![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alot of bonanza parts are expensive.
Aircraft parts in general are expensive; Beech parts are simply outrageous. My injected engines have one way valves that allow fuel to drain in case it was overprimed. They are Piper parts, and are $50 each. They are functionally equivalent to automotive valves that cost $10 each. But that's nothing. My friend has a Baron, and his valves are $600 each. That's the Beech way. Similar example - rod ends for trim tab actuators. Normally an AN part, about $15. On the Baron, it's $120. Most of the Beechcraft parts are very well built and don't need changing very often. Many of my friends own Bonanzas and Barons. I have not noticed them replacing parts less often than I do on my Piper, same vintage. Beech parts are no better (or worse) than any other aircraft parts. They are more expensive. Once the aircraft is up to snuff, the maintenance isn't much different than other aircraft of the same type. That's true. Mostly, the parts that wear out are engine, not airframe parts. Fortunately, the engines are Continental - not Beech/Raytheon. By the time you figure in all the other expenses - labor, engine parts, fuel, insurance, hangar, engine overhaul - the high cost of Beech parts isn't really a significant factor in owning a Beech. It's only when you buy something that needs a lot of airframe work that the Beech parts cost hits you hard. That's why you can get such a great deal on an old Bonanza, Baron, or TravelAir. Nothing flys like a Bonanza!!! Actually, lots of things fly like a Bonanza. It's an airplane. Nothing special. The real truth is, nothing lands like a Bonanza. Most airplanes in its class require some skill to land. The Bonanza really doesn't. It's easier to land than a C-172. It makes you look good. That's why so many pilots love it. Michael |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mini-500 Accident Analysis | Dennis Fetters | Rotorcraft | 16 | September 3rd 05 11:35 AM |
Mountain flying knowledge required? | Peter R. | Piloting | 76 | May 1st 05 06:52 PM |
Passing of Richard Miller | [email protected] | Soaring | 5 | April 5th 05 01:54 AM |
Mountain Flying Course: Colorado, Apr, Jun, Aug 2005 | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | April 3rd 05 08:48 PM |
Ten Years of Flying | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 20 | February 19th 05 02:05 PM |