An affordable twin???

[Justiciar]

Buy Old or Buy new?

I know this is kicked about a lot, but has anyone actually done some figures to compare buying new as against old? I mean the whole spectrum of expenditure, including depreciation and cost of use. What promptd this is seeing a Mooney for sale at £30k! Ok, it is 1966 vintage but that means nothing really with relatively low airframe hours and good maintenance. It occurs to me that the only advantage of a new aircraft is low operating costs (if diesel or it runs on mogas) but you tend to have high depreciation.

It seems to me that you could buy cheap, spend £30 or £40k on repaint, new avionics etc and still have an aircraft which in absolute terms will cost you far less in total over a period of ownership than buying new or nearly new (unless you fly huge amounts per year). Is an old Astec cheaper in the long run than a nearly new TB20, for example.

This is all a gut feeling and unsupported by actual figures. It would be interesting to hear from those who have done one or either or both and know what the actual figures come out at. Some views of course already expressed here.

[411A]

I know this is kicked about a lot, but has anyone actually done some figures to compare buying new as against old?

Why certainly, at least with the cabin class piston twin.
Twelve years ago I purchased my 411A.
It had 1800 total airframe hours on it, with mid-time (600 hour) engines.
After an extensive annual inspection, IRAN'ed cylinders, overhauled propellors and an IFR approved (enroute, terminal, approach) GPS installed, the total cost was $110,000.
It has seven seats (pilot and six passengers), a bar and a potty.
It can fly for over 1000 nautical miles, and being turbosupercharged, can fly all day long in the mid-high teens, in quiet (geared engine) comfort.
It consumes 30 US gallons/hr and flies at 190KTAS.

It has provided unsurpassed reliability in the last twelve years, having missed only one planned flight due to maintenance issues.

To purchase this type of airplane today (provided it was available at all) would take at least $1.5 million.

Face it folks, if you shop carefully, very good value can be found today with the purchase of an older piston twin, in good condition...with many reliable flying hours remaining.

[vanHorck]

As with cars or anything else people buying new still pay a hefty premium.

The smart buyer will buy an older airframe and do it up completely like the 411 earlier on, with full refurbish, new panel (and wiring if needed), things like a Colemill conversion or Ram conversion, new paint.

Those who cannot wait to fly but are still smart will opt for a low hours well maintained twin and still get most of the benefits without forking out twice as much for the factory new.

I bought my pristine 10 year old Seneca IV G-MAIK with just 1000 hours on the engines. The lady didn't have a scratch, the inside still smelled like new, sh had mainly been hangared so the paint looked good and the panel was how I like it, analogue dials but with a good moving map and color radar, good autopilot with altitude preselect. The only thing I added were Gami injectors with JPI760, updated the KLN90B's database and never looked back.

The only reason I see to buy new are those pilots who like the integrated glass cockpits, but i like the non-integrated classic panel with part digital equipment so this choice worked for me.

The day I got her, i baptized her with a bottle of Veuve Clicot Brut sprinkeled over her wings to the horror of my FBO's owner Derick Gunning who was horrified but understood...

She's a good girl!

[IO540]

Is an old Astec cheaper in the long run than a nearly new TB20, for example.

The two don't compare on load carrying capability, and for that the Aztec will use double the fuel of the TB20 (twice as many IO540 engines).

Otherwise, an old Aztec is likely to cost £10k-£20k p.a. on maintenance whereas a newish (say 2002; the latest possible) TB20 might cost £4k p.a.

It's the same old argument which has been done to death on all pilot forums many times.

There is no doubt that buying old means that you have loads of money to spend on fuel and maintenance and upgrades.

But what value do you place on hassle and downtime?

It is arguably foolish to buy a new car because even a 15 year old Toyota is still extremely reliable. But a 25 year old plane probably won't be, or (putting it another way) you have to spend loads of money on it because if you don't it will not be airworthy, you won't get it signed off on the return to service, and it will be worth scrap.

I think that on average if one buys something old and keeps it say 10-20 years then one spends as much on maintenance as the extra amount one would have spent on the extra purchase price of something newer.

But as with cars there are smart strategies and there are dumb strategies. You want to buy a plane which is old but still has 5-10 years before it starts to fall apart, so you probably want one which is about 10 years old. That should give you 10 years before you need significant airframe replacement/repair parts (which are the really expensive bits). You also want to buy one with the avionics you want already installed because the money the previous owner spent on avionics is almost a total loss.

And, personally, I would prefer a plane with a runout engine because it will be sold at a massive discount and you can then send the engine off to a really reputable American engine shop (there are no really reputable engine shops in the UK) so I have a known quantity up front (engines being quite important on a plane).

[SkyHawk-N]

you have to spend loads of money on it because if you don't it will not be airworthy, you won't get it signed off on the return to service, and it will be worth scrap.

Yet another IO540 sweeping statement, without any figures to back it all up.

IO540, how much has your aircraft depreciated in the last year? Add to that your maintenance costs?

My VERY old aircraft (1977) has cost approx £800 in maintenance in the last year and has not been out of service for more than 3 days at a time (for annual, and forgetting it's crating to the USA.) in the last 6 years. I know many others who have the same experience of running 'old' aircraft.

[IO540]

I am not going to debate this, Skyhawk-N because

My VERY old aircraft (1977) has cost approx £800 in maintenance in the last year

is infeasible in the UK where an Annual is some £2000-£3000, plus any actual "work".

You either live in some aviation heaven, or you do your own maintenance and place zero value on your time.

Actually I know how to get an Annual done on my TB20 for £800, using a freelance A&P/IA but for that I would need a hangar where he would be allowed to work, and I don't know of such a hangar.

[Justiciar]

Otherwise, an old Aztec is likely to cost £10k-£20k p.a. on maintenance whereas a newish (say 2002; the latest possible) TB20 might cost £4k p.a.

This is what I was trying to get at. There is a general perception that old = more maintenance, but where is the hard evidence to back this up? Obviously two engines tend to cost more than one, so my old Mooney vrs new(ish) TB20 may be a better straight comparison. Each aircraft will need an ARC and each will in due time require overhaul of engine. This may happen sooner in a £50k Arrow rather than a £150k TBx or nerly new Archer or C182, but then there is around £100k of price difference - an everage of £10k per year if you keep the aircraft for 10 years, say. Would I spend £10k a year more on maintenance and upgrades than the owner of the new hardware? Seems to me that the case is not proved.

SkyHawk - hope the C172 is flying well - no fly-in at Tibs this year that I have heard of

[SkyHawk-N]

IO540, the reason I stated the £800 was to answer your point about "one spends as much on maintenance as the extra amount one would have spent on the extra purchase price of something newer.", this need not be the case. Having an old aircraft does not neccessary mean big maintenance bills. A well maintained and owned aircraft should not degrade to a large extent, if you buy an old pig, then yes you will get big bills. I'd rather own a solid, older aircraft and spend small amounts replacing the odd vacuum pump here and carb there than suffering 10's of thousands of pounds on depreciation.

You did not answer my point about depreciation.

Justiciar, hi there. Skyhawk is going very well thanks (for a 31 year old ) Shame about Tibs not having a fly-in, I tried to encourage a few to get something arranged but it seems like nothing is being done.

[Vee1Kut]

This is the kind of drivel that is perpetuated by those that just don't do this for a living..A light twin will climb and maintain altitude, granted like most planes, your flying it within it's performance limitations. If that wasn't the case, my NASA test pilot examiner wouldn't have signed my ATP ride off, doing single engine missed approaches in a 150hp/per side Apache. If you want to load up a 310, fuel of fuel, with 5 people and bags, and trying to climb out of ASPEN on one engine...yes Guppy, the plane won't climb.As far as chances of blowing and engine..... statisticaly your chances of a well maintained, catastrophic non-pilot induced engine failure are very slim. Statisticaly both engines failing in a catastrophic non-pilot induced engine failure at the exact same time, are so slim it's almost impossible to calculate. The safety in twins is for that 5 minutes it takes lose one engine, feather it, fly out and land on the remaining engine, means you will still fly on one engine, enough to get the plane back down, versus a forced landing on in a single.I will be the first to admit that on many twins the single engine climb rate on a most light twins, including many turboprops is abysmal, like in the 300 FPM range, but again, if you adhere to performance limits and aren't lazy in the areas of weight and balance and density altitude, and or telling boss too many people are slated for the trip, ...then the plane will fly. Having had 4 engine failures in my career, in all categories, ect helicopters...my reliance on statistics in the hope 'that it won't happen to me' is wishfull thinking. Personaly I believe if you fly enough, often enough, you will encounter your share of mechanical, electrical, pressurization, hydraulic, braking, ect failures....with most all of these situations, hashed out so much by the manufacturer, schools, lawyers, that it pretty much holds that the only reason a plane seems to crash is if the pilot allows it to happen.

[IO540]

You did not answer my point about depreciation.

Over the last year, probably about zero since they don't make them anymore but TB20GTs are in strong demand. The hit was taken in the first few years since new, which is why I would recommend buying a plane which is 5-10 years old, but not a 30 year old one unless you really know your engineering stuff and it's been very well looked after.