New single vs. older twin.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ. I'm on my second airplane now and have yet to experience anywhere near 5x the service costs compared to singles. At worst 2x. Key is to compare apples to apples. Yes, I did have an AD and a prop inspection on my last plane that meant I had to send the hubs and props in for overhaul, which made that annual expensive. But this happens on singles as well. Or there are twins that don't need it, like my new one. Item for item, logic will conclude that service and repairs should not be more than 2x, but probably less as there are not twice the amount of systems on a twin.
This is also why the Cirrus was a bad example as it's not a retractable. In complete fairness, the comparison should have been made between a new retractable pressurised FIKI single and my twin. Not that many of those around - Piper Matrix is the only ones that come to mind. List price is $939,950 for a brand new Piper Matrix. I don't have to bore you with the calculations, but suffice to say that you could fly the twin for decades and decades before you even get close to the costs of maintaining and purchasing the Matrix.
Obviously, if you one wants a new plane and have the money then that's great. I have no argument. It's great if newer planes can get sold and replace banged up old beaters - aviation certainly needs that.
This is also why the Cirrus was a bad example as it's not a retractable. In complete fairness, the comparison should have been made between a new retractable pressurised FIKI single and my twin. Not that many of those around - Piper Matrix is the only ones that come to mind. List price is $939,950 for a brand new Piper Matrix. I don't have to bore you with the calculations, but suffice to say that you could fly the twin for decades and decades before you even get close to the costs of maintaining and purchasing the Matrix.
Obviously, if you one wants a new plane and have the money then that's great. I have no argument. It's great if newer planes can get sold and replace banged up old beaters - aviation certainly needs that.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 31st Aug 2013 at 18:23.
Adam,
Ok, I hear you and I understand the calcs you do. Yes, from that POV it is true what you write.
If we assume someone has 600k to spend for a Cirrus, that would mean he has also got, say, 100k left to run it. Makes 700k for the whole exercise.
Now you buy an old Twin for 100 k, so you have 600 k to spend on repairs, fuel e.t.c. and that will give you a lot of time before you end up with the same total money.
I agree with that and if that is the position I was in, I'll tell you, that is exactly what I'd do, while probably not going for the oldest Twin (unless it's a Twin Com) but possibly for something a bit more up to date like an early DA42 and convert it to an NG (with that budget).
Most people I know however are not in that position. I bought my plane with a bit less as the budget was set aside for and am running it because it is the one I can afford. And in that situation, it is a huge difference if you burn 7.5 GPH @140 kts or 24 GPG @ 160 kts.
Mind, if I ever would be in a position to have really sufficient funds, I'd go for an old Citation 501 SP with LR tanks. Not a lot you can't do with those and they have really fallen through the floor in terms of price. I've seen planes ready to fly with some 1500 hrs potential for less than a new cirrus these days
Ah, well, one must never stop dreaming... that is why I refer to my lottery ticket as the papers to my Citation
Ok, I hear you and I understand the calcs you do. Yes, from that POV it is true what you write.
If we assume someone has 600k to spend for a Cirrus, that would mean he has also got, say, 100k left to run it. Makes 700k for the whole exercise.
Now you buy an old Twin for 100 k, so you have 600 k to spend on repairs, fuel e.t.c. and that will give you a lot of time before you end up with the same total money.
I agree with that and if that is the position I was in, I'll tell you, that is exactly what I'd do, while probably not going for the oldest Twin (unless it's a Twin Com) but possibly for something a bit more up to date like an early DA42 and convert it to an NG (with that budget).
Most people I know however are not in that position. I bought my plane with a bit less as the budget was set aside for and am running it because it is the one I can afford. And in that situation, it is a huge difference if you burn 7.5 GPH @140 kts or 24 GPG @ 160 kts.
Mind, if I ever would be in a position to have really sufficient funds, I'd go for an old Citation 501 SP with LR tanks. Not a lot you can't do with those and they have really fallen through the floor in terms of price. I've seen planes ready to fly with some 1500 hrs potential for less than a new cirrus these days
Ah, well, one must never stop dreaming... that is why I refer to my lottery ticket as the papers to my Citation
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money isn't the only cost in this scenario. If you are buying an aircraft to do serious, reliable travelling then the old twin may spend far too much time in the shop. Something new, with guaranteed maintenance parameters, would be a better bet.
In countries that allow such 'stupidities' new(er) singles, particularly single turbines, are taking over serious flying from old piston twins. Why is this? The total costs are less and the dispatch numbers are better.
In countries that allow such 'stupidities' new(er) singles, particularly single turbines, are taking over serious flying from old piston twins. Why is this? The total costs are less and the dispatch numbers are better.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: USA
Age: 74
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont forget the impression of sticker shock. 600k looks like a big number up front, especially compared to 200k, but it might not be so unobtainable once broken down into your monthly budget, especially with the savings on fuel/hangar/maintenance/runway fee's and everything else that gets thrown into the monthly equation. Sure you still end up paying more, but is an extra $600/month really that big of a deal (assuming you could squeeze the budget that close between the two planes)?
