Student sports pilot to Airplane owner

Hello All, This is my first post and hoping that I can connect with people who are currently in my position or have been. I am a student pilot with about 20hrs, I am quickly closing in on my student license. I have been considering buying a plane soon after getting my student pilot license so that I may take the practical in the plane I am going to fly on a regular basis. The advantages are low cost in comparison to renting per hour and even though I love the Evektor Sportstar I'm learning in, It's quite more expensive than anything I could actually buy. At first I was leaning towards an Ercoupe but after working the math I realized It's not practical for carrying passengers due to it's 900lb weight. So what I'm left with is a tail dragger i.e cub, champ. what I don't know is how many more instruction hours does it take to get my taildragger endorsement and are these planes worth it for a new pilot. I will mostly be fun flying but some cross country is in the cards. Your thoughts?

Absolutely, an older taildragger is an excellent choice for a new pilot and can be a much better value than any modern LSA. If you do your instruction in it, you won't need extra time afterwards to get the tailwheel endorsement. My first plane was an old Taylorcraft.

By any chance did you do any cross country with it. That is my only concern with buying a vintage plane. Well, that and flying a taildragger CFI

Sure, I flew it all over the northeast US.

Absolutely a good thing to do. I bought a Taylorcraft BC12D after renting for 2 hours after I got my license. I got my license in a Cherokee but really learned to fly in the Tcraft. This was 1974 and the Tcraft was considered old even then but the ability to learn in one is just as valid now. I got checked out in 3.7 hrs. I flew the Tcraft from Illinois to Seattle via Los Angeles with only 75 hrs in my logbook. The Tcraft has an honest 90-95mph cruise. The Luscombe 8 is a little faster, the 65hp Champ a little slower. They make for the least expensive flying you can get considering acquisition and operating cost. There are lots of other choices depending on your budget, mission and preferences. I had a delay getting my medical renewed a few years ago and picked up another BC12D to fly as an LSA. It was every bit as much fun as my first one 40 years ago. Just do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigdog

Absolutely a good thing to do. I bought a Taylorcraft BC12D after renting for 2 hours after I got my license. I got my license in a Cherokee but really learned to fly in the Tcraft. This was 1974 and the Tcraft was considered old even then but the ability to learn in one is just as valid now. I got checked out in 3.7 hrs. I flew the Tcraft from Illinois to Seattle via Los Angeles with only 75 hrs in my logbook. The Tcraft has an honest 90-95mph cruise. The Luscombe 8 is a little faster, the 65hp Champ a little slower. They make for the least expensive flying you can get considering acquisition and operating cost. There are lots of other choices depending on your budget, mission and preferences. I had a delay getting my medical renewed a few years ago and picked up another BC12D to fly as an LSA. It was every bit as much fun as my first one 40 years ago. Just do it.

---

I like how you did this or your training. But I do not agree that a Luscombe is the cheapest way to get into aviation. I am really surprised on an EAA forum such as this people push GA airplanes. Are we afraid of an EAB or experimental or just don't like them?

I purchased my first airplane before I ever took a lesson.

I have owned 9 airplanes to date. I never spent over 7 grand on any one of them. Some I gave less then 5 grand. Only one needed some work to get flying. I am still working on this airplane but she is close to flying. Every other one was flown right after getting them home and going over them. The cheapest way to get into aviation in my book. They are simple single seat airplanes. Something to get me in the air at a cost I can afford. Just what I believe this thread is about. One of these airplanes has a speed of 130 mph and can carry over 1000lbs. Comes in wet at around 700 lbs with pilot. Hard to beat that.

Unless your all about flying your friends and such. Then you might want to reconsider this cheap forum of flying. Once you start wanting to fly others the price goes up by about 10 grand, just for the airplane. Like others here have pointed out. Most of these airframes will cost close to 20 grand.
So for me its a single seat. I love them or the cost of not only flying them but owning them. When someone asks what if I want to go for a ride. I tell them buy an airplane and learn to fly it. Then go for all the rides you want. Or buy a ticket and take a ride on something heavy.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigdog

Absolutely a good thing to do. I bought a Taylorcraft BC12D after renting for 2 hours after I got my license. I got my license in a Cherokee but really learned to fly in the Tcraft. This was 1974 and the Tcraft was considered old even then but the ability to learn in one is just as valid now. I got checked out in 3.7 hrs. I flew the Tcraft from Illinois to Seattle via Los Angeles with only 75 hrs in my logbook. The Tcraft has an honest 90-95mph cruise. The Luscombe 8 is a little faster, the 65hp Champ a little slower. They make for the least expensive flying you can get considering acquisition and operating cost. There are lots of other choices depending on your budget, mission and preferences. I had a delay getting my medical renewed a few years ago and picked up another BC12D to fly as an LSA. It was every bit as much fun as my first one 40 years ago. Just do it.

---

I did the same in about the same time frame; back when the FAA didn't require a tailwheel endorsement because pilots were expected to know how to fly a tailwheel. Now days things have changed a bit. Most instructors can't fly a TW and those that do won't do an endorsement without about 10 hrs TW time; especially for a new Light Sport Pilot. My hangar mate had built a Sonex with his son. Once the plane was done and his son was actively flying it, he decided he might also want to learn to fly. He rented a modern S-LSA plane to get his light sport ticket. Then found an instructor to teach him TW in the instructors antique taildragger before transitioning into the much faster Sonex taildragger. He spent about 10 hrs in the antique plane with the instructor, then another 10 hours working with the instructor in his own Sonex until he they both felt he was safe in the Sonex. It took more time, but to him, the learning was as much fun as the flying once he was free to go fly his own plane.

-Cub Builder

I bought a Pietenpol Air Camper in partnership with two other people. Purchase price was only $10k. I'd had instruction from years and years ago, but I took a bit more in the Piet, built some time, and then wrapped up instruction and the flight examine in the same week with Blue Ridge Sport in an Aeronca Champ. I've gotten years and years enjoyment from the Piet, since then. I really don't think you can do it cheaper than that.

Not everyone can be so lucky, but I agree with 1600VW -- look on Barnstormers for a solid experimental design like a Piet or a Cub-a-like -- a good example will be about about as cheap as you can get. There are flying Piets there now ranging from $7.5-20K. Also, try getting out to the smaller airports, even check into privately owned grass strips. You might find one that is a good fit. I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Boatright

I bought a Pietenpol Air Camper in partnership with two other people. Purchase price was only $10k. I'd had instruction from years and years ago, but I took a bit more in the Piet, built some time, and then wrapped up instruction and the flight examine in the same week with Blue Ridge Sport in an Aeronca Champ. I've gotten years and years enjoyment from the Piet, since then. I really don't think you can do it cheaper than that.

Not everyone can be so lucky, but I agree with 1600VW -- look on Barnstormers for a solid experimental design like a Piet or a Cub-a-like -- a good example will be about about as cheap as you can get. There are flying Piets there now ranging from $7.5-20K. Also, try getting out to the smaller airports, even check into privately owned grass strips. You might find one that is a good fit. I did.

---

Jeff you are so right about the little Private sod airstrips. Where I live the owner of the airpark had a nice 172. He was wanting to sell it for some time. I never thought to ask him about it, then one day he tells me he sold it. He sold it to a young man of 19 years and even financed it for him. No money down and so much a month. He even gave him the hangar to keep it in at no extra charge. Lucky little cuss. He hired a CFI and is taking his lessons in his new toy. Lucky little cuss...lol... I am very happy for the young man.We have become good friends. His CFI is a really upstanding young man himself. Its great to see them out here flying that 172. He went up for lessons yesterday. Lucky little cuss...lol

Tony

I am a new student sport pilot with about 20 hours flight time, trying to learn to fly an Ercoupe 415 C with rudder pedals. When I finally get my ticket I am going to be severely limited in what I can rent, because outside of the tri-cycle Ercoupe and the newer LSA's( which practically no one has) there are darn few planes to rent. The majority are of the J3 Cub tail dragger type, but very few instructors are teaching this art in my part of Texas. There are also very few Sport Pilot CFI's as the program, at least down here in my area in Texas, is dying. I know all the private pilots are forging ahead to be able to fly with their DL, like we can, BUT is anyone pushing very hard to up the 1320 gross LSA weight so the Cessna 140's, 150,s and other Ercoupes will qualify? If this is not done I think the Sport Pilot program will be done in about 10 years as very few instructors are going that way ( and students) and even fewer schools are buying the new LSA's. I am in my 60's, so I do not care about being a private pilot as it will be too expensive involves night flying and other aspects that I do not want to encounter.

Does anyone have any "crystal ball" opinions on raising the 1320 limitation or am I using a "buggy whip" for my bucket list?

Mike

Quote:

---

I am a new student sport pilot with about 20 hours flight time, trying to learn to fly an Ercoupe 415 C with rudder pedals. When I finally get my ticket I am going to be severely limited in what I can rent, because outside of the tri-cycle Ercoupe and the newer LSA's....there are darn few planes to rent. The majority are of the J3 Cub tail dragger type, but very few instructors are teaching this art in my part of Texas.

---

If you're training in the Ercoupe, will it not be available for you to fly in the future? From a performance and capability perspective, it's not a lot different from a Cub. Taildraggers are available to rent in your area? There ought to be some CFI there to give you tailwheel training. It's really enjoyable training. Are you a member of a local EAA Chapter? If not, find one and get to know the mix and interests of the members. My chapter has a sizable group of builders, but an even larger group flying and sharing Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Luscombes, Ercoupes, and Flybabies, in multiple ownership variations. There's one operated as a club with a monthly fee and hourly pay-as-you-go format and a couple of others owned by 2-4 person co-ownerships. $5,000-$10,000 often buys a piece of an airplane. You can't get much cheaper flying than that.

Quote:

---

.... is anyone pushing very hard to up the 1320 gross LSA weight so the Cessna 140's, 150,s and other Ercoupes will qualify?

---

Nope, and I don't think you'll see any significant effort in that direction. A few people are talking about it, but the FAA considers the issue done and the alphabet groups see other issues being more important and affecting more people, so you won't see significant action or support there either.

What they are doing is trying to remove the third class medical. If they do this in my book anyway, it will be the end of Sport Pilot. Why would we need SP without a third class medical?

Tony Sweet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

Why would we need SP without a third class medical?

---

Because for those who simply want to fly for fun in a rural area, you can get a SP certificate in half the time (therefore half the money) and you don't have to be trained at towered airports or at night. Less cost with same fun = more pilots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dusterpilot

Because for those who simply want to fly for fun in a rural area, you can get a SP certificate in half the time (therefore half the money) and you don't have to be trained at towered airports or at night. Less cost with same fun = more pilots.

---

We still have those GA style airplanes that are simple with no electrical system that flies out of small airstrips. No need to talk to ATC or no transponder to fly into any class of controlled airspace. Now don't say all airspace is controlled, everyone knows the airspace I speak of. Sport Pilot will go as the way recreational pilot went.

Tony Sweet

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dusterpilot

Because for those who simply want to fly for fun in a rural area, you can get a SP certificate in half the time (therefore half the money)...

---

In theory, yes, if you get your certificate in the minimum hours, but most people don't. I know the average for Private is around 60 hours; I haven't seen numbers for SP but I doubt it's that much less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

In theory, yes, if you get your certificate in the minimum hours, but most people don't. I know the average for Private is around 60 hours; I haven't seen numbers for SP but I doubt it's that much less.

---

AOPA quotes a reported average of 70 hrs for Private Pilot, 44 for Recreational Pilot, and 33 for Sport Pilot. So, half the time is true in both realistic time as well as the regulatory minimums. I have two friends who got their Sport Pilot in about 30 hours.
AOPA source is at http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulat...t-certificates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dusterpilot

AOPA quotes a reported average of 70 hrs for Private Pilot, 44 for Recreational Pilot, and 33 for Sport Pilot. So, half the time is true in both realistic time as well as the regulatory minimums. I have two friends who got their Sport Pilot in about 30 hours.
AOPA source is at http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulat...t-certificates

---

Here again this would depend on the training one is seeking. If all your flying and all you ever will fly is a single seat with minimum or simple equipment. This SP endorsement should not take as long as say someone who will be flying a two seat with radio, transponder, and everything to make it a x-country airplane.

I think those who lump all training into one set of hrs for everyone is not giving a good representation of SP. SP covers such a broad spectrum of the certificate. many one could get a simple single seat endorsement were said airplane don't have a radio or transponder. Where said SP will only ever fly a single seat something a step above an ultralight. That training would be different then say someone who is fly under SP using a 100 grand two seat LSA and they plan on flying into all towered airfields and will be using things like transponders and such.

The regs or FAA even give the simple single seat SP this in the PTS. One does not have to take the SP certificate all in one bite. They can get the simple certificate where all they do is fly a simple single seat airplane something a step above an Ultralight. Then if they want to go farther they could get additional training and add to it.

But to say this person compared to that person will need the same amount of training is giving false info. I tell those who ask about hrs needed what the regs say. It says it takes 20 hrs to get you SP simple SP certificate. Now understand this time frame is depended on ones abilities and just what you want in a SP certificate.

But to say this Certificate takes X amount of time, well is just wrong and not doing the SP or any certificate any good. It just makes people turn away. Why not give them some options. Take little bites and grow. Kinda how we learned to walk, run and jump. No one started by trying to learn it all at once. We learned to walked. After we mastered that, we tried to run, then we tried to jump.

Now you have those who can do it all, walk, run and jump right out of the gate. So telling these people it will take x amount of time to do this will just give them a bad taste in thier mouth. Its a personal thing and should be treated as such.

It takes 20 hrs to get the SP certificate. Some learn faster some learn slower. But no matter what it will take 20 hrs. How I tell a newbie who has never heard of SP or seen the inside of an Experimental airplane or LSA. All they know are the airlines. I have seen some people have this exciting look in their eye until they ask this question. then that look goes away. I have pulled a couple aside and explained it to them like I did above. By who am I, for the CFI told them it would take X amount of hrs and it was more then the 20 the regs call for.

The amount of hrs is a personal thing tell them that. Don't rubber stamp everyone the same. Its not fair to anyone and does aviation no good and turns a lot of people off.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

....The amount of hrs is a personal thing....
Tony

---

I agree with you completely. The first step for anyone interested in getting their pilot certificate is to get in the air and enjoy it. Then have a talk about the end goal and how best to achieve it. Sport Pilot may be perfect for some but not for others. For someone wanting to become a professional pilot, going for the Private Pilot certificate is the smart move. For others, SP may be the wisest route. Will they be flying 3 times a week or only once a month due to limited time and money? They need to understand how the differences in time, money, and end goal will impact the cost and number of training hours needed. Part 103 is yet another option that is right for some. There is no one right number and many, many paths to follow. Understanding the options and having realistic expectations up front lead to increased success rates.
---
We've strayed far from the orignal topic. hellya916, did you get the information you were looking for? If not, let's get back to your questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

I like how you did this or your training. But I do not agree that a Luscombe is the cheapest way to get into aviation. I am really surprised on an EAA forum such as this people push GA airplanes. Are we afraid of an EAB or experimental or just don't like them?

I purchased my first airplane before I ever took a lesson.

I have owned 9 airplanes to date. I never spent over 7 grand on any one of them. Some I gave less then 5 grand. Only one needed some work to get flying. I am still working on this airplane but she is close to flying. Every other one was flown right after getting them home and going over them. The cheapest way to get into aviation in my book. They are simple single seat airplanes. Something to get me in the air at a cost I can afford. Just what I believe this thread is about. One of these airplanes has a speed of 130 mph and can carry over 1000lbs. Comes in wet at around 700 lbs with pilot. Hard to beat that.

Unless your all about flying your friends and such. Then you might want to reconsider this cheap forum of flying. Once you start wanting to fly others the price goes up by about 10 grand, just for the airplane. Like others here have pointed out. Most of these airframes will cost close to 20 grand.
So for me its a single seat. I love them or the cost of not only flying them but owning them. When someone asks what if I want to go for a ride. I tell them buy an airplane and learn to fly it. Then go for all the rides you want. Or buy a ticket and take a ride on something heavy.

Tony

---

As a new owner of a single seat aircraft, I am inclined to agree that when it comes to putting fresh air under your butt, a single-seater can't be beat. I picked up a Buccaneer XA that is too fat for FAR103 but it's plenty when you consider that I'm flying for enjoyment, not speed or altitude. Like Tony, I bought my own plane prior to my first lesson (in the last 30 years), but training in it wasn't an option. So... Training in a 1940's Aeronca and inching my way toward the amphibious Buccaneer and the freedom she promises. Oh, and as we've all been asked "when can I get a (free) plane ride?", us solo jockeys can smile and say "when you get your own damned plane and license."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

What they are doing is trying to remove the third class medical. If they do this in my book anyway, it will be the end of Sport Pilot. Why would we need SP without a third class medical?

Tony Sweet

---

I have heard this harped over and over from several different sources. I don't believe it, no matter how much so many people want it to be true. I've managed to give something more than 60 hours of dual training to LSA students since August. It's not slowing down, it only picking up. If there were more planes available we'd have even more people. The Skycatcher we are using barely gets a break... and I'm personally looking forward to getting the requisite time in the Luscombe that I picked up over the winter, so that I can do some stuff with it too... Y'all keep harping, I'll keep giving lessons.
JB

Excellent advice Duster.

Try to find a Pulsar I saw a Pulsar XP for sale in Texas the other day. for $15,000 Very economical to operate with good service record. There are other great aircraft out there too. Just have to decide what type will fill your mission needs.

I have a Pulsar I am building and like yourself I have 20 hours for SPL and approaching my check ride as well I am flying an Evektor Sportstar and absolutely love it However, I've become so familiar with it I wouldn't consider trying to get accustomed to another air frame for my check ride.

Best Wishes and Safe Flying to you sir.

Yellowhammer

It's quite possible that since the post you are responding to is 4 years old, the OP 'may' have concluded this issue?