Costs of owning a plane
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kendal, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry still wrong
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
And it's French...! I rest my case.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
). 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....
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......
). 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....
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Northants
Age: 80
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Cheers
Mike N
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cheltenham
Age: 54
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply put, the Bonanza is possibly the worst choice you can buy for the money
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"
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
Niall
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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)
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
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)
Last edited by IO540; 26th Jan 2005 at 21:30.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 77
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operating Cost for my (Ex )Pitts s1c
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.
hangar 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
an engine fund.
hangar 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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh not another GAMI thread. They seem to be springing up all over the place, interfering with my DIY around the house
Do you actually know what GAMI injectors are, and what their objective is?
Do you actually know what GAMI injectors are, and what their objective is?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Northants
Age: 80
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Do you actually know what GAMI injectors are, and what their objective is?
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAMI's
IO540,
Well you're enlightened now eh? 
They are replacement fuel injectors and control unit. The control unit is programmed to even out CHTs for all cylinders for your specific engine.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Farnham
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Age: 44
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no 'one size fits all', you pays your money and takes your choice.
) 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!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by IO540; 27th Jan 2005 at 11:06.