The never ending annual

[CMTowner]

So I've had a progressive annual going on for the last year or so (my dad, the IA and myself are doing the annual) and my travel doesn't help any, I decided today was a day to go show my girl some TLC with a wash job.

I hope to have her flying again soon, if she will stop giving me items to replace. So far it has been the battery, an oleo strut, low compressions (due to sitting), a stuck fuel float, trim tab missing, and today I noticed the airspeed indicator is indicating I'm well into the vne zone. (hoping it is just crap in the pitot static system).

So as I get one step closer, the old girl gives me something else to tend to. Doesn't she want to fly anymore? I've got flying envy.

 

[Geico266]

You need to upgrade.

 

[CMTowner]

I think so.

 

[Henning]

I think so.

I've got an upgrade for you.

 

[CMTowner]

To a P51?

 

[Henning]

To a P51?

Actually I could do that if you've got the cash, no worries...

 

[Ted]

I've got an upgrade for you.

See the Twinkie thread discussion regarding buying an airplane you may not be able to afford the hourly costs on.

 

[DavidWhite]

See the Twinkie thread discussion regarding buying an airplane you may not be able to afford the hourly costs on.

This is one of the things that worries me if I ever got a bigger plane. If my parents hasn't plopped down 10k to fix the various issues on my skyhawk it would still be sitting unairworthy in Nebraska.

 

[Ted]

This is one of the things that worries me if I ever got a bigger plane. If my parents hasn't plopped down 10k to fix the various issues on my skyhawk it would still be sitting unairworthy in Nebraska.

This is a consideration everyone should make when making any significant acquisition. Cars, airplanes, houses, dogs, horses, all have costs besides purchase.

What conclusion you come to depends mostly on the particulars of your finances as well as your risk tolerance.

We have, on more than one occasion, considered upgrading to a larger/faster plane, having even looked into turbines. Although we could justify a turbine with our uses rather easily (provided choosing the right turbine), the problems that can go wrong with them (and associated costs) are quick deterring factors, not to mention the cost per mile being something that we likely could not fund.

 

[Henning]

See the Twinkie thread discussion regarding buying an airplane you may not be able to afford the hourly costs on.

No two operators will have the same cost of operations for a plane. Speaking of other threads, 6000 miles in my 310 will less than $400 extra in fuel over a 210. I pay an extra $10hr TBO holdback because my engines are cheaper. I put less wear and tear on my engines and keep my CHTs much lower because a 210 will be running 50% more fuel through it's single 520 engine than I do each of my 470s That means it has a lot more heat to get rid of over a tiny extra portion of surface area, and it needs to get rid of it in a hotter environment. I operated my BE-95 for considerably less than my friends with their BE 35s mostly because I flew slower than them and didn't push my equipment. Now I have a faster plane and can do the same thing while going 15 kts faster than them instead of slower.

There are just far too many operational and mechanical variables that any statement to the effects of operating and mechanical economies are guesses at best and shouldn't be made as definitive statements.
Any given plane of the same basic load & speed parameters has the opportunity to be more or less economical than the other regardless one engine or two.

 

[Ted]

No two operators will have the same cost of operations for a plane. Speaking of other threads, 6000 miles in my 310 will less than $400 extra in fuel over a 210. I pay an extra $10hr TBO holdback because my engines are cheaper. I put less wear and tear on my engines and keep my CHTs much lower because a 210 will be running 50% more fuel through it's single 520 engine than I do each of my 470s That means it has a lot more heat to get rid of over a tiny extra portion of surface area, and it needs to get rid of it in a hotter environment. I operated my BE-95 for considerably less than my friends with their BE 35s mostly because I flew slower than them and didn't push my equipment. Now I have a faster plane and can do the same thing while going 15 kts faster than them instead of slower.

I don't know where to begin. Your statements regarding cost of your 310 have been laughable at best, coming from another 310 operator, and you have left out basic costs that you've still had to pay in your calculations.

There are just far too many operational and mechanical variables that any statement to the effects of operating and mechanical economies are guesses at best and shouldn't be made as definitive statements.
Any given plane of the same basic load & speed parameters has the opportunity to be more or less economical than the other regardless one engine or two.

Yes, of course. But one still needs to make reasonable comparisons. A Travel Air vs. a BE33/35 is one where you could potentially get the twin to be equal to the single... maybe. That's still pushing it a bit.

Even I don't try to state that twins are cheaper or equal in cost to singles - just that the costs aren't as much higher when making a valid comparison. Part of this is because an owner will treat a plane the way he or she treats a plane. So even if your statements are based in your reality, the reality for the buyer of your plane will likely be different.

 

[Henning]

I don't know where to begin. Your statements regarding cost of your 310 have been laughable at best, coming from another 310 operator, and you have left out basic costs that you've still had to pay in your calculations.

The basic costs are the same which is why I didn't include them. I fit in the same hangar as a 210 or Bo. My insurance is less as well, always have been. I paid half in my BE95 than the insurance guy could find for me in a BE35 (he was amazed at my $1100 rate considering I had 60 some hours and no ME rating or IR so he checked against 35 and the lowest he could find was $2300). Now I pay less than 1/3rs of what Lou Betti does in a 210.

There are just too many variables to make definitive statements. I don't say a twin will operate cheaper than a single, I say in a perfect world the twin will cost somewhat more, but since we're not in a perfect world, it the twin operator does so conservatively and the HP driver drives it hard, there is a definite possibility that at the end of a few years and equivalent miles flown he can have bought enough cylinders to offset any savings.

Today there's also the extra $40k you have in your pocket after buying the twin over the HP single. Without the panel, I paid less than a 1/3rd of what an equivalent equipped/condition/time 210 goes for.

 

[Ted]

The basic costs are the same which is why I didn't include them. I fit in the same hangar as a 210 or Bo. My insurance is less as well, always have been. I paid half in my BE95 than the insurance guy could find for me in a BE35 (he was amazed at my $1100 rate considering I had 60 some hours and no ME rating or IR so he checked against 35 and the lowest he could find was $2300). Now I pay less than 1/3rs of what Lou Betti does in a 210.

You're the only person I've talked to who's gotten cheaper insurance in a twin than a single... except for people who just don't buy insurance.

There are just too many variables to make definitive statements.

I repeat my statement about varying realities.

I don't say a twin will operate cheaper than a single, I say in a perfect world the twin will cost somewhat more, but since we're not in a perfect world, it the twin operator does so conservatively and the HP driver drives it hard, there is a definite possibility that at the end of a few years and equivalent miles flown he can have bought enough cylinders to offset any savings.

Yeah, but the reality is that a person who flies a single hard will probably fly a twin hard. Therefore, the engines will probably need an equal number of cylinders.

Today there's also the extra $40k you have in your pocket after buying the twin over the HP single. Without the panel, I paid less than a 1/3rd of what an equivalent equipped/condition/time 210 goes for.

This is the best argument you've made.

 

[Henning]

Yeah, but the reality is that a person who flies a single hard will probably fly a twin hard. Therefore, the engines will probably need an equal number of cylinders.

That is an assumption that is not necessarily true. 180kts/3 miles a minute is the travelling speed I desire. If I buy a single that cruises 180kts, it's gonna be expensive and run hard to do it. At 180kts, my 310 is just coming solidly onto the pipe, not loafing and not lugging, she runs there fat dumb and happy all day long flowing 10.5gph a side and when I land and look at my augmentors where the exhaust exits and all that is there is the fine while lead powder, no brown or black.

You can't blame operator incompetence and idiocy costs on the equipment. A good operator can have either cost less depending on jackpots.

 

[Ted]

That is an assumption that is not necessarily true. 180kts/3 miles a minute is the travelling speed I desire. If I buy a single that cruises 180kts, it's gonna be expensive and run hard to do it. At 180kts, my 310 is just coming solidly onto the pipe, not loafing and not lugging, she runs there fat dumb and happy all day long flowing 10.5gph a side and when I land and look at my augmentors where the exhaust exits and all that is there is the fine while lead powder, no brown or black.

You can't blame operator incompetence and idiocy on the equipment. A good operator can have either cost less depending on jackpots.

As I keep on saying, your reality vs. most people's.

 

[Henning]

As I keep on saying, your reality vs. most people's.

Guess what, there are a hell of a lot of people out there who operate under the same realities, most every equipment operator does. That's why I add "my reality" to the "common wisdom" because not everybody is coming from a "common pilot" equipment operating background. There are plenty of people out there who know how to operate an engine.

 

[Ted]

Guess what, there are a hell of a lot of people out there who operate under the same realities, most every equipment operator does.

That's frightening. It goes against what you said about your ability to operate your twins cheaper than most operate their singles.

There are plenty of people out there who know how to operate an engine.

I agree. And those people come up with plausible numbers.

I'm done.