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
|
|||
|
|||
True costs of a light twin...
Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of
various light twins from people who have direct experience with them. I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'. Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47 per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10 years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air, Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost over the long run. Thanks, Cap |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"gross_arrow" wrote:
(realistically, you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we have really low time engines and figure that we'll trade up before we get to o/h). Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid overhaul costs. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "gross_arrow" wrote: (realistically, you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we have really low time engines and figure that we'll trade up before we get to o/h). Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid overhaul costs. But you can avoid the short term cash outlay. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
To make a valid comparison, you have to know what your question is.
Are you interested in knowing the cost of two engines vs. one? Then you have to get as close to apples to apples as you can to isolate the effect of having two engines instead of one. Compare two similar airframes with only the number of engines being different, like an Arrow to a Seminole, or Saratoga to a Seneca. You will find that the difference is quite obvious, twice as many oil changes, spark plugs, vacuum pumps, etc. will be purchased. That's it. Having two of everything is why you bought that twin, so it is no surprise that the engine maintenance costs are double. Or if you are more interested in just knowing how expensive it is to own a more complex airplane, then compare the cost of any simple plane to a complex plane. Say an Archer to a Seminole. The more gadgets you have, the more they break or need adjustment. That's where the maintenance costs jump, and in my opinion where the myth that twins are unaccountably more expensive than singles comes from. They are more expensive, but it is not caused by the extra engine any more than would be expected.. "Captain Wubba" wrote in message om... Hello. I'd like to get a better understanding of the true costs of various light twins from people who have direct experience with them. I've seen a bunch of opinions about how expensive twins are on here from many different people ranging from 'not much more than comparable single' to 'more costly that purchasing Western Europe'. Before I bought my single-engine plane (a 1963 Beech Musketeer), I had heard a similar range of numbers for this kind of plane. Several people said since it was so old, it would cost $90 an hour when you factored in maintenence. It didn't....it ended up costing about $47 per hour over almost 2 years, and that includes replacing a fair number of parts (Carb, mag, brakes, tires, hoses, spinner...). The guy who owns an even older Cessna 170 on the field near my tiedown says the age of his plane has never caused him any problems at all, and it's been cheaper than the much newer 172 a friend of his has. So I'm not convinced yet about the old saw about older airplanes costing you an arm and a leg in maintenence...it just hasn't been my experience yet. I have a friend who owns an Apache and flys it about 200 hours a year...he doesn't keep good records, but he guestimates it costs him about $75 an hour. He said his maintenence bills over the last 10 years (he's owned it since 1985) have been very reasonable. But others on here have said that they don't think it's possible to operate a light twin for under $100 an hour. So what is the verdict? Does anyone out there have some hard numbers that they could share? I'd like to buy a reasonable older light twin (Apache, Twin Commanche, Travel Air, Aztec). I'd really be interested in hearing from people who have owned and operated these planes and who really know what they cost over the long run. Thanks, Cap |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Luke wrote: Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid overhaul costs. When I was researching things preparing to buy my first plane, I spent nearly a year tracking prices in TAP. As nearly as I can tell from that, aircraft prices are discounted only about half of what an "hour bank" should be. One that I remember was a 150 with an engine well over TBO that hadn't been run in two years. They asked (and got) $4,500 for the plane. An overhaul from a reputable shop like Mattituck at the time ran about $12,000 installed. No way could you have put a fresh engine in it and gotten $16,500 for that plane. George Patterson If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging the problem. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Have a look at http://www.planequest.com/operationcosts/default.asp
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
If you buy an airplane with an engine at or past TBO, the hours until
you have to overhaul it are essentially "free". If it is making good compressions, no oil burn and no metal, making good power, then chances are a past TBO engine will go another 500 hours. The guy neglected annual and hangar/tiedown. Here is a list. FIXED COSTS Hangar or tiedown Annual (just the annual, NOT repairs) Insurance HOURLY COSTS Fuel Oil Maintenance Overhaul Reserves The least expensive twin would probably be a Piper Apache, although a Twin Commanche would not be far behind (and might actually be less). They all seem to have a lot more things on them to go out than a single, not just the extra engine. "Tom S." wrote in message ... "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "gross_arrow" wrote: (realistically, you should add about 20-30/hr for overhaul, but we have really low time engines and figure that we'll trade up before we get to o/h). Doesn't matter. That money's spent anyway because hours on the engines decrease the value of the airplane when you sell. You can't avoid overhaul costs. But you can avoid the short term cash outlay. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
G.R. Patterson III wrote: When I was researching things preparing to buy my first plane, I spent nearly a year tracking prices in TAP. As nearly as I can tell from that, aircraft prices are discounted only about half of what an "hour bank" should be. Same here. Planes with near new engines (cost of overhaul still fresh in the owner's mind) were marked UP correctly, but planes near TBO were not marked down enough. In many cases I could only guess that the prices were not set with engine hours as a consideration. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
The light bulb | Greasy Rider | Military Aviation | 6 | March 2nd 04 12:07 PM |
WANTED: partnership, rental or club with fast single or light twin in San Diego | Jim McGarvie | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 13th 03 03:55 PM |