Costs of owning a plane

[Chequeredflag]

I have just embarked on the long (and rocky?) road to (hopefully!) achieving my PPL. Supposing I'm successful, and decide to splash out say, £70K on a 152/172, PA 28 or similar, what sort of costs can I expect with regard to regular maintenance, insurance, parking or hangerage at an "average" air strip (if there is such a thing). Sorry if this is a well exercised subject on this forum, but I've only just registered.

Your thoughts would be very welcome

[J.A.F.O.]

I have seen it crop up a few times on this forum and a search might reveal the answers that you need. However, I do remember reading an interview with someone lately who had started flying in the thirties and he was asked how much it cost in those days to own and operate an aircraft, his answer was, "Exactly the same as today, everything you've got."

Best of luck.

[Chequeredflag]

Then owning a plane is a bit like owning a boat!. I've got a 37' yacht kept in a Solent Marina - true cost of ownership is around £9/10000 pa (£6400 marina fees), and I guess owning a small plane runs out at the same sort of figure?? . Like, boating, I'm sure plane ownership does not bear too close a scrutiny of the costs involved. I sort of hope I'm not going to get too passionate about flying, but the prospect of that does not look too good so far!! However, I've got to achieve my licence first......!

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

I dont want to put you off but your looking at 10k PA before you turn the prop.

:{

[S-Works]

I run a 152 solely for my use and share a twin. The 152 costs me around £12k a year and I fly around 350hrs a year.

My hanger costs are cheap as I am a member of an excellant club and my insurance is cheap as a result of high hours and lots of little entries on my licences.

But its like the various cars I own and have owned, if you have to ask how much it costs to run then you probably cant afford it!

You have to fly a lot of hour and be able to write of the expenditure withoit loosing sleep to run an aircraft on your own and in most cases even as a syndicate.

It does equate to the costs of running most of the boats I have owned.

Flying is not cheap but is compulsive!

[Chequeredflag]

I'd guessed the costs would be around the same as the boat. When I owned motor cruisers instead of a sailing boat, the costs per annum were £17000! Mind, 350 hours is quite a lot. Like many things I've had/done, if you have to ask, you can't afford it, but I'm just trying to get a relative figure.

[stiknruda]

Mmmm. I own 2 Pitts Specials - insurance is basically £200/mnth for the brace. Maintenance and licensing is £60/mnth fot two. If anything breaks then that's extra - so I allow another £60/mnth.

As I can only fly one at a time - I work on 25 hrs costing me an oil change and fuel. That equates to a grand.

Go figure....

[J.A.F.O.]

Come now. It may always cost all that you've got but it doesn't have to be astronomic - surely it depends on how you do it and what you want.

A PFA type at a little field with reasonable hangarage ain't gonna cost anything like the figures that you're throwing around.

[shortstripper]

At the other end of the spectrum both in terms of performance and cost is my little aeroplane.

Disclaimer ... My VP2 has been offline for nearly two years under the loose term of restoration. If the cost of that is taken into account the costs mount, but presuming we're starting with a good flying example of such an aeroplane, ie VP, Luton Minor, FRED ect and even some of the small two seaters such as Jodels ect, then ....

Hangarage, mine costs £25/mth (shared £50 with another aircraft for strip and homebuilt hangar). I'm the farm manager and set it up, so it's an artificial cost. Figure more like £200/mth for farm strip? Self maintenance fixing things as you go works for me and providing nothing major needs doing amounts to perhaps a couple of hundred a year. Insurance, I wasn't insured but will be as we all will. Last quote £500/yr third party only. Permit renewal with inspection is also around £200/yr when all done and dusted.

Much much cheaper and more affordable, but not always the type of flying people want. It's just a comparison.

SS:ok

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is a body of opion that if it flies, floats, or (I forget what else, but think it began with f too), it's generally cheaper to rent or share.


Personally I compromise. I have a share in a big syndicate running a PA28 - that costs me roughly half what it would to rent a similar aeroplane, with the huge advantage of being able to take it away for up to 3 days at a time.

For fun, cheap, local flying I own a microlight. That costs me about £500pa whatever I do with it, and adds about another £13/hr in direct operating costs - so around £1k pa for 40ish hours of flying.

Running a high value permit aeroplane, or virtually any CofA aeroplane is fine - if you are flying the sort of hours people like bose-x are. Otherwise join or setup a syndicate, better to join one since other people have made all the mistakes already and you can learn from them.

G

[Jodelman]

Most people fool themselves as to the total cost of running their aircraft. Reality makes frightening reading!

My Jodel cost £6399.25 in 2004 for 118 hours. The cost in 2003 was £5404.69 for 88 hours.

[ozplane]

I remember having this conversation with 3 other couples at dinner one night. We had a plane-owner (me), a guy with a 36 footer (boat!!), a golfer and a chap with 2 hunters (four legs, not one Avon). In the end we all spent about the same amount per annum but the amount of hours sailed, hunted, golfed or flown were different.
Just for reference my Airtourer (2-seat 115 hp on a C of A) cost me £3335 for 37 hrs in 2003 an "Annual" year and £4362 last year for 31 hrs in a "C of A" year. It's a high hourly rate but nothing beats having your own wings available when YOU want it not when the group rules say you might be able to have it. And you can't discount pride of ownership whether it's a little single or a twin with all the bells and whistles.
As others have said if you can nearly afford it "go for it" and I don't think you'll regret it, I never have.

[strake]

These are the costs for my a/c
TB09 (Tampico) 160hp 95-100kt cruise Private C of A

Fixed (ish) Costs
Insurance 1800
Parking 1250 (Includes landing fees)
Maint in non STAR Year 1000
Maint in STAR Year 3500 ( one hopes)

Non-STAR year probably rounds up to about £5000 if you include some engine fund costs.

Then you have fuel/oil cost of about £35 an hour .

So, if you fly 25 hours per annum then it's costing £228 per hour in a non-STAR year.

Of course, find another three (or more) like-minded souls or fly more and then divide your fixed costs accordingly. Could work out about £80-90 (or less) for 25 hours.

By the way...you have one big advantage with your boat....you can sleep in it when the other half throws you out for grossly outrageous expenditure.....
Caveat: These costs are for a "no problem" year..if there is such a thing
Wings, landing gear, engines, avionics all go wrong from time to time............

So why would anyone run their own plane? 'coz it's theirs!!.

[S-Works]

somebody will always claim that there flying costs next to nothing.

As I recall Stik you fly from your own strip in permit aircraft and not many hours. Even your flight into Leicester on Saturday had a free landing after you picked up fuel as I recall! Those of us that have the priviledge of there own strip and hanger can save some money.

The original question was about the cost of running a spam can. Insurance, hanger and maintance are all real costs and soon add up. A "real" price on an annual is around £3k, hanger, £800 to £3000 insurance anything from £1000. Fly it 100hrs and that is 2x50hr checks at £350 a go. That before you even put the fuel in. Cessna uses 23lph so 100hrs is £2530 in fuel. So lets take the cost of an aircraft 2 seats (Cessna 152) based at Leicester in the old hanger:

Flying 100hrs pa
Hanger £900pa
Insurance £30k hull value £1100
Annual £3000
Fuel £2530
2x50hr checks £700
Total £8230

If you were to go into the new hanger the cost is about double for hangerage. If you fly a 4 seater then the hanger costs more.

This excludes landing fees, bacon butties and parts etc. As an example of extra costs my aircraft needs new door handles and a rudder spa which is at the limit of the crack allowance, this will cost me about £1000. Last year I had to have a new floor due to fatigue cracking that cost me £1200 on top of the normal costs.

The more the aircraft flies the more things will wear out and break and it all needs paying for.



The fact is that the average aircraft is expensive to run, on a permit there are lost of savings to be made on CofA less so.

I would never own a permit aircraft because it is to limiting for me, no IMC etc. A lot of people want that type of flexability but need to know the real costs.

[stiknruda]

Bose-X, I wasn't at Leicester on Saturday! Who was masquerading as me?

Last year I flew 96hrs, all in permit aircraft and all bar 9 in Pitts'.

[S-Works]

I meant Sunday for the Pitts boys planning session.:O

[Sliding member]

Well that figure Jodelman gives is still nearly half the cost of hiring from a club but with the freedom. This is a subject I've been watching close! The microlight costs seem attractive but I think I'd be lloking at "2nd generation" and I guess they're quite restricted by windspeed (always seems windy these days)

[Genghis the Engineer]

What would you want out of a microlight, and what's your budget? A few of us on here have an hour or two in microlights and should be able to offer some advice about types, capabilities, costs and so-on.

G

[ozplane]

It's getting away a bit from Chequeredflag's post but, Genghis, do you have any feel for how the Banbi is bearing up serviceability-wise as a microlight?

[IO540]

I know this doesn't help the original question (budget too small) but buying NEW is also something to consider.

With a car it doesn't make sense due to the massive and rapid depreciation, but planes fall much slower. And anyway, if you like it, you won't be selling....

You get a 2 year (typ.) warranty during which you have very controlled costs; basically just off the service price list. Then you get perhaps 10-15 years of very reasonable costs - unless you are unlucky or you park it outdoors.

During those 10-15 years you will have the priceless benefit of

- unlimited and immediate access
- unlimited time away on foreign trips
- maintenance to YOUR standard
- a clean aircraft suitable for non-anorak passengers especially females :O
- knowledge that nobody has done a "heavy" landing
- keep all the routine stuff in the boot so no need to lug a heavy flight bag everywhere
- worth getting nice kit and stuff like rafts and life jackets

Of course you will also get hassles on various fronts: maintenance issues, hangarage issues, perhaps getting blocked in in the back of the hangar by other owners. But once up the learning curve, it's no big deal. I enjoy the control I have; it's worth every penny.

The sort of horror stories (£10k annuals etc) one hears all the time come from planes 25+ years old. Which is no suprise since the average UK GA fleet age is about 24-25 years. I know that some people have relatively trouble-free planes of that age but I suspect they are the lucky ones.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Oz - no idea. I know that it's coming out commendably light (around 255kg I believe) and faster than anything else in class - somewhere around 140kn compared to the CT's 120kn, but no idea about serviceability.

I don't think the ban-bi is making many appearance in the monthly AAIB redtops however, which can only be a goood thing.

G

[Monocock]

Pick the right aircraft and the annual level of asset appreciation will make serious inroads into paying for your flying.

I once bought a 172 for £27k. I flew it 300 hrs in three years and then sold it for £36k. I spent £1800 on new leather seats so therefore an asset appreciation of £2400 per annum on original investment.

This really should be allowed for when choosing a type to purchase. In my view any Cessna or Piper in good condition with good engine hours will always be sought after and will always command big prices.

If I had a spare £250k I would buy 10 good C152's and look after them for 10 years and then make a stonking profit when people are scrabbling around for good ones by then. Seriously, I reckon that's the winning one in the future...Cessna just won't be making them again.

Any views?

[High Wing Drifter]

Mono,

The moderate and probably, to a reasonable extent, unfounded worry about 100LL future cost and availability probably will never go away from this point on. If future engine conversions or replacements are required to keep 'em in the air then the price might even tumble.

[IO540]

Sure.

You may have 10 C152s but you won't get a classy girlie to get inside any of them ;)

As we are examining business models for the anorak market, you might make more money buying up (on Ebay) the really well made 1950s Hornby 00-track diecast models, in very good condition, and repaint them. Then flog them back on Ebay - you get amazing prices.

And you won't need a Class II medical either - in fact you won't get one after you've sniffed all that solvent :O

[stuartforrest]

I put £1000 per month into my aviation account and it is never enough. Having said that I do buy all my bits and bats out of the account.

My plane is a 1993 Bonanza with very low hours so it doesnt break that much (hopefuly)

It is an expensive hobby but worth it for everything but economic reasons.

[IO540]

That's about right, £15k/year for 150hrs/year in a new-ish complex SEP.

If you have a nice plane which is on Transport CofA anyway, you can put together a small group of careful ATP-level pilots and rent it out to them. Even charging a PA28-181 type of rental this can help substantially with the costs.

Getting back to the original question, can one get a new plane for £70k? It would have to be a Permit one, presumably. I never looked at this close (no IFR possible) but have seen some amazing aircraft that will quite literally run circles around the standard old iron and while at it will beat it on fuel economy by a huge margin.

And nothing prevents one fitting a horizon into a Permit plane, does it?? :O

[GulfStreamV]

stuartforrest,

Your 1000 - Does that include finance costs or is that just hangarage/insurance/fuel/maintenance etc.

I was looking at getting a fastish type - Rockwell Commander maybe (Still researching) - but am daunted by how to finance it to be honest. Misses does not want me to secure anything on the house or mess with the mortgage. I have about 1200-1400 per month to burn! - Is it possible on that amount?

GV

[Confabulous]

Just took a look at the specs for the Ban-bi - absolutely unbelivable, 135KIAS cruise, 700 nm range, for €50,000. Can't wait till they develop a compression ignition variant.

Out of curiousity, is there any information on microlighting in Ireland? Can the aircraft be flown out of the country (UK, continental Europe etc) without masses of paperwork?

[Genghis the Engineer]

http://www.nmai.ie/faqs.htm

The UK will allow an Irish "flight permit" aircraft to fly into it's airspace for up to 28 days per year without anything more than a quick Email to let CAA know (UK Airworthiness notice 52 if you want to look it up), not sure about the rest of the world.

I believe that longer permissions, up to about 60 days per year are pretty much automatic from UK-CAA, you just need to ask.

G

[Confabulous]

Thanks Genghis, much appreciated. Seeing the Ban-bi has just put me off Cessnas & Pipers for life.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Good payload as well, 450kg MAUW, about 250-255kg ZFW, and having flown other aircraft with the same engine, I'd guess it's probably using around 15-20 litres/hour in the cruise.

So that'll be two 12-stone adults and about 3 hours / 400nm fuel, not too bad.

G

[cubflyer]

Mono is right, oldish production aircraft dont depreciate very much and a good condition on that has a nice interior and paint job will gain in value.
But if you want good performance you need to look at the kitbuilt/homebuilt types and they are much cheaper to maintain too. The most popular is the Vans RV range, I have an RV-6 which is superb. Looks good, 160kt cruise, good short field performance,happy on grass or hard ( but doesnt like really bumpy grass!) good range, plenty of bagage space. About 30L per hour conservative estimate, less when leaned out on a long cruise.
You can buy one for about £50,000 second hand, but it will cost you more for a good one.

Costs
Hangarage/landing fees/club membership £1200 p/a the old hangar where bose-x is.
Insurance £1400 p/a (50K hull 500K liability)
they are the expensive bits
Annual £200 inc paperwork
Fuel 30l per hour
oil 6L per 50 hours
other maint- in 2 1/2 years its been flying one set of tyres, I think that was about £60 and a couple of screws and bolts. Oil filter every 50 hours.

The best way to fly cheaply though is to join a group, check it out first that the aircraft is well maintained and the finances are sound. Then you pay only a proportion of the expensive bit- hangarage and insurance and pay for the fuel and maybe an hourly cost when you fly.

[stuartforrest]

Your 1000 - Does that include finance costs or is that just hangarage/insurance/fuel/maintenance etc.

Hi GulfstreamV

Sorry no that doesnt include finance costs because I bought it outright. I suppose that I would be losing interest that I would get from the bank at around £10k per year so if you add that in it is really expensive but then I got a pretty good deal on my plane and I am confident that when the dollar turns back the other way I will make a fair chunk on this one.

I actually sold my 182 after owning it for less than a year and made about £5k on that after expenses so planes are not that bad an investment as long as too many things dont go wrong.

I have lost fortunes on cars without have of the pleasure and prestige that goes with owning a plane so I dont know why I put so much on the costs. I certainly lose more than £20k per year in depreciation on my cars currently so they cost a whole lot more than the plane!

Its funny I never think about it like that when I am paying out my monthly bills for the plane I get stressed about it yet I never think that my cars have lost a chunk more than that in value in the same month.

I will have to take that into account in the future.

[Confabulous]

It's strange really - all these oldish aircraft about (Cessnas, Pipers & Beechs), costing the best part of £15k to maintain and £100,000 to buy, draggy airframes, suspect avionics, annuals & big inefficient engines are being used as trainers - no wonder the cost of learning to fly is is so high... some of the microlights & VLAs I've researched can outperform them in almost every category - even the Ban-bi & co can cruise for 1200nm at 110kts (40% power) at FL110.

Ok, you have to build them yourself, but is it worth it? Well it's convinced me.

Actually Genghis's thread about where new aircraft come from have clinched it - Cessna & Piper are bleeding to death, and rightly so.

Long live progress :ok: :E

PS: Does an SFC of 0.45 sound right for a Rotax 912?

[Flyboy-F33]

Confabulous

This is where I have to pipe in with my 5p's worth. None of your micro-lights or whatever you class them as will compete with a Bonanza in any area, except perhaps fuel burn. Draggy airframe - nonsense, How about 167knts @75%, I dont call that draggy.

I did once consider a Vans, very nice they are too, almost as fast as the Beech, but will only carry two, you have to build it yourself and not certified for flight in IMC.

Back to the costs of ownership. You are looking at 15-17K per year to fly 100 hours and that doesnt allow for anything major going wrong and also doesnt allow for the purchase costs. If you are financing, then the cheapest way is to increase the mortgage.

[dublinpilot]

You may have 10 C152s but you won't get a classy girlie to get inside any of them

IO540

I've visions of you flying with a new supermodel each weekend, while showing them how much still it takes to follow the little line on your fancy new gps ;)

If you manage to find twins (supermodels not airplanes) and need someone to sub for you, would you give me a call???:}

dp:ok:

[Confabulous]

Flyboy,

You have point, the Bonanza has an efficient airframe and is a fast cruiser - I wasn't really counting the F33 but didn't mention it. Yes, it's a great aircraft, no doubt about it! Unfortunately, as we know, the Bonanza is pretty expensive to buy, operate, maintain and insure, as the £15k pa figure you pointed out.

The difference in speeds (110 v 167) is not a lot when you consider that neither of them with be doing very long distance flight - maybe 600nm max - I don't know what the F33's range is at LRC. GA flying is not really for people who are in a hurry anyway.

Personally, I know many people who would rather fly at 110kts for an 8lph fuel burn then 167kts for circa 40 - 50lph - the maths just doesn't work out. And for the aircraft I'm quoting (the MCR4S) it's a 4 seater Group A aircraft.

I'd be the first to say I don't make enough money to buy a Bonanza - but what's the point when I can have an aircraft that can fly 500 hrs a year for the Bonanza's 100 hrs for far less, while having enough range to fly1000nm+ with reserves.

MCR4S
Cost £35,000
Cruise 110kts
Fuel burn 8lph (long range)
Op costs (PA) @£2,000
Range 1200nm + res

Bonanza
£150,000
167kts
40lph (GAMI'd)
@£15000
1000nm?

I know which one I'd choose.

Note: I mean no offence by saying all this, it just makes sense from an economic perspective. Why don't more people stay in aviation? ecause they have to tangle with Cessna, Piper & Beech. Also I'd trust my life to something I built, but might have nagging doubts when a profit-strapped corporation built it.

Conf

[flyingfemme]

All very interesting - but nobody has pointed out to Chequeredflag that he's going at this the wrong way.

Don't start with a sum of money that you want to spend on an aircraft because, we all know, once a total is stated that is going to be spent!

The best starting point is to write a "mission profile". What sort of flying do you want to do? How many people? How much "stuff"? How far? How often? Where will you keep it? Who will look after it?

If you want to spend your time upside-down and develop piles, there's no point buying a Cherokee.

If your local airfield has no covered parking , there's no point buying a ragwing.

If you want to take the family to the riviera for a week at a time, a C150 will be useless.

IFR or VFR?

When you have figured out what physical type of aircraft you want, how many seats, range, cruise, equipment etc - then you can list the suitable makes/models and research the purchase price.

Ask on here for specifics, by all means. Most people will tell you about insurance, parking, labour rates and common maintenance areas for aircraft types.

At the end of all this you will know:
a/ what you need
b/ a purchase price range
c/ an annual running budget (range)
d/ if you can afford it!

If d = NO then you can look for other solutions; groups, rentals etc.

[tonyhalsall]

Threads like this really make me wonder just exactly what people do for a living:

1) To have the time to post so prolific
2) To be able to set aside £15 - £20K pa for the joy of flight

Makes me feel a real pauper in my one third share microlight - we examine the expenditure of every last penny even though it's split three ways.

Ah well - I wonder if it a roll over on the lottery next week

[stuartforrest]

Confabulous

This is a daft argument with the greatest of respect to you. People do not buy most things in life because of economics. Most people easily recognise that a Skoda is a better value car than a Porsche but if you could afford the Porsche would you still be trying to convince us that the Skoda is the best option.

In my experience in life (and I dont mean to offend anyone here) the people who tell you over and over again that the cheaper option is the best cannot afford the more expensive option (again not their problem and no offense is meant here) but if they could afford the Bonanza or perhaps a Cirrus they would buy it at the drop of a hat. If I could afford a TBM700 I would be on my way to the Socata factory to pick my paint scheme but I cant so I have to stick with my A36!

Transfer that to other areas of life. Take a Sony Plasma screen (£4000) instead of the Schneider 28 inch wide screen from Asda for £249.00. You can still watch Match of the Day on either but I know which one I would prefer and indeed most people are the same.

It isnt all about economics is what I am saying. My Bonanza will do 167 knots at 15US but it will also do 120 knots at 9US but I still go fast.

Buy the best you can afford in life, not necessarily the most expensive, but certainly not the cheapest. That is what I like to do. I cant afford the plane I would like but I bought the best one I could afford for the money I had available and I can assure you it gives me and my family loads of pleasure.

[Confabulous]

Stuart,

There's no way I would even consider buying a Cirrus or Bonanza, simply becuse they're old technology in the sense that they use godawful inefficient Lyc's & Continentals. Yes the Cirrus has a glass cockpit, but the electronics don't match up with inefficiency.

Simply put, the Bonanza is possibly the worst choice you can buy for the money - and many here will agree will that. I'm aiming toward at Diamond DA-42 TwinStar, which costs €400,000, but I won't be able to afford it for a good while - yet I'll be willing to pay for it - because it saves me chunks of money in the long run on fuel burn, maintenance and business trips.

In essence - would you like to fly 200-300hrs more for far less while still at reasonable speeds (the Ban-bi's standard cruise is 140kts, 110kts is long range cruise)? I know I would. No-one in their right mind would want to pay 500%+ for the same amount of hours.

Yes, there is 'pride of ownership' etc. Personally I'd be proud that I made a smart, cutting-edge technology decision. The Bonanza is just old. A great aircraft, but old and inefficient compared to today's technology. Would you prefer an old Chevy (the equivalent car when the Bonanza was designed) or a '05 BMW? That's the real technology difference. I'm happy that you like having one and can afford it. Personally I'd spend the money I saved on buying a new house for investment income.

Note: I'm not picking on the Bonanza specifically - Piper and Cessna fall into the same category!

[stuartforrest]

I would buy the Twin Star also but unfortunately it only has 4 seats. My Bonanza has six which we use.

To say many people will agree or whatever you quote is does not make you correct. The Bonanza is a great well made plane that is not inneficient as a previous member pointed out.

You have glossed over all my points about choice if you can afford it. I have a better car than an 05 BMW which I guarantee most users would choose to own over the BMW but that car is 3 years old and is in fact a 10 year old design because I can afford it. You set your sights on an 05 BMW because you believe that it is your best car choice but it doesnt mean it automatically is the best car around!

Having owned several BMW's I can assure you it isnt. If you had owned a Bonanza you would be able to comment on how inefficient and old they are but it seems you have not.

Perhaps one day there will be a 300 horsepower diesel engine to put in my Bonanza and then I really will have a wonderful plane.

[Flyboy-F33]

Please don't confuse a Bonanza with anything that comes out of the Piper or Cessna factory, that includes quality, efficiency or price. And it certainly doesnt compare to anything made of plastic.

And it's French...! I rest my case.

[S-Works]

I would buy a Cessna for running around and a twin for touring. Oh hang on I did....

As far cars I have the shortest attention span on earth, never buy anything under 350hp , always buy new and never own anything long enough to run out a set of tyres or even get to first service is my motto.

Luxury items are just that, luxury and if you cant afford a luxury then to my mind you don't buy it.

It amazes me that people run aircraft on a shoestring, personally I would always be asking what has been cut out to save money. The reason why so many old aircraft do look so clapped out perhaps? Mine are old but look and work great with state of the art avionics (they even let you know when you are no where near Lutons zone...... :O ). Old does not have to equate to crap!

On the bonanza thing, the are a great airfcraft and a joy to fly. With fun avionics that would meet IO540's spec (and mine!) they match anything modern.

If I want to go somewhere that needs a new aircraft then I will jump in British Airways.

Tonyhalsall, please do not use the work word in polite society there may even be women and children who read this list.... :p :O

[Genghis the Engineer]

Calm down boys and girls.


There is no such thing as a good or bad aeroplane, only fit for purpose or not fit for purpose. (OKay, there are one or two truly bad aeroplanes, but not all that many.)

I know nothing about Bonanzas, but I have spent most of my adult life flying and/or assessing aeroplanes. I am sure you are both right insofar as for some people the Bonanza is the best aeroplane for the job, and for others the Ban-bi is the best.

There are several obvious differences - the need to fly night and/or IMC, whether you have ready access to metal/composite/particular engine servicing facilities, how much you carry in the way of people and baggage, how much time you have for your various aerial journeys, how far you tend to fly, what fuels are available at your usual fields.

If you tend to fly 2-300 mile trips with just a bag or one passenger, sticking to VMC, I'm sure that the Bonanza would be overspec, overpriced, and just plain silly.

If you tend to fly 1000 mile trips, to well equipped fields, with 2+ pax and prefer to have the option of flying IMC, then the Ban-bi would be a totally useless aeroplane.

If you want to fly routinely from 250m fields, I suspect neither would be very clever.


Pick the aeroplane that suits your needs and budget, or do what I do, and have shares in several meeting various conflicting needs - in my case a PA28, a small taildragger and a flexwing microlight.


Mind you, much as I enjoy touring in my PA28, it's not hard to agree that it's very easy to improve upon a 40 year old American aircraft design with a 30 year old overweight engine in the front. I certainly fly that more out of convenience than any deep affection.

G

[Chequeredflag]

Thanks for your responses everyone - just back from Madrid (freezing, snow and 2 degrees!!), and as yet I have not had time to read all the responses. Look forward to it though. (long flight time this pm - 130 kt headwinds - BA, Avro EJ100, (flash name for a 146)!

Cheers

Mike N

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Simply put, the Bonanza is possibly the worst choice you can buy for the money

Confab

Your also missing one major point!!

Safety

I wouldnt have wanted to be in any other aircraft when I had my engine failure.

The Bonanza is incredibley well built and most other types would have had the undercarriage ripped off long before I came to a halt. It may be an old design but in my opinion not much comes anywhere near it still.

"The Caddilac of the sky"

[Confabulous]

The Bonanza is incredibley well built and most other types would have had the undercarriage ripped off long before I came to a halt. It may be an old design but in my opinion not much comes anywhere near it still.

I would've said the same about any new carbonfibre composite aircraft - they're built to a failsafe design. I don't have any problems with the Bonanza airframe - it's the engine that bothers me - and it's the same engine they put on many other aircraft. That said, new aerodynamic simulations and better airfoils mean that the Bonanza's low Cd can easily be surpassed - and we're seeing that today - 110kts on 80hp.

However, Genghis is right as usual - both aircraft have different capabilities and design goals, and Stuart and I have different priorities as well, so we should really see the good points in each aircraft and wonder how we can use them to make an even better aircraft next time!

A diesel equipped glass cockpit Bonanza - now there's an aircraft I'd pay good money for! :O :cool:

Niall

[IO540]

One cannot compare one plane (2 seater, narrow cockpit, verylight) doing 110kt with another one (4/6-seater, much wider cockpit, 2-3 times heavier) doing 160kt, and draw conclusions regarding engine efficiency.

There is a massive difference in drag.

Everything in aircraft design is a compromise between weight, interior space, speed, range. Improve anything and you need to carry more fuel, so the weight goes up and while your range goes up too, it doesn't go up as much as you wished. Eventually you end up with a 747.

So, probably the most fuel-efficient way to fly is under a hang glider, at 30mph, wrapped up in a streamlined sleeping bag, with a very small engine strapped to your a**e :O More practically, in a motor glider.

Ultimately any engine can derive power only from burning fuel which has a specific energy content, and the agricultural-looking Lycomings etc are not in any way inefficient in doing that - once you have the thing set up nicely in cruise, they burn the juice just as well as any other engine. For a given fuel flow, input OAT, output EGT, there isn't a lot to play with.

Also the mission profiles don't compare. Only the most hardened adventurous masochist is going to fly from the UK to e.g. south of Spain in a 2-seater ML with 1 passenger and their 2 toothbrushes jammed into the "luggage space". In a Bonanza or something similar, it's an easy trip; get there for early afternoon, with all the junk you need.

Edited for Dublinpilot: plus you get there with your girlie and her fingernails completely intact (can't put a price on that) :O

[orionsbelt]

10 years ago my S1c costs worked out at about £210 per hour dry on 100 hrs a year all in, on a permit to fly and best friend PFA engineering doing most of the maintenance. Also thats without
an engine fund.
Hanger about £110 per month.
Insurance £1600 on 2 named pilots £16000 hull and 1/4 mil 3rd party. will be lots more now
Interest on loan (cant remember).
Spares and maintenance lots. (ie £1600 to refurd the carb, and loads to cold repitch the prop )
PFA Membership, radio licence, registration annual maintenence etc

Glad I did it , but you need loads of cash if you are doing it on your own without cutting any corners

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

IO540

Very well put:ok:

[Confabulous]

IO540,

You're right as far as weight & drag go, there's a huge difference. But with regards to the Lycs & Conts, the GAMIjectors reduce fuel consumptiom by roughly 20%, and the new GAMI PRISM system should revolutionise the AVGAS Lyc/Cont... all down to cylinder/injector tolerances apparently.

Overall, expect SFC to go down to 0.38!

[IO540]

Oh not another GAMI thread. They seem to be springing up all over the place, interfering with my DIY around the house :O

Do you actually know what GAMI injectors are, and what their objective is?

[Chequeredflag]

There's a wicked cross wind on this thread of mine - it's drifted a fair bit in some cases!! Nevertheless, as my first question ever on this forum, I've enjoyed all the answers. Many thanks, and hope I've not kicked off any punch up's!!

[High Wing Drifter]

Do you actually know what GAMI injectors are, and what their objective is?
They are replacement fuel injectors and control unit. The control unit is programmed to even out CHTs for all cylinders for your specific engine. The injectors are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the stock units.

Apparently, with the Lycoming fuel injected units there can be huge differences in CHT from one cylinder to another.

There was an article in Flyer a couple-a-months back.

[Confabulous]

IO540,

They are replacement fuel injectors and control unit. The control unit is programmed to even out CHTs for all cylinders for your specific engine.

Well you're enlightened now eh? :E :p

[Flyboy-F33]

Wrong

Gami injectors are just a balanced set of injectors that meter an accurate amount of fuel to each cylinder. There is no control unit.

Continental & Lycoming fuel injection systems just deliver a constant stream of fuel to each cylinder (unlike a car system which sqirts pulses of fuel) and the amount of fuel reaching each cylinder can be wildly different. Gami's ensure an even flow to each cylinder which enables more accurate leaning, this has to done with the aid of an engine analyser or its all a waste of time.

[yakker]

Let's face it, like with cars and motorcycles, there isn't the perfect aircraft. There is no 'one size fits all', you pays your money and takes your choice.

[Confabulous]

There is no 'one size fits all', you pays your money and takes your choice.

Thankfully, with airframe/engine technology getting better (insert whine about Lycs, Conts & draggy airframes here :} ) we do have a lot more choice - compromise is reduced, and overall, more people will get into GA in cheaper aircraft, costs might reduce, and more fun will follow.

Hopefully, these days will be looked back on with scorn in, say, 2020:

Pilot 1: 'Did you know they used to pay £150 an hour to fly a truckload of riveted aluminium bolted to a lawnmower engine?'

Pilot 2 (While pressing the 'Aircraft Self-Test' button and advancing the mini turboprop's power lever) 'Hah! Everything changed after Cessna and Piper went down the crapper!'

And they take off into the flightlevels, cruise for 2000nm at 250KIAS all on a tank of Jet A1... in an aircraft that cost €100,000.

I can dream!

[IO540]

They are replacement fuel injectors and control unit. The control unit is programmed to even out CHTs for all cylinders for your specific engine. The injectors are manufactured to much tighter tolerances than the stock units.

Like a lot of aviation magazine articles, that Flyer article was written by somebody with no direct knowledge but sadly a lot of people read it.

As FB33 says, they are just matched injectors. I've got them. In fact they are secondhand Lycoming injectors which GAMI measured up. One can read all about it at gami.com. You supply GAMI with flight test data (from an engine monitor like the JPI EDM series) and they sell you a set of injectors which are worked out to even out the power produced by individual cylinders. You then send your old injectors back to GAMI and they re-use them for somebody else.

The purpose is to enable an engine to be operated LOP without it vibrating too much. A lot of people don't need them; depends on how lucky you are.

Does a car engine squirt pulses of fuel? Surely not - only if it had direct into-cylinder fuel injection which is pretty rare for petrol engines. What modern car engines do have is better inlet manifold design, better tolerances generally, and an O2 sensor in the exhaust which the ECU uses to set the engine LOP.

Confabulous - you can indeed dream of a GA turboprop doing 2000nm. Turboprops aren't anywhere near as efficient as pistons, so they have to carry a lot more fuel, some 1.5x more by weight just to get the same range. Presently, of course, avtur is a lot cheaper (in the UK). I'd buy a SE turboprop for the incredible reliability and for speed but not for range.

[Flyboy-F33]

Sorry IO, the last fuel injection system I looked at was the K-Jetronic on my old 911, that used to squirt measured quantities just above the inlet valve.

Fly....

[IO540]

The Lycoming problem isn't whether the fuel flow into the inlet manifold is continuous or pulsed. It is caused by a) the AIR flow not being the same to different cylinders and b) the fuel injectors being made to excessively wide tolerances.

For decades few people cared, because in the USA fuel is cheap and the USA is the only market of relevance. Now people (even Americans) are looking more closely at engine management generally. This is made possible only through monitoring individual cylinders with a unit like the JPI. Without one of those fitted, one cannot order the injectors to start with.

I had a K-jetronic in an XR3i in the 1980s :O

[High Wing Drifter]

Like a lot of aviation magazine articles, that Flyer article was written by somebody with no direct knowledge but sadly a lot of people read it.
Err, yes well, it was probably me making an assumption :=. I would be suprised if a prepared article running as a virtual advert for GAMI was incorrect.

[Confabulous]

I would be suprised if a prepared article running as a virtual advert for GAMI was incorrect.

Yes, seems that every Flyer/TP/Pilot article has an ad on the next page advertising exactly the product/aircraft/service the article was enthusing about so much.

Makes you wonder!

IO540,

Agree about the air cooling problems - imagine what happens when you have 4-6 different size (because of inconsistent cooling)pistons all blazing away at the same time... nasty!

The mini-turboprops are coming - ceramic one piece rotors, allowing higher temps & increased efficency. Since as you say, Jet A1 is far cheaper in the UK (and Ireland as well), I'd be willing to install a turboprop just for the hugely increased reliability. That said, the high SFC (0.46 I believe as compared to 0.35 for the Thielert diesel) is a problem, but proper FADEC will level the playing field.

Count on seeing the TwinStar and others with cheapish mini TP's (130hp) in the next few years. The engines are already in the process of being certified - don't have the information to hand at the moment though.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes, seems that every Flyer/TP/Pilot article has an ad on the next page advertising exactly the product/aircraft/service the article was enthusing about so much.
Usually the other way around, the magazines accept the article, then have the advertising department phone any company with a related product to sell and do their best to use that as a reason to sell them advertising space.

G

[Confabulous]

Aha, makes sense, I stand corrected!

[GulfStreamV]

I read this article from AOPA on the twinstar, and I have to say it looks amazing. Twinstar (http://www.diamond-air.at/download/pressreports/410AOPA.pdf)

Its says it uses Jet-A is this the same as Jet-A1?


GV

[Confabulous]

Its says it uses Jet-A is this the same as Jet-A1?

As far as I'm aware it is, possibly with different low/high temp tolerances and a slightly different specific weight.

The TwinStar essentially makes everything else in its class obsolete - and expect it to get better. The most amazing fact is the extremely long range capability - up to 20hrs endurance @ 29% power @ 90kts. That said, the engines and airframe are equally as unbelievable.

Interesting, it's marketed as competing with the high power singles even though its performance outclasses most twins.

Tht said, delivery dates for TwinStars have constantly slipped and there are rumours abounding about spec changes etc. Hope Diamond hasn't overstepped the mark.

[IO540]

Confabulous

I don't think the piston size matters that much. It will vary with temperature of course, but only by a few thou. As a % that cannot be significant. It will affect friction but only if the piston has expanded to the point where it is sticking, and then CHT will immediately rocket and the whole thing will seize up. Also the cylinder head will expand with the piston, to a degree.

The uneven power distribution comes from uneven intake of fuel and air.

GtE is right about advert salesmen. They do exactly that (try to link advertising to an editorial feature) and I get that all day long here.

The DA42 is a great plane and I am sure they will do extremely well - when they sort out the reliability on the Thielert diesel.

[Sliding member]

In response to a question from Genghis regarding my type of flying, well I just want to be up there, I’d mainly operate in my local area (the SW peninsula). The sort of microlight that catches my eye for example is the Thruster TST/Minimax and similar or flex-wings like Pegasus/Flash II. A homebuilt would be better as I wouldn’t need to do a conversion, would love a Nipper but doesn’t suit my budget (~£4K). Being single seat is not a problem as I don’t mind being alone up there (selfish?). May take a bit of convincing the partner though, Wedding or A/C, Mmm...
Any way thanks for your suggestions.