Afraid to maintain an old plane

[Ray Jr]

Ray, I fly a 1958 J35 Bonanza so your proposed plane is relatively modern. Everything needs mx. I'd say a 1960s 182 or cardinal would be just fine.

That's the bottom line I think. Buy the best worst plane. Not the worst best plane. If i buy a Cessna 182 I'll be bottom feeding. If i bought a Piper 180 I could get one of the best for sale for about the same price.

Maybe a really great piper 180 for my first plane and take it from there.

 

[Crashnburn]

Bonanzas seem like the most expensive of all the little old singles. With parts to match (or so I've read)

I agree. While I’ve never been in a Bonanza, let alone flown one, the saying is “Once you’ve flown a Bonanza, you’ll never want to fly anything else!”

 

[steingar]

Bo's are awesome. My problem with buying one is the only ones that fit into my price range were really old and likely to be maintenance hogs. Since I'm a tiny little person I really didn't need a great big Bo (not that I didn't want one) but I could afford a really nice Mooney. It hasn't been a maintenance hog until this year...

 

[bnt83]

700 NM one way in anything of a 100 series Cessna sounds grueling after a few trips.

An exception might be a 182RG or its turbo brother.

 

[WDD]

1300 miles round trip.

if you’re flying for fun - that’s a lot of fun. At that distance - I’d be thinking about Mooney - you need some speed.

if business - that is, you do have to get there when you want - are there not commercial flights that you could take ?

 

[Ray Jr]

700 NM one way in anything of a 100 series Cessna sounds grueling after a trip or two.

An exception might be a 182RG or its turbo brother.

Better than 17 hours in the car. Gotta start somewhere. Maybe there is a TBM in my distant future

 

[Ray Jr]

1300 miles round trip.

if you’re flying for fun - that’s a lot of fun

if business - that is, you do have to get there when you want - are there not commercial flights that you could take ?

It's for sport

 

[bnt83]

Better than 17 hours in the car. Gotta start somewhere. Maybe there is a TBM in my distant future

I hear ya. I almost never leave town in a car anymore. The family owns a 182L, a 1968 177 (I keep it), and a 210B.

For that kind of trip I'd go for the 210 or 182L. The 1968 177 is great but I'd want a constant speed prop and more capacity. I have flown the 177 800 NM in a day. It slow but the trip was great, but for regular trips it would quickly suck going west with the headwinds.

 

[Ray Jr]

I hear ya. I almost never leave town in a car anymore. The family owns a 182L, a 1968 177 (I keep it), and a 210B.

For that kind of trip I'd go for the 210 or 182L. The 1968 177 is great but I'd want a constant speed prop and more capacity. I have flown the 177 800 NM in a day. It slow but the trip was great, but for regular trips it would quickly suck going west with the headwinds.

There is a 210 for sale here in Canada for 55k or something. Seems tempting.

 

[bnt83]

There is a 210 for sale here in Canada for 55k or something. Seems tempting.

Some of those 210 can be converted to 91 octane MOGAS with an anti-detonation injection system installed, which is interesting.

 

[steingar]

There is a 210 for sale here in Canada for 55k or something. Seems tempting.

A 55K 210 sounds scary. Lots of systems, and the gear on those things isn't known for being robust and maintenance free.

 

[simtech]

That's the bottom line I think. Buy the best worst plane. Not the worst best plane. If i buy a Cessna 182 I'll be bottom feeding. If i bought a Piper 180 I could get one of the best for sale for about the same price.

Maybe a really great piper 180 for my first plane and take it from there.

My first plane was a nice piper 180. It cruised a solid 120kts and any kind of headwind made it long. I was flying to Dallas once a month which for me is about 800nm round trip. It took A LONG TIME! After a few months of it I realized I needed a faster plane. Enter my 170kt bonanza, makes the trip waaay faster. Id seriously consider something faster than a cherokee 180 or even a 140kt plane.

Any plane can be a maintenance hog, new or old. Get a good prebuy and don't settle for something you don't want. If you are handy find an A&P who will do owner assisted maintenance and annuals. Its what I have done with my cherokee and still do with my bonanza. I've had my bonanza now for a year and I absolutely love the plane! So far its been reliable and most things I can do myself with my mechanic over seeing. Plenty of ways to take the sting out.

Good luck!

 

[JEB]

Was concerned about purchase price AND maintenance. Didn't think it needed to be said.

Why do you think a 177RG is cheaper to maintain than a Bonanza? I like Cardinals, but I like flying my Bo much more. If you're covering 650 miles, you'll quickly appreciate the added speed.

My experience - once a plane is brought up to (or already is) in good condition, the yearly maintenance is fairly predictable and manageable. It's the surprises that hurt, but stuff doesn't tend to magically happen. Knowing the actual condition of your plane and ensuring proper inspections and care is the best way to manage maintenance costs. Minimize the surprises and things become much more predictable.

 

[Ray Jr]

Once again, This is all great advice everyone. I appreciate it.

Ok, so assuming we've accepted the maintenance situation. What would you recommend for the 700mn one way trip if you had 80k? Or is the advice that that trip isn't advised on that budget?

 

[simtech]

Once again, This is all great advice everyone. I appreciate it.

Ok, so assuming we've accepted the maintenance situation. What would you recommend for the 700mn one way trip if you had 80k? Or is the advice that that trip isn't advised on that budget?

V-tail bonanza

 

[WDD]

The usual “get a bonanza” response might actually be spot on in this case. Or a Mooney.

Still going to be tough to get an nice instrument rated plane for $80k that can give you 150 + knots.

Are you Instrument rated ? If not - I’d do that before buying a plane.

 

[MacFly]

Once again, This is all great advice everyone. I appreciate it.

Ok, so assuming we've accepted the maintenance situation. What would you recommend for the 700mn one way trip if you had 80k? Or is the advice that that trip isn't advised on that budget?

At something over $90K (in September 2020 dollars), my instrument-certified RV-9A will do 156 kt at about 7.5 gph at 12,500 to 14,5000. If we're talking Mooneys, They're fast, but they are very tight quarters.

 

[Racerx]

Depends what you're looking for cabin wise. There's more Mooney's out there. They're fast and economical. Comanche has more room, equally fast, better useful, but there's a few things maintenance wise to be aware of. Both drivers of them will tell you which is better. Gotta sit and fly them both.

 

[Huckster79]

My 1947 is just getting broke in IMHO

 

[Dan Thomas]

If you count it in weeks, there's quite a few

Canada has that "gotcha" rule on icing: If it's forecast or reported, you need FIKI stuff.

The CARs:

De-icing or Anti-icing Equipment
605.30 No person shall conduct a take-off or continue a flight in an aircraft where icing conditions are reported to exist or are forecast to be encountered along the route of flight unless

• (a) the pilot-in-command determines that the aircraft is adequately equipped to operate in icing conditions in accordance with the standards of airworthiness under which the type certificate for that aircraft was issued; or
  
• (b) current weather reports or pilot reports indicate that icing conditions no longer exist.

Since ice is so often forecast or reported at these latiudes, it really puts a crimp in serious cross-country flight.

 

[Deelee]

The usual “get a bonanza” response might actually be spot on in this case.

Finally!! LOL. Seriously, it does make sense, here.

 

[steingar]

My only proviso is 80 grand will buy a lot of Mooney but only a little Bo. That said the OP should go sit in a Mooney. If he doesn't fit the decision is at least partially made.

 

[Mooney Fan]

A plane in your $$ range with good useful load, roomy but is at bottom of your speed scale is a Turbo Piper Arrow.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

A plane in your $$ range with good useful load, roomy but is at bottom of your speed scale is a Turbo Piper Arrow.

There's only 1 available on TAP right now that's in his price range and it's got a high-time engine. Think $80k is pushing it for a turbo.

 

[Narwhal]

No, you're not crazy. The 59' C182 I have a stake in is constantly needing expensive maintenance due to the age of the airframe. Let's see....the airbox needed to be rebuilt first - $1k. Then a seat frame cracked due to age/rust. ~ 1k to replace and reupholster. Next the nose gear strut needed be rebuilt due to age, another $1k. Piano hinges broke on both cowl access doors (the cowling is in reallly sad shape), $500. Wiring issues have led to a variety of problems and each one grounds the airplane for at least a few days, and cost at least a few hundred dollars to repair. The primer works only intermittently and despite troublehsooting from several A&P's is no better. OBS knob broke on one of the VOR CDI's and there is really no economical replacement. #1 radio, a KX-170b failed and there is no economical replacement. This is all in the 1st year.

I'm saving for a factory new airplane. Yes it will be 2-3 years of hard work and frugal living since I'm just an average joe, but I think there is actually value there. Maybe I'm naïve. Buying an old, cheap airplane can be a false economy unless you don't value reliability.

 

[MacFly]

I'm saving for a factory new airplane. Yes it will be 2-3 years of hard work and frugal living since I'm just an average joe, but I think there is actually value there. Maybe I'm naïve. Buying an old, cheap airplane can be a false economy unless you don't value reliability.

You mean just pop on down to your local Cessna dealer and see what he’s got on the showroom floor? “What’s it gonna take to make this deal today and put you in this brand new Skylane?” Are there waiting lists for brand new airplanes? I don’t know… just askin’…

I think there’s a happy medium there. Many people buy used cars primarily because you get good technology, sound mechanical systems, and you don’t get hit with very substantial depreciation as you drive off the dealers lot.

On the other hand, maybe you’re right… Maybe airplanes are different… One significant consideration is instrumentation. Many of the old round gauges had a multi–decades lifespan. Not true of modern avionics On my eight-year-old airplane, I’ve had a couple of super fancy electronic doodads break, wear out, or generally become obsolete like your iPhone or iPad or computer at home. I negotiated some of that into the price, but still…

 

[UngaWunga]

I wonder what the first annual is like on a new Cirrus. Do most just pay for the time to look over the plane and say "yup, looks good!"
Or are things going wrong in that first year?

 

[MacFly]

I wonder what the first annual is like on a new Cirrus. Do most just pay for the time to look over the plane and say "yup, looks good!"
Or are things going wrong in that first year?

I’m sure that there’s a warranty, extended warranty, or a wide variety of warranty options. I’m sure you pay for that, don’t know at what point it’s cost-effective.

 

[mondtster]

I wonder what the first annual is like on a new Cirrus. Do most just pay for the time to look over the plane and say "yup, looks good!"
Or are things going wrong in that first year?

I can’t comment on annuals on new Cirri, but the new Diamonds and Pipers I’ve inspected need very little early in their life.

But you occasionally find some manufacturing defect in materials or workmanship. Due to the nature of the manufacturing process of airplanes this seems to happen more frequently than it does with cars, but even then new airplanes are in no way shape or form as needy as the old junk most of us fly.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I can’t comment on annuals on new Cirri, but the new Diamonds and Pipers I’ve inspected need very little early in their life.

But you occasionally find some manufacturing defect in materials or workmanship. Due to the nature of the manufacturing process of airplanes this seems to happen more frequently than it does with cars, but even then new airplanes are in no way shape or form as needy as the old junk most of us fly.

For a while there Cessna issued a lot of SBs on their new airplanes, often due to manufacturing errors or new design flaws. Once those were fixed, the airplanes were fine. But beware: all those new Cessnas are heavier than the old ones. Cessna beefed up weak areas, and beefing up adds weight. They fancied up the interiors, which adds weight. They installed the G1000, which adds weight. The had to increase gross to regain some useful load. And increased gross without more power does performance no good. The 172 ended up with 180 HP to help fix that. Still, the 172S weighs 300 pounds more than a 172M, and its gross weight is only 250 pounds higher. You lose 50 pounds of useful load.

Best deal, I think, is one like we bought: a two-year-old airplane with some of the time flown off it. It has depreciated enough to make it attractive and it's still a newish airplane.

 

[Snowmass]

A 55K 210 sounds scary. Lots of systems, and the gear on those things isn't known for being robust and maintenance free.

I have had my 1964 C-210D and maintenance costs have been very low. My gear costs have consisted of O ring swaps on most actuators and the power pack just once in those 50 years. But avoid models prior to 1962. And I can't speak for the 67 and later models. However, almost all Cessna parts are insanely expensive. As usual condition is the determinant.

 

[mondtster]

Best deal, I think, is one like we bought: a two-year-old airplane with some of the time flown off it. It has depreciated enough to make it attractive and it's still a newish airplane.

Agreed. A friend and I have gotten several airplanes that way and done pretty well with them.

 

[ateamer]

For a while there Cessna issued a lot of SBs on their new airplanes, often due to manufacturing errors or new design flaws. Once those were fixed, the airplanes were fine. But beware: all those new Cessnas are heavier than the old ones. Cessna beefed up weak areas, and beefing up adds weight. They fancied up the interiors, which adds weight. They installed the G1000, which adds weight. The had to increase gross to regain some useful load. And increased gross without more power does performance no good. The 172 ended up with 180 HP to help fix that. Still, the 172S weighs 300 pounds more than a 172M, and its gross weight is only 250 pounds higher. You lose 50 pounds of useful load.

Best deal, I think, is one like we bought: a two-year-old airplane with some of the time flown off it. It has depreciated enough to make it attractive and it's still a newish airplane.

I had a partnership in a 172M with an O-360. Useful load was 1085.

 

[Narwhal]

You mean just pop on down to your local Cessna dealer and see what he’s got on the showroom floor? “What’s it gonna take to make this deal today and put you in this brand new Skylane?” Are there waiting lists for brand new airplanes? I don’t know… just askin’…

I think there’s a happy medium there. Many people buy used cars primarily because you get good technology, sound mechanical systems, and you don’t get hit with very substantial depreciation as you drive off the dealers lot.

On the other hand, maybe you’re right… Maybe airplanes are different… One significant consideration is instrumentation. Many of the old round gauges had a multi–decades lifespan. Not true of modern avionics On my eight-year-old airplane, I’ve had a couple of super fancy electronic doodads break, wear out, or generally become obsolete like your iPhone or iPad or computer at home. I negotiated some of that into the price, but still…

Yes, there are some dealers which have new airplanes in their hangar (just a few hours for repos/demo flights), or you can contact the manufacturer and order an airplane directly in some cases. Of course, an order will probably take a year or so to be delivered. I'm not considering new Raytheons though. Yes, the 60+ year old instuments ae failing and there are no cheap replacements. The local A&P's love us though!

 

[Wagondriver]

So you don’t want to spend a bunch on maintenance?
You buy an old Cessna, and in the first few years you find all the problems that your half assed prebuy didn’t find. So you end up fixing a bunch of stuff, but how much did it really add up to?

Or you save up for a few years, then go down to the dealer with your down payment and buy a new plane. It costs more than your house, but hey it’s new, new things don’t require maintenance right?? You quickly find out that even if you don’t have big things to fix, that you still have to pay for the annual. And there are still little things, like the flat spotted tire from the day you got on the brakes too hard, and the Little Rock dings in the prop from the trip to the local grass strip. But, you don’t have any money left to fly Anyway because the insurance on that new plane is through the roof because of the high hull value. And your monthly payment, a good portion of which is interest, is chewing through all your income. So, after two years you figure out that while the new plane is nice, you can’t afford it. You then sell it losing your ass because of depreciation, and you go out and buy a decent but old plane and you actually fly again.
I found my first real airplane on barnstormers, it didn’t look pretty, but had all the best mods. And, the price was pretty good. Some friends with experience were in the area and looked at it, they said it was ugly but a solid plane. I paid for an “annual” which was a total pencil whip waste of cash. Did I mention it was my first plane? In the first month, I find that the tail wheel is worn out. There goes $1600, but I install it myself with the supervision of a qualified friend. A couple months later it needs a fuel bladder, then a cylinder and the horizontal needs to be rebuilt. All of that was stuff a good inspection should have found. But, now 3 years later, all the little problems have been fixed, in total all the necessary parts and repairs added up to less than $8000, add that to the purchase price and I still got a good deal.
I love my 67 year old Cessna, and it gets about 120 hours a year on it. And it cost one third of the closest new thing I could buy.

 

[Tom-D]

So you don’t want to spend a bunch on maintenance?

the alternative to is buy a freshly restored one. and pay a fair price..

 

[brien23]

I agree. While I’ve never been in a Bonanza, let alone flown one, the saying is “Once you’ve flown a Bonanza, you’ll never want to fly anything else!”

Till you buy parts for a Bonanza, if you think Cessna or Piper parts are high priced try Beechcraft they are real proud of their parts.

 

[hindsight2020]

Till you buy parts for a Bonanza, if you think Cessna or Piper parts are high priced try Beechcraft they are real proud of their parts.

Um, Cessna is Beechcraft. Beechcraft is Cessna.

 

[MacFly]

I found that having a two seat experimental is the proper route for me. Most flights are solo and now and again I'll take a passenger. Amazing how many four seat airplanes are flown solo or with two souls on board. Renting a plane when taking a crowd makes sense.

120 knot cruise is good for me (we all want more speed) and as was pointed out earlier, another 10-15 knots isn't gonna make a huge difference time wise unless you've got a long trip in mind.

Being the builder and my own mechanic saves a lot of things beyond dollars as I get to choose what gets fixed and what the cost will be. I'm pretty meticulous with regards to my inspections and maintenance as my life and the lives of my passengers depend on it.

Experimental aviation is very cool in that it affords a huge degree of freedom for a lot of people to push the edge of the envelope and explore aspects of aviation that just aren’t available to pilots flying certificated airplanes. I do admire those who have the patience and the ability to spend 4 years or more building an airplane, and more power to them. But I'm not that guy. The more time I spend on the VAF forums the more convinced I am that Experimental aviation suits my “mission” perfectly, but actually building an airplane does not.

 

[donjohnston]

They installed the G1000, which adds weight.

Really? I don't know the G1000, but I would think the weight savings from eliminating the conventional instruments, engine gauges, vacuum system, panel mount avionics would have saved a bunch of weight.

I know the Grand Rapids system I installed was about half the weight of a traditional instrument panel. But I guess it wouldn't surprised me if the G1000 instrument panel ended up weighing twice what mine does.