Cost of ownership question

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.

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 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...

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


A lot depends on the local environment. I live in the desert and
most of the airplanes around here are tied down outside. My plane has
been sitting outside for the better part of 25 years and it has no
corrosion problems. Neither did my previous plane. After 25 years of
outside storage, my plane is quite enjoyable and safe to fly. In the
last 10 yrs. I've saved $27,600US over the cost of a hangar (assuming
one was available).

The waiting list for hangars at my local airport has surpassed 10
yrs. Availablility is not much better at any of the other local
aiports. I could buy one of the private hangars that are being built
locally, but the cost would be approximately double what my plane is
worth.

To hangar or not to hangar is one of those questions that will depend
on the local environment and the airplane. I might worry about tying
down a fabric covered plane, for fear of deterioration from UV rays,
but I have no qualms about leaving my aluminum bird sitting on the
ramp.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

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.


I'm afraid most of this is BS. My husband's Luscombe 8A was parked outside
for nearly all of its 60 years. His last wing covering lasted over 20 years.
He has a hangar now because someone at our airport died. No amount of money
or influence can get you a hangar where none exist.

My airplane has been parked outside for the past 10 years. It has no paint
on it, and I have no corrosion. It just passed another extensive annual just
this past week. My only squawk was a worn brake pulley.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
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?

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

In article 1104417758.851483@sj-nntpcache-3, Dave Butler wrote:
Stealth Pilot wrote:

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.

In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that. You'll
manage to spend some of the rest on higher insurance premiums, new
plexiglass from UV crazing, extra sets of tires, maintenance or loss of
value due to corrosion, ... Meanwhile you put up with the inconvenience
of operating from a tiedown, like washing the plane more often, messing
with tiedowns, covers (oh, I hate covers), ice and snow, mud, etc...

There's probably some small financial savings to be had at airports where
hangars are a lot more that tiedowns, but it's not nearly as much as the
straight difference in price.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

This may be one of those religious issues like high vs low wing. I doubt anyone
is going to be swayed one way or the other. But anyway...

Ben Jackson wrote:

In article 1104417758.851483@sj-nntpcache-3, Dave Butler wrote:
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.

In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that. You'll

That would truly be a first-class paint job. If you're going to be spending that
kind of money on paint, no wonder you want to spend even more on hangars to
protect your investment. I'm not that much into paint.

manage to spend some of the rest on higher insurance premiums, new

my insurance premiums didn't change when I moved out of the hangar.

plexiglass from UV crazing,

that's what the cabin cover is for.

extra sets of tires,

I wear out my tires, they don't have time to deteriorate due to exposure.

maintenance or loss of value due to corrosion,

OK, I'll give you a small point on that one.

... Meanwhile you put up with the inconvenience
of operating from a tiedown,

Inconvenience? You taxi in, shutdown, and walk away. No tugs, no hangar doors.
Same thing when you depart. You start up and taxi out, no tugs, no hangar doors.

The fuel truck comes to the tiedown and fuels you before you get there or after
you're gone. At my airport, if you have a hangar, you have to pull the plane out
of the hangar to have it fueled. That means you have to personally be there and
wait for the fuel truck (yes, of course, there are other reasons for personally
supervising fueling).

like washing the plane more often,

Yeah, OK, but it's not that bad (for me). Depends on how fussy you are, I suppose.

messing with tiedowns,

What messing?

covers (oh, I hate covers),

I hate tugs and hangar doors.

ice and snow, mud, etc...

OK, I'll give you another point. Not too bad in my climate (NC), the biggest
problem is early morning departures in wintertime frost on the airframe. I don't
do very many of those, and when I need to, I can get an overnight hangar for
$15, or point it into the sun and wait an hour and it will melt on its own.


There's probably some small financial savings to be had at airports where
hangars are a lot more that tiedowns, but it's not nearly as much as the
straight difference in price.

Take out the "nearly" and I'll agree with you.

I think the main difference between the hangar zealots and the cheapouts is how
anal they are about having a showpiece vs. the people who just like to fly. The
hangar crowd are the same ones who drive Escalades and spend their weekends
washing and waxing them.

There, that ought to liven up the conversation... ;-)

Dave

Ben Jackson wrote:

In article 1104417758.851483@sj-nntpcache-3, Dave Butler wrote:
Stealth Pilot wrote:

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.

In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that.

Get real. A complete recover job on my Maule is less than that -- at Maule.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

In article ,
G.R. Patterson III wrote:

In ten years the new paintjob you'll need will be half that.

Get real. A complete recover job on my Maule is less than that -- at Maule.

In... ten... years...

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/