.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.37.111.117
X-Trace: 29 Nov 1998 16:04:37 GMT, 129.37.111.117
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 101
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!129.37.111.117
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:40518

HLAviation wrote:

> >  C182s laugh at me when I try to
> >   move 'em, and Cherokee 6's don't even notice I'm there trying

> Snowbird, now comeon, you gonna try to tell me that a pretty woman 
> cant find some strapping young man/mem to pull her airplane out?  =;)

Send me a pretty woman and I'll let you know :^)

People are generally very helpful when they're around, but if
you like to fly early in the morning or come back late at night
(or if that's what the schedule allows), the smart money doesn't
bet on having help at hand 'cuz often there isn't anyone there.

I think it's a realistic factor to consider.  It's one of the joys
of plane ownership, being able to go out and fly when the FBO isn't
open.

> Seriously it's generaly not a problem.  With a heavier plane on a 
> ramp they give you drive thru tie downs

Seriously, I've never met a drive-through tie down.  The ramps
at the airports around here are offset tail-to-tail.  C310s and
even KingAirs get pushed back.  The tiedowns which aren't tail-to-
tail are up against a fence.  The shadeports have wires across the
back.

> and if you have a hanger you just get one of
> those motorized tow bars.

Well, I guess if the price of a motorized tow bar is "just",
then there's no point in breaking a sweat about burning extra 
fuel for no increase in utility. :0

I'll save the $1k price of that towbar towards cylinder repairs 
and buy a plane I can move around by myself, thank you.

> Yeah well this wears off real quick and you want to start taking 
> trips with 2 couples or the whole family a 172 falls short.

But is that actually the majority of the flying they'll actually be
doing (as opposed to dreaming about doing)?  How many times a
year do most people take long trips vs. day trips and weekends, or 
just an hour or two of flying?  And are those long trips really
going to be 4 adults, or 2 adults and baggage?  

My point is maybe plane ownership would be more economical (and
work out better) for more people if they think about what plane 
that will really work for most of their flying, as opposed to 
rejecting smaller, less expensive (to buy and fly) planes as 
inadequate because they can't be filled with 4 200 lb-ers and
flown for 4 hrs legs.

They should think about how often the flying you can do will be 
an hour or two here and there, a day trip or a weekend, vs. long 
trips with a big load.  Also think about how rental works, it's 
easy to rent a faster, bigger plane for a week; a 1000 mile trip 
meets daily minimums even if the plane sits for 5 days.  It's hard to
rent a plane to fly an hour each way and spend a long weekend.

> A Hawk XP or Archer are pretty minimal planes to travel in.

I've flown a few 1000 mile trips in these "minimal planes", 
they work.  An Archer and my Tiger have about the same payload,
I've flown a few 1000 mile trips in my minimal Tiger too, and
expect to fly many more.  It's two of us and the dog, we had
plenty of room.

> Ths guy was talking about a partnership with 4 or 5 guys.  If they 
> cant each manage to pony up 20-25k , they are probably getting in over > thier heads and should probably rent.

This sounds like the "Sour Grapes" theory of plane ownership.
I don't see the point of saying the only plane worth owning is 
a big, expensive plane with high operating costs because less
expensive planes won't work *for a specific mission which many
pilots will rarely fly*, then declaring that anyone who can't
afford that big expensive plane shouldn't get in the game anyway.

There are plenty of less expensive planes which work just fine
to take 4 large adults on a 1 hr trip (a C172 will do this, BTDT). 
1 hr will get you from NJ to Boston *over* all the highway traffic,
or most anywhere elsein the NE US.

Owning isn't for everyone, but I don't think people should write
it off because they can't afford the big comfy load hauler, when
maybe they'd be better off with a C172 or Archer they can use
for training and fly around eves and weekends, or even a Champ
or a Cub they can hop in and fly over the treetops.  I know a
number of people who have 4-8 people sharing a C172, or a Navion,
or a Beech Musketeer, and they're enjoying owning and flying the
plane they can afford.

Even when people can use load capacity some of the time, it doesn't
make sense to pay more for it and pay to operate it all of the time--
unless thats really the majority of the flying the owners will be
doing.  

Snowbird


