Cessna 310/320 Why not?

I flew for a fractional operator, and generally speaking the breakeven point between chartering and fractional ownership fell at the 100 hour mark, depending on trip length and needs, of course.

As for the 310, it's a great choice in a light twin. It's got one of the best single engine service ceiling of any light twins (the Seneca II or III is another good one for single engine performance). They're not as roomy as some, but they're okay. I'd agree with others in that I prefer the Q models.

There are a lot of other good choices out there, too. 337's are good flying airplanes. If you want a light twin that feels bigger, a Twin Commander is a good choice, and if you want to step up a little from there, the Turbo Commander is a sports car.
 
That is a somewhat common statement that is unfortunately both inaccurate and misleading. When you charter, your only investment is the cost of the trip and the bleeding stops when the trip is completed. No acquisition cost, no mortage, no insurance or ongoing costs of operation and ownership, nada. It's like buying an expensive airline ticket on a plane that leaves whenever you want to go.

Ownership is a totally different financial equation in which getting the money in is in most cases much easier than getting the money out.

you stop flying
I flew for a fractional operator, and generally speaking the breakeven point between chartering and fractional ownership fell at the 100 hour mark, depending on trip length and needs, of course.

As for the 310, it's a great choice in a light twin. It's got one of the best single engine service ceiling of any light twins (the Seneca II or III is another good one for single engine performance). They're not as roomy as some, but they're okay. I'd agree with others in that I prefer the Q models.

There are a lot of other good choices out there, too. 337's are good flying airplanes. If you want a light twin that feels bigger, a Twin Commander is a good choice, and if you want to step up a little from there, the Turbo Commander is a sports car.
 
That is a somewhat common statement that is unfortunately both inaccurate and misleading. When you charter, your only investment is the cost of the trip and the bleeding stops when the trip is completed. No acquisition cost, no mortage, no insurance or ongoing costs of operation and ownership, nada. It's like buying an expensive airline ticket on a plane that leaves whenever you want to go.

Having been fairly involved in not only flying fractional and charter (flown charter in almost everything from single piston to large turbojets), and having been involved in the sales and accounting end of things, I can assure you that it's not inaccurate, and it's not misleading.

When you charter, depending on what's being chartered and how, there is more involved than simply A to B. In many cases, it's not just the out that gets charged, but the out and back. In a fractional operation, it's often just the out.

Ownership vs. charter extends far beyond the cost of gas and tires; depreciation, tax benefits, and the ability to use the aircraft for other purposes and to impress clients has a lot of benefits that aren't a direct comparison, but which definitely figure into the bottom line.

As a ballpark number, for those charting more than 100 hours a year, fractional ownership of the right aircraft in the right operation is often a much better solution.
 
Mitch, when you get tired of this, join Cessna Pilots Association, where people use their real names, and have an adult conversation.

Heh. Completely different crowd, that's for sure. Different "mission" too.
 
I'm not going to take the time to go back and say how your plane cost you $1,000 to operate for 100 hours, but it's no secret to people on this board. I'd like to see the 421 operator who can fly the thing for what a T-210 driver can. Even with the best 421 operator and worst T-210 operator... good luck.

Even still, your expected costs are low. And most people would consider your panel an upgrade.

I believe I said that $1000 figure was for maint and repair operating during that 100 hours and I stand by that figure. Obviously receipts can't prove something not happening, but that's what I spent. I've got top notch gear and I treat it well.

IIRC The subject matter was cost control and here is an example, when I needed to rebuild my left main gear, it cost me nothing. I pulled it in my friends hangar, jacked it up, tore it down, got free o-rings and a sign off as well as nitrogen from his operator buddy next door. That's something people with mechanical ability need to know that these opportunities do exist, I've been controlling costs this way for 20 years and I am far from alone. You don't have to be hostage to high prices.
 
Last edited:
To the OP... I have not owned a 310 but in 50 years of airplane owning I have learned a few things..
Owning an airplane is expensive...
Owning a twin in three times as expensive...
Most planes for sale have deferred maintenance items that are not easily seen - the sellers are counting on that...
Most twins are for sale because they are eating the owner alive...
When you buy a used airplane you are buying someone else's trouble... (just as true about cars and second marriages)
If you actually get serious about a specific 310, pay to have a real expert inspect it before buying - it should take a full 2 days and it won't be cheap... I would recommend Mike Busch of AVWEB... Also link up off this forum with the likes of a Henning, etc...
Buy less plane than you can afford - it is going to cost twice as much as you think...

cheers
denny-o
 
Please provide an example of your theory using actual numbers. A King Air B-200 or similar flying approximately 100 hours/year would be most helpful since I have actual numbers as well.

Having been fairly involved in not only flying fractional and charter (flown charter in almost everything from single piston to large turbojets), and having been involved in the sales and accounting end of things, I can assure you that it's not inaccurate, and it's not misleading.

When you charter, depending on what's being chartered and how, there is more involved than simply A to B. In many cases, it's not just the out that gets charged, but the out and back. In a fractional operation, it's often just the out.

Ownership vs. charter extends far beyond the cost of gas and tires; depreciation, tax benefits, and the ability to use the aircraft for other purposes and to impress clients has a lot of benefits that aren't a direct comparison, but which definitely figure into the bottom line.

As a ballpark number, for those charting more than 100 hours a year, fractional ownership of the right aircraft in the right operation is often a much better solution.
 
Wow. Does this happen to every post here?

Only the good ones. ;)

I can appreciate the cost(s) discussion. I think a lot of the cost stuff is relatively fixed - hangar, Insurance, labor for the Annual (before the repairs..). These really are moot from a cost-of-ownership of a particular A/C type vs. another. They are what they are - move on. Cost to maintain or moreso improve an aircraft is a moving target - and owner specific. One man's adequate does not equal another's. How one flys or how an owner maintains his A/C is tantamount to comparing wives or homes...

Insurance, hangar, annual, etc. I find do vary from one AC to another. Keep in mind that you will pay more insurance for a lower hull value in a twin vs. a single, especially the first year you have. It's important to factor into the total cost of ownership. If you can do your own labor, then yes, you may be able to reduce your costs. However as someone who's mechanically inclined and does all my own work on my cars, I find that I end up paying others to do the work on the planes, and it seems like most other people do. Going into ownership I thought I'd be assisting more in the work. I haven't, mainly due to schedule. I don't see that changing.

Upgrades: yes, those are owner-specific without a doubt. However, what I've found is that when stuff breaks on a capable airplane, the cost to upgrade vs. repair what's there isn't a tremendous difference.

I think (hope) a great deal of the variable cost(s) for me can be addressed by buying the right airplane. Knowing an airplane might be high time but is cheaper vs. paying top shelf money for a zero gripe airplane. There are a lot of choices right now. There's a sweet spot for each buyer. So I'm arming myself with as much info as I can gather before getting serious.

Buying the right airplane will save you a bunch of money in the long run. To do that, you'd be best off hiring someone who knows about the type to assist you in picking out a good breed. Jerry Temple is a well-known guy in the Twin Cessna world. I also have been known to help out people with these purchases.

However, the initial purchase cost will end up being higher for a zero-gripe airplane.

For me, the twin vs single thing comes down to this: Not always - maybe not often - but there may be times when I find myself flying solo - maybe with my family, at night, over remote terrain. Maybe in weather... Flying a single in those circumstances would not be enjoyable for me. Now that I am flying on my terms, I want to enjoy it. In those conditions there is no discussion of which is preferred..

Engines / systems never fail when we're ready.

As one of the biggest proponents of multi-engine flight on this forum (probably the biggest - except when Henning is trying to sell his plane), I do understand this statement, and it's a big reason why I fly twins. Last year I flew 500 hours in piston twins, 400 the year before, and this year I've done about 200 so far.

For this philosophy to be effective, you need to be proficient in system failures (which goes beyond just losing an engine). People who maintain proficiency don't make the NTSB reports. An engine fails, they land safely, and they move on with life. It's the people who don't maintain proficiency who have problems. They make the NTSB reports. You need to make sure that you not only get good training, but fly enough to stay sharp and get recurrent training. The tools by themselves don't save you. Danos can tell you about my approach to systems failure training.

You also need to make sure your single engine service ceiling is high enough for where you fly. Your family and gear in a 310 is going to put you close to gross. You would be wise to consider one of the 310s with upgraded engines to give you better single engine performance. If you're crossing various inhospitable terrain, you're really going to want an upgraded turbo model. I'm happy with the upgraded non-turbo model, but I fly in the flatlands primarily - east of the Rockies. In the rare event I fly to Colorado, I accept the fact that in an OEI situation, I'm going down. Being in California, you'd likely have more areas where an engine failure would need extra power.
 
Only the good ones. ;)



Insurance, hangar, annual, etc. I find do vary from one AC to another. Keep in mind that you will pay more insurance for a lower hull value in a twin vs. a single, especially the first year you have. It's important to factor into the total cost of ownership. If you can do your own labor, then yes, you may be able to reduce your costs. However as someone who's mechanically inclined and does all my own work on my cars, I find that I end up paying others to do the work on the planes, and it seems like most other people do. Going into ownership I thought I'd be assisting more in the work. I haven't, mainly due to schedule. I don't see that changing.

Upgrades: yes, those are owner-specific without a doubt. However, what I've found is that when stuff breaks on a capable airplane, the cost to upgrade vs. repair what's there isn't a tremendous difference.



Buying the right airplane will save you a bunch of money in the long run. To do that, you'd be best off hiring someone who knows about the type to assist you in picking out a good breed. Jerry Temple is a well-known guy in the Twin Cessna world. I also have been known to help out people with these purchases.

However, the initial purchase cost will end up being higher for a zero-gripe airplane.



As one of the biggest proponents of multi-engine flight on this forum (probably the biggest - except when Henning is trying to sell his plane), I do understand this statement, and it's a big reason why I fly twins. Last year I flew 500 hours in piston twins, 400 the year before, and this year I've done about 200 so far.

For this philosophy to be effective, you need to be proficient in system failures (which goes beyond just losing an engine). People who maintain proficiency don't make the NTSB reports. An engine fails, they land safely, and they move on with life. It's the people who don't maintain proficiency who have problems. They make the NTSB reports. You need to make sure that you not only get good training, but fly enough to stay sharp and get recurrent training. The tools by themselves don't save you. Danos can tell you about my approach to systems failure training.

You also need to make sure your single engine service ceiling is high enough for where you fly. Your family and gear in a 310 is going to put you close to gross. You would be wise to consider one of the 310s with upgraded engines to give you better single engine performance. If you're crossing various inhospitable terrain, you're really going to want an upgraded turbo model. I'm happy with the upgraded non-turbo model, but I fly in the flatlands primarily - east of the Rockies. In the rare event I fly to Colorado, I accept the fact that in an OEI situation, I'm going down. Being in California, you'd likely have more areas where an engine failure would need extra power.

Ted, I was a vocal proponent for twins long before your first lesson even when I had nothing to sell.;)
 
Ted, I was a vocal proponent for twins long before your first lesson even when I had nothing to sell.;)

I've noticed a decided increase since you decided to sell the 310. ;)

And funny enough, I also have more twin time than you...
 
IIRC The subject matter was cost control and here is an example, when I needed to rebuild my left main gear, it cost me nothing. I pulled it in my friends hangar, jacked it up, tore it down, got free o-rings and a sign off as well as nitrogen from his operator buddy next door. That's something people with mechanical ability need to know that these opportunities do exist, I've been controlling costs this way for 20 years and I am far from alone. You don't have to be hostage to high prices.
There are many people who don't have the time, the inclination, or the knowledge to spend hours working on their airplane when it breaks, which is usually at the most inconvenient time. They have regular jobs or a business and a family life. This is also the problem with the advice to build your own airplane, which I see given on this forum as advice from time to time. That might work for some people, but they are a minority.
 
I've noticed a decided increase since you decided to sell the 310. ;)

And funny enough, I also have more twin time than you...
I have more twin time than both of you put together and I would never consider buying an old piston twin for a personal airplane. Sure I would fly one but only if someone else is paying the bills :rofl:
 
You just don't get it. Your numbers are much higher than his due to the expense of that damn autopilot you insist on having in your planes. When are you doing to understand?:rofl:

I've noticed a decided increase since you decided to sell the 310. ;)

And funny enough, I also have more twin time than you...
 
I have more twin time than both of you put together and I would never consider buying an old piston twin for a personal airplane. Sure I would fly one but only if someone else is paying the bills :rofl:

Good point! :)

But as we've discussed before, your primary personal flight is going from Denver to San Francisco. If that's what I normally did, I'd be flying Southwest, just like you.

In the OP's case, not knowing a whole lot about his routes, I do somewhat question the use of a twin unless he makes a pretty good investment in an upgraded plane. If I lived out where he did, I'd be looking at a RAM T310R. Although if I were doing something like SF to LA primarily and were able to fly just off the coast for most of the way, it probably wouldn't matter quite as much.

You just don't get it. Your numbers are much higher than his due to the expense of that damn autopilot you insist on having in your planes. When are you doing to understand?:rofl:

Yeah, but if I got rid of the autopilot, how would I be able to nap on those long trips? ;)
 
You really are living in the past. Are you doing Geico "caveman" commercials for extra spending money? Don't you know that those who insist on coast-to-coast capability at 180 knots as their personal minimum-performance speed (well, unless the wind happens to be blowing that day) consider it cheating if they don't hand-fly the entire trip?:wink2:

Good point! :)

But as we've discussed before, your primary personal flight is going from Denver to San Francisco. If that's what I normally did, I'd be flying Southwest, just like you.

In the OP's case, not knowing a whole lot about his routes, I do somewhat question the use of a twin unless he makes a pretty good investment in an upgraded plane. If I lived out where he did, I'd be looking at a RAM T310R. Although if I were doing something like SF to LA primarily and were able to fly just off the coast for most of the way, it probably wouldn't matter quite as much.



Yeah, but if I got rid of the autopilot, how would I be able to nap on those long trips? ;)
 
You really are living in the past. Are you doing Geico "caveman" commercials for extra spending money? Don't you know that those who insist on coast-to-coast capability at 180 knots as their personal minimum-performance speed (well, unless the wind happens to be blowing that day) consider it cheating if they don't hand-fly the entire trip?:wink2:

When I went in for auditions they said that, while my hair was long enough, my inability to grow facial hair at any substantial rate meant that even their makeup artists would be unable to make me look remotely like a caveman. Plus my lake of muscle tone or definition. And while the bermuda shorts and combat boots made me a chick magnet, they figured that wasn't exactly what they were going for in the ad.

One point: the 310 does hand fly extremely well. When I've hand-flown it 10 hours in a day, it's really been quite doable. That said, I am happier having an autopilot. Last week I had a 9.7 hour hobbs day (hobbs is connected to the gear) day with 6 landings, waking up at 6 AM and going to bed at 1 AM. I was less fatigued using the autopilot.
 
I've noticed a decided increase since you decided to sell the 310. ;)

And funny enough, I also have more twin time than you...

Yeah, hard to fly much when you're at sea 270+ days a year.:wink2: Like you, I did the majority of my flying with a mission that paid for it. Over 800 hours was one survey contract for a geologist.
 
Good point! :)

But as we've discussed before, your primary personal flight is going from Denver to San Francisco. If that's what I normally did, I'd be flying Southwest, just like you.

In the OP's case, not knowing a whole lot about his routes, I do somewhat question the use of a twin unless he makes a pretty good investment in an upgraded plane. If I lived out where he did, I'd be looking at a RAM T310R. Although if I were doing something like SF to LA primarily and were able to fly just off the coast for most of the way, it probably wouldn't matter quite as much.



Yeah, but if I got rid of the autopilot, how would I be able to nap on those long trips? ;)

What's really hard is trying to get the pee in the gatorade bottle without autopilot in an airplane that is out of rig and has a heavy right wing. I briefly considered doing this in IMC one day but thought better of it.
 
I can't really speak to the cost of operating a 310 (but I'd be surprised if you could do it for under $300/hr excluding acquisition). I do have about 20 hours flying one and I found it relatively easy to fly. I didn't really start feeling "comfortable" and truly on top of things until probably the 17 hour mark. Mostly just having to get used to more levers.

When I see one on the ramp - I certainly do wish I could just go fly it. They're a nice bird.
 
What's really hard is trying to get the pee in the gatorade bottle without autopilot in an airplane that is out of rig and has a heavy right wing. I briefly considered doing this in IMC one day but thought better of it.

This is why you have to own, so you don't have to fly crap that is out of rig. I've got no problems making the Gatorade jug with no AP;)
 
Yeah, hard to fly much when you're at sea 270+ days a year.:wink2: Like you, I did the majority of my flying with a mission that paid for it. Over 800 hours was one survey contract for a geologist.

Keep in mind my first 1400 hours or so were while I was working a 9-5 M-F job. So pretty much the same as your 270+ days a year at sea.

Yeah. My routine trips in the 310 are just things like Houston to Maine in a day, then returning to Pennsylvania that evening. ;)
 
What's really hard is trying to get the pee in the gatorade bottle without autopilot in an airplane that is out of rig and has a heavy right wing. I briefly considered doing this in IMC one day but thought better of it.

It's not as hard as it sounds after you practice it a time or two.

I can't really speak to the cost of operating a 310 (but I'd be surprised if you could do it for under $300/hr excluding acquisition). I do have about 20 hours flying one and I found it relatively easy to fly. I didn't really start feeling "comfortable" and truly on top of things until probably the 17 hour mark. Mostly just having to get used to more levers.

That's pretty common, and why most of the time they want to see 25+ hours for someone who's never flown a twin before prior to being insurable.
 
Keep in mind my first 1400 hours or so were while I was working a 9-5 M-F job. So pretty much the same as your 270+ days a year at sea.

Yeah. My routine trips in the 310 are just things like Houston to Maine in a day, then returning to Pennsylvania that evening. ;)

Exactly, mission orientated flying that's what twins do. If I don't have a mission to fly I don't need to be flying a twin, I can fly my Midget Mustang a lot cheaper and quicker on 2 hour flatland commute mission.
 
All depends on how you define operating costs. My definition (and that of the investment banking and financial folks who participate in aviation work) is that all rolling stock deals should be measured using the "total money in vs. total money out" method. Interim analyses (by-year expenses, direct operating costs, other stuff) can be helpful too, but the real number is how much did you spend and how much (and for how many years) did you fly? Since you can't know the exactly sales proceeds if if you sold your plane tomorrow, you must make some intelligent (and hopefully rational) estimates of value to determine the costs to date. Unfortunately, aircraft owners are seemingly unwilling or incapable of making such calculations. I've always thought it was because:

A. They don't like the answers, and

B. They are afraid their wife might see the numbers.

In any event, I'd be willing to bet that your estimate is about $200/hr light.

I can't really speak to the cost of operating a 310 (but I'd be surprised if you could do it for under $300/hr excluding acquisition). I do have about 20 hours flying one and I found it relatively easy to fly. I didn't really start feeling "comfortable" and truly on top of things until probably the 17 hour mark. Mostly just having to get used to more levers.

When I see one on the ramp - I certainly do wish I could just go fly it. They're a nice bird.
 
One hidden cost lurking is that many FBOs seem to charge substantially higher ramp, "handling", and overnight fees for "twins" as a general category. This is not a cost of operating the airplane but it is a cost of traveling in it and most people who are buying twins are doing so for XC trips not local flying. With Ted's specialized mission I suspect some of those fees end up waived or reduced and I know that sometimes they are negotiable too. Just something to think about when you consider the total cost.
 
Operating costs usually include "trip charges" that include landing fees and taxes, ramp fees, catering, crew travel expenses, ground transportation and other costs associated with the trip.

One hidden cost lurking is that many FBOs seem to charge substantially higher ramp, "handling", and overnight fees for "twins" as a general category. This is not a cost of operating the airplane but it is a cost of traveling in it and most people who are buying twins are doing so for XC trips not local flying. With Ted's specialized mission I suspect some of those fees end up waived or reduced and I know that sometimes they are negotiable too. Just something to think about when you consider the total cost.
 
All depends on how you define operating costs. My definition (and that of the investment banking and financial folks who participate in aviation work) is that all rolling stock deals should be measured using the "total money in vs. total money out" method. Interim analyses (by-year expenses, direct operating costs, other stuff) can be helpful too, but the real number is how much did you spend and how much (and for how many years) did you fly? Since you can't know the exactly sales proceeds if if you sold your plane tomorrow, you must make some intelligent (and hopefully rational) estimates of value to determine the costs to date. Unfortunately, aircraft owners are seemingly unwilling or incapable of making such calculations. I've always thought it was because:

A. They don't like the answers, and

B. They are afraid their wife might see the numbers.

In any event, I'd be willing to bet that your estimate is about $200/hr light.
No, because for most people in GA acquiring an aircraft isn't a business acquisition, it is an emotional one. It's like a wife or a kid, it costs what it costs to have what you want and you find a way to make it work.
 
Last edited:
One hidden cost lurking is that many FBOs seem to charge substantially higher ramp, "handling", and overnight fees for "twins" as a general category. This is not a cost of operating the airplane but it is a cost of traveling in it and most people who are buying twins are doing so for XC trips not local flying. With Ted's specialized mission I suspect some of those fees end up waived or reduced and I know that sometimes they are negotiable too. Just something to think about when you consider the total cost.

My experience with the King Air was that if you bought fuel, no fees were charged.

'Course that was a while back, and a MIL King Air so maybe things have changed...

What kind of fee range is charged to park and get fuel / park overnight?
 
If so, that helps explain the high percentage of distress sales and other idiotic financial decisions made by the mental giants who utilize that method.

No, because for most people in GA acquiring an aircraft isn't a business acquisition, it is an emotional one. It's like a wife or a kid, it costs what it costs to have what you want and you find a way to make it work.
 
One hidden cost lurking is that many FBOs seem to charge substantially higher ramp, "handling", and overnight fees for "twins" as a general category. This is not a cost of operating the airplane but it is a cost of traveling in it and most people who are buying twins are doing so for XC trips not local flying. With Ted's specialized mission I suspect some of those fees end up waived or reduced and I know that sometimes they are negotiable too. Just something to think about when you consider the total cost.

Occasionally only since my plane fits in the same hangar as a 210 or Comanche, but rarely do I ever pay a ramp fee, you should be able to schmooze your way out of them. Make them laugh and then plead aviation poverty and I can usually negotiat my fuel prices since I'm buying 100 gallons at a whack. With just a bit of humorous guilting and a bit of pleading I can typically get Signatures (they have actually been very good to me proving me some free nitrotrogen one morning even:dunno:) to bargain within 15 cents of the best closest I could take off and fly to. The convenience, facilities, coffee and cookies are worth every bit of $15. They even put my plane away in a hangar overnight unasked and unbilled. I dropped a $20 on the counter with a thanks on it; gets everyone a beer or two at end of shift. When I did that job that was always a decent tip standard.
 
If so, that helps explain the high percentage of distress sales and other idiotic financial decisions made by the mental giants who utilize that method.

Mr Obvious says, "That applies to a lot more than airplanes..."
 
Highest hangar fee I paid was $100/night for my B-200, but hail was in the forecast and I was happy to pay it. At the mountain resort airports hangars aren't available at any price.

Ramp fees range from 0 to $120 but can usually be offset with fuel purchase. IMO, outrageous landing fees are imposed at places where they don't want GA traffic. Others are negligible.

My experience with the King Air was that if you bought fuel, no fees were charged.

'Course that was a while back, and a MIL King Air so maybe things have changed...

What kind of fee range is charged to park and get fuel / park overnight?
 
All depends on how you define operating costs. My definition (and that of the investment banking and financial folks who participate in aviation work) is that all rolling stock deals should be measured using the "total money in vs. total money out" method. Interim analyses (by-year expenses, direct operating costs, other stuff) can be helpful too, but the real number is how much did you spend and how much (and for how many years) did you fly? Since you can't know the exactly sales proceeds if if you sold your plane tomorrow, you must make some intelligent (and hopefully rational) estimates of value to determine the costs to date. Unfortunately, aircraft owners are seemingly unwilling or incapable of making such calculations. I've always thought it was because:

A. They don't like the answers, and

B. They are afraid their wife might see the numbers.

In any event, I'd be willing to bet that your estimate is about $200/hr light.
As an owner (vs a banker or financial folk) I see no point in combining operating costs with ownership costs, especially when making comparisons with other owners or users. Yes they both impact the "true" cost of flying but they just don't add without an hours flown per year figure that's different for everyone and even varies for one owner over time. When you add all the money spent on acquisition less sale, hangar, insurance, recurrent training, loan interest or missed opportunity cost, upgrades, calendar based maintenance, etc. you find out what it takes to have the airplane available for use. Total the fuel, ongoing and periodic maintenance, and other operating expenses and you get a number that predicts fairly well what the next 3 hr flight will cost you. Also worth noting is that operating cost per hour is fairly consistent for a specific make/model regardless of the owner and/or the typical mission while ownership cost per year varies widely with different owners on the same make/model.
 
Last edited:
If you're preparing an annual budget, which number should you use?

As an owner (vs a banker or financial folk) I see no point in combining operating costs with ownership costs, especially when making comparisons with other owners or users. Yes they both impact the "true" cost of flying but they just don't add without an hours flown per year figure that's different for everyone and even varies for one owner over time. When you add all the money spent on acquisition less sale, hangar, insurance, recurrent training, loan interest or missed opportunity cost, upgrades, calendar based maintenance, etc. you find out what it takes to have the airplane available for use. Total the fuel, ongoing and periodic maintenance, and other operating expenses and you get a number that predicts fairly well what the next 3 hr flight will cost you.
 
If you're preparing an annual budget, which number should you use?

You're assuming the typical GA aircraft owner prepares a budget, that is a bad assumption. It costs what it costs and we spend what we have. Like I said, it's like having a kid, most people don't have a budget there either.
 
One hidden cost lurking is that many FBOs seem to charge substantially higher ramp, "handling", and overnight fees for "twins" as a general category. This is not a cost of operating the airplane but it is a cost of traveling in it and most people who are buying twins are doing so for XC trips not local flying. With Ted's specialized mission I suspect some of those fees end up waived or reduced and I know that sometimes they are negotiable too. Just something to think about when you consider the total cost.

For us a good number of fees are waived or reduced. However, we also make an effort to go to airports without fees. A fuel stop is usually required, and we stop at places with self-serve fuel. There are things one can do to impact prices, there's no doubt in that, and we do probably operate our 310 as cheaply or cheaper than anyone else does who keeps the plane in nice condition (not just barely airworthy) but still has to pay for hangar, maintenance, etc.

As an owner (vs a banker or financial folk) I see no point in combining operating costs with ownership costs, especially when making comparisons with other owners or users. Yes they both impact the "true" cost of flying but they just don't add without an hours flown per year figure that's different for everyone and even varies for one owner over time. When you add all the money spent on acquisition less sale, hangar, insurance, recurrent training, loan interest or missed opportunity cost, upgrades, calendar based maintenance, etc. you find out what it takes to have the airplane available for use. Total the fuel, ongoing and periodic maintenance, and other operating expenses and you get a number that predicts fairly well what the next 3 hr flight will cost you. Also worth noting is that operating cost per hour is fairly consistent for a specific make/model regardless of the owner and/or the typical mission while ownership cost per year varies widely with different owners on the same make/model.

And this is perhaps the difference with owner vs. operator/business. However, I find that the all-inclusive $/hour is a better comparison. When you're renting an airplane, that's your comparison.

And some assumptions must be made. The airplane that sits and flies 1 hour per year obviously has a very high hourly rate, since the fixed costs are all absorbed into that one hour.

No, because for most people in GA acquiring an aircraft isn't a business acquisition, it is an emotional one. It's like a wife or a kid, it costs what it costs to have what you want and you find a way to make it work.

But one should go into this with an informed understanding of what the true cost is going to be. The total costs of other owners are probably going to be a good representation of what you can expect your total costs to be, unless you have something special in your court such as being your own A&P/IA, free hangar, etc. If you do have those, then your numbers probably will be different than a typical owner's.
 
For us a good number of fees are waived or reduced. However, we also make an effort to go to airports without fees. A fuel stop is usually required, and we stop at places with self-serve fuel. There are things one can do to impact prices, there's no doubt in that, and we do probably operate our 310 as cheaply or cheaper than anyone else does who keeps the plane in nice condition (not just barely airworthy) but still has to pay for hangar, maintenance, etc.



And this is perhaps the difference with owner vs. operator/business. However, I find that the all-inclusive $/hour is a better comparison. When you're renting an airplane, that's your comparison.

And some assumptions must be made. The airplane that sits and flies 1 hour per year obviously has a very high hourly rate, since the fixed costs are all absorbed into that one hour.



But one should go into this with an informed understanding of what the true cost is going to be. The total costs of other owners are probably going to be a good representation of what you can expect your total costs to be, unless you have something special in your court such as being your own A&P/IA, free hangar, etc. If you do have those, then your numbers probably will be different than a typical owner's.
Which means you should be allowed to sample the entire spectrum of the envelope, asses that against your own ability and make a judgement call. You all say I must be lying, fine, I'm lying, whatever makes you feel better.
 
Which means you should be allowed to sample the entire spectrum of the envelope, asses that against your own ability and make a judgement call. You all say I must be lying, fine, I'm lying, whatever makes you feel better.

I never said you were lying (although I've thought it enough times).

What I have said (and stand by) is that your numbers, if they are true, aren't the least bit representative of what someone who buys an airplane can realistically expect. At best, this does a disservice to the reader who makes the assumption that what you've said is what they can expect. While this is that person's fault and not yours, if you're going to pretend to be an authority on the matter, you should at least include an appropriate disclaimer.
 
I like Hennings outlook "It costs what it costs"

I'm going to spend way too much money on my airplane the latter half of this year, and all of next year.

When all is said and done though, I think I will have one of the best 172s around.
 
Back
Top