Cost of ownership question

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.

Take a look through the center fold of trade-a-plane and you can get a
basic idea of overhaul cost on individual engines. Overhaul is the main
cost of engine care. Cost of engine overhaul for a give type of engine
will also give you some idea of cost of individual cylinder overhaul
since you'll probably need to pull a jug or two and maybe even do a top
overhaul before TBO. A lot of that depends on how you or the previous
owner have been running the engine, how good the last overhaul was, and
what type of cylinders were used.

Aside from that, you'll need to have some specific engine models in mind
to get an idea of quirks associated with that type of engine. Some
engine types are prone to going through cylinders at greater rates than
others, etc. Horse power and manufacturer don't have as much to do with
that as just the individual model of engine.

You might want to put some queries about specific engines out on this
newsgroup and get some feed back from owners of those. When you get
narrowed down to a speciic plane manufacture - say Cessna - join the
type club and talk to those folks too.

Helen

You'll need to analyze your requirements from the airframe (speed vs. useful
load) with the engine. My Warrior fits my mission with the ability to carry
three adults (sometimes 4) and one of the cheaper engines to
maintain/overhaul. In comparison, a friend of mine has a Cherokee 6 300 hp,
cruises 5 knots more than me, and has an engine costing over twice as much
to overhaul ($14K vs $29K). However, he really wants the spacious cabin.

Do what Helen said and check out the overhaul prices. I don't think
Airpower's ad in Trade-A-Plane lists prices anymore so you may need to check
an older copy. Then analyze your mission requirements and crunch some
numbers. Getting a good plane--like having a good marriage--is about
compromising effectively.

Marco Leon

"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.

Difficult question to answer. There are two issues. The first is the
obvious increased overhaul cost and increased fuel consumption of the larger
engine. The second is that airplanes with larger engines tend to have more
"stuff".

The best approach is probably to decide what you are realisticaly going to
do and then find a suitable airplane.

Mike
MU-2


"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.

The 6 cylinder engines tend to be quite a bit more expensive to
maintain than the 4s. - 50% more things to go wrong, extra plugs, etc.
Both Lycoming and Continental have had more recent problems with their
6 cylinder models than on the 4s. Within 4 cylinder models, depending
on where you live parts availability may be an issue for Franklins and
Rangers. Whether it's a 180 or 200 hp Lycoming matters little, though
you will appreciate the extra 200 hp climbing and you can always
throttle back in cruise to control fuel consumption. So for sheer
practicality, I like the 4 cylinder models if they will provide the
performance you need.

Having said that, a 6 cylinder engine with a 3 blade prop provides more
power and speed with less vibration.

"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.


There is a 3 times the cost of fuel rule that works pretty well. In other
words, your cost to operate a plane is pretty much 3 times the hourly fuel
burn times the number of hours you fly it. Its just a rule of thumb though.

Unless you know someone that is happy to work on a particular engine type,
stick with Lycoming or Continental. Nothing is wrong with the others, just
you want to know an AP before you buy one.

Several folks here will give you good advice on choosing a plane if you tell
us more about your mission and budget.

In article MhoAd.22474$Cl3.13803@fed1read03, "Slip'er"
writes:

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.

Careful. You can get into the "Paralysis by analysis". (Maybe you are already
in it.) My advise is to fly some planes that are in your area and are plus or
minus what you think you want. Try to go for a plane that fits 90 % of your
"needs". When you find one and fall "in love" just go for it. It's not rocket
science and you are predicting the future so you can never lock it in. I did
this with an Archer 9 years ago and we have been happy ever since.

Chuck

In defense of 6 cylinders, many are older low compression ones like mine
which means one can burn auto fuel. Asuming one has an airport with
auto fuel available the cost difference is about $1/gallon which at 9g/h
leads to a savings of $16,200 over an 1800h TBO period. This pays for
the cost of the overhaul.

Helen

On 29-Dec-2004, Helen Woods wrote:

In defense of 6 cylinders, many are older low compression ones like mine
which means one can burn auto fuel. Asuming one has an airport with
auto fuel available the cost difference is about $1/gallon which at 9g/h
leads to a savings of $16,200 over an 1800h TBO period. This pays for
the cost of the overhaul.

But then again, most 6 cyl engines (with the exception of the old Cont.
O-300) burn a lot more than 9 gph at typical cruise settings. Also, most
low compression engines are carbureted, with lower efficiency than injected
engines of similar power. For example, hourly fuel burn of a Lyc. O-360
(180 hp carbureted) is very close to that of their IO-360 (200 hp injected)
at equal percentage power settings.

Helen's main point is a good one, though. With fuel prices soaring,
efficiency, or possibly the ability to use cheaper autogas, is a big issue
for total operating cost. This is particularly true for well-utilized
airplanes where fixed costs (insurance, hangar/tiedown rental, etc) are a
smaller fraction of total cost.

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!

--
-Elliott Drucker

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.

-cwk.