Buying a Plane to Commute from Boise to Seattle

[Pak Ratt]

Looking at a job change and want to keep my family in Boise while I work in Seattle and commute home every two weeks. I am currently a student pilot - but if I get the job I will accelerate my training. I am also looking at an aircraft to commute with-- but need a low price point $20,000 to $35,000.

I have looked at a 172 and a 172 XP-- though the XP might be out of price range. I also like the Tri-Pacer-- but never flew one.

Any suggestions? Is this doable or will airplane payments and fuel cost send me to the poor house--

Thoughts and advise?

[Mike Simmons]

If you want to use any aircraft for travel you will need an instrument rating. As a VFR pilot weather will become more of a factor and you will have more situations where you will be grounded.

For what you are trying to do, your price-point is too low and your budget expectations are unrealistic.

Good luck.

[Pak Ratt]

So what price point would you recommend?

[Gimble]

After taking a quick look at your situation, here are some thoughts.

(History: I bought my first plane this spring, to use for 500nm trips between the Denver area and Oklahoma City to visit extended family. I've logged nearly 100 hours on the plane with varying levels of travel flexibility).

1) As mentioned above, assume you're going to get your IFR rating if you're at all serious about commuting. When planning VFR trips to OK and back, I allow a three day window for each end ( e.g. "I'll probably come down somewhere between the 10th and 12th, and come back somewhere between the 13th and 15th" ). For a work schedule, you won't have that kind of flexibility.

2) Watch and understand what kind of weather patterns -- and how frequent -- exist between Boise and Seattle. When VFR is impossible on the route between Denver and OKC, it's frequent that for light planes IFR is also impossible, because the large fronts are almost always thunderstorms.

3) Your route is actually reasonably passable for small planes ( highest ground elevation seems to be ~ 7500 MSL, allowing you to travel at elevations not requiring oxygen or turbocharging ). A distance of ~350NM is also a reasonable amount, small enough that you should be able to do it non-stop in a plane with decent range.

4) For your mission, what I would really like to have is something with ~500NM range (as a minimum) and a cruise speed of no less than 125 kts if you can find it. Also note that a decent IFR setup will be basically mandatory, and an autopilot would be a plus. A 172 might barely squeak through these limits. ( I have a C177 Cardinal, which I could recommend, although it also is just barely fast enough ). At 125 kts, you're still probably talking a 3-hour flight minimum, more with a headwind.

5) In all cases, you're going to need a reliable airframe, with reasonable IFR avionics, a low- to mid-time engine, and those cost money. The bottom-feeding 172s on the marked are unlikely to meet your criteria.

Just taking a guess based on early 2009 pricing, and for a plane that will satisfy your mission, $40K would be a minimum cost I would guess at. My reasonably-reliable, but not-IFR-equipped Cardinal cost around that, and I'll be spending another $10K to get it equipped for IFR.

Oh, and of course, Get an un-affiliated mechanic to do a thorough pre-buy inspection on anything you're remotely interested in. The money you may be wasting on the pre-buy if the plane is unsatisfactory is nothing compared to the money pit you may walk into otherwise.

Hope that helps!

[Dantilla]

In my opinion, a 172 has minimal performance for climbing over the mountains.

Doable when the conditions are nice, but pretty anemic when Boise gets hot, or when you encounter turbulence over the mountainous areas.

Remember that the Cascades are well known for some of the most severe icing conditions anywhere. An airplane is a great way to commute, but you will have to be very flexible in a 172 on a Seattle-Boise run.

[Mike Simmons]

Originally Posted by Pak Ratt

So what price point would you recommend?

Gimble had some excellent advice but I think his price is too conservative. A 172 may be adequate initially but eventually (like all of us) you will want to move up to something that is faster and flies higher.

You will most likely need to start at the mid seventies models (regardless of what you choose) and I would say that a $50K to $75K budget would be adequate for the initial purchase. This aircraft should be IFR capable so that when you begin your IFR training you will already have the equipment on board and be familiar with it.

Good luck.

[Pak Ratt]

Thanks so much for the feedback-- this is all so helpful. I am bumping up the target price and looking at models such as the 172 XP as well as others. I've also started looking at models that specifically are set up for IFR. I will have to cap my price around the low $40 k range

The other thing I have to look at is the breaking point where it is much more cost effective to take an airliner vs flying on my own-- I am keeping the airline option open when weather is bad and currently working with a company on better ticket pricing should I have to make a last moment decision to not fly my own aircraft. If I commute 1 pr month- not effective however if I go 2 or more times- I can justify the expense a little more.

In addition, my instructor is going to fly the route with me several times prior to getting my PPL so that when I do get my ticket- I am familiar with the route.

Thanks again so much-- these are the things I need to hear.

[Gimble]

Originally Posted by Mike Simmons

Gimble had some excellent advice but I think his price is too conservative.

Entirely probable, I'm no purchase/selling expert. I was a major price miser when I was shopping, and my pricing was from my perspective from this spring. My good fortune with the Cardinal is unlikely to be easily repeated for something else.

One other minor piece of advice I might give would be that if PR is serious about this whole thing, he should rent a 172 and fly the route with an instructor, picking up some instruction time along the route. Nothing like flying the route to give you a better idea of what it would "really" be like to fly it regularly.

Edit: spelling

[Pak Ratt]

What do you like about the Cardinal? The needs might be changing and would not need to fly the Seattle route--

[Mike Simmons]

Let me start by saying that I am biased about Cardinals because I own a '77 RG model but before I elected to buy I seriously thought about my needs (which changed quite a bit over time) and the cost of ownership. The Cardinal (in my opinion) is one of the most undervalued aircraft on the market given their capability and cabin size.

Personally, I think these are great aircraft and they don't tend to break the bank while owning them.

Good luck.

[Gimble]

Originally Posted by Pak Ratt

What do you like about the Cardinal? The needs might be changing and would not need to fly the Seattle route--

A brief list, based on my purchase hunt and my limited (6 months) experience at ownership:

• Great acquisition costs. If you can find a good one, it costs little more than a 172 -- particularly one with a >=180HP engine.
• Excellent ramp appeal. They really do look 'sexy'. I wasn't that impressed with this point until I had the good fortune of parking mine next to a 172XP on a ramp shortly after purchase. It was like parking a sports car next to a pickup truck.
• Good parts and service availability. A lot of parts (particularly the engine) are in common with the 172. Most 172 mechanics (e.g. the entire world) can figure out how to work on them without a large learning curve.
• Room. A Cardinal has almost identical passenger space to a 182, at significantly less cost.
• Visibility. The pilot sits forward of the wing, and there are no struts. Best view in a high-wing I've ever seen, including 'Bigger' Cessnas.
• Community. The Cardinal users group on the web (Cardinal Flyers Online Home Page) is one of the (if not *the*) largest and active users group on the Internet.

Now, a 182 is a superior plane in payload and speed, but for the extra costs associated with a 235hp engine (fuel burn, maintenance, and insurance), I'm thrilled to putter along at 110-125 kts and be able to fly more often.

[Pak Ratt]

Hey All--- THanks-- this is great info and definitely has me looking at options. I am leaning towards not taking the new assignment-- so the aircraft needs might be changing a bit--we are waiting to see what the new company comes back with on incentives , etc ....

Thanks again-- will keep you posted

[wjgesq]

Look at Piper Warriors. The price is right, the fuel burn is low and they have a 500 mile range, though your ready for a break at 300 miles.

[tazmaniac0350]

have you looked at the experimental aircraft? rv3 would be inyour price range with the speed and some are ifr cert