Got some left seat time in a ADAM A700...

gismo

gismo

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
12,675
Location
Minneapolis
Display Name
Display name:
iGismo
... but it would have been more exciting had the plane actually been in flight. ADAM flew the plane into my airport for a exhibition / fly-in yesterday and I had a chance to inspect it inside and out. Although the example I sat in was an early non-conforming prototype I could see a lot of potential. They claim they will offer a $700/hr operating cost guarantee which translates to about $2/nm. Not bad for a twin engine jet, but around twice what Eclipse says theirs will do IIRC. Maybe if I win the lottery although that seems a bit unlikely because I never buy the tickets. For comparison, I think my operating costs in the Baron are around $0.80/nm.
 
lancefisher said:
... but it would have been more exciting had the plane actually been in flight. ADAM flew the plane into my airport for a exhibition / fly-in yesterday and I had a chance to inspect it inside and out. Although the example I sat in was an early non-conforming prototype I could see a lot of potential. They claim they will offer a $700/hr operating cost guarantee which translates to about $2/nm. Not bad for a twin engine jet, but around twice what Eclipse says theirs will do IIRC. Maybe if I win the lottery although that seems a bit unlikely because I never buy the tickets. For comparison, I think my operating costs in the Baron are around $0.80/nm.
Click to expand...
Lance (and Dave), I dream of owning a Baron someday. What can you say about operating costs compared to a Seneca II or later? How about the P-Baron (which I assume comes with turboed engines).
 
Ben:

I can't compare the Baron to the Senica; just don't know the Senica.

The BE-55 I had was like a little sports car. Very responsive, great rate of climb, trued out about 190 at 7 or 8,000 feet. With the IO-470s, it was very dependable and those engines seem to hold up real well when operated correctly. Lance can give you his fuel burn rates. There are a lot of systems on the twin compared to a single. In addition to two engines, two generators/alternators, more complex fuel system, heavier means more wear and tear, radar, more of an instrument platform with redundant systems. I think the B-55 is a great step up to a twin for someone that wants to carry two or three most of the time with some baggage. My guess for a well maintained 55 would cost around 225 to 250 an hour to operate (of course, a lot depends on age, conditions, engine hours, etc.)

The 58P has even more systesm, bigger engines, turbos, pressurization, AC, heavier, carries more fuel and can be K-ice from the factory. If you're flying long distance flights over inhospitable terrain, mountains or water and want more of an all weather capability with four passenges and some baggage not bothered by cannulas or an oxy mask, the P-Baron does the trick. My guess would be around $300 an hour to fly my plane.

In each case, I'm assuming a third party maintains the plane. If you do a lot of your own work, certainly you can save some money. I know folks that have operated these cheaper, but I'm looking at what it would cost the way I would maintain them.

Lance may have his operating cost pinned down better. Of course, if you keep a plane longer term, you'll have to redo engine, improve your avionics panel, etc.

Dave
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Ben:

I can't compare the Baron to the Senica; just don't know the Senica.

The BE-55 I had was like a little sports car. Very responsive, great rate of climb, trued out about 190 at 7 or 8,000 feet. With the IO-470s, it was very dependable and those engines seem to hold up real well when operated correctly. Lance can give you his fuel burn rates. There are a lot of systems on the twin compared to a single. In addition to two engines, two generators/alternators, more complex fuel system, heavier means more wear and tear, radar, more of an instrument platform with redundant systems. I think the B-55 is a great step up to a twin for someone that wants to carry two or three most of the time with some baggage. My guess for a well maintained 55 would cost around 225 to 250 an hour to operate (of course, a lot depends on age, conditions, engine hours, etc.)
Click to expand...
As far as fuel burns and speeds go, I flight plan 180 KTAS and can achieve that at nearly any altitude at or below 12,000. The fuel burn for that speed is anywhere from 28gph (ROP down low) to 20 gph (LOP up high) but my average is around 25 gph including the extra fuel burned climbing to altitude.

I have a fairly well equipped B55 (boots, radar, 6 seats) and I can carry around 850 in people and bags. That means that I'm at MGW with four "normal" sized folks and some bags, and unless you have a 5000 ft runway, it's preferrable to operate 100-200 lbs below MGW.

Depending on what you include, I'd say costs are a bit lower than what Dave posted for a B55. Going with direct hourly costs:

fuel $85 (24@$3.50)
engine & prop oh $40
repairs $20
accessories $ 5
oil changes $ 5
misc $ 5
Total= $160/hr

This doesn't cover any fixed expenses like insurance, hangar, capital costs, upgrades, and the inspection portion of the annual. From my perspective those are the cost of ownership, not the cost of operation.

I believe that a Seneca will be pretty close to that. The fuel burn is lower (as well as the speed) but the engines cost more to OH and maintenance on the gear is likely to be a bit more expensive due to it's complexity.
 
Last edited:
Geesh Lance! My A-36 is over $150, but I am including hanger and insurance. Also, if it is financed, cost of servicing a loan. I was really trying to give more of a total cost number. A TC 210 was renting near hear for about $175. Of course, that would include a profit (ha ha) to the operator. Thanks for differentiating between operating cost and ownership cost. Even if one were to pay cash for the plane, there would be an opportunity cost associated with having those funds in a fun toy ('cuse me, uhh uhh serious business vehicle) rather than in an good investment from the ownership perspective.

Some day, if I don't mind getting depressed, I'll add up our costs on the Baron YTD. Maybe, I'll wait 'til the end of June to have one full year of ops.

The good news is if you have two planes like I do--no estate problems to worry about!!

Dave
 
Living next to Centennial, I see the Adam a lot as they are based there. Although I think its just been the prop version, not the jet.
 
Anthony said:
Living next to Centennial, I see the Adam a lot as they are based there. Although I think its just been the prop version, not the jet.
Click to expand...

According to the guy who showed me the plane, they have two jets flying, the one I saw and a conforming one that just started flying.
 
lancefisher said:
According to the guy who showed me the plane, they have two jets flying, the one I saw and a conforming one that just started flying.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I don't think I've seen the jet. I'll have to start looking closer. I listen the the tower freq and hear "Adam 1" a lot which is the prop version, unless they use that for more than one plane.

On a sidenote, I have seen the new ATG Javelin fly. All I can say is WOW! They moved from Centennial to my base, Front Range, but I saw it fly at Centennial when I was on the ramp, getting in my Tiger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top