Which Airplane!!! Or a plane at all??

[dell30rb]

What does your Tiger have to do with the difference in operating cost between an Aerostar and a 310? A 310 will cost between $250 & $325 hr to operate on average and an Aerostar $400-$475. Where does a Tiger fit into the equation?

Earlier you said that it would cost $150 an hour to run a Baron or 310.. i'm guessing that was a mistake.. that would cover fuel. Or maybe you meant it would be $150/hr less than an aerostar?

If you flew a fair amount (sounds like the op wants to), maybe $250/hr is a reasonable "full retard" cost for a 310 (incl hangar, fuel, engine reserves, maintenance)

 

[poadeleted20]

Earlier you said that it would cost $150 an hour to run a Baron or 310.. i'm guessing that was a mistake.. that would cover fuel

Yup.

If you flew a lot, maybe $250/hr is a reasonable "full retard" cost for a 310 (incl hangar, fuel, engine reserves, maintenance)

Agreed, at least as a "ball-park" figure. Maybe even a bit low if you figure engine overhaul reserve, which could be up to $50/hr by itself.

 

[Henning]

Earlier you said that it would cost $150 an hour to run a Baron or 310.. i'm guessing that was a mistake.. that would cover fuel. Or maybe you meant it would be $150/hr less than an aerostar?

If you flew a fair amount (sounds like the op wants to), maybe $250/hr is a reasonable "full retard" cost for a 310 (incl hangar, fuel, engine reserves, maintenance)

Yup.

Agreed, at least as a "ball-park" figure. Maybe even a bit low if you figure engine overhaul reserve, which could be up to $50/hr by itself.

Sigh, let us hold a course in reading comprehension then shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morne
Where would an Aerostar 601 fall in comparison to the 310/Baron argument for a mission like this?

The 310 & Baron will be significantly cheaper to operate, about $150hr on average I'd say.

Note that the question I was referring to did not ask for absolute numbers rather it asked for COMPARATIVE numbers. My response shown above has me approximating that the 310 will be $150 less to operate than the Aerostar; NOT TOTAL COST OF OPERATIONS.

See, that's the difference between comparative values and absolute values. I understand that value is a very confusing concept here.

BTW $50,000 (2 IO 470 overhauls at advertised price including R&R) divided by a 1700hr TB is less than $30hr, so perhaps some recurrent math as well as reading training could be in order.

 

[jmp470]

Thanks everyone for the replies. The wife and I made 4 trips from NC to SA in 2010 in our SR 20, with only 1 child. She really enjoyed the plane and is supportive if I want to get another one. I have several reservations about buying another plane and am really thinking this through. We have looked at the A36, Piper Saratoga TC, Tecnam twin (if it was 3-40 kts faster, we would have bought it), velocity XL-5, and DA 42. What we haven't really looked at is an older twin.

For the people that own twins, do they eat you alive? What are you annual costs?

Do any twins burn MOGAS, or are any available that will be able to burn 93UL? What's the option when LL goes away, in the next few years?

I would hate to throw good money after bad money....

 

[poadeleted20]

For the people that own twins, do they eat you alive? What are you annual costs?

As I said earilier, the 2x160HP Grumman Cougar ran about $140/hour averaged over five years back when fuel was a lot cheaper. I'd figure almost twice that for a 310 or BE58 today, but that should fit within your $20-35K operating budget.

Do any twins burn MOGAS,

Well, I guess there are a few Champion Lancers and Wing Derringers with O-200's which can, but not the engines on the sort of planes about which we are talking -- compression is too high for anything less than 100-octane.

or are any available that will be able to burn 93UL? What's the option when LL goes away, in the next few years?

100LL won't go away until an FAA-acceptable replacement is in place, and the FAA has said the replacement will work in all the 100 octane engines or it won't be acceptable. SwiftFuel seems to be the closest at this point, and they're burning that successfully in a Beech Duke, which has seriously cantankerous engines.

I would hate to throw good money after bad money....

Something with a turbine engine would be your best bet in that regard, but TBM-700's are probably out of your price range, and you can't put five people in a DA-42. Anybody know what turbine conversion C-210's and BE36's sell for?

 

[bigred177]

You could do a Twin Bonanza. Plenty of room to walk around or spread out on the couch .

 

[Henning]

For the people that own twins, do they eat you alive? What are you annual costs?

Do any twins burn MOGAS, or are any available that will be able to burn 93UL? What's the option when LL goes away, in the next few years?

I would hate to throw good money after bad money....

Last year I flew around 100 hours, in that time I spent about $1500 on oil changes, unscheduled maintenance & repairs. I cruise out at 176-180kts between 7500' & 10,500' on 21gph combined. I expect to pay around $6000 on my annual due to some seals I intend to replace due to age. I figure an average cost of $275hr and operated considerably below that at $185hr (including the $6000 quoted above). This does not count purchase capital, upgrade to my panel or any work performed known prior to/as part of the purchase deal nor the costs of hangars which fortunately only cost me when I'm on a trip.

The fuel doesn't concern me greatly because the IO-470D in a 310 will thrive on 94UL (current 100LL without the TEL), and I'm not sure I couldn't pass a MoGas test. Actually I wish I could get 94UL right now.

 

[j1b3h0]

Another vote for the T Bone. Big kidde car to fly, roomy as all get out...some configurations carry eight people. Like most Beech products, has big picture windows. Engines are quiet because they're geared to slow turning props, and they can be bought cheaply - 50K would fetch a beauty. From what I've gleaned on Beech Talk, 160kts on 26-30gph. I love Twin Beeches, but a nice one is a fair amount more to buy and @ 45gph, (and a mechanic on staff) it's no faster than the T Bo and way more $ to run. It also requires an experienced pilot, lest your insurance man will want a fortune. There's a pretty nice Twin Bonanza on Barnstormers for only 30k...and includes two extra engines!

 

[RotorAndWing]

Last year I flew around 100 hours, in that time I spent about $1500 on oil changes, unscheduled maintenance & repairs. I cruise out at 176-180kts between 7500' & 10,500' on 21gph combined. I expect to pay around $6000 on my annual due to some seals I intend to replace due to age. I figure an average cost of $275hr and operated considerably below that at $185hr (including the $6000 quoted above). This does not count purchase capital, upgrade to my panel or any work performed known prior to/as part of the purchase deal nor the costs of hangars which fortunately only cost me when I'm on a trip.

The fuel doesn't concern me greatly because the IO-470D in a 310 will thrive on 94UL (current 100LL without the TEL), and I'm not sure I couldn't pass a MoGas test. Actually I wish I could get 94UL right now.

My entire cost of maint and repair in 1 year / 100 hours operations was <$1000.

math challenged?

 

[Henning]

Another vote for the T Bone. Big kidde car to fly, roomy as all get out...some configurations carry eight people. Like most Beech products, has big picture windows. Engines are quiet because they're geared to slow turning props, and they can be bought cheaply - 50K would fetch a beauty. From what I've gleaned on Beech Talk, 160kts on 26-30gph. I love Twin Beeches, but a nice one is a fair amount more to buy and @ 45gph, (and a mechanic on staff) it's no faster than the T Bo and way more $ to run. It also requires an experienced pilot, lest your insurance man will want a fortune. There's a pretty nice Twin Bonanza on Barnstormers for only 30k...and includes two extra engines!

I have nothing against the BE 50, but for the operating costs and hassles it's not a great choice for his mission.

As for the BE-18, the T-Bone requires the more experienced pilot. The only bad manners that girl has is on taxi (not landing, once the tail wheel is unlocked).

 

[Tom-D]

So I have a two part question:

1st) would you rather own an airplane or retire early? Retirement would be at 42.

2nd) Since everyone says, if you have $200K to buy a plane.. don't.. buy a $50K plane and put money towards maintenance.

My question is: What plane costs between $20 -$35K per year to own and operate that can haul 5 people. 2 x adults and 3 children? Twins are fine if they can be in the $$ range. Oh, and the purchase price could be between $50k - $250K. Of course, lower is better! The plane has to go from D.C to San Antonio 6x per year for vacations, would prefer a plane that can do it with 1 stop and several little runs up and down the east coast and out west per year.

What say you????

If you really have a $250k budget to buy in, and $20-35K operating budget per year. You can afford much better aircraft than the light twins mentioned here.
But if you are planing to use the $250 as your total aviation budget while you are retired, you best re-think the idea.

I wouldn't think of a Twin Bonanza, their engines are not supported by the manufacturer any more, GO-480 = nasty engine.

 

[Tom-D]

My question is: What plane costs between $20 -$35K per year to own and operate that can haul 5 people. 2 x adults and 3 children?
What say you????

This will, and with Class.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_488839_1952+Cessna+195.html

 

[kmead]

With the aircraft being offer as possible ships, the Malibu is sounding better. I've spent many 7 hr legs in our Malibu and other peoples Malibus, it's the pressurization that makes that possible. The AC and high altitude capability make it hard to beat. The kids love the poor thing.

I'm not being partial and only 2 kids will need college tuition next year. Thank you generous grad schools.

 

[Ted]

I'd recommend some sort of "try before you buy" program for whatever airplane you're considering. 1,200 nm trips in any GA airplane are less than wonderful experiences, especially those without room to move around and without on-board whizzers. The planned six times/yr would be a no-go at my place, we had a hard time making half than many trips half that far, and we had a King Air B200. The guys who come to Palm Springs each year (same distance as your proposed trip) to play golf with me still have their B200, and they make a stop in El Paso on the way out. Can't imagine making that trip in a light twin or single, especially with a plane-load of kids.

This also depends on the willingness of your family to travel and spend hours in the plane. A 1200 nm trip in a 310 will average you about 7-8 hours airport to airport, depending on winds, stop speed, etc.

 

[Henning]

This also depends on the willingness of your family to travel and spend hours in the plane. A 1200 nm trip in a 310 will average you about 7-8 hours airport to airport, depending on winds, stop speed, etc.

I even gave it a little extra getting kids loaded. I'd figure 7 hrs for myself zero wind.

 

[Henning]

This will, and with Class.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_488839_1952+Cessna+195.html

What does it cost to insure a fresh tailwheel pilot in a 195?
I'd sooner turn someone loose in BE-18 than a C-195.

 

[Ted]

With the aircraft being offer as possible ships, the Malibu is sounding better. I've spent many 7 hr legs in our Malibu and other peoples Malibus, it's the pressurization that makes that possible. The AC and high altitude capability make it hard to beat. The kids love the poor thing.

Two questions:

1) What do you figure the wet hourly cost for an average owner (i.e. pays someone to do all the MX) is on a Malibu like you mentioned? All-inclusive for insurance, training, hangar, MX, etc.

2) What are your cabin pressures when flying at the higher altitudes?

 

[Henning]

math challenged?

I added oil changes here, I account them separately, they run ~ $100 with oil analysis, changed the oil around 20 hrs.

 

[bigred177]

If you really have a $250k budget to buy in, and $20-35K operating budget per year. You can afford much better aircraft than the light twins mentioned here.
But if you are planing to use the $250 as your total aviation budget while you are retired, you best re-think the idea.

I wouldn't think of a Twin Bonanza, their engines are not supported by the manufacturer any more, GO-480 = nasty engine.

That's why you just do the conversion to the IO-720s.

 

[Henning]

That's why you just do the conversion to the IO-720s.

Then you might as well just buy an Excalibur Queenair... If you're gonna go there might as well get a P-Navajo.

That does bring up though what is probably the most economical/capability recip 'Family Plane' ever, the Chieftain. You can haul your kids and their friends...and their parents.

 

[Fearless Tower]

That does bring up though what is probably the most economical/capability recip 'Family Plane' ever, the Chieftain. You can haul your kids and their friends...and their parents.

You telling me a PA31 is more family friendly than an Aero Commander?

 

[Henning]

You telling me a PA31 is more family friendly than an Aero Commander?

Nope, pretty equal there; the Cheiftain wins on maint/repair costs, availability, and dispatch reliability/down time. I love the Aero Commander and would prefer to own a Ted Smith plane any day, but I don't think the AC is a wise choice for the mission if one would choose to go at it GA with his stated budget. I don't think the Chieftain will do it either nor do I think it's superior for the stated mission to the 421 which I have seen proven in several instances as cheaper to operate than a Chieftain. What the 31-350 gives you is load and space. You can set up multiple zones of society...

 

[Tom-D]

I'd still go with a good old Cherokee 6-300, and make shorter hops, with kids aboard.

You know as soon as you contact departure, one of them will say they gotta pee.

that 6 will out haul most of the light twins, and will cost you less per 100 hours than any of them.

Plus the average A&P-IA can do the annual, no hydraulic mule, jacks, or any other heavy equipment. no pressure vessel heater checks, cabin out flow valves, hot windshields, and all that other small stuff that breaks the bank at annual time.

I'll bet the OP hasn't even thought who will maintain the beast in DC. and remember any of the twin turbins are on maintenance plans and must be maintained by the approved facility.. ca--ching.

 

[Morne]

Another vote for the T Bone. Big kidde car to fly, roomy as all get out...some configurations carry eight people. Like most Beech products, has big picture windows. Engines are quiet because they're geared to slow turning props, and they can be bought cheaply - 50K would fetch a beauty. From what I've gleaned on Beech Talk, 160kts on 26-30gph. I love Twin Beeches, but a nice one is a fair amount more to buy and @ 45gph, (and a mechanic on staff) it's no faster than the T Bo and way more $ to run. It also requires an experienced pilot, lest your insurance man will want a fortune. There's a pretty nice Twin Bonanza on Barnstormers for only 30k...and includes two extra engines!

I swear the T-Bone is my dream plane...

Anyway we could have a twin with the interior room of the T-Bone, the speed of the Aerostar and the maintainability of a 310? Or does that bring us back to the 421 again?

 

[Henning]

I swear the T-Bone is my dream plane...

Anyway we could have a twin with the interior room of the T-Bone, the speed of the Aerostar and the maintainability of a 310? Or does that bring us back to the 421 again?

Yep, the 421 is none of those but does hover somewhere about in the middle of them. Cessna really hit a winner with the 421. The 'Wide Oval" tube and the geared engines made a very nice combination. The late C models with the trailing link gear are the nicest of them, but a B provides quite a value today. Somewhat of a compromise are the early Cs with the wet wings and straight legs. FWIW, I'm not fully sold on wet wings for maint and safety reasons.

 

[AcroBoy]

I agree that the 400 series Cessnas are great, but they are becoming scarce, and the spar AD and parts access are becoming a problem. Figure $600 an hour and maybe 185-200k cruise.

Turbine Bonanza or C-20, figure $750-850,000 for a new conversion. Parts extremely hard to find, short legs due to fuel limitations. Probably $700-800 an hour with a 200k cruise. The Bonanza conversion is not pressurized. Tradewinds is no longer in business.

Next step up- used TBM probably around 1.5M, $1,000 an hour, but almost 300k cruise speed.

 

[poadeleted20]

With the aircraft being offer as possible ships, the Malibu is sounding better. I've spent many 7 hr legs in our Malibu and other peoples Malibus, it's the pressurization that makes that possible.

When you load your Malibu with enough fuel for 1200nm plus IFR reserves (enough for the OP's DC-TX flight nonstop), how much payload does that leave you? How about 600nm (DC-TX with one stop) plus IFR reserves? Now, is that payload enough for the OP's two adults, three kids, and all their baggage?

 

[poadeleted20]

Yep, the 421 is none of those but does hover somewhere about in the middle of them. Cessna really hit a winner with the 421. The 'Wide Oval" tube and the geared engines made a very nice combination. The late C models with the trailing link gear are the nicest of them, but a B provides quite a value today. Somewhat of a compromise are the early Cs with the wet wings and straight legs. FWIW, I'm not fully sold on wet wings for maint and safety reasons.

Ain't gonna run a 421 on his annual operating budget. No way -- big time maintenance hog.

 

[Tom-D]

Now, is that payload enough for the OP's two adults, three kids, and all their baggage?

Maybe this year, but what about three years from now, after those three kids have gained 50# each?

 

[Fearless Tower]

When you load your Malibu with enough fuel for 1200nm plus IFR reserves (enough for the OP's DC-TX flight nonstop), how much payload does that leave you? How about 600nm (DC-TX with one stop) plus IFR reserves? Now, is that payload enough for the OP's two adults, three kids, and all their baggage?

CG may be an issue, not so sure about weight itself.....because there's no bloody space for luggage!!! I'm not exaggerating when I say that the Malibu baggage compartment is no bigger....possibly even smaller than the baggage compartment in my 170. Yes, there is the nose baggage, but even with that, I think you'd be hard pressed fitting enough bags for a family like that in a Malibu unless they REALLY know how to travel light.

 

[bigred177]

Could you do a recip. Lancair IV-P with something like the new Cirrus 3 across backseat? 275kts with decent load hauling, pressurized, and EAB maintenance costs.

 

[Tom-D]

Would you want an aircraft that is bullet proof strong, great launch dependability, that will go over the weather, haul every thing including your kids friend and all the baggage you want and do a non stop of 2000 miles?

find one of these for sale.

http://www.cs-ent.ca/6746.htm

 

[Ted]

A G-1 is probably the least appropriate aircraft for his list.

I'm not seeing any better fit than the 310. But get one of the ones with upgraded engines and fly it faster.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Would you want an aircraft that is bullet proof strong, great launch dependability, that will go over the weather, haul every thing including your kids friend and all the baggage you want and do a non stop of 2000 miles?

find one of these for sale.

http://www.cs-ent.ca/6746.htm

If G-1's are so great, why don't you see many flying these days?

I know very little about the airframe, but the last time I saw one was in the early 1980's.

 

[Morne]

Yep, the 421 is none of those but does hover somewhere about in the middle of them. Cessna really hit a winner with the 421. The 'Wide Oval" tube and the geared engines made a very nice combination. The late C models with the trailing link gear are the nicest of them, but a B provides quite a value today. Somewhat of a compromise are the early Cs with the wet wings and straight legs. FWIW, I'm not fully sold on wet wings for maint and safety reasons.

Does the 421 compare favorably with the Navajo?

 

[AcroBoy]

C-421 is going to be faster, and pressurized, compared to Navajo. Chieftan may come closer. Geared engines are expensive in the C421. Lots of expensive systems to maintain, and the 400 series require a 40K (as I recall) spar AD that I think was required at around 5,000H. Their single engine performance is poor at best.

A well equipped Baron or C-310 still sounds like the best option. My small Baron is well equipped, but I still wish I could go faster and higher and with longer range. It is nice having the extra engine, dual vacuum, dual electrics, on board radar, etc, as well as known ice. via TKS.

 

[Tom-D]

A G-1 is probably the least appropriate aircraft for his list.
.

Great old aircraft, but they like fuel, and they would do the mission with ease.

true story, (A G-1 in the military is known as a TC-4C it was a A6 bomber trainer) We overnighted at Nellis AFB and the next morning we pack a full load of JP-5 and took off for home, midway home our APU quit. (that is where we got heat and air-conditioning) so we plodded along with no heat, after we landed whidbey, we gripped the APU.

the next day we found the APU fuel filter full of water as was the fuel control for the APU, and all the fuel lines to it.
We tried to sump the main wing tanks and couldn't because of the amount of water frozen at the bottom of the wing tanks. We put it in the heated hangar and over the next few days we dumped over 150 gallons of water from the main tanks. The ice crystal formed in the fuel would come down the main engine fuel lines hit the fuel heaters and melt, and be fed to the R/R Darts and their fuel controls would feed the fuel required to get the power needed to continue to fly.
We bore scoped the hot sections and those were the cleanest engines I ever saw, those old Darts steam cleaned them selves all the way home.

I liked the G-1, it's bullet proof, you can fly that aircraft with all the electrical circuits off and no hydraulic power. all flight controls were cable driven, and all engine controls were direct linkage.
All 9 of the TC-4Cs had in excess go 50,000 cycles when the Navy ended the A6 program.

 

[wabower]

The copilot in a 'G1 is one of the busiest guys in the GA fleet. No mas.

A G-1 is probably the least appropriate aircraft for his list.

I'm not seeing any better fit than the 310. But get one of the ones with upgraded engines and fly it faster.

 

[Tom-D]

If G-1's are so great, why don't you see many flying these days?

I know very little about the airframe, but the last time I saw one was in the early 1980's.

the G-2/3/4/5s go faster on less fuel.

but the G-1 and other Dart users logged well over 5 million hours with out a single on wing failure.

I don't know if that as a record, but R/R bragged a lot about it.

 

[AcroBoy]

If we're going to help the OP, how about a reality check into what is truly available and practical for his needs?