Commuting in a plane...

Peter,

You're doing well on your costs on your Bonanza. Around here
individual owners are figuring about $150-$200 per hour for their
Bonanzas (various versions), although one couple has a 1953 with the
225 hp engine that they manage to run for about $130 per hour.

All the best,
Rick

wrote:

You're doing well on your costs on your Bonanza. Around here
individual owners are figuring about $150-$200 per hour for their
Bonanzas (various versions), although one couple has a 1953 with the
225 hp engine that they manage to run for about $130 per hour.

Rick, in your opinion what accounts for the difference between my costs and
the costs that the other owners (excluding the 1953 model) are incurring?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

My drive would be 2:10 door to door, my flight 1:10 door to door each way.
Michelle

Well, don't you commute =to= an airport? That certainly helps.

Joes
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thanks.
Flying is just expensive. The Bonanza just flys so nice.
"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:

I thinking of buying a Bonanaza (currently own a P28-180) How did you
come
up with the $150 hour cost to fly?

My Bonanza burns about 16 gallons of fuel per hour at $4.50 per gallon
(average in the northeast US) = $72. Oil consumption right now is
negligible, perhaps one quart every 40 hours.

My Bonanza is equipped with a turbonormalized IO-520 engine with a 1,700
hour TBO. Having just replaced the over-TBO engine with a factory rebuilt
and rebuilt turbo components, I came up with a parts and labor per hour
engine reserve of about $21.

Insurance is about $3,000/year for a $180k hull (aircraft has TKS system,
young engine, new avionics, tip tanks, new paint) and my 300 hours of time
in type. Thus, if I fly about 250 hours per year (higher than average
given the cruise speed), this works out to $12/hour.

Hangar costs me $260/month, which is $12/hour. So what is that so far?
$105 per hour.

Oil changes, routine maintenance, and annuals have been running about
$5000
per year, which is another $20/hour. I don't do much of my own
maintenance
(oil changes, etc.) yet since time with my family right now is more
important than the $200 or so it costs me to have the mech. do it every 40
hours or so.

Avionics have been costing me about $2500/year right now (my Garmin GNS430
went TU twice in 14 months, naturally out of warranty both times, for a
total cost of around $1200 to have it repaired by Garmin). That works out
to $10./hr so now up to $135/hr.

It is worth noting that I have only owned the aircraft for about 1 1/2
years so I don't have a lot of data by which to base my maintenance and
avionics costs just yet.

And finally, as an owner of an aging aircraft, I am facing some of the
long
term preventative maintenance items since my airframe has about 3900 hours
on it, such as replacement of the landing gear braces, aux fuel pump, fuel
bladders, etc. I have no idea of the per hour for this, but you can see I
am really close to $150 without even factoring in all of these costs.

Someone who flies less would easily hit the $150/hour mark, assuming
comparable insurance, hangar fees, and annual costs.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Peter,

Don't know for sure other than the folks with the older airplane do a
lot of the work themselves under the supervision of their mechanic and
its fuel burn is less; plus they haven't had too many avionic problems.
I keep hearing the others bemoaning various and sundry ills, fuel
controllers, avionics, just unsceduled maintenance to the tune of $500
or so each month.

All the best,
Rick

Yes I do fly "for a Living" So one door is an airport.
One of the people come into College park which has a Metro stop right
off the end of the runway.
The other keep an airport car at one end.
Michelle

Sylvain wrote:

Michelle P wrote:

Ok so it is getting late.
One commutes in a Cessna 150, One in a Cessna 182 and the last in a


but you do fly for a living, don't you? i.e., the door to door
scenario in your case involves an airport at one end, right? so
in that case I can see how it can definitely be advantageous; not
sure it works as well for someone who somehow has still to commute
to the airport at one end (unless you live in an airport community...),
and find a way from the airport to work at the other end...

--Sylvain

I think a big part of the equation is you have to "want" to do it.

Many of the planes we fly today were designed, if not built, at a time when
freeways were few and average road speed was probably 35MPH - less in remote
areas. Airplane speeds of 110KT were a huge gain, and 180Kt was just
phenomenal. The speed of powerful piston singles and twins at the time rivaled
that of the day's airliners (DC-3's). People also did shorter pre-flight
preparation and accepted risk differently (sounds strange - some will disagree
- but I believe this to be true). The extra cost was easily justified because
the time savings, even on 100nm trips was prodigious.

Today, you'll find many mission statements that "sort of" work. If you've got
just the right distance, airplane, weather scenario etc, and poor enough
alternative transportation between your destination points you may have an
argument. Southern Calif is a contender for this, because of the traffic
situation, and certainly it is the spot on the planet with the greatest number
of "personal" air commuters.

Few mission statements today can honestly argue cost savings - and not that
many even amount to much time saved. Factor-in the hassle of not having your
car when you get where you're going, plus the fact that weather can ground you
at either end (and every incremental step at overcoming this doubles your
operating cost) and what you come down to is - for those who do it, there's a
whole lot more enjoyment and satisfaction involved in getting somewhere in
your plane than in crawling along studying someone else's bumber stickers for
a few hours.

G Faris

(answering, in true, egocentric fashion to his own post). . .


there's a
whole lot more enjoyment and satisfaction involved in getting somewhere in
your plane than in crawling along studying someone else's bumber stickers for
a few hours.


Or sitting in a crowded airport lounge listening to them make up excuses for
why your plane will be delayed another two hours, and wondering if those
screaming babies will be in the seat behind you. . .

I know many people who say "Flying is work. It tires you out when you're fresh
- why would you want, at the end of the day, after being beaten up in
meetings, to have to do all that work just to get home, when you can simply
board an airliner, get a drink, then a taxi home. . ."

It's all about the satisfaction. To me anyway - the satisfaction of the
successfully completed return flight cancels out the frustration and boredom
of the endless meetings, budgets, schedules etc.

The flight itself forces you to push all that crap out of your mind, and
concentrate on what you're doing. When I fly others I try to enforce a "no
shop talk" environment - from the time the engines start, we only talk about
the flight.

G Faris

Michelle P wrote:
Ok so it is getting late.
One commutes in a Cessna 150, One in a Cessna 182 and the last in a
Maule M-7.
Michelle


Well, don't forget to wave to all us frustrated commuters down below
you wondering who's flying on a nice work morning. grin (Or perhaps
there's people who LIKE commuting, but I've never met one.) At least
I've got a Prius now!

-Malcolm

On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:13:18 -0800, wrote:

Has anyone here done a daily commute in a plane?

This would be a commute of about 70 miles and it would be in Southern California so the weather is less of an issue.

What aircraft would be best for this kind of cummute?

Trying to maximize speed and minimize costs...

For a commute of 70 miles, the true airspeed of the plane is not a
significant factor. Most of your time will be spent getting to/from
the airport, handling fueling, preflighting, etc.