Operating Costs: C152 + PA38

[aaron5150]

Hello all

Although I know this has been done before as I have searched the forums. The threads are several years old now, and with the massive increase in fuel prices and various other areas of GA aviation, I was wondering if any current owners could break down the FULL operating costs of operating a Cessna 150/152 or Piper PA 38 aircraft?

I have never owned or been in a share group for an aircraft so have no idea what I am doing if I decide to buy one for hour building and general touring to France. Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

I would like to know all the costs, e.g Insurance, Maintenance, Servicing, Airfield/Hangar fees, Fuel consumption p/h, engine replacement costs etc with a true value operating costs per hour flying wet 100-150 hours a year?

I would appreciate it! I live in Essex, nearest airfield is stapleford, however even they are charging £112 p/h on a C152 (actual hour not tacho) which can mount up for hour building.

Thanks

Aaron

[Pace]

aaron

When I started flying early 1980s a C150 was £19 per hour A domestic fridge was not a lot more so every trip was almost the cost of a fridge for the house

I really do not think there will be a lot in it between the two so you need to look at what is the most cost effective way of achieving your goals?
Unless you intend to knock up 200 hrs PA i would not look at outright ownership of an aircraft.

work out how many hours you need to fly and my guess is your best way will be to approach a private owner and rent those hours or look at a non equity shareholding.

Ownership outright or part is fraught with stumbling blocks which will balance out over the years if that is your intention but renting although on paper more expensive per hour means you can walk away and you will know what your costs will be.

Ownership outright or shares always holds a question mark in costs and it is not so easy to turn that capital outlay back into cash without a hit!

So if you are intending to keep the aircraft for a few years then look at ownership if its purely hour building then buy the hours you need.
unless you can buy one at such a snip that you can easily sell at a profit when the time comes to dispose of the aircraft (unlikely)

Preference between the two? C150 !!! Never liked the terror hawk

Pace

Addendum

looking at SmartHawkes suggestion below I would seriously have a chat with the company he supplied a link to then fly at low cruise settings and learn to lean correctly to cut your fuel burn and reduce your fuel costs

[smarthawke]

Without going into the specifics of operating costs which would be broadly similar between the two types, I would say go for a C152.

C152s are more common, as are the airframe parts to repair them - some PA38 parts are getting scarce to source - even flying control cables, nose legs etc. The engines are essentially the same bar no mechanical fuel pump on the C152 but you do get (normally) dual impulse mags and an accelerator pump on the carb.

C152 value will remain stable or even increase. PA38 airframe (wing and associated structure such as the carry thru spar) hours are lifed at 11000 hrs. Although life extension mods are available it isn't really worth the expense.

Engineers will be more knowledgeable about C152s due to them being more common.

On the flying side, C152 is far better for 'short' field operations.

No doubt you can find a PA38 for less than a C152 - the ramblings above might indicate why...

An alternative for hour building which would probably work out cheaper in the long (or even short run if you're unlucky) run than owning would be to lease a good aircraft from someone with a good reputation like Big Red Kite Aviation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I wanted a reliable answer to this, I'd go on AFORS, look at the various syndicate adverts, and add up the numbers.

100-150 hours per year is probably a typical medium sized syndicate of 6-12 members, they're generally run at about break even, and the adverts generally tell the truth about monthly and hourly costs.

G

[Straighten Up]

I was thinking of using red kite but another post on here a month or so ago suggested that one of the owners had passed away and as a result they were not currently operating - I think the post referred to them hoping to start up again later in the year.

[Mariner9]

150 hours is generally considered to be about the break even figure for sole ownership vs renting.

This can be readily illustrated by taking Genghis's excellent (as usual) advice to consult Afors. A current Afors advert for a Cessna 150 based at Leicester puts the total monthlies (which would include hangarage, insurance, Annual etc) at £320/month and the wet costs (which would include fuel, engine replacement, 50 hr maintenance etc) at £80/hour.

If it was your aircraft and assuming costs the same, total for 150hrs/year would be (£320x12) + (£80x150) = £15,840, equivalent to about £105/hour.

If you were to fly it for only 100 hours/year however, costs would be (£320x12) + (£80 x 100) = £11,840, equivalent to about £118/hour.

Neither hourly costs are significantly different to the £112 you were quoted for renting from Stapleford.

So as I said above, 150 hours/year means the cost of ownership will be about the same as the cost of renting, so you have to consider pros and cons of each.

Benefits of owning your own over renting would be unlimited availability.

Benefit of renting over ownership is no capital tied up, no unexpected bills (e.g. Annual costs bigger than budgeted for),someone else responsible for arranging maintenance, insurance etc, and no aircraft to sell if you decide to fly something else/stop flying etc.

Of course there are far cheaper ways of hour building, and far more interesting types available to fly - have you considered sole ownership or a share in something on an LAA permit? You could likely half the above costs on something that would fly faster and further than a PA38/C152. For example my Alpi Pioneer will cruise at 130 Kts and 150hrs/year costs me in total around £8K pa for 150 hours including all fixed and flying costs - so around £50/hr all in.

[A and C]

Strighten up

You are correct about Big Red Kite not leasing aircraft for hours building at the moment, you are also correct about the reason for this. Hours builders require a lot of support and it was not felt that this support could be given under the unfortunate circumstances.

To return to the subject of the thread as a Pilot I would fly the PA38 any day over the C152 but as an aircraft operator the PA38 is a non starter the spar life being the headline issue but it is the small things that come to bite you and as Smarthawk has said the supply of parts for the PA38 are drying up and it is not unconceiveable that the aircraft could be grounded for want of the smallest part.

As to the cost of a good C152........ That depends there are a lot of unloved dogs on the market you can spot these as they have poor paint, ancient avionics, high time engines, McCalley wheels & prop and the interior smells as if it has some type of pond life residing in the aircraft. Usually these aircraft have an asking price of about £15-19 K.

A C152 with good paint, a low time engine, avionics that include a good intercom and mode S transponder will probably cost you £20-25k.

There are a few real gems about these have in addition to the items in the above paragraph will have a Sensenich prop, very good interior, Cleavland wheels & brakes and most vital the Cessna SID's program done in full, these aircraft are fully ready to work and will have had considerable investment in terms of maintenance but you are unlikely to get one of these for less than £40K.

£40K for a C152 !!!!!!??????? I can hear that aghast comments from the floor, but the truth of the matter is that getting a £15K dog up to a ready to work, high reliability state will result in a total cost of IRO £40K.

A £40K aircraft is likely to cost very little to run over the next few years, the £19K aircraft will nickel & dime you out of a fortune and but the time you have operated it for a few years it may well cost you more than the £40K aircraft and still have a low residual value.

The £40K aircraft usually don't find their way onto the market as the owners have made the investment from operating a trouble free aircraft and not from trying to sell them into a market that thinks £20k is too much to pay for a C152 what ever the condition of the aircraft.

Sooner or later EASA will get around to outlawing the non compliant CAA LAMP maintenance program, when this happens the logical place to go will be the manufactures maintenance program and as you might guess Cessna consider the SID's checks part of this program.

[aaron5150]

Thank you all for your helpful comments. I have found a couple of non equity share groups which may be suitable.

What is an LAA permit mentioned above?

[xrayalpha]

aaron,

The Light Aircraft Association is one of the two main sport flight associations (the other being the BMAA), and - historically - its focus has been on the home builder (either kit or plans).

As well as the well-known factory built light aircraft by Messrs Cessna and Piper, there is an amazing range of other designs - but they have all been "amateur" built.

The big advantage is that you can do your own maintenance (or have someone else help out who is not a licensed aircraft engineer) and many will run on Rotax 912 engines which burn half the fuel and use just unleaded petrol (at half the cost, nearly).

To be frank, many types will also hold their value very well.

You often don't hear about them in flying schools because they operate on a Permit to Fly, rather than a Certificate of Airworthiness and so are unseless for hiring or teaching.

Planes and Aircraft For Sale - Light Aircraft, Autogyros, Helicopters ... (UK) is your friend. (afors.co.uk is being used as a test for a new look afors, I understand)

This route could give you £50 an hour flying, or less!

[cockney steve]

but they have all been "amateur" built.

AIUI this is incorrect and LAAwill administer factory -built "orphans" which no-longer have support (from the type-certificate holder?)..assuming there is one.

In any event, my pal owned a share in an Aeronca Chief....definitely factory-built, definitely on a Permit, no electrics other than Mags for the Donk.... We did have an Icom handheld and eventually he lashed-out on a SLA battery and intercom....LOOXURY !...dirt-cheap flying but because of it's huge wingspan, hangarage was dear and the draggy airframe meant it was a wee bit thirsty. A great-fun, leisurly cruiser, though.

It was sold at no loss after several years . Although I'm unsure of the financial arrangements, I know a fellow did "buy" it ,or a share in it, and successfully learned to fly in it! including his final skills test.

[Desert185]

aaron5150:

It is wise that you are doing due diligence prior to a possible aircraft purchase. As an aircraft owner myself, I understand the desire for ownership and the justification involved in the process. Doing a cold hearted assessment of the ownership process can be an eye opener.

I am the kind of person who doesn't like to borrow or rent anything. I buy my own tools and only rent when ownership is clearly impractical and a total waste of money. For the kind of flying I do, renting an airplane would not only be impractical, and more than likely impossible, it would also be prohibitively expensive for my needs. Our best solution was to buy.

The type of airplane we really needed, thankfully, was one that was beyond further depreciation other than accumulating engine hours that would affect value. We do owner-assisted annuals and our own maintenance allowed as owner/operator. The expense of ownership has not overridden the convenience and flexibility of ownership.

There is more to aircraft ownership than the cold, hard financial facts of ownership vs rentals. On the positive side of ownership, the airplane is always available, you can go anywhere you want without limitations imposed by the owner, there are never fingerprints on the flight instruments ;-), you know the airplane itself more intimately rather than flying a fleet of airplanes, you can leave items in the airplane (like headsets, flashlight, logbook, survival gear, PLB, a bottle of oil, etc.) without carting them back and forth and you can personalize your own airplane with accessories that make your flying more comfortable, enjoyable, efficient and safer. (I really like Rosen visors, flashing landing lights, the STOL kits of my choice, bigger tailwheel and my new windshield that will continue to look new for a long time because I am the only person cleaning it.)

Is it more practical to buy an older car solely from the standpoint of economics than buy a new car that will please the senses, have more bells and whistles, yet will depreciate greatly in the process? Yes, of course, but if you can afford a newer car isn't that usually justification enough to realize the benefits (real or imagined) of a new car purchase? Don't dwell on just the financial aspects of ownership vs rental. There is more to the experience than filthy lucre. Its OK to spend money on what you enjoy, if you can afford it.

[Mariner9]

I usually trot out the old saying on threads like this:

"If it floats, flies or f*ks, its cheaper to rent".

There's far more to life than money though, so if you can afford it, aircraft ownership is the way to go. I totally agree with Desert's post above

[xrayalpha]

Cockney Steve,

You are absolutely correct.

I wrote TWO paragraphs:

"Light Aircraft Association is one of the two main sport flight associations (the other being the BMAA), and - historically - its focus has been on the home builder (either kit or plans).

"As well as the well-known factory built light aircraft by Messrs Cessna and Piper, there is an amazing range of other designs - but they have all been "amateur" built."

The first paragraph used "historically", because, as you say, there are now factory (orphan)-built types going into the LAA fleet. Tiger Moths and Chipmunks spring to mind.

The second paragraph was just mean to to say something completely different. As well as the Cessnas and Pipers people train on, there are a vast range of "modern" aircraft that you don't see at flying schools.

Just a general observation.

Yes, old de Havilland types are classics, so would a novice pilot be really interested. (Although you could say that 150s and Tomahawks are classics too!)

But AT7s are modern, as are Katanas. Few schools operate them though!

So perhaps for affordable modern aircraft one has to look at LAA "amateur" built.

[m.Berger]

Yes, many permit aircraft are built by amateurs.
The Ark was and professionals built the Titanic.
Anybody who has successfully constructed an aeroplane is worthy of greater respect than that comment expresses.
A Jodel for around £15,000 will give many hundreds of hours for a minimal outlay and will hold its value. You can look after it yourself and in doing so will make the transition from a mere pilot to an aviator.

[Maoraigh1]

Our Group of 6 operate a Jodel DR1050 at £50 per month and £60 per tach hour wet - at a profit which looks to cover our engine by it's TBO. We may be able to run it much longer, and avoid raising charges as costs rise.
It is hangared, run on mogas, and we do our own maintenance under an LAA Inspector. Landing charges are extra. We do about 150 hours per year