Most economic Single Engine

[Toddvg]

I have been looking into purchasing my first plane for the purpose of commuting. I work in PA and my family lives in MI, 6.5 hour drive each way. I want to purchase a cheap plane for my commute once or twice a week. It is 280 mile flight each way,

I just want a nice 2-4 seater that will cheap on fuel but also cheap to buy, I thought a 152 but seems to slow, then thought about a KIS TR-1 but I think wind will be to much of a factor.

Anyone have some ideas????

 

[Jim Logajan]

I have been looking into purchasing my first plane for the purpose of commuting. I work in PA and my family lives in MI, 6.5 hour drive each way. I want to purchase a cheap plane for my commute once or twice a week. It is 280 mile flight each way,

SWAG estimates on your utilization and fuel costs, first:

Average seems to be about 1.5 trips/week, 560 sm/trip, for 840 sm/week or ~50*840 = 42,000 sm/year. Make sure that your usage is really going to be that much. You may find reality to be different.

Others may have different numbers, but I believe you should use a cost estimate of a minimum of $0.60/sm to $1.00/sm for all-up costs given the proposed usage with most single engine planes likely to be suitable for your mission. Sure you have $25k/year to $42k/year to spend?

But if you only want to worry about fuel cost - then most of the planes so far suggested have zero wind cruise speed mileage of about 20 smpg (+/- 10 smpg). Assuming avgas is $6/gal (this is an estimation, after all) then fuel cost is about $0.30/sm (or $0.20/sm to $0.60/sm). In the efficient 30 smpg SELs your fuel cost is $8400/year. At 20 smpg that's $12,600/year; and at 10 smpg, $25,200/year.

I just want a nice 2-4 seater that will cheap on fuel but also cheap to buy, I thought a 152 but seems to slow, then thought about a KIS TR-1 but I think wind will be to much of a factor.

Anyone have some ideas????

I was thinking under $30,000 to purchase. But was more worried about Cost per hour while at the same time giving me more flexibility on weather.

I might be a newbie but a light sport would be cheaper and faster but a lower wind speed would keep me grounded then in a 152. A 152 is a nice plane and what I learned on, but slow so would take longer and cost more gas.

Are these correct thought??

A 152 should yield roughly 15 smpg. A Cherokee 140 probably has similar mileage, but with a bit more speed and hauling capacity, yet acquisition cost not much different than a 152.

Since you are primarily using it to commute to/from family, I presume you don't absolutely need high dispatch utility? If so, avoid getting sucked into planes with deicing - these are so far outside your budget and needs that it may inadvertently dissuade you for the wrong reasons. Never hurts to buy the occasional airline ticket or drive.

All the above in my humble opinion.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I was thinking under $30,000 to purchase.

When I determined a while back that it was cheaper for me to continue renting, I used answers to questions similar to the following rather than a purchase cost budget:

What is the largest annual travel budget you feel comfortable spending?

And what is the minimum or typical number of these trips you feel comfortable traveling per year?

For how many years do you anticipate having to do this?

Those numbers may provide a better insight into whether you should buy something fast and efficient (but expensive to acquire) or something slower and less efficient (but cheaper to acquire) or whether a car is all that will work, given the constraints you have to work within.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Hell, I will say it since everyone is already suggesting things that aren't really that economical...

Pilatus.



Carry on.

What, not a suborbital rocket!?

Seriously, for around or under $30k, 2 seats, zero wind gas mileage over 40 smpg, speed of 150 mph at 9500 ft, all of which meet the OPs requirements and the need for speed, the Sonex may be the most economic on acquisition cost, newness, efficiency, and maintenance costs. Wouldn't be IFR for that price, but a better deal than a 152. Biggest down sides are low useful load and cramped seating if you really have two people. But as a commuter for that distance and low budget, seems plausible.

 

[Jim Logajan]

well, i do care. i care greatly that everyone elses opinion is different than mine

oh, and it will be a shiny 150D too. preferably with long range fuel tanks and a towhook.

http://www.cessna150-152.com/aotm/coverplane200512.htm