The 152
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
“On the other hand, for a sole owner flying 50-100hrs per year, almost certainly the old "heavy metal" aeroplanes will work out best value.”
Ok lets look at some specific number on that.
For the MCR – Price for 4 year old machine £55k
Fuel for 100 hours £2312
Maintenance (average over last 4 years) £300 (inc paperwork)
Insurance £900
You do the numbers for a 172 – 180 and work out the brake even point.
Rod1
“On the other hand, for a sole owner flying 50-100hrs per year, almost certainly the old "heavy metal" aeroplanes will work out best value.”
Ok lets look at some specific number on that.
For the MCR – Price for 4 year old machine £55k
Fuel for 100 hours £2312
Maintenance (average over last 4 years) £300 (inc paperwork)
Insurance £900
You do the numbers for a 172 – 180 and work out the brake even point.
Rod1
Fair point Rod, I just did the sums.
Sitting the first C172 on the ground all year equates to flying the MCR (adding in tie down fees, I allowed £92/month which is Popham) is the same as flying 307 hrs in the MCR.
Comparing like with like a little more however, the breakeven between the Jabiru and C152 below is similar. I make it 130 hours in the Jabiru for the same money as sitting the C152 on the ground and just admiring it. for the PA38 it comes out at 199 hrs.
So yes, I should have done that sum - there seems a very poor case for owning the old "heavy metal" aeroplanes.
I confess I do own some old heavy metal, and an old microlight - and there are certain other benefits. I have 6 hours endurance 2-up in the Grumman AA5, and the satisfaction of flying a 64 year old taildragger with 400kg payload in the other, and both at night. For fun, I fly a thruster at your sort of numbers. 2/3 of those we can store on a tie-down, which you'd not do with a modern composite aeroplane - hangerage costs.
But to be fair, charge £200/month for hangerage, and you still get 93 hours out of your Jabiru for the same price as sitting a C152 on the ground.
Yes there is a very strong case for scrapping a lot of these old aeroplanes if they are going to be flown by VMC PPLs and replacing them with something newer, lighter, and cheaper to run.
G
Sitting the first C172 on the ground all year equates to flying the MCR (adding in tie down fees, I allowed £92/month which is Popham) is the same as flying 307 hrs in the MCR.
Comparing like with like a little more however, the breakeven between the Jabiru and C152 below is similar. I make it 130 hours in the Jabiru for the same money as sitting the C152 on the ground and just admiring it. for the PA38 it comes out at 199 hrs.
So yes, I should have done that sum - there seems a very poor case for owning the old "heavy metal" aeroplanes.
I confess I do own some old heavy metal, and an old microlight - and there are certain other benefits. I have 6 hours endurance 2-up in the Grumman AA5, and the satisfaction of flying a 64 year old taildragger with 400kg payload in the other, and both at night. For fun, I fly a thruster at your sort of numbers. 2/3 of those we can store on a tie-down, which you'd not do with a modern composite aeroplane - hangerage costs.
But to be fair, charge £200/month for hangerage, and you still get 93 hours out of your Jabiru for the same price as sitting a C152 on the ground.
Yes there is a very strong case for scrapping a lot of these old aeroplanes if they are going to be flown by VMC PPLs and replacing them with something newer, lighter, and cheaper to run.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire1
You are in the US, so none of my numbers are relevant to you and I would not even try to answer your question. If you want an idea of the issues with running a 172 in Europe look up part M maintenance. Fuel in my local area is at £1.80 pl (avgas) and due to rise again at the next delivery, some people have reported it has passed £2 in parts of the UK, but I have not witnessed this personally.
Rod1
You are in the US, so none of my numbers are relevant to you and I would not even try to answer your question. If you want an idea of the issues with running a 172 in Europe look up part M maintenance. Fuel in my local area is at £1.80 pl (avgas) and due to rise again at the next delivery, some people have reported it has passed £2 in parts of the UK, but I have not witnessed this personally.
Rod1
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you guys get these cost numbers?!?
Setting aside European aviation, in the real world, the 172 is very economical to operate.
As for making a comparison to a 180 hp 172, why not go for the XP? How about a 200 hp 172? It's a ridiculous comparison.
Most 172's are 150 or 160 hp, and they're very economical choices.
Bear in mind that in the US, an experimental airplane isn't allowed for use in flight instruction or rental, or commercial activities.
As for private pilot owners who fly 400 hours a year...not very many. Most pilots who fly that much, or more, do it for a living. Making cost comparisons based on several hundred hours a year is nonsensical and ridiculous, especially for a real-world comparison.
Pretty much nowhere can sub-ICAO aeroplanes (the international legal term for what USians call "Experimental" and Brits call "Permit") be used for commercial purposes, except usually instruction to fly those specific aeroplanes. That's not unique to the USA.
£1.65/litre AVGAS is a problem - MOGAS sipping Rotax engines, which also cost far less to buy and overhaul, do make a lot of sense, as will MOGAS STCs for Lycontinentals - we are already starting to see MOGAS pumps on some UK airfields.
There are certified Rotax and Jabiru engines, so this is a realistic option in the future for existing and new spamcans. Just because it hasn't been done much yet, doesn't mean that it can't. Also there's a future for AVTUR sipping Diesels in aeroplanes, we've seen them already and I'm sure we'll see more. AVTUR in the UK is similarly priced to anywhere else.
G
£1.65/litre AVGAS is a problem - MOGAS sipping Rotax engines, which also cost far less to buy and overhaul, do make a lot of sense, as will MOGAS STCs for Lycontinentals - we are already starting to see MOGAS pumps on some UK airfields.
There are certified Rotax and Jabiru engines, so this is a realistic option in the future for existing and new spamcans. Just because it hasn't been done much yet, doesn't mean that it can't. Also there's a future for AVTUR sipping Diesels in aeroplanes, we've seen them already and I'm sure we'll see more. AVTUR in the UK is similarly priced to anywhere else.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Any new aircraft designs that sell to that market will need to be designed around the volume of that market, not the worldwide market, plus a few sales to novelty seekers elsewhere.”
That is another interesting statement. Our efficient lightweight aircraft came out of design code CS-VLA. Some time later the US launched the LSA regs which were sufficiently similar that our VLA’s sold as LSA in numbers in the US. Now that is the impression we get from mags like Flyer. Are you saying this is not the case?
Edited to add, how much has your fuel gone up in the last year?
Rod1
That is another interesting statement. Our efficient lightweight aircraft came out of design code CS-VLA. Some time later the US launched the LSA regs which were sufficiently similar that our VLA’s sold as LSA in numbers in the US. Now that is the impression we get from mags like Flyer. Are you saying this is not the case?
Edited to add, how much has your fuel gone up in the last year?
Rod1
European aviation is insanely expensive. There's no such thing in Europe as economy in aviation.
Setting aside European aviation, in the real world, the 172 is very economical to operate.
Setting aside European aviation, in the real world, the 172 is very economical to operate.
Actually I think these words narrow-minded, typically us'an in this respect, to consider the USA "the real world" as regards private flying. You really believe European countries are the exception? Most places in the world have scarcely any private flying, either for poverty (like most African countries, and a good deal of Eastern Europe) or because it is, or was until recently, expressly forbidden, like in most socialist/communist countries. Is the USA the real world? For private flying it isn't, it is an exceptionally nice place. Western Europe is still on the better side, I believe. Certainly closer to average than your nice USA.
NB do be aware that one can't really speak of Europe as a whole in this respect. Despite all the political showtalk, differences between European countries are huge, even if they are in the European Union as most are now. France is quite G/A friendly as Europe goes, the UK much less.
Caveat: only in a nice place like the USA, where cost of operation is very low anyway, can the OVERALL cost of owning and flying a C172 be low. Where operation is cheap, acquisition is a greater part of the total cost; and I never denied the low price of second-hand spamcans these days. I still keep up that the C172 is (for a 4-seater of modest capacity and performance) not particularly economical to operate. I will grant you that in several places it may be a very good overall compromise, due to the large offer and associated low purchase price.
PS one aspect that I did not mention, for lack of information, is maintenance. I am willing to believe the C172 is cheap to keep up to standards, probably cheaper than comparable planes due to its vast numbers; but I suspect that again it will be cheaper in the USA than in most European countries.
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 9th Mar 2011 at 16:47.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I think you are very small-minded, typically us'an in this respect, to consider the USA " the real world" as regards private flying. You really believe European countries are the exception?
Europeans tend to believe, particularly insofar as this forum goes, that the edges of the known world end at the edges of the European continent. It just ain't so.
Then again, European aviation is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of flying that goes on the US.
Europeans don't seem to complain about it much when they come to the US for training, rental, and "time building." Just when they get home; that's when the arrogance returns.
Before you accuse me of being too provincial and isolated in the USA, let's not forget I live in a lot more of the world than you do, and operate over a considerably wider geographical area, among a lot more cultures, and I'd wager to say I've likely had residence in far more countries and on more continents than you. Perhaps that's isolated in your opinion, but I'd beg to differ.
Nowhere in the world is an aviation system as large, pervasive, complex, or as developed as the US; particularly so with regard to general aviation. Given that it's the largest and most complex and most developed aviation community in the world you could correctly say that it's the real world, but some of us live in the larger world, and you can rest assured that there's more flying around the globe than what is to be found in the confines of Europe.
If you truly want efficiency, get a Long EZ. There are more efficient aircraft than the 172, to be sure, and there are less expensive aircraft to operate. A hang glider is less expensive. You'll find fewer airplanes out there built in the numbers of the 172, with the parts availability, with the universal recognition, the ease of insurability, the benign flying qualities, the simplicity, the ease of maintenance, and cost of the 172.
Are we going to see the 152 come back into production? No, not really. It's a shame, but time moves on. I'd love to see the Super Cub come back into production, because although improvements continue on this venerable design (the Carbon Cub, the Husky, etc), it still continues to hold a high value among those who put a premium on the capabilities the cub offers; it's still a much sought-after airplane.
The cub isn't going to see production again, not like it once did, and the 152 isn't either. Experimental aviation has long been, in my opinion, the salvation of the future of general aviation; it's been the developmental world for much of what we're seeing emerging today. I'm a big proponent of home building; I have aircraft under construction personally, and I'm a former Experimental Aircraft Association flight advisor and technical advisor. Each of my children got their first airplane ride as "Young Eagles" under the EAA program. I'm all for homebuilding and experimental aviation.
It's not realistic for many, however, and the fact is that far more people who begin building an airplane fail to complete their project, than actually finish them. Experimental airplanes have become more expensive than used production airplanes. Even used experimental airplanes such as an RV-6 are expensive propositions, particularly those equipped with anything other than bare-bones day-VFR instrumentation.
Avgas in the US isn't cheap. It's a big part of the reason that the EAA pushed for, and received ongoing Supplemental Type Certificates for a number of different light general aviation airplane applications for auto fuel, or MOGAS. I'm not a proponent of auto fuel in airplanes, but I've certainly flown airplanes using autofuel.
A couple of years ago I audited the fuel burns for identical type aircraft being used in a particular operation involving piston airplanes. I found that my own fule burns were 75% of what most everyone else was doing, and upon closer examination, easily determined that the reason was poor leaning practices. The ability to operate economically is partially due to the pilot and his or her willingness to use good practices, rather than mindless blanket approach many pilots use. Given the frequent admissions we see here that instruction isn't being provided in basic aircraft operating practices (including use of the mixture), it's little wonder that some might see a very economical airplane as a gas-guzzling monster.
In the case of the 172, it's just not so.
If the cheapest in the world is expensive to you, I am afraid our dictionaries are so far apart that meaningful discussion isn't possible. And that is what internet forums are for, or so I understand. I'll suspend my efforts till better weather comes, as it usually does after due patience.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the poor man, a simple sandwich may be too expensive. To the rich man, the lobster dinner may be cheap.
If one lives where the fuel is the least expensive, yet it's still very expensive, that fuel elsewhere costs even more does not change the fact that the least expensive still isn't cheap. Do you not understand this?
If you cannot understand this simple relationship, then you're right, further discourse is no longer possible. It's very simple, really. If fuel is expensive, it's expensive. The price of tea in China, or the cost of fuel somewhere else, does nothing to change the fact, and is irrelevant.
Avgas runs between five and eight dollars a gallon in the US. That's still expensive.
My first student, when I actively instructed full time, was a young man from Germany. He flew to the USA, did his private, flew his girl friend over, rented an airplane, and toured the country, before flying home. It cost him less to do this than to do his basic certification in Germany. That's good and well for him; relatively it was an inexpensive effort for him; relatively it was still cheaper than he'd have spent for the bare-bones training in his home country.
For many in the USA, that would have been an extremely expensive undertaking. While it may be cheap to you in your inflated economy, it's not in the USA.
If you want inexpensive fuel, try Venezuela. It's the least expensive I've seen. Far less than the USA. I've fueled out of barrels of avgas brought by road at great expense (and risk) into Iraq. I've spent small fortunes just to park in Afghanistan, to say nothing of the cost of fuel. I've scraped for it in Africa. I've had great deals in Russia. I've drained truck after truck picking up fuel in Pakistan and in the USA. I've bought three gallons, and I've taken on three hundred thousand pounds of fuel. Auto fuel, avgas, jet fuel, diesel. For the most part, it's always expensive.
If one lives where the fuel is the least expensive, yet it's still very expensive, that fuel elsewhere costs even more does not change the fact that the least expensive still isn't cheap. Do you not understand this?
If you cannot understand this simple relationship, then you're right, further discourse is no longer possible. It's very simple, really. If fuel is expensive, it's expensive. The price of tea in China, or the cost of fuel somewhere else, does nothing to change the fact, and is irrelevant.
Avgas runs between five and eight dollars a gallon in the US. That's still expensive.
My first student, when I actively instructed full time, was a young man from Germany. He flew to the USA, did his private, flew his girl friend over, rented an airplane, and toured the country, before flying home. It cost him less to do this than to do his basic certification in Germany. That's good and well for him; relatively it was an inexpensive effort for him; relatively it was still cheaper than he'd have spent for the bare-bones training in his home country.
For many in the USA, that would have been an extremely expensive undertaking. While it may be cheap to you in your inflated economy, it's not in the USA.
If you want inexpensive fuel, try Venezuela. It's the least expensive I've seen. Far less than the USA. I've fueled out of barrels of avgas brought by road at great expense (and risk) into Iraq. I've spent small fortunes just to park in Afghanistan, to say nothing of the cost of fuel. I've scraped for it in Africa. I've had great deals in Russia. I've drained truck after truck picking up fuel in Pakistan and in the USA. I've bought three gallons, and I've taken on three hundred thousand pounds of fuel. Auto fuel, avgas, jet fuel, diesel. For the most part, it's always expensive.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,201
Received 3,048 Likes
on
1,287 Posts
One of the issues with Avgas and hence it's price is the lack of leaded car fuel. I attended a Shell seminar some while back and they were saying if Avgas previously never reached the "cut" during manufacture, they would reprocess it into motor vehicle fuel by blending it........ however since the loss of leaded car fuel in Europe, now if it fails to come up to spec they pay companies to dispose of it for them by burning the batch and filtering the emissions.....
I do not know if this still continues, but it wouldn't suprise me at all.
I do not know if this still continues, but it wouldn't suprise me at all.
