Cost of owning a Cessna 152 (or 172)

[Plasmech]

Thinking head...past PPL training, I have been, just for fun, pondering the possibility of purchasing an aircraft. The obvious choice would be, correct me if I'm wrong, a C152 or a 172.

I see many 152's for sale online for as little as $9,900. Obviously, one like that would require a lot of work.

I know this is a very general question and will develop over time / replies, but if I were to look at purchase price alone, what is a good price range...too low means too much work is needed, and too high and I can't afford it.

Generally how much does it cost per year to keep a 152 or 172 flying, say if I flew 75 hours a year?

What I am really afraid of is possibly buying an aircraft, for let's say $30,000, and being able to afford that, but then having to pay $20,000 per year to keep it in the air...that part scares me to death!

Also, generally how much does it cost to hangar an aircraft? Thanks. Again I know that I will need to elaborate on my actual question(s) as time goes on.

[A and C]

I cant quote prices on your side of the pond but expect to spend twice to three times the buying price of an old dog to get it to the condition that you would be proud to turn up on any ramp with it!

[BackPacker]

The obvious choice would be, correct me if I'm wrong, a C152 or a 172.

Does "a C152 or a 172" really fit your mission profile?

A C172 has double the amount of seats of the C152. Take your own seat out of the equation and you have a threefold increase in the number of passengers you can carry. And this parameter is so inconsequential that you think that either a 152 or a 172 will be a good aircraft for you?

My advise would be to find a club/school with a reasonable fleet of 2-seaters, 4-seaters, low wing, high wing, slow/cheap aircraft, fast/expensive aircraft, glass cockpit or steam gauges, maybe a semi-aerobatics or full aerobatics aircraft. Then rent from that place for a year or two. After two years, find out what types of flights you did mostly. Find out how many passengers you had with you. Find out what length/duration the average flight was like. Find out which flights you had the most fun, or were the most memorable. Then try to find an aircraft that fits that profile.

Sure, renting an aircraft will always be more expensive than flying your own aircraft. But the most expensive aircraft is the one that is not being used because it's not right for your mission profile.

[AdamFrisch]

Do a pre-buy with an expert. I did on mine and it cost me about $2200, all in. But then this was an exotic type and I had to fly the expert out and put him up etc. If it's a standard Cessna, any experienced A&P can do that and it will be a lot cheaper. Money well worth spent.

The pre-buy gives you a list of what needs doing immediately, by next annual or somewhere down the line. Also, remember that a close to TBO engine is most likely where the best deals can be had. TBO is only a recommendation and many engines can go well past it by 500-1000hrs if they have been well serviced. So don't necessarily reject high time engines. Same goes for airframes. If they have higher times, they've been flow regularly. That's good. You don't want aircraft that have been sitting on the ramp most of the time. A good rule of thumb is 100hrs/year.

Good luck.

[Plasmech]

Thanks for the excellent replies gentlemen. You know...the more I think about it, the less I think I will EVER have a need for 4 seats. For one, I don't really personally feel that a single engine aircraft is exactly the best, safest platform to be hauling innocent "civilians" around in, if you know what I mean (lol). This is obviously open for debate but it's just my personal, possibly un-educated opinion. Two, I would be spending a lot more on fuel to haul those two mostly empty seats around all the time.

Is the Cessna 150/152 a good foundation for building on? Say I buy an older VFR 150/152 and some day want to put IFR gear in it, maybe some glass, and even an Aerobat-like engine (hopefully something that runs 94 octane!)...is this anywhere near feasible?

Also, how man total airframe hours is considered..safe? I mean at SOME point that 1970's vintage aluminum, stressed over and over and OVER again has to give way, right?

Thanks again for any replies.

[Pilot DAR]

this http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/407275-c150-c152-operating-costs.html thread probably contains what you're looking for.

Like aluminum from all aircraft vintages, as long as it has not suffered obvious damage from being overstressed, and is otherwise airworthy, it can be maintianed airworthy indefinately, in non pressurized GA aircraft.

MOGAS is a perfectly fine fuel for the C-150, I have more than 2300 hours running mine on it - never a problem.

I would steer away from IFR in a 150. Aircraft of this type just do not belong in those actual conditions. Yes, you can train and practice, but for safe IFR you want either a high perfomance single, certified for known icing, or an equivilent twin. IO-540 is going to give you a slightly different point of view, but even he will agree that a 150 belongs VFR...

Have a look for an older book by TAB publisher, "The Cessna 150 and 152" by Clarke.

[BackPacker]

If you (definitely) want a two-seater and you're going to fly it yourself (ie. not subject it to the rigors of flight students, by leasing it to a flight school or something) you might want to look at anything made out of modern composites with a Rotax 912 up front. There's plenty of airframes like that about, both home-built and CofA. Depending on the exact airframe you might be looking at cruise speeds in the 110-130 knot range on 15 liters of mogas per hour.

[Plasmech]

DAR,

What about warm weather IFR? Honestly I don't ever see myself flying into known or even incidental ice in any piston aircraft. Just not (nearly) worth it as a hobby, IMO.

[Pilot DAR]

Many pilots will have more authoritative remarks about IFR flight than I. It has been 25 years since I did any amount of IFR flying. I will acceed to the wisdom of those pilots.

That said, I have just never felt that a systems and performance limited aircraft like a 150 has much role in IFR flight, other than perhaps awareness training. If you're thinking of all weather flying, I suggest you need more aircraft than a 150, regardless of the temperature.

My limited experience with "warm weather" IFR flight has taught me to be aware of thunderstorms, and fog. Both of these forms of adverse weather are every bit as challenging to safety, as the challenges of cold weather IFR flight.

But, the thread drifts a little... To get the best opinionon IFR flight, from those who really know, may I suggest starting a thread "Does a C 150 belong in IFR flight conditions?"

In the mean time, 150's, and many similar aircraft, are marvelous, and economical means to get safety airborne. Plan to use them the way they were intended. In appropriate weather, I have flown my 150 west as far as Kansas City, east as far as Cape Breton, North to mid Ontario and Manitoba, and south to Key West, and the Bahamas (with my wife, and two folding bikes) 150's are remarkably versitile.

[BackPacker]

A C172 has double the amount of seats of the C152. Take your own seat out of the equation and you have a threefold increase in the number of passengers you can carry. And this parameter is so inconsequential that you think that either a 152 or a 172 will be a good aircraft for you?

Now that I'm re-reading my comment, I realise I'm probably overdosing on The Big Bang Theory. I can just about hear Sheldon Cooper uttering that. Sorry.:sad:

[AdamFrisch]

The 152 I fly in England at the aero club has 14.000hrs!

Agree with DAR. I love 152's. I think they're great little aircraft. Forgiving, easy to fly, never bite, sturdy and versatile. I'm amazed at how much stuff they will swallow.

[Pilot DAR]

I did my first solo on the first 152 which came to Canada, in 1977. At that time it had 33 hours total time. When I last spoke with it's [now private] owner, it had nearly 15,000 hours, and was still going strong...

I extensively flew and tested a Cessna 207 with 19,700 hours, and some of those were "hard" hours, flying Grand Canyon tours.

My 1975 150M just passed 5000 hours total time last month.

Condition counts for a lot more than airframe time in light, non-presurized fixed wing aircraft....

[PilotPieces]

172 with a value of £40,000:

£10,000 maintenance
£5000 insurance
£1500 parking

I'm sure many people spend less on maintenance each year, but we keep it to a very high standard and that amount includes avionics as well.

I would imagine you could take probably a third off all those amounts on your side of the pond.

Also, I factor 15% depreciation per year, but would probably be less if only doing 75 hours.

I wouldn't consider buying if only flying 75 hours a year.

[IO540]

172 with a value of £40,000:

£10,000 maintenance
£5000 insurance
£1500 parkingThose are astonishing figures.

Can you indicate a breakdown of the £10k?

The £5k insurance is probably 'club use', for anybody with a PPL. Still high though. However, I used to pay (2002) £6200 for club use, £195k agreed hull value.

I wouldn't consider buying if only flying 75 hours a year.It would depend on the value you attach to availability, and the other huge advantages of ownership. I probably fly only 70hrs/year, on UK bimbles etc. The other 70-80 or so I do on long overseas trips; say 30hrs to Greece and back and around a bit.

If you can rent something of quality, and are happy with burger runs only, then one can make a renting v. owning comparison, otherwise the comparison is meaningless because e.g. you cannot do a flying holiday when renting.

[PilotPieces]

I0540

After re-reading that is actually a bit misleading.

The £10,000 is an average on the last 3 years, but includes a big avionics upgrade. It works out around £7000 without.

Also had a problem with the nose wheel strut that worked out to be an expensive repair, however, if you take out everything other than the cost of a 50 hour/annual etc, then you are being very unrealistic.

Annual was £3200 with minor parts.
50 hour £700 with a couple of additional items.
Nose wheel defect was over £1000.

250 hours in a year = 4x50 hour checks + annual.

[englishal]

Although IMHO a 152 doesn't really make an ideal IFR platform, it is nice to have the ability to pick up a pop up clearance and fly the ILS back in if the weather is less than perfect.

Have you considered some of the "experimental" types, like a Vans RV6 or Glasair? They can be IFR certified in the USA, fast, 2 seats and likely you won't get "bored" of it. I'd get bored of a 152. Yes you will pay more than a decent 152 (but not that much more when you consider ongoing costs), but you'll likely end up with a cheaper, more fun aeroplane in the long run.

[IO540]

PilotPieces

That is a bit better but I think you are being charged right at the top of what is reasonable, and then some more.

Also, have you looked at what a 50hr check actually involves? Yeah, I used to pay £600 for mine, in 2002-2005. Oil is £60, the oil filter is £12, and it's about 5hrs' work. A big saving to be had there.

At 250hrs/year you will also have one 150hr check, unless you are N-reg. That is a big cost item.

[Heliplane]

I think a good way to look at this would be to separate the purchase price from the running costs.

The purchase price will depend on the individual plane and, provided the price is not way off market to begin with and you look after the plane, you shouldn't lose too much on the capital value (this is not true for newer planes though).

The running costs will be the key factors and include things like insurance, parking/hangarage, maintenance, fuel/oil, engine overhauls and avionics upgrades. Depending on how long you own the plane and how much you fly it, you may never have to pay anything towards an engine overhaul or avionics upgrades. Not running/maintaining the plane properly will affect the resale value. Just like with an old car though, individual parts (and labour) can quickly approach or exceed the value of the complete aircraft.

The key then is to figure out the costs of ownership vs renting but don't forget to factor in the hassle factor (there are hassles both with renting and owning, but that's a different subject).

As others have said, a thorough pre-purchase inspection from a mechanic who is familiar with the type (most should be familiar with 152s or 172s) is essential and ideally this inspection would be carried out by the company who will do the maintenance for you.

Any mechanic new to a plane will always find things the previous one didn't and the bill from the first major inspection can come as a shock.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Plasmech

You say you are planning on flying 75 hrs a year. From a pure dollar point it will usually be cheaper to rent than to buy. The advantages of ownership are many however and the convenience of going whenever and where ever you want is IMO the reason to own an aircraft, as well as have the piece of mind of knowing the condition of the aircraft.

If you do buy, then buy the absolute nicest airplane you can find, it will be the cheapest way to go in the long run. The problem is there is a huge disconnect
between the selling price of the aircraft and the cost its parts

For example a very nice mid 1970's C 172 would go for about 50K USD. A runout beater for about 25 K . To turn the beater into a nice aircraft would cost as follows:

-new engine 20 K
-new paint 8-10 K
-new interior 4-6K
-new radios basic IFR 15 -20K installed
-misc repairs (fairings, windows,sheet metal etc) 5 + K

So as you can see the trick to buying an aircraft is to find one where someone else has paid to make it nice.

Final points do not buy an aircraft without an interdependent prepurchase inspection (budget $1000 for a good one), and consider a partner. With two people owning an aircraft you will hardly ever have scheduling conflicts but all the fixed costs are cut in half and the aircraft gets used more which is always a good thing