Category Archives: aircraft ownership

Piper Cherokee 140?

Posted on by

Recent question about buying a Piper Cherokee 140.

Basically the question is, Should I buy a Piper Cherokee 140 or a Cessna 172?

“I just finished reading your book “How to Buy a Single-Engine Airplane”.  Man, it was great!  I am a private pilot with 400+ hours in a Cessna 150.  Five years ago, I sold it thinking that I would not fly enough to merit the expense.  Ever since, I have been like a caged animal looking for a hole to escape into the wild blue yonder!  With your beautiful little book, I found a hole in which to escape from my self-made prison and am now in a hunt for a Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee 140.  I have $40K in a fruit jar to invest.  Now for the BIG question, what can I expect in terms of hours on the plane, year (age), etc.?  Please help me!”

Wow, thank you for the kind comments about the book!  Glad you are excited about getting another aircraft. You can actually consider a number of nice aircraft for the $40,000 range.  You won’t usually get new engines, new paint and a panel full of new flat panel displays, but you should be able to get a nice basic digital IFR, mid-time engine, good-looking aircraft.

It appears that you should be able to buy a Piper 140 for a little less than the Cessna 172.  I think that is because it is really a 2+2 aircraft, even more than the Cessna 172.  The original Piper 140 models came from the factory as two seat aircraft or two seats with a small jump seat in the baggage area.  The PA28-140 does not have a baggage door to access the area from the outside or the baggage space behind the rear seat like the Cessna 172 does.  Many people equate the Cherokee 140 to an enlarged Cessna 150 although I do not think that is really a fair comparison.

The Cherokee 140 can be a very economical traveling machine for two people with the ability to take a third (or possible a fourth if they are really small) for a ride.  Check out the aviation classifieds (Trade a Plane etc.) and you will be surprised at what is available.  Do not discount a high time airframe aircraft.  Take into account its use, condition and maintenance.

I went shopping and found a number of 1960’s era PA28-140’s priced right around $40,000.  A few were IFR equipped; most were 4,000 to 5,000 hour airframes and 1,200 to 1,500 hour engines.  The Lycoming 0-320’s have a 2,000 TBO and the average person flies less than 50 hours year, which gives you eight to 10 years of use before you need an overhaul.  The Cessna 172’s in that price range were 1956 to 1962 models.  Most of the 1965 and newer Cessna 172 aircraft were over $40K. There is an occasional later year, high time, run out engine for less money.  To find the later model Cessna (or Pipers for that matter) at the lower prices you have to monitor the ads and be ready to buy.  Late model and low prices sell quickly.

Piper Cherokee 140

 

Cessna 172

 

What about wheel pants?

Posted on by

Interesting question about wheel pants.

wheel pants

The question came up about buying an aircraft that doesn’t have wheel pants (fairings). Is it really worth the money just to make it look better? Or is there more value to fairings than just looks.

My thoughts, of course, it also depends on the aircraft.

Wheel fairings or wheel pants do more than just look good. But some aircraft are designed with a landing gear that doesn’t support wheel fairing (trailing link gear like the Beechcraft  Sundowner).

Fairings can also increase the cruise and flight performance of an aircraft.  Although it is usually only one or two knots.  While that is not much of a speed increase, any boost in cruise speed is better than nothing.

Wheel fairings can also protect the aircraft from being damaged from inadvertent rocks being thrown against the wings, cabin or tail surfaces.  If you are flying from dry smooth or  paved runways its probably a good thing to have fairings.  If you are flying from dirt mud snow or worse, leave the fairings in the hanger.   Same goes for unimproved strips.  Rough terrain will just break the fairings into pieces.

Even though, if you think about it,  this is probably where you need them the most. Because they also have a few drawbacks like they can be clogged with rocks, snow and mud.  And they can be damaged by rocks and debris picked up on the runways.

Oh, and fairings get in the way when airing up those low tires and fixing a flat.

And those Cessna nose wheel shimmies, that can destroy a wheel fairing.

I guess it really comes down to the aircraft, how you are using it and where you are going.

But personally, I like the looks of most aircraft when they have wheel fairings.

AMATEUR-BUILT FATAL ACCIDENT TOTAL DROPS AGAIN

Posted on by

EXPERIMENTAL, AMATEUR-BUILT FATAL ACCIDENT TOTAL DROPS AGAIN, BELOW FAA NOT-TO-EXCEED GOAL

Fatal accident – Continues decade-long improvement in safety

EAA AVIATION CENTER, OSHKOSH, Wisconsin — (November 17, 2020) — Safety totals for experimental amateur-built aircraft continued the decade-long improvement trend in 2020, as fatal accident totals finished below the Federal Aviation Administration not-to-exceed number for the 12 months ending September 30, 2020.

Over the 12-month period from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020, which mirrors that federal government fiscal year, total fatal accidents in experimental aircraft dropped more than 15 percent from the previous year, to 44 total fatal accidents including 32 in amateur-built aircraft – an 18 percent drop. The 44 fatal accidents were eight percent below the FAA’s not-to-exceed number of 48 for Fiscal Year 2020.

“This is outstanding news as far as the continuing trend of lower accident totals in experimental category and amateur-built aircraft, especially as total flight hours increased over the past 12 months,” said Sean Elliott, EAA’s vice president of advocacy and safety. “The FAA continues to challenge our community by lowering the not-to-exceed number each year and we have met that challenge over the past decade, as we have seen fatal accident totals drop by nearly 40 percent for both experimental and amateur-built aircraft over the past decade.”

As a comparison, experimental category fatal accidents totaled 73 for the yearlong period ending on September 30, 2011, with 51 of those in amateur-built aircraft. Along with the amateur-built subcategory, the FAA’s experimental category includes other aircraft groups such as experimental/exhibition, experimental/light-sport aircraft, and research-and-development aircraft, among others.

The drop in experimental category accidents mirrors and, in some cases, exceeds the decline in overall general aviation fatal accidents over the past decade. Elliott noted that the overall fatal accident numbers for experimental category aircraft remain much lower than other recreational pursuits, such as boating and driving all-terrain vehicles.

EAA has worked closely with the FAA and NTSB on recommendations to reduce fatal accidents, including through participation in the FAA General Aviation Joint Steering Committee. Efforts have also included thousands of copies of the EAA Flight Test Manual now in the hands of amateur-built aircraft owners and the increasing use of an additional safety pilot during initial flight testing in amateur-built aircraft. Other safety initiatives ranging from regular safety webinars and the annual Founders Innovations Prize have also put the spotlight on safety for experimental category aircraft.

“While we are seeing already very small numbers, the continual emphasis on safety for all of us can never be overstated,” Elliott said. “This is a trend that must continue as we pursue ever-higher levels of safety. We must focus on training, safety enhancements, and good pilot skills to complement the ever-improving technology in today’s aircraft cockpits.”