SNS3Guppy
Do you actually know anything about this subject?
I did not bring up the comparison between an MCR and a 172, but to suggest a 172 is economical is a joke.
“It's not my 172, but if it were, I'd be flying it for several years while you're building your MCR, assuming you ever finish your airplane, which many homebuilders never do.”
In the UK all the original owners finished their aircraft. There are about 700 flying (WW), kit completion ration is very high. It took me 3 years to build my MCR, but I save £10,000 a year over operating a 180hp 172 (UK pricing). That saving is rising fast as fuel escalates and will probably be up around £15000 in just a few years.
“Let's see how well the MCR holds up to the rigors of several thousand hours of student training.”
Highest hour MCR I am aware of is a French club machine used for training, which is now 7-8000 hours of operation. The difference in cost of operation will mean that it has probably paid for itself many times over compared with a 172.
Lets look at some numbers.
Fuel (at current prices)
For 2000 hours
MCR £46,000
172 £137,000
Saving to the MCR £90000
Maintenance – over 10 years the 172 will cost about £50,000 more.
This is at current pricing; expect the real saving to be much larger as the cost of fuel increases. It is now so expensive to operate a 180hp machine in Europe that prices have crashed. Many machines are being mothballed and some are already being scraped or left to rot. MCR’s have gone up in value.
Rod1