Cost of ownership question

"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

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.

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.

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