I'm looking at buying an airplane within the next 1-2 years and it seems that the hardest part to figure out is real cost of ownership. I've read the two articles on Plane and Pilot about cost of ownership for less than $500 and $1000 respectively. I don't plan on using the airplane for hire and primarily would use it to access hunting and fishing areas here in Alaska. If the weather is so bad I wouldn't fly an ultralight, then I probably won't fly an airplane that might only weigh a couple hundred pounds more. Glancing into the cockpit of a PA-12 yesterday didn't reveal a lot more cargo space than the LSA I've been eyeing and the PA-12 sells for twice as much VERY used.

Seems to me that owning an ultralight/LSA versus a small certificated airplane of the size would be significantly less costly. Less government intrusion into what I can do with my airplane, lower or no TTAF, lower cost of repairs, lower cost of parts....... See where I'm going with this?

I would bet that over a 5-10 year span, an Ultralight/LSA of equal abilities and initial cost would end up being significantly less cost to own.

EDIT: I should mention that I'm looking to spend less than $35,000 for the aircraft. This doesn't mean spend $35K than another $15K getting it airworthy and legal either. I'm talking safe and ready to fly into the backcountry. There are plenty of airplanes for less that are only going to end up costing more in the long run.


What's your take? I'm all ears.

Frankly speaking, just between us, there is no way to cost justify an airplane.

It is a very simple mathematical rule. If you can only afford to spend $35K, then mathematically, your available resources will be insufficient to support your aircraft. This rule is also true if you scale it up to a $200K airplane or down to $10K.

There is a reason flying is called "boring holes in the sky" because that is where you money goes!

Basically, you will either love it and will find a way to make it happen, or you won't. So the moral to the story is don't worry about whether or not you can afford it - you can't from any rational standpoint.

Seems like you're kind of mixing your metaphors here. LSA is a group of aircraft, including what we used to call "Ultralight aircraft". Now, there are several types of LSA.

So, are you talking specifically about "ultralight" compared to "Certified" or are you talking about LSA compliant aircraft, such as a Taylorcraft?

MTV

MTV, good point.

I'm talking a new fabric quick build kit, like the Indy Aircraft T-Bird II as compared to a Luscombe/T-Craft/PA-22, etc.

I'm really open to either. It just seems to me that the nickel and dime effect of constantly fixing small repairs plus the larger issues of fatigued airframes and fabric would end up costing more in the long run. I've heard a lot of horror stories. Maybe these can just be avoided by a really good pre-buy inspection. Who knows?

I'll be happy flying anything that gets me and a buddy with our hunting gear into the backcountry, even if it takes two or three trips.

I'm trying to look at this as objectively as possible and I just can't see why a 2 seat LSA/Ultralight wouldn't haul dead fish or caribou any better when useful load, cargo space, rate of climb, gph, etc. are almost identical.

You asked,

Maybe an experimental would be in your future. Perhaps I am prejudice but I just don't see how an ultra-light could meet the needs. Just not enough lift, range, reliability!

As for cost. Let's use my Maule as an example. You can prorate for your $35 grand.

I paid $56,000 for the Maule seven years ago.
My liability insurance is about $600.00 per year. No hull insurance.
My hangar rent is $1,440.0 per year.(pretty cheap)
The annuals have averaged $1,600.00 per year(it had a low time engine)
Hourly overhaul value of the engine $20.00 per hour(1,500 hr. eng.)
Fuel cost ???? Currently ... $45.00 per hour.

Interest on the $56,000.00(if I had it in the bank rather than in the hangar)
4%X $56,000.00 ....... ... $2,240.00 per year
Insurance per yr. ..............$600.00(try pricing hull insurance!)
Hangar............................$1,440.00
Annuals...........................$1,600.00

50 hours annual flight

Engine overhaul X 50 hours..............$1,000.00
Fuel for 50 hours...............................$2,200.00

Total for 50 hours $9080.00 per year.

That comes to $180.00 hr. to own/fly my Maule 50 hours per year. Fly it more....hourly rate goes down, total cost go up. Fly it less, hourly rate goes up, total cost goes down. If fuel goes back to $5.00 per gallon...add another $1,200.00 per year. My numbers are REALLY conservative and don't even include even oil changes. Throw in the slightest mechanical problem and add $$thousands. Add more flying and watch the numbers increase.

For $9,000.00 one could rent a nice Cessna for more hours per year and let them worry about the details. Of course they won't let you take it backcountry flying. And..... nothing compares with the ownership of ones own sky-buggy. That is the only reason that I have owned my own airplane for 25 years. No way to justify it financially outside of business ownership.

Good luck,

bob

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Bob

I've responded to your question on other sites and I guess I just want to add one more thing. I have owned a couple of ultralights. They are STRICKLY fair weather flyers. Anything more than a breeze and you will get tossed around a bit. Personally I wouldn't use one for your dreams.
They also have issues you may not have thought about. Depreciation on ultralights is drastic. You can find them a couple years old for half price and less. Buying an old Taylorcraft/Champ or whatever and it usually will hold its value closer to what you pay for it.
There are a few guys I have spoken to that have used trikes for what you are planning.
Good Luck.

Buy this 170 and go fly. Period. Hows that for advice?

http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=292042

When you own it, ask one of you friends if he wants 50% ownership in it and split all the fixed costs. Do some yearly upgrades as money allows and split that too.

The costs can come down considerably with some elbow grease on your new pride and joy.

The ragwing ultralights would be fun to dink around in but I think you would find them too limited.

Buy a real plane, if need be, share the costs with someone you like/trust and the kicker is it may be worth most of the money you put into it down the road! Maybe not, but it will have value vs. a plane you have to give away to unload.

My .02

Ultralights, if used in "serious" use, such as backcountry or off airport, I really don't think are going to hold up. This has been documented in a few kit airplanes, which have been advertised as great backcountry machines, but experienced failures of landing gears, fuselages, etc. These were NOT ultralights, which are even more lightly built.

I think you will find that range, speed, and carrying capability are VERY limited in the ultralight aircraft out there, at least as compared to certified aircraft or even certified LSA aircraft.

The maintenance on something like a Champ, a Taylorcraft, a Cessna 140, a Pacer, etc, really isnt' going to be all that high, IF (and its a big if) you do a very careful job of inspecting the airplane prior to purchase.

I lived and flew in AK for 30 years. There is no way I'd even consider going caribou hunting with an ultralight. I've seen it done, actually, and I've seen em piled in a heap as well.

Before anyone flames me, let me state that I have no bias against ultralights. For a flit around the field, on a nice sunny day, with a landing on a very smooth surface, I think they are a great, economical way to get into flying, and I'm glad the FAA declared them an "airplane", cause they are.

But, for what Tick is wanting to do, I'd be very hesitant to expect an ultralight to work. And, remember, if you break it.....you got a pile of tubing. And, its' going to be much easier to break them than a certified airplane.

MTV

Really good info, this is the kind of stuff I need to hear. I just don't have the years of flying under my belt to do the kind of informed decision I'd like to and everyone's input is super helpful.

Anyone know a T-Craft owner in the Anchorage or Mat-Su area that wouldn't mind letting me pick his brain?

z3skybolt wrote:You asked,

Maybe an experimental would be in your future. Perhaps I am prejudice but I just don't see how an ultra-light could meet the needs. Just not enough lift, range, reliability!

As for cost. Let's use my Maule as an example. You can prorate for your $35 grand.

I paid $56,000 for the Maule seven years ago.
My liability insurance is about $600.00 per year. No hull insurance.
My hangar rent is $1,440.0 per year.(pretty cheap)
The annuals have averaged $1,600.00 per year(it had a low time engine)
Hourly overhaul value of the engine $20.00 per hour(1,500 hr. eng.)
Fuel cost ???? Currently ... $45.00 per hour.

Interest on the $56,000.00(if I had it in the bank rather than in the hangar)
4%X $56,000.00 ....... ... $2,240.00 per year
Insurance per yr. ..............$600.00(try pricing hull insurance!)
Hangar............................$1,440.00
Annuals...........................$1,600.00

50 hours annual flight

Engine overhaul X 50 hours..............$1,000.00
Fuel for 50 hours...............................$2,200.00

Total for 50 hours $9080.00 per year.

That comes to $180.00 hr. to own/fly my Maule 50 hours per year. Fly it more....hourly rate goes down, total cost go up. Fly it less, hourly rate goes up, total cost goes down. If fuel goes back to $5.00 per gallon...add another $1,200.00 per year. My numbers are REALLY conservative and don't even include even oil changes. Throw in the slightest mechanical problem and add $$thousands. Add more flying and watch the numbers increase.

For $9,000.00 one could rent a nice Cessna for more hours per year and let them worry about the details. Of course they won't let you take it backcountry flying. And..... nothing compares with the ownership of ones own sky-buggy. That is the only reason that I have owned my own airplane for 25 years. No way to justify it financially outside of business ownership.

Good luck,

bob

A couple things come to mind when I read this. First, don't buy a Maule. Because so many owners are marginal tailwheel pilots they wreck them constantly. Therefore insurance is nuts. A few weeks ago a guy I work with bought a mid 50's Cessna 180. 50 hours on an overhaul. Serviceable interior. $52K. And prices continue to fall too. Insurance? $1500. That Maule will run you twice that.
You should be able to do better than averaging $1600 for an annual. My Bo last year was $1500, should settle in right about there over the long haul. The 182 I used to have usually ran about $1000. Find the local mechanic who works out of his own hangar, or yours, and get a much better deal. No reason to pay the overhead of an FBO.
Looks like you're burning 9 GPH so you don't have the 540. The 180 will run 10-12 GPH depending on power setting and can run on mogas, which here in Montana does not have alcohol for the most part.
And you're right, there's no financial justification, but so what? There's a lot of things I wouldn't have if I had to justify it to an accountant.

Tick in my humble opinion Bonanza above brought up a good point - when shopping for a plane up here the ability to use mogas should be a significant factor in your purchase decision. Enjoy living in one of the few remaining states that is for the most part still free from the ethanol scourge

You can click here for airframes that qualify for a mogas STC. You will need to back up a page and then check the powerplant compatibility, though probably all Taylorcafts are covered.

SixTwoLeemer wrote:Buy this 170 and go fly. Period. Hows that for advice?

http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=292042

I have to agree, for the price range he's talking I can't image a better plane!

My added advice: Decide if you need a tail dragger or if a tricycle could suffice. (hey, I was a poet and didn't even know it ) The insurance on the tricycle will be less, and they tend to be cheaper to purchase presumably because they are more ubiquitous.

Also, I think the best bargains are the planes that were the most popular entry-level planes PRIOR to the LSA rules - 172s, TriPacers, etc. Now many beginning pilots are going the LSA route, and there's not as much demand for them and so the price has dropped.

Bonanza Man wrote:

z3skybolt wrote:You asked,

Maybe an experimental would be in your future. Perhaps I am prejudice but I just don't see how an ultra-light could meet the needs. Just not enough lift, range, reliability!

As for cost. Let's use my Maule as an example. You can prorate for your $35 grand.

I paid $56,000 for the Maule seven years ago.
My liability insurance is about $600.00 per year. No hull insurance.
My hangar rent is $1,440.0 per year.(pretty cheap)
The annuals have averaged $1,600.00 per year(it had a low time engine)
Hourly overhaul value of the engine $20.00 per hour(1,500 hr. eng.)
Fuel cost ???? Currently ... $45.00 per hour.

Interest on the $56,000.00(if I had it in the bank rather than in the hangar)
4%X $56,000.00 ....... ... $2,240.00 per year
Insurance per yr. ..............$600.00(try pricing hull insurance!)
Hangar............................$1,440.00
Annuals...........................$1,600.00

50 hours annual flight

Engine overhaul X 50 hours..............$1,000.00
Fuel for 50 hours...............................$2,200.00

Total for 50 hours $9080.00 per year.

That comes to $180.00 hr. to own/fly my Maule 50 hours per year. Fly it more....hourly rate goes down, total cost go up. Fly it less, hourly rate goes up, total cost goes down. If fuel goes back to $5.00 per gallon...add another $1,200.00 per year. My numbers are REALLY conservative and don't even include even oil changes. Throw in the slightest mechanical problem and add $$thousands. Add more flying and watch the numbers increase.

For $9,000.00 one could rent a nice Cessna for more hours per year and let them worry about the details. Of course they won't let you take it backcountry flying. And..... nothing compares with the ownership of ones own sky-buggy. That is the only reason that I have owned my own airplane for 25 years. No way to justify it financially outside of business ownership.

Good luck,

bob

A couple things come to mind when I read this. First, don't buy a Maule. Because so many owners are marginal tailwheel pilots they wreck them constantly. Therefore insurance is nuts. A few weeks ago a guy I work with bought a mid 50's Cessna 180. 50 hours on an overhaul. Serviceable interior. $52K. And prices continue to fall too. Insurance? $1500. That Maule will run you twice that.
You should be able to do better than averaging $1600 for an annual. My Bo last year was $1500, should settle in right about there over the long haul. The 182 I used to have usually ran about $1000. Find the local mechanic who works out of his own hangar, or yours, and get a much better deal. No reason to pay the overhead of an FBO.
Looks like you're burning 9 GPH so you don't have the 540. The 180 will run 10-12 GPH depending on power setting and can run on mogas, which here in Montana does not have alcohol for the most part.
And you're right, there's no financial justification, but so what? There's a lot of things I wouldn't have if I had to justify it to an accountant.

Bonanza man,

Did I anywhere suggest that he buy a Maule?? He followed my posting by giving thanks and saying that it was..."exactly what I was looking for." My assumption was that he was looking for numbers.

Take care,

Bob

p.s. My Maule is the 210 h.p. Continental.... burns 11 to 12 g.p.h.(gas currently around $3.60 per gallon)

If you buy a true LSA, then you can take the repairman's class and work on it. If you buy a certified plane that qualifies as LSA, then you pay someone to work on it. If you build it (experimental) then you work on it. The cheapest route, in order of cheapness is:
- buy a LSA legal certified plane
- build an experimental
- buy a genuine LSA.

You can get a Champ or Taylorcraft for around 20K. You can get a Chief for around 15K. Just check the logs real carefully on them and make sure they weren't submerged or anything like that. Even if they were, if the proper steps were taken then it's still a good deal. With either the certified or experimental you won't lose money on the deal. If you buy a completed LSA you almost certainly will.

I'm partial to Airknockers. Just don't let 'em get away from you. Champs are prone to running away if you let them off the leash.

z3skybolt wrote:

Bonanza man,

Did I anywhere suggest that he buy a Maule?? He followed my posting by giving thanks and saying that it was..."exactly what I was looking for." My assumption was that he was looking for numbers.

Take care,

Bob

p.s. My Maule is the 210 h.p. Continental.... burns 11 to 12 g.p.h.(gas currently around $3.60 per gallon)

No you didn't. My point was that you have to take all factors into account. Maules look good to a lot of people, they buy one and then get insurance. And find the price is horrible.
So you have the IO-360. Are you able to run that LOP? I have the IO-520 and am able to run LOP very effectively with the standard Continental injectors.

I'm partial to Airknockers. Just don't let 'em get away from you. Champs are prone to running away if you let them off the leash.

Airknockers?

Skystrider wrote:....It is a very simple mathematical rule. If you can only afford to spend $35K, then mathematically, your available resources will be insufficient to support your aircraft. This rule is also true if you scale it up to a $200K airplane or down to $10K.........

I don't understand this "simple mathematical rule" at all. I think it's only logical to set a price limit, and then look for the best airplane for your mission within that price range. That has nothing to do with what you can afford to spend to operate it.
Here's some more real world numbers:I just sold a 170 after owning it for about 11 years. I put almost 1700 hours on it, and didn't have to put too much into it over and above normal maintenance except for having the engine overhauled 8 years ago (which could be considered ordinary maintenance). Anyway, I kept close track of my operating costs & flying time, and doing the math now I can tell you that flying it an average of about 155 hours a year cost me about $45 per hour. That's about $7K a year, or $580 a month.
I can't get much more specific than that. Like Z3 sez- fly more the hourly goes down, fly less it goes up. This is an important equation, remember it-- you can later tell your wife (with a straight face) that you can't afford NOT to go flying.
A good starter airplane might be a T-Craft, C140, or Champ. If you need more room or speed maybe a Stinson, C170, or Pacer. All are reasonable performers which sell for reasonable prices... some more than others.
Good luck and good hunting,

Eric

SixTwoLeemer wrote:Buy this 170 and go fly. Period. Hows that for advice?
http://www.barnstormers.com/ad_detail.php?ID=292042

FWIW this does look like it'd be a pretty good low-end/starter back country airplane. Already has big tires and a seaplane prop, add a skilled pilot and go. (key word is "skilled")

Tick,

Get in touch with Arctic Flyers there in ANC. Heidi and Richard have a couple of Taylorcrafts that they do flight training in. Go spend an hour with one of them, and you'll have some good instruction AND a bit of perspective on what a T-Craft is and does.

MTV