True costs of a light twin...

[Captain Wubba]

Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.

Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had
heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several
people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you
factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47
per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair
number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy
who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says
the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and
it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm
not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you
an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience
yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a
year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him
about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10
years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others
on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a
light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone
out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
over the long run.

Thanks,

Cap

[gross_arrow]

(Captain Wubba) wrote in message >...
> Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
> various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
> I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
> from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
> single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.
>
> Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had
> heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several
> people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you
> factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47
> per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair
> number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy
> who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says
> the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and
> it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm
> not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you
> an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience
> yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a
> year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him
> about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10
> years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others
> on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a
> light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone
> out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
> buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
> Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
> owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
> over the long run.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cap


last year we spent 10,500 on insurance and maintenace on our 310.
it flew about 140 hours, making that about 75/hr plus fuel. we
usually cruise at ~55%, which burns 21 gph, so add another 55/hr
for fuel. so that's about 130/hr. everybody says that it costs
200/hr to fly a 310, and you can get to that figure if you add
in "opportunity costs" and a bunch of extra stuff. (realistically,
you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we have really
low time engines and figure that we'll trade up before we get
to o/h).

now the first year we had it, we flew 1.5 hours, then the right
gear collapsed -- mechanical problem. we sort of had it under-
insured, elected to fix it anyway, and paid about 15k out of
pocket. however, that did include o/h of the right engine,
which was past tbo and we knew we were going to have to do
anyway. but if you divide 15k by 1.5, the first year it costs
us ~10k/hr plus fuel :-)

g_a

[Dan Luke]

"gross_arrow" wrote:
> (realistically,
> you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we
> have really low time engines and figure that we'll trade up
> before we get to o/h).

Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines
decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid
overhaul costs.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "gross_arrow" wrote:
> > (realistically,
> > you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we
> > have really low time engines and figure that we'll trade up
> > before we get to o/h).
>
> Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines
> decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid
> overhaul costs.

But you can avoid the short term cash outlay.

[Dan Thompson]

To make a valid comparison, you have to know what your question is.

Are you interested in knowing the cost of two engines vs. one? Then you
have to get as close to apples to apples as you can to isolate the effect of
having two engines instead of one. Compare two similar airframes with only
the number of engines being different, like an Arrow to a Seminole, or
Saratoga to a Seneca. You will find that the difference is quite obvious,
twice as many oil changes, spark plugs, vacuum pumps, etc. will be
purchased. That's it. Having two of everything is why you bought that
twin, so it is no surprise that the engine maintenance costs are double.

Or if you are more interested in just knowing how expensive it is to own a
more complex airplane, then compare the cost of any simple plane to a
complex plane. Say an Archer to a Seminole. The more gadgets you have, the
more they break or need adjustment. That's where the maintenance costs
jump, and in my opinion where the myth that twins are unaccountably more
expensive than singles comes from. They are more expensive, but it is not
caused by the extra engine any more than would be expected..


"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
> various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
> I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
> from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
> single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.
>
> Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had
> heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several
> people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you
> factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47
> per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair
> number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy
> who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says
> the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and
> it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm
> not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you
> an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience
> yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a
> year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him
> about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10
> years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others
> on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a
> light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone
> out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
> buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
> Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
> owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
> over the long run.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cap

[Bill & Frances]

Unless you own a bunch of aircraft the law of averages doesn't mean
anything. It will cost you a little to a lot more or less than the
average to run your particular machine last, this or next year. To
keep your hourly cost down, buy what you can afford, fly a lot, put
the gear down always, keep it in a hangar, use mogas, take your own
cowls off, shop around for parts, fix things right away, pay your
mechanic on time, carry liability insurance only, get recurrent
training and don't lend your plane.
Anyway, knock on wood, it works for me and my Apache which purrs along
a couple hundred hours a year.


(Captain Wubba) wrote in message >...
> Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
> various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
> I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
> from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
> single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.
>
> Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had
> heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several
> people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you
> factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47
> per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair
> number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy
> who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says
> the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and
> it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm
> not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you
> an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience
> yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a
> year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him
> about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10
> years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others
> on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a
> light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone
> out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
> buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
> Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
> owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
> over the long run.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cap

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines
> decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid
> overhaul costs.

When I was researching things preparing to buy my first plane, I spent nearly a
year tracking prices in TAP. As nearly as I can tell from that, aircraft prices
are discounted only about half of what an "hour bank" should be. One that I
remember was a 150 with an engine well over TBO that hadn't been run in two
years. They asked (and got) $4,500 for the plane. An overhaul from a reputable
shop like Mattituck at the time ran about $12,000 installed. No way could you
have put a fresh engine in it and gotten $16,500 for that plane.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.

[Shawn]

Have a look at http://www.planequest.com/operationcosts/default.asp

[Doug]

If you buy an airplane with an engine at or past TBO, the hours until
you have to overhaul it are essentially "free". If it is making good
compressions, no oil burn and no metal, making good power, then
chances are a past TBO engine will go another 500 hours.

The guy neglected annual and hangar/tiedown.
Here is a list.

FIXED COSTS
Hangar or tiedown
Annual (just the annual, NOT repairs)
Insurance

HOURLY COSTS
Fuel
Oil
Maintenance
Overhaul Reserves

The least expensive twin would probably be a Piper Apache, although a
Twin Commanche would not be far behind (and might actually be less).
They all seem to have a lot more things on them to go out than a
single, not just the extra engine.
"Tom S." > wrote in message >...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "gross_arrow" wrote:
> > > (realistically,
> > > you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we
> > > have really low time engines and figure that we'll trade up
> > > before we get to o/h).
> >
> > Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines
> > decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid
> > overhaul costs.
>
> But you can avoid the short term cash outlay.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
>
>When I was researching things preparing to buy my first plane, I spent nearly a
>year tracking prices in TAP. As nearly as I can tell from that, aircraft prices
>are discounted only about half of what an "hour bank" should be.

Same here. Planes with near new engines (cost of overhaul still fresh in
the owner's mind) were marked UP correctly, but planes near TBO were not
marked down enough. In many cases I could only guess that the prices were
not set with engine hours as a consideration.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Viperdoc]

Although it's true that cutting costs can decrease the expenses associated
with flying a twin, Aviation Consumer reviewed some of these issues and
concluded that one of the most common causes of light twin accidents is
inadequate, delayed, or deferred maintenance. Therefore, it might not pay in
the long run to skimp on maintenance issues, especially in a light twin.

On the other hand, flying across Lake Michigan at night is a lot more
comfortable with two engines.

Just my brief opinion.

JN
Baron driver

[Mike Rapoport]

So how much for hanger, how much reserved for P&I, engines props, gyros ect?
Mike
MU-2


"gross_arrow" > wrote in message
om...
> (Captain Wubba) wrote in message
>...
> > Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
> > various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
> > I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
> > from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
> > single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.
> >
> > Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had
> > heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several
> > people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you
> > factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47
> > per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair
> > number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy
> > who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says
> > the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and
> > it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm
> > not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you
> > an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience
> > yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a
> > year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him
> > about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10
> > years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others
> > on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a
> > light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone
> > out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
> > buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
> > Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
> > owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
> > over the long run.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cap
>
>
> last year we spent 10,500 on insurance and maintenace on our 310.
> it flew about 140 hours, making that about 75/hr plus fuel. we
> usually cruise at ~55%, which burns 21 gph, so add another 55/hr
> for fuel. so that's about 130/hr. everybody says that it costs
> 200/hr to fly a 310, and you can get to that figure if you add
> in "opportunity costs" and a bunch of extra stuff. (realistically,
> you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we have really
> low time engines and figure that we'll trade up before we get
> to o/h).
>
> now the first year we had it, we flew 1.5 hours, then the right
> gear collapsed -- mechanical problem. we sort of had it under-
> insured, elected to fix it anyway, and paid about 15k out of
> pocket. however, that did include o/h of the right engine,
> which was past tbo and we knew we were going to have to do
> anyway. but if you divide 15k by 1.5, the first year it costs
> us ~10k/hr plus fuel :-)
>
> g_a

[gross_arrow]

(Doug) wrote in message >...

>
> The guy neglected annual and hangar/tiedown.

no, the annual was included in the maintenance cost. and
my tiedown is currently $0/month. (the fbo figures they'll
make more on fuel sales if they allow free tiedown,
although they do reserve the right to start collecting
any month they choose.)

you guys can debate philosophies of costs at length (and
it's an interesting debate, i agree.) the o.p. asked for
"actual numbers", and so far, i don't see any other posts
with actual numbers, only why my numbers are wrong. so,
how 'bout showing some number of your own? or is it one
of those "i really don't want to know" cases?

g_a

[Marco Leon]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message:
>
> Same here. Planes with near new engines (cost of overhaul still fresh in
> the owner's mind) were marked UP correctly, but planes near TBO were not
> marked down enough. In many cases I could only guess that the prices were
> not set with engine hours as a consideration.
>

From a bargaining standpoint, it sounds like a good place to start the
pricing. If they priced it "correctly" then any bargaining will go against
them.

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Captain Wubba]

Thanks. This is exactly what I'm looking for. I'd like to see some
'real' examples of 'real' numbers. It seems like every time I ask a
question like this, I get a bunch of reasons why the costs *should* be
this or that. I appraciate that advice, but I'd really like to hear
what peoples numbers *are* rather than 'should be'. I head about all
the 'should bes' before I bought my single engine...and my real
numebrs were much closer to the numbers that people had, rather than
what they 'should be'.

Thanks,

Cap



(gross_arrow) wrote in message >...
> (Captain Wubba) wrote in message >...
> > Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
> > various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
> > I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
> > from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
> > single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.
> >
> > Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had
> > heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several
> > people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you
> > factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47
> > per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair
> > number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy
> > who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says
> > the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and
> > it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm
> > not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you
> > an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience
> > yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a
> > year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him
> > about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10
> > years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others
> > on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a
> > light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone
> > out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
> > buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
> > Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
> > owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
> > over the long run.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cap
>
>
> last year we spent 10,500 on insurance and maintenace on our 310.
> it flew about 140 hours, making that about 75/hr plus fuel. we
> usually cruise at ~55%, which burns 21 gph, so add another 55/hr
> for fuel. so that's about 130/hr. everybody says that it costs
> 200/hr to fly a 310, and you can get to that figure if you add
> in "opportunity costs" and a bunch of extra stuff. (realistically,
> you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we have really
> low time engines and figure that we'll trade up before we get
> to o/h).
>
> now the first year we had it, we flew 1.5 hours, then the right
> gear collapsed -- mechanical problem. we sort of had it under-
> insured, elected to fix it anyway, and paid about 15k out of
> pocket. however, that did include o/h of the right engine,
> which was past tbo and we knew we were going to have to do
> anyway. but if you divide 15k by 1.5, the first year it costs
> us ~10k/hr plus fuel :-)
>
> g_a

[Michael]

(Captain Wubba) wrote
> Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
> various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
> I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
> from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
> single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.

I'm squarely in the 'not much more than comparable singles' camp - but
realize that comparable singles (and I mean comparable in all ways -
speed, load, cabin room, handling) are few and far between. Something
like an Arrow isn't comparable to any twin that anyone other than a
flight school would ever own. When getting into comparable singles,
think Bonanza, Comanche, or Viking.

> Does anyone
> out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
> buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
> Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
> owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
> over the long run.

First off, the Aztec doesn't belong in that group. It's a big twin
with big engines (470+ total hp) and thus costs a lot more to operate
than your other choices. Operating costs will be comparable to a
Baron or C-310.

I own a Twin Comanche and fly it about 200 hrs/year. Until just now,
I have not been hangaring it (but I have been paying $50/month for
tiedown) and my operating costs are about $100/hr, or about $20,000 a
year. They do not include a lot of my own time spent on maintenance,
but then again I have some very high standards for maintenance and
probably do a lot more than necessary. Here's the breakdown:

Tiedown - $600/yr
Insurance - $2500/yr
Fuel & oil - $7500/yr
Maintenance (incl annual) - $5000/yr
Engine/prop reserve - $4000/yr

My maintenance costs break down as follows: Over the course of 3
years (600+ hours) I've had the following major expenses:

Gear AD, push tubes & associated maintenance - $4200
Spare generator, voltage regulator, overhauls of same - $1000
Cylinders - $1700
Tires, batteries, brakes - $1000
Engine mount, Lycoming gear AD - $1500
Cracked gear trunion (parts and labor) - $1500
Exhaust stack - $600
Radio replacement - $500
Misc parts - $1500
Misc labor - $1500

I've also spent $6000 on upgrades - specifically, an autopilot,
Stormscope, AM/FM/CD Player, and interior. However, I suspect these
will increase the selling price (assuming the light twin market
recovers) so I'm not quite ready to expense these yet.

I'm not including the opportunity cost on the money. So far, even
with the twin market in the crapper, my twin has still done a lot
better than anything in my 401K.

Now the bad news - I estimate that even excluding the labor that went
into the upgrades, I have spent more hours working on the airplane
than flying it.

Michael

[Mike Rapoport]

It is going to depend a lot on the individual airplane and what features it
has. On an airplane with boots, the boots ARE eventually going to have to
be replaced and the cost is going to be over $15k and they probably won't
last ten years, so boots alone will cost $7.50/hr. A KI airplane will also
have at least a hot plate on the windshield which costs a lot and doesn't
last forever either. Vacuum gyros last about 1000hrs and if you have dual
instrumentation then you have four at about $500 each (or a lot more for
HSIs with intregal gyro). So gyros alone will be from $1/hr with two simple
ones to $4.50/hr for dual instruments with dual HSIs. If you don't hanger
then you can figure on paint and maybe interior about every 5-10yrs. Figure
$12,000 or $6/hr. If you have an IFR GPS then $350/yr for the database,
thats $1.75/hr..

In the five years I have owned an MU-2, I have spent as little as $30k and
as much as $110k on maitenance per year. I fly 150-250 hrs/year.
Everything has a finite lifespan and eventually has to be replaced.
Windshields lasted about 4,000 hrs but cost $50k to replace. Most pilots
wouldn't consider the cost of windshields but they don't last forever so
they are a consumable. An ACM lasts about 4000hrs but costs up to $35,000
to overhaul, so 8.75/hr. I know piston airplanes don't have ACMs and heated
windshields but they have plenty of stuff that wears out, vacuum pumps come
to mind. Figure a dollar or two per hour for those on a twin.

The bottom line is that it is not realistic to extrapolate two or three
years of experience, you need to either use at least a thousand hours of
experience or estimate the life time of every part. You may go several
years spending $40hr on maitenance then spend $12k on the next hour. In you
example you cite 600hrs but do not mention vacuum pumps. Are you going to
wait for them to fail?

Mike
MU-2


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Captain Wubba) wrote
> > Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
> > various light twins from people who have direct experience with them.
> > I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here
> > from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable
> > single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'.
>
> I'm squarely in the 'not much more than comparable singles' camp - but
> realize that comparable singles (and I mean comparable in all ways -
> speed, load, cabin room, handling) are few and far between. Something
> like an Arrow isn't comparable to any twin that anyone other than a
> flight school would ever own. When getting into comparable singles,
> think Bonanza, Comanche, or Viking.
>
> > Does anyone
> > out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to
> > buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air,
> > Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have
> > owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost
> > over the long run.
>
> First off, the Aztec doesn't belong in that group. It's a big twin
> with big engines (470+ total hp) and thus costs a lot more to operate
> than your other choices. Operating costs will be comparable to a
> Baron or C-310.
>
> I own a Twin Comanche and fly it about 200 hrs/year. Until just now,
> I have not been hangaring it (but I have been paying $50/month for
> tiedown) and my operating costs are about $100/hr, or about $20,000 a
> year. They do not include a lot of my own time spent on maintenance,
> but then again I have some very high standards for maintenance and
> probably do a lot more than necessary. Here's the breakdown:
>
> Tiedown - $600/yr
> Insurance - $2500/yr
> Fuel & oil - $7500/yr
> Maintenance (incl annual) - $5000/yr
> Engine/prop reserve - $4000/yr
>
> My maintenance costs break down as follows: Over the course of 3
> years (600+ hours) I've had the following major expenses:
>
> Gear AD, push tubes & associated maintenance - $4200
> Spare generator, voltage regulator, overhauls of same - $1000
> Cylinders - $1700
> Tires, batteries, brakes - $1000
> Engine mount, Lycoming gear AD - $1500
> Cracked gear trunion (parts and labor) - $1500
> Exhaust stack - $600
> Radio replacement - $500
> Misc parts - $1500
> Misc labor - $1500
>
> I've also spent $6000 on upgrades - specifically, an autopilot,
> Stormscope, AM/FM/CD Player, and interior. However, I suspect these
> will increase the selling price (assuming the light twin market
> recovers) so I'm not quite ready to expense these yet.
>
> I'm not including the opportunity cost on the money. So far, even
> with the twin market in the crapper, my twin has still done a lot
> better than anything in my 401K.
>
> Now the bad news - I estimate that even excluding the labor that went
> into the upgrades, I have spent more hours working on the airplane
> than flying it.
>
> Michael

[Michael]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> It is going to depend a lot on the individual airplane and what features it
> has. On an airplane with boots, the boots ARE eventually going to have to
> be replaced and the cost is going to be over $15k and they probably won't
> last ten years, so boots alone will cost $7.50/hr...

Boots are not a high priority on the Gulf coast (where I do most of my
flying and all of my business flying) because IMC combined with
freezing levels down to the MEA's happens once every couple of years.

> The bottom line is that it is not realistic to extrapolate two or three
> years of experience, you need to either use at least a thousand hours of
> experience or estimate the life time of every part.

For me, three years of experience is over 600 hours. Note that I gave
the maintenance breakdown for a reason - did you note the $4200 for
gear AD and associated maintenance? That's a 1000 hour AD, and many
of the parts replaced were original - meaning they lasted 6000+ hours.
It is unlikely that they will be replaced again in the lifetime of
the airplane. The same is true of the gear trunion, exhaust stack,
and cylinders. None of those expenses are likely to recur in the next
couple of years, but other expenses will. It all averages out.

With regard to vacuum pumps - yes, I certainly do wait for them to
fail, and one already has. The repair cost is part of the breakdown I
gave. Given that I only need one pump to run my gyros, and given that
I have an indicator that immediately tells me when one fails, I think
this makes sense.

Michael

[Mike Rapoport]

I'm not really disagreeing with you, I am merely saying that the costs of
operating a "light twin" range widely from plane to plane and also from year
to year. If the "light twin" is a turbocharged, KI airplane with extensive
instrumentation it will probably cost at least twice as much to fly as a
simple twin.

Mike
MU-2

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> > It is going to depend a lot on the individual airplane and what features
it
> > has. On an airplane with boots, the boots ARE eventually going to have
to
> > be replaced and the cost is going to be over $15k and they probably
won't
> > last ten years, so boots alone will cost $7.50/hr...
>
> Boots are not a high priority on the Gulf coast (where I do most of my
> flying and all of my business flying) because IMC combined with
> freezing levels down to the MEA's happens once every couple of years.
>
> > The bottom line is that it is not realistic to extrapolate two or three
> > years of experience, you need to either use at least a thousand hours of
> > experience or estimate the life time of every part.
>
> For me, three years of experience is over 600 hours. Note that I gave
> the maintenance breakdown for a reason - did you note the $4200 for
> gear AD and associated maintenance? That's a 1000 hour AD, and many
> of the parts replaced were original - meaning they lasted 6000+ hours.
> It is unlikely that they will be replaced again in the lifetime of
> the airplane. The same is true of the gear trunion, exhaust stack,
> and cylinders. None of those expenses are likely to recur in the next
> couple of years, but other expenses will. It all averages out.
>
> With regard to vacuum pumps - yes, I certainly do wait for them to
> fail, and one already has. The repair cost is part of the breakdown I
> gave. Given that I only need one pump to run my gyros, and given that
> I have an indicator that immediately tells me when one fails, I think
> this makes sense.
>
> Michael

[Michael]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> I'm not really disagreeing with you, I am merely saying that the costs of
> operating a "light twin" range widely from plane to plane and also from year
> to year. If the "light twin" is a turbocharged, KI airplane with extensive
> instrumentation it will probably cost at least twice as much to fly as a
> simple twin.

Certainly one can't argue that point. However, the same is true of a
single. If you're going to consider a light twin that is a
turbocharged, KI airplane with extensive instrumentation, you need to
compare it to a similarly equipped single. They do exist - lately
I've seen a Bonanza with a RADAR pod, 300+ hp turbocharged engine, TKS
known ice, and a panel that makes one drool. How much do you want to
bet his operating costs are nearly double what mine are?

Michael

[sandy]

I have owned a Cessna 320 and 414. Previously I owned 2 Mooneys. I am
sure there are less expensive twins than the Cessnas but they seriously
lack performance. Now to the cost. Whatever the cost of your single
engine was, quadruple it. In fact your first year may truly be higher.
(I dont care how great a prebuy you have) Please note that I am a
perfectionist when it comes to a zero squak plane. My insurance only
ran $5500 per year. Engines are not drasticly different between all
planes. The major difference is the systems. Small switches run a
$1000.00. You must understand a good twin if new today would cost
between 600k-1m, so its parts are expensive. Also, there are many more
single engine planes flying, so secondary suppliers are more abundant.
One last thing, if you are buying on a very tight budget that cant
handle $1,000.00 hits, either rent or stay with a single. Good luck.

*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.