A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Early Bonanza or Apache?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 7th 03, 11:01 PM
Brinks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Early Bonanza or Apache?

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


  #2  
Old July 8th 03, 02:53 AM
Justin Case
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're nuts!

An Apache will eat your lunch money faster than an old Bo. They're
both old airplanes, but Beech built about 4000 of the old airframes.
Parts are at least available.

You won't get a 16GPH burn on an Apache, nor will you mistreat your Bo
enough to burn 13 GPH on the 225. More like 10 or 11. 3 gallons per
hour for 1700 hours is 5100 gallon. At $2.20 per gallon, what you say
isn't much, is $10,700. Now if you accurately work the spread, it's
probably more like a 6 gallon spread, which would double it to
$21,400. And you can run autogas in the E225. At 5 GPH (let's say
you mixed auto and avgas 50/50) for the life of the engine you save
another 6 grand.

What you haven't mentioned is the insurance premiums. I'd wager to
say the Bo will be 1/3rd of the cost.

You may need to look at your mission statement again.

Good luck

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:01:40 -0500, "Brinks"
wrote:

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


  #3  
Old July 8th 03, 05:34 AM
Frank Stutzman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Newps wrote:

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.


Not true. Engines last depending on how you take care of them and how
often you fly them. Assuming the E-225 engine parts are readily
available an overhaul will run about $15K. An O-320 will run about
$10-12K for a $20-24K total.


Well, parts for an E-225 are NOT readily available. Try finding a new
thrust bearing. The rear accessory case will usually need specialized
machining that is getting harder and harder to get done. IIRC the
overhaul of my E-225 in 1996 was $18K. When it dies, I'm going to look
real hard at replacing it with a 470.

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


The Piper will break down more.


Could be. I've never owned a Piper. But Bonanza parts ARE expensive.
Ratheon wants $400 for the door hinge on my plane.

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


As in "never in a million years" that low.


Ah, er, there is something goofy about that. I pay about that on my owner
assisted annuals. I can imagine anything that is the same age, but has
twice the engines being cheaper.


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.


I only see 13 gph in my full rich, full throttle climbs. In cruise its
under ten.

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.


Well, the electric prop is an orphan. However, it has no ADs and provides
the best performance for an E powered plane (assuming its using 88 inch
blades). The Hartzel has a recurrent AD that runs me about $400 every 250
hours.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
(1949 A35 E-225 powered, hartzel prop)
Hood River, OR

  #4  
Old July 8th 03, 01:23 PM
Dennis O'Connor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My Apache uses (other than on trips) nothing but the cheapest, garbage mogas
I can find - and loves every drop of it...
My fuel burn can be ~17.5 gph if I am pushing it, or ~10 gph just floating
along at 18 inches and 2100 rpm...
My useful is 1121 pounds...
Two, 200 + pounders, will sit straight up in the front seats and never touch
each other - or the headliner...
I have 5 seats...
My annual costs approximate those for my Super Viking, other than his base
charge is increased $200 for the extra engine / controls / etc... However,
I will note parenthetically that my Apache is kept in good mechanical shape
and I am serious about IRAN... For instance, the 'up' microswitch on the
left main has become erratic (it is 47 years old fer criminy sakes) and is
going to be replaced next week... As long as I have to jack the plane we
are going to also replace the strut seals all around... (nope, no problem
just old seals that some day would be a problem - now they won't!)
When the annual comes due in November I fully expect it will be an
inspection at the base price, and nothing more...
I'm having a ball flying this old beast... Every where I go it draws a crowd
of tire kickers...
My prop AD blues were cured with $13,000 worth of new Hartzells...

The downside to an old Apache is that many have had deferrred maintenance
(or no maintenance), and as Justin correctly notes, can eat your lunch -
which is just as true of an old Bo...
If just buying the plane (either one) is all the new owner can manage
financially, then it is going to be a painful learning curve... If you buy
an older plane because you like it, and because it is less plane than you
might afford, then you will find owning, including the maintenance and
upgrading, to be a real joy...

Denny
"Justin Case" wrote in message
...
You're nuts!

An Apache will eat your lunch money faster than an old Bo. They're
both old airplanes,



  #5  
Old July 8th 03, 05:57 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Brinks" wrote
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.


The E-225 is an orphan. Many parts are unavailable, and many
mechanics are unfamiliar with them. The O-320 is as common as it
gets. The real issue is accessories - vacuum pumps, generators, that
kind of thing. Twice as many. If you're looking for a hard IFR
machine, though, you really want twice as many.

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


No doubt. Bonanza parts do seem to hold up better, though.

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


For an annual mostly done by the owner (IA only inspects and does the
hard stuff) that's about right for either airplane. Triple that (or
even quadruple it) if you want to drop off the keys and checkbook and
still want it done right.

4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour


That's about right - maybe even a little high. 65% power is just over
15 gph.

but the Bonanza is
going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much.


I think 13 gph is a little high for an E-225. I think the real
difference in fuel burn will be about 5 gph.

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.


But there's two of them.

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?


I think maintenance will eat you alive on an old Bonanza OR an Apache
(they are all old) unless you do most of it yourself.

The other problem - most Apaches have been trainers. They're beat up.
Most Bonanzas haven't been trainers, and are likely to have lower
airframe times and fewer issues. Basically, you're more likely to
find a good Bo than a good Apache.

If you find a GOOD Apache, it will cost you about 30% more to operate
than the Bonanza. Buy a cheap Apache (or any cheap twin) and
maintenance will kill you. Of course, buying a cheap Bonanza is about
the same.

Michael
  #6  
Old July 9th 03, 04:45 AM
JerryK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think a better question a
1) Does your flying require a twin?
2) Are you willing to spend the time and money to stay profient in flying
the twin?

jerry


"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




  #7  
Old July 10th 03, 03:35 PM
Brinks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks for all the info! I really appreciate everyone's time and effort in
responding to my questions! I still think a twin would be really cool, but
we may stay with the single instead for now! Thanks again!

Chris

"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




  #8  
Old July 11th 03, 04:00 AM
Patric Barry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




  #9  
Old July 11th 03, 03:45 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Patric Barry" wrote in message news:4LpPa.994$zy.593@fed1read06...

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


So does the E-series engined Bo's.



  #10  
Old July 12th 03, 12:44 AM
Justin Case
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry but I must discount Patrick's entire post as he seems like an
owner that assists by writing a check. Once you start that process,
it never ends and one loses touch with reality.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:45:42 -0400, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:


"Patric Barry" wrote in message news:4LpPa.994$zy.593@fed1read06...

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


So does the E-series engined Bo's.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Modern Inventions early Science 1900s airships FA LindaBeynon Aviation Marketplace 0 February 7th 05 01:41 AM
Apache crews sharpen gunfighting skills Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 January 12th 04 12:45 AM
WTB: Nose Gear Assembly for Early Model Bonanza Eric Ulmer Aviation Marketplace 4 November 16th 03 11:50 PM
UK pilots start Apache training Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 13th 03 10:37 PM
Early morning hotel-to-airport Bob Fry General Aviation 21 July 25th 03 05:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.