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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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, |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 $1200, which I think is a little low) 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Patric Barry" wrote in message news:4LpPa.994$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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:44:23 -0500, Justin Case
wrote: 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. Sorry, but it's even scarier than that... HE'S THE MECHANIC !! (insert "Psycho" soundbite here) TC |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Modern Inventions early Science 1900s airships FA | LindaBeynon | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 7th 05 12:41 AM |
Apache crews sharpen gunfighting skills | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 11th 04 11:45 PM |
WTB: Nose Gear Assembly for Early Model Bonanza | Eric Ulmer | Aviation Marketplace | 4 | November 16th 03 10:50 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 |