Cost of ownership question

If it's your first plane, the simpler/more common, the better. You have a
whole load of things to learn about and there's nothing better to learn on
than something like a 172, 182, Cherokee, or Arrow. Every mechanic knows how
to work on them and annuals won't break the kids' college fund. Avionics are
flukey and problems in the stack can drive you batty, OTOH if your autopilot
goes TU you can usually just placard it INOP until you feel like paying the
piper. Not so much an option when the engine starts coughing.

IMHO it's hard to do much better than a 180HP 172 for a first plane, though
a good case can be made for the 182 or Arrow class for a more-experienced
pilot who knows he'll get the benefit of the higher cruise speeds or useful
load.

-cwk.

"Slip'er" wrote in message
news:MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03...
I am going to put a lot of constraints on this question, bear with me.
How
much does the size of the engine and airframe contribute to cost of
ownership? I am looking at buying a plane as are many of us. I am stuck
in
the infinite loop of, well if I spend an extra $5K I can get this...but oh
look, another $5K gets me this and WOW for just another $10K I can get
THIS.....repeat. Somethings are obvious, CS prop more maintenance than
fixed prop. Retrac more maintenance than fixed, etc. But, other than
fuel,
is a 180hp much more expensive to maintain than a 160hp or a 115 hp? How
about Continental vs Lycoming vs Franklin vs Ranger radial? I have some
flexibility regarding purchase price. What is more likely to burn me
later
on is month to month expenses This is what a need an sensitivity analysis
on.

Thanks.

On 29-Dec-2004, "C Kingsbury" wrote:

All true, but when it comes to hauling a load, there's no substitute for
horsepower. A Dakota or 182 are fill-the-seats-and-tanks airplanes, which
the Arrow and Cardinal RG are certainly not.

True to an extent. But, when fueled for a given mission the difference in
payload is not quite as big because of the much larger fuel load required
for the thirstier big engine. However, your point is valid in that someone
needing a load hauler will generally be looking for a plane with a bigger
engine. (The Dakota is particularly adept in this regard.) If efficiency
and range are primary considerations (with comfort, cabin size, and
performance being equal) it's hard to beat a later model Arrow.

--
-Elliott Drucker

All great feedback so far. Keep it coming. I have made a few posts about
my efforts to select a plane. I am definitely caught in analysis paralysis.
I am also caught up with fear of selling my stock when it is doing so well.
I sold 500 shares to buy Christmas presents, two weeks after I sold them
those 500 shares were worth an additional $3500. I know this matters little
in the big scheme, you can't time the market...etc. But I'm still planning
to hold out until the fall and review my plans. Back to the plane.

I have only flown Citabrias and Decathalons with a little bit of Piper
PA-140 / PA-180 and a PT-23. I love the Citabria/Decathalon but am luke
warm at best about the Archer/172/etc. This bird will be parked outside,
most likely.

I started my quest thinking that a Champ or a Luscombe would fit the bill
for a first plane. But I get caught up in the "a 7ECA isn't that much more
and I get aerobatics and a bigger engine" which is true but, " a 150hp
Citabria isn't much more and I love the extra power" and "wow there are a
few nice examples of 8KCABs out there with a CS prop which is nice for
aerobatics and cruise, AND they don't cost much more..." So this is my main
dilema aside from purchase price, what is the difference in relative
maintenance from each of this family when comparing models of similar
condition. They typically don't have a lot of "extras" which is fine for
me. I am VFR only and don't plan to get instrument rated. (although I have
done and will continue to do a bit of training in my friends plane for a
margin of safety should I need it someday) If I buy into this group I'd
really like to get the metal spar and heavy lift struts.

Then more skitzophrenai...Should I really hold fast to taildraggers and
stick? Yes! I dream about bush flying all of the time and with my own
plane, 3-4 day weekend trips will actually be possible. (ever try to rent a
Citabria for a 3 day weekend? Good luck!) Wait, if I go for a faster
plane, I have access to more places. If I had say a Long-Eze or other
slippery plane in my price range I could really explore America.

Wait, I have kids. How often will I be able to realistically take off for
3-4 day trips. That probably isn't a good selection criteria. Best to
stick with day trips, again though speed is distance. Hmm, I love the
tandem seating but, my kids would really like to be up front and that would
be nice for them to learn more and enjoy each others company.

OMG, Look at that Great Lakes! No, wait, later! Wait until the kids are in
College. That cannot be a good idea right now.

So, I really think I'll be looking at a Citabria type aircraft. It seems
to be where my "comfort" zone is, probably because I soloed in a 7ECA and
most of my time is in Citabrias. The question is, should I buy the absolute
minimum aircraft that meets my "needs" or buy what I can afford for maximum
fun? One thing is true with Motorcycles, Cars, Boats, and Airplanes....you
can never have too much horse power.

Part of me says buy the minimum plane ie 7ECA for two reasons. Put the
minimum money at risk and use this first purchase as a learning experience.
This will increase reserves in case I really screw up and said reserves can
also hide some of the real expense from my wife who supports me in this but
is also an accountant...and I hear about my excessive hobbies. But if say a
150 HP Citabria is about the same to maintain...why not spend a little extra
money?

When I really think about it, this wouldn't be such a difficult decision if
I were single. The real pain I feel is that buying a plane feels so
selfish! This is a huge, expensive hobby for ME. Yes, my kids will enjoy
it but I doubt my wife will fly with me until the kids are out of the house.
My kids have flown with me and enjoy it but truth be told...they'd rather
have a boat (my wife would too). Which clearly means...this is for me. But
darn it, I have wanted this all of my life. They just "want" a boat because
I brought it up one day when I took them sailing on a friends 28 ft
sailboat.

Time for my medication...

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:38:56 -0800, "Slip'er"
wrote:


This bird will be parked outside,
most likely.


I'm an aircraft owner so dont be offended when I say that that is a
truely dumb decision.
lets hope I can get you to reconsider before the dollars are spent.

a year is typically 24 hours times 365 days long which is 8.760 hours.
you fly, say, 100 hours a year.
so that is 8,660 hours per year your aircraft just sits outside.

4,380hours are nighttime so the aircraft sits there accumulating dew
for an astonishing time.
say 3 hours of a morning are spent in the sun evaporating that dew
which amounts to just over a thousand hours spent warm and wet.
is it any wonder then that corrosion is the main cause of maintenance
problems in aircraft sitting outside.

I live in a mediterranian climate so I'm not bothered by snow or
cyclones which must add considerably to deterioration rates.

my homebuilt sits in a hangar. it has areas of the tube fuselage
around the cockpit that are missing paint. it has no corrosion
problems.
my annual maintenance is typically a few hundred dollars a year. (not
quite as low as Wanttaja's experience with N500F but pretty close.)

no kidding, your first decision as an intending aircraft owner should
ALWAYS be "where am I going to hangar it?"

just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
restoration.

hangarage will save you thousands of dollars over the life of an
aircraft.
Stealth Pilot
Australia.

C Kingsbury wrote:
wrote in message
news:3aJAd.24094$h.20346@trnddc04...

On 29-Dec-2004, Helen Woods wrote:

Another factor in relative efficiency is retractable vs fixed gear. A 200
hp 4-place retractable will have about the same speed as a 240 hp 4-place
fixed gear plane. Think Arrow vs Dakota or Cardinal RG vs C-182. In
cruise, the RG will probably burn about 3 gph less than the FG. At 150
hours/year and $3.00/gal, that's $1,350/year. Much, much more than the
extra cost of maintenance likely required for the RG and possibly slightly
higher insurance premiums. So you end up saving money with the RG, as

long

as you remember to lower the gear for landing!


All true, but when it comes to hauling a load, there's no substitute for
horsepower. A Dakota or 182 are fill-the-seats-and-tanks airplanes, which
the Arrow and Cardinal RG are certainly not.

Actually, the Arrow I now fly in a club has a greater full fuel useful
load than did my 182. Now its full fuel is 50 gallons rather than 84
(or was it 88, I forgot for the 182 with LR tanks), but it still carries
a surprising amount. The downside is that the 180 HP is really
noticeable at gross weight. It climbs about like a C-150. I really
miss the 182 on TO and climb. The Arrow is marginally faster in cruise,
but not by much. The win is that it burns about 9 GPH at 125 knots
rather than 12.


Matt

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:38:56 -0800, "Slip'er"
wrote:

All great feedback so far. Keep it coming. I have made a few posts about
my efforts to select a plane. I am definitely caught in analysis paralysis.
I am also caught up with fear of selling my stock when it is doing so well.
I sold 500 shares to buy Christmas presents, two weeks after I sold them
those 500 shares were worth an additional $3500. I know this matters little
in the big scheme, you can't time the market...etc. But I'm still planning
to hold out until the fall and review my plans. Back to the plane.

If you could accurately predict the future value of your stock,
finances would not be an issue... Until you sell it, the stock is
essentially worthless.

I have only flown Citabrias and Decathalons with a little bit of Piper
PA-140 / PA-180 and a PT-23. I love the Citabria/Decathalon but am luke
warm at best about the Archer/172/etc. This bird will be parked outside,
most likely.

In my opinion, parking a plane outside is false economy. You save a
little each month, but pay for it in other ways:
-Increased insurance rates
-Stong winds can damage control surfaces
-Plane will need new paint sooner (sandblasting effect and paint
oxidation)
-Tires wear out sooner
-Plane will continuously need a wash (washing a plane = major time
sink)
-Excessive heat/cold not good for gyros and radios
-Control surfaces are flying 8760hrs a year = worn out hinges and
cables. This is true even if you use a control lock, as the controls
still move a slight amount.
-Worrying every time a storm pulls thru
-It is a hell of a lot easier to conduct routine maintenance in a
hangar.
-A hangar gives you a place to store the massive piles of aviation
related crap that an aircraft owner ends up collecting.

Also, if you live in a cold weather climate, you will pat yourself on
the back when you get preheat and then pull the plane out of a heated
hangar.

Finally, I believe the Citabria's have fabric wings, which is not a
good choice for a permanent outdoor enviroment.

When I really think about it, this wouldn't be such a difficult decision if
I were single. The real pain I feel is that buying a plane feels so
selfish! This is a huge, expensive hobby for ME.
Yes, my kids will enjoy
it but I doubt my wife will fly with me until the kids are out of the house.
My kids have flown with me and enjoy it but truth be told...they'd rather
have a boat (my wife would too). Which clearly means...this is for me.

Flying is a luxury item for most of us, and at a minimum it is costly.
Catch a run of bad luck, and it can be ridiculously expensive. Flying
is one of the most amazing experiences in the world, and can add value
to your family (weekend vacations with the family, in and out business
trips vs. overnight stays) but it can also destroy a marriage if the
costs get out of hand and the family gets (or feels) shortchanged just
so the plane can keep flying. This can also work the other way - if
money is tight, most of us would make the correct decision of spending
the money on the family. However, that may mean an expensive airplane
sitting unused in the hangar, along with the fixed monthly costs of
insurance, hangar, and the eventual annual inspection looming.

If there is a possibility that finances could be tight in the future,
pilots are much better off renting or joining a flying club... That
greatly reduces if not eliminates the risk of having a massive one
time expense, and it also allows a graceful (and no cost) exit if
postponement of flying should be required.

-Nathan

Stealth Pilot wrote:


just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
restoration.

At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:36:08 GMT, Nathan Young
wrote:

If there is a possibility that finances could be tight in the future,
pilots are much better off renting or joining a flying club... That
greatly reduces if not eliminates the risk of having a massive one
time expense, and it also allows a graceful (and no cost) exit if
postponement of flying should be required.

Another benefit of renting/joining a flying club... You would get a
chance to fly several different aircraft types. This would help you
narrow in your choices for purchasing an aircraft.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:37:57 -0500, Dave Butler wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote:


just close your eyes and consider the difference in airworthiness
between a hangared aircraft and one sitting in the open after 1 year,
5 years, ten years. after that time one aircraft will just about be in
pristine condition and the other close to needing extensive
restoration.

At my airport, at the end of 10 years I'd have spent an extra $27000, the
difference between hangaring and an outside tie-down. I think I could do a
pretty nice restoration (if it needed it, which it won't) for $27000.

then get a big enough hangar so that a few (lots) of you can share the
costs or find a cheaper airport.

the implicit assumption in your post is that an aircraft just prior to
restoration will be enjoyable and safe to fly. will it?

aircraft are unique in that they are designed with carefully
considered minimal margins of strength. corrosion will not always be
seen and can add considerably to the maintenance costs at each annual.
it doesnt take much corrosion in the wrong spot to ruin an otherwise
serviceable part.

but yes I'm talking from my appreciation of other peoples aircraft
maintenance issues. I hangar mine and at 20 years it is still in worry
free condition and nowhere near needing a restoration effort.
ymmv
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:

then get a big enough hangar so that a few (lots) of you can share the
costs or find a cheaper airport.

We've had 2 planes damaged, and nobody to fess up to it, from shared
hanger space...