steingar
Taxi to Parking
Twins are the real man airplane.
Funny, according to many here that spot is occupied by tail draggers.
Twins are the real man airplane.
Good to know that cost is not really an object for you and that the airplane will be more like your baby than a tool. The 320 I flew was a working airplane and not kept up cosmetically although it was well-maintained mechanically. It would have been a good airplane for travel except that it had no deice. It also had no radar/stormscope. I guess that's not as much of a problem now with the advent of uplink weather in various forms. The only complaint I had about it was that it had a strange, wallowing ride in turbulence. It could have used yaw damp but, at the time, I didn't even know what yaw damp was. The weak link in the airplane is the gear. It's a complex system with many parts to break.I can't fathom the struggle here to define (pigeon hole) an airplane by cost or cost per hour. I understand the need from a corporate ownership criterea - they live by cost vs. profit.
But that's not me.
I can't fathom the struggle here to define (pigeon hole) an airplane by cost or cost per hour. I understand the need from a corporate ownership criterea - they live by cost vs. profit.
But that's not me.
I too very much enjoy caring for my toys. None of which do I define by practicality.
I have no problem with some pilots treating an airplane like a tool. You grab it to accomplish a task, use it (hopefully not abuse it) put it back and walk away. That's fine and probably normal for those using a tool they did not buy with their own money.
Buying / owning an airplane will be a joyful experience for me or I won't do it. I enjoy fixing the niggles. How many of you bean counters factor washing/waxing the airplane? I'd never pay for that... If a particular owner decides he doesn't have time to do those items, HIS cost goes up - not the airplane's.
If the FAA suddenly said owners are not allowed to touch their own A/C - only A/Ps, I'd never buy.
Every ownership - be it personal or corporate - will be different in terms of cost. Be it cost per flight hour, cost per year, (I like to think of cost per mile - which makes a 310 pretty economical for what it is, if flown conservatively) or however any one person cares to define it.
Why is that so damn contentious? Why argue with an owner who says his cost is different?
If you wish to do all of your own maintenance and don't want to get your A&P/IA, then you may want to consider building an experimental. That's on my list. Depending on which route I choose (if I ever do it), it'll probably look a lot like a 310.
At Sun N Fun there was an in progress Twin Velocity, the kit for which will be available next, or so they claim. A experimental twin that will likely be fast as all get out. Doesn't look much like a 310, though.
At Sun N Fun there was an in progress Twin Velocity, the kit for which will be available next, or so they claim. A experimental twin that will likely be fast as all get out. Doesn't look much like a 310, though.
Exactly. I know a lot of people who had airplane dreams, or bigger airplane dreams, which didn't work out so well. Airplanes are now parked or sold. It's not just this recent downturn. It happened during the dot-com bust too, and during the first Gulf War.Some of the caution from others has to do with the current market conditions. These days, there are a lot of people who have bought aircraft thinking they could afford the things, and were wrong. It's not just up in the realm of Gulfstreams, it goes all the way down to 172s and Cherokees.
Exactly. I know a lot of people who had airplane dreams, or bigger airplane dreams, which didn't work out so well. Airplanes are now parked or sold. It's not just this recent downturn. It happened during the dot-com bust too, and during the first Gulf War.
Oh really...
That's because I'm so much older.You've been in this business much longer than I have, so I don't know the various other times it happened. But all of that makes sense.
It's presumptuous for you to think you know about anyone's "philosophy" but your own. I actually agree with Wayne's points more often than yours when the discussion is about cost and airplanes.
That's because I'm so much older.
Airplanes are almost always one of the first things to go when the owner tries to downsize his or her budget. This goes for private owners as well as companies. Very few owners make flying one of the main priorities, expense wise, but there are obviously exceptions, many of whom are on this board.
Funny, according to many here that spot is occupied by tail draggers.
You both argue from a point of mechanical incompetence and regardless the field of endeavor, if machines play a major part, if you are mechanically incompetent, your costs will be a minimum of 3x that for the mechanically competent.
Did you just pull that 3x number out of the air or what?if you are mechanically incompetent, your costs will be a minimum of 3x that for the mechanically competent.
Get both, get a Beech 18.
Did you just pull that 3x number out of the air or what?
Maybe it's because I'm old enough to have been glued in front of the TV when Sky King was on, but I don't think there's a more beautiful twin than a 310 with Tuna tanks.
Not true, unless you're really overpaying for labor. Labor only makes up about 25% of my total operating costs.
Henning, you are grouping me as the mechanically inept. You forget that I used to design the engines for a living. The airframe parts that need to be replaced are in need of replacement. I've managed about 3000 hours worth of engine time and 1500 hours worth of airframe time over multiple planes. Examples like your cowl flap motor are very rare, and end up washing out in the total MX costs.
If we are replacing a part, it is in need of replacement.
Now, you are absolutely making up numbers with no factual basis for it.
When I bought my Aztec, it would've cost me the same to buy a similarly-equipped 172. Of course, the 172 probably would've cost about half as much to operate for the number of hours I've flown it since.
Sorry, wasn't specifying you, just the general situation, process, and problem that is faced by any owner in the industry and why costs can get so high. For all you've said about my claimed operating costs, yours are not much higher than mine, a percentage easily covered in the difference between the labor you farm out and the labor I do. Your fuel costs are slightly higher because you fly with more weight and have a draggier airframe and slightly less efficient engines, but we're within a couple gph for the same speed (you fly slow as well).
Begs the question - do you now regret owning the Aztec and wish you had bought the 172? Did the Aztec provide more enjoyment and or capability than a 172?
Realize, it's not linear. You don't get twice as much happiness for twice as much money in anything...
But now, let's revisit your statement that the mechanically inept will spend 3x more than the mechanically apt. So you say that a mechanically inept 310 owner will spend $750/hr on average vs. your $250/hr?
Why do you keep combining separate issues? Maintenance and operation costs aren't the same. The mechanically inept will spend 3x(if not more) more on maintenance and repair on average because of all the work that gets done and parts that get replaced by equally inept mechanics that doesn't fix the problem yet gets billed for. If you (any owner) don't know what's wrong and your mechanic is guessing and pulls out the parts gun, you're on the road to the poorhouse. If you don't believe that happens, well, I'm done discussing it.
It's funny, thread after thread after thread about how to reduce the cost of aviation; try to show a solution that requires an effort and I get screamed down as some kind of heretic.
Where do you get this statistic from? Do you have evidence to back it up?
Go back through all the maintenance thread archives here and on the red board and tell me the percentage of threads where owners were thousands of dollars into figuring out a problem with no solution.
With that, I'm done, this is getting to the point of being plain stupid.
With that, I'm done, this is getting to the point of being plain stupid.
And how do those instances mean 3x total cost? Have they given you costs that you can compare to?
Again, this is still hyperbole you're spouting.
Agreed.
At the local Cessna 300-400 shop (9 airplanes on the floor yesterday) shop labor rate is $75, or $20/hr cheaper than any car dealer's shop within 30 miles based on actual phone survey.
Maximum markup on parts and outside repair is 25% on shop's cost, not retail (on small stuff), big stuff like engines carry no markup. Customer has the option to buy any/all parts on the internet and save sales taxes if they choose.
The big gotcha's can be parts costs (presently a 414 with a history of engine problems as a result of a bad re-build popped a through-bolt and is being replaced with RAM) or torque rods or heated windshields, but if so those parts will be cheaper to the owner if he buys them from the shop rather than buying them himself.
More often, the big costs are labor intensive. In many cases they are due to corrosion repair in inaccessible areas that simply can't be done by a shade-tree. Nose gear tunnels, wing/flap/nacelle exhaust areas, nacelle locker tank bays, aft fuselage and vertical stab are common examples.
Good shops are skilled in diagnostics and trouble-shooting, and have the equipment and tooling to do so,and a facility in which to do it. Much of the equipment requires 220V that's not available in the post-war T-hangar ghettos. Pressurization carts, air-conditioning carts, hydraulic mules, testing equipment for cabin heaters, flight control rigging templates, dedicated wheel/tire tables, exahust test kits and many other specialized tools are required to maintain these planes properly, and certain licenses and training are required to sign them off.
To suggest that some wingnut with none of the above can achieve the same results at any price is ludicrous. I have personally observed more than 200 (by actual count) inspections of these airplanes during the past 5 years. Owners are welcome to assist if they choose to do so. Of those, the total owner assistance number currently stands at 2. I know many of them personally, and attribute the low number of particpants the fact that:
1. They have a life
2. They can afford to maintain their airplanes.
3. Their hourly billing/revenue rate is significantly more than the shop rate, and they're smart enough to understand the arithmetic.
4. If the decision is whether to play golf at Pine Valley, Hilton Head or Broadmoor or grub around in the hangar for a weekend, the hangar will always finish last.
I use a shop that specializes in twin Cessnas, they don other stuff as well, but the majority of their work is 400 series including a few Conquests. They aren't cheap, but they are fair and I think their experience probably saves me money over a cheaper shop trying to troubleshoot things they aren't familiar with. I am somewhere between mechanically inept and wanting to spend my time on other things. my costs might be somewhat lower if I did some stuff myself, but I don't have a hangar or the inclination.
Had Charlene washed and cleaned on Wednesday morning and flew her to the beach for a little fishing this weekend. I guess I could have changed the oil in the 182 instead.
With advanced aircraft boutique specialty shops are almost always going to save you money. They may quote higher walking in, but they're a lot closer to quote when the bill comes due because they know exactly what they need to do.