I've read the postings in reply to this article and I must say that I'm
really disappointed in the guesstimates I see in the postings which are
simply not accurate.

The Apache is a simple plane to fly and to repair, and parts are available
for it. It is true that airframe replacement components are not easily
available, but I have never had a problem locating any replacements, and
they can also be repaired as easily as on any other plane - certainly at a
lower cost than one can repair a Bonanza. Flaps can be reskinned etc.

The Apache also qualifies for the autogas STC, and this may be a big savings
for this buyer, and is worth investigating.

As for insurance costs, and twin is higher to insure than a single -
however, in the real world, a competent twin driver stands a better chance
than a competent single driver when an engine quits - however the hull value
of the Apache is so low that maybe the buyer won't even insure it? Hull
rates are so high now that many operators that I have met have chosen to
'self insure' - which means they carry no insurance at all.

Annual costs of $1200 for any complex aircraft are too low - whether it be a
Bonanza or an Apache. I find that an annual runs about five grand if you
have to pay people to do the work for you - it can be less, but the reality
is that shop rates (in California anyway) are up to $70-$75 an hour, and to
pretend that you'll get a quality annual for less than five thousand is
unrealistic - on any complex aircraft. There's always something to replace -
a windshield, or a vacuum pump, or wiring harness, or fuel hose etc., and
they all add up.

One poster inferred that Pipers are not as well built as Bonanzas - this
isn't so at all! Piper had a different design on major elements like landing
gear and so on, but Pipers are very well built overall, and while the
Bonanza is a well built plane, to come along forty years later and suggest
that a plane may not be as well built as another plane is a strange
suggestion - the Apache is an Apache, light complex twin with small engines
and, if maintained, will go forever.






"Brinks" wrote in message
...
We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I
went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as
the
Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was
probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons:

1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot
of
maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually
needs cylinder work along the way.

2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so.

3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be
about $1200, which I think is a little low)

4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is
going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that
much.

5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than
either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas.

So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively
good
feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that)
but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a
viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive?
Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly
appreciated! Thanks!

Chris