Last year my 6 hours of ski flying cost about $400 per hour. Floats on off, skis on off, skis rigged, extra insurance, covers, etc etc etc. Winter weather sucked, so the plane sat. Everyone else is right, you can NEVER justify owning a plane financially. Always cheaper to rent, or charter. Just buy one cause you love it.

Last night I just spoke with a real cool gentleman up here in Anchorage that bought his own 170. He had some real hassles after getting screwed on a bum pre-buy inspection, and ended up paying more than he should have for the airplane in the long run. All that said, however, he's now paying around $600 a month to cover all his costs if he flies a minimum of 70hrs a year. I think I could handle that.

The real butt kicker is gonna be insurance. For a low time pilot, with a financed airplane, in Alaska....... I'll just do stretches so I can reach my ankles without trouble. I'm told that if you are going to finance the airplane, you will have to carry full coverage. Seems fair but still sucks.

Although overall cost of ownership on a "large" ultralight seems significantly cheaper, I'm concerned, as some of you have pointed out, that you end up losing +50% of the value of the airplane very quickly. I know I'm hesitant to buy someone else's homebuilt, why would someone else feel any different about buying mine a few years from now.

I'm gonna get some time in a Taylorcraft and anything else I can my hands on as soon as I finish up the last few hours of PPL. I think that will give me a good idea of what I'd be buying.

I've flown for the last 29 years and have yet wanted to know what it costs me. I have owned a plane for 28 of those 29 years, the last 7years of which is a MAULE MX7/180 C. Some things in life you just can't put a price on and flying is one of them. Who knows. if I wasn't flying, the same money or more might be going to a phychiatrist because when I don't fly I go nuts.

AvidFlyer wrote:Be sure to check out these guys in addition to skyraider.
www.kitfoxaircraft.com
www.airdale.com .......................

A friend was building an Airdale, he had it up on the gear (but uncovered) but ended up selling it off before completion. I sat in it, it seemed fairly roomy for what is was, at least as roomy as my 150. I was hoping he'd finish it, but he decided he wanted a Pacer more.
I've always liked Kitfoxes. I saw a pair of them last year at the Arlington fly-in that 2 guys from the Bend Oregon area had built-- one had an O-235 & the other either an O-200 or a Rotax 912, can't remember which. They looked like a helluva lot of fun. It sounded like they flew well, pretty STOL-capable plus very sporty handling. If they were sturdy enough to hold up to rough-field operations, I think they'd be the cat's meow. The onky downside was that I think they were certified too heavy (1500#) to be LSA-legal.
A guy on my airport has an Avid that he build about 12 years ago, it originally had a Rotax 582 but he hung a Jabiru 2200 on it a couple years ago. He bought a Stinson 108 several years ago but likes flying the Avid better in almost every way except for the obvious lack of a back seat.

Eric

Rhyppa- How does that saying go???? If it Flies, Floats or F****s, it is cheaper to rent than own. I think I'm inclined to agree.

The fixed cost of owning the Maule is about enough to take my wife to Hawaii for a week every year (don't tell her)
After that I get to fly a cool plane anywhere I want for about the wet rental cost of a C152. No daily minimums or soft field restrictions. Its totally worth it, I don't bother calculating cost per Hr because it never makes sense to apply logic to something you love.

[quote
I've always liked Kitfoxes. I saw a pair of them last year at the Arlington fly-in that 2 guys from the Grants Pass area had built-- one had an O-235 & the other either an O-200 or a Rotax 912, can't remember which. They looked like a helluva lot of fun. It sounded like they flew well, pretty STOL-capable plus very sporty handling. If they were sturdy enough to hold up to rough-field operations, I think they'd be the cat's meow. The onky downside was that I think they were certified too heavy (1500#) to be LSA-legal.
Eric[/quote]

I just went and visited the kitfox factory today over in Homedale, just for the heck of it, and you can get them certified for LSA. They are also going to build the LSA's turn key for about $94,000 or so. Looks like a pretty good two seater.

Tick wrote:...The real butt kicker is gonna be insurance. For a low time pilot, with a financed airplane, in Alaska....... I'll just do stretches so I can reach my ankles without trouble. I'm told that if you are going to finance the airplane, you will have to carry full coverage. Seems fair but still sucks.

...I'm gonna get some time in a Taylorcraft and anything else I can my hands on as soon as I finish up the last few hours of PPL. I think that will give me a good idea of what I'd be buying.

I was going to offer the same point about the insurance. A lot of posters here have good analytics for Outside, but in AK the price to insure is pretty much double. Not so much that planes get bent more, but when they do get bent, it's never on the side of a runway- it's always deep in a crevasse on some glacier, or below the high tide line, during heavy IMC. Not to mention that a lot of underwriters (notably AOPA) won't touch AK at all. Avemco has been pretty good to me, personally.

PM me if you're interested in Taylorcrafts. I got into one for $13,000 as a starter airplane. Liked it really well, and landed on a fair bit of gravel, with 65 HP and 8:50s. Only catch is it would take a heap of flights to transport a caribou, not to mention gear and a buddy. But it could be done, and routinely is done.

Good luck,

Denalipilot

I'm surprised Rhyppa didn't mention this but another very reasonably price plane out there is a Stinson. Specifically the 108 series. 4-seater and a decent performer from what I have been told. I have never flown in one so I am just repeating what I have been told by several Stinson owners. You'll see them mentioned on several of these sites as being a good albeit unknown plane. I have seen several for sale lately for bargain store prices. 2 of them for less than $20K. Of course the ones with the big engines are more expensive. Just another idea for you think about and to confuse you. LOL
Keith

Most everyone here likely has more back country experience than I do, but I do think the original poster owes it to himself to try trike flying before you settle on another kind of plane. Trikes (and I am talking proper trikes here, not the ones someone made in their back yard out of 2x4's and conduit) are extremely rugged, can fly off of floats, skis or wheels interchangeably, and are made for off-field and short filed landings -- with practice and experience of course. Tons of lift and more useful load than a lot of planes. Downsides? Of course. They aren't much fun to fly when it is bitter cold (true of all open cockpit planes) or in high gusty winds (but 'regular' planes aren't much fun then either). And you really don't want to fly them in the rain. They can be flown cross-country with proper respect for the weather (check out the South to South and Coast to Coast videos), but they are really made for the sheer joy of flying. Easily trailered so you can take 'em where you want to fly.

But the MAIN thing is cost. Our local airport has several dozen GA planes hangered here and the bald truth is that while they are all paying for hangar rent and upkeep and annuals and insurance and medicals, most of them don't move but a few times a year. Some never move. I fly morning and evening anytime (except the dead of winter) the weather and time permits burning 2.5 to 3 gallons per hour of car gas. So if what you really want to do is FLY, play in the clouds or aerotrekking 5' off the ground or enjoying the sunsets with your honey, trikes are hard to beat. Good used trikes cost perhaps 12,000 and up. New can range from the 20's to well over $50,000. Take the course and do the annuals yourself. Insurance -- good luck. You will want to check with the very few companies that will insure trikes before buying as they will only insure particular makes and models. (It isn't that trikes are particularly dangerous. More the opposite -- there is almost no data for trike accidents.)

And yes I know, before I am flamed, you can have TREMENDOUS fun in your real plane AND also be able to dependably fly in all kinds of weather, and at night, and for long distances -- things I can't do. Trikes aren't for everyone. Just suggesting the original poster check 'em out and think hard about why and how he really wants to fly before plunking down a lot of money.

z3skybolt wrote:Quote Bonanza man..

Also not only is fuel not the cheapest thing you put in your engine it is the most expensive. Running LOP makes your gas mileage go up. Over the course of my 1700 hour TBO I will save 2 GPH on average. Multiply 3400 gallons times your average fuel price. An engine monitor is nice but not necessary. I don't have one, just the basic single point EGT and CHT.


*******

Thanks for the friendly exchange,

"Single point EGT and CHT." Exactly the point. What are the other 5 cylinders doing?


Best Wishes,

Bob

They're doing just fine, according to my mechanic. I got free cylinders from Superior and they were installed at the annual in Sep 06. First annual the next year they were all 80/80. Didn't think that was possible but that's what he measured. Last September they were all about 77 or 78. If you're a ROP guy that's OK but just don't run your engine 50-75 ROP at 65% or higher power. Ever. That's the worst possible for your engine.

Bonanza Man wrote:

z3skybolt wrote:Quote Bonanza man..

Also not only is fuel not the cheapest thing you put in your engine it is the most expensive. Running LOP makes your gas mileage go up. Over the course of my 1700 hour TBO I will save 2 GPH on average. Multiply 3400 gallons times your average fuel price. An engine monitor is nice but not necessary. I don't have one, just the basic single point EGT and CHT.


*******

Thanks for the friendly exchange,

"Single point EGT and CHT." Exactly the point. What are the other 5 cylinders doing?


Best Wishes,

Bob

They're doing just fine, according to my mechanic. I got free cylinders from Superior and they were installed at the annual in Sep 06. First annual the next year they were all 80/80. Didn't think that was possible but that's what he measured. Last September they were all about 77 or 78. If you're a ROP guy that's OK but just don't run your engine 50-75 ROP at 65% or higher power. Ever. That's the worst possible for your engine.

With all due respect, I'd like to know why 50 - 75 ROP is bad. If it is, there are a lot of instructors, engine manufacturers and re-builders out there giving us bad information. Two examples are: Lycoming Service Instruction 1094D recommends operating at peak, and Texas Skyways recommends slightly rich of peak for their Continental engines.

Not arguing, just wish to be enlightened.

gb

gbflyer wrote:

Bonanza Man wrote:

z3skybolt wrote:Quote Bonanza man..

Also not only is fuel not the cheapest thing you put in your engine it is the most expensive. Running LOP makes your gas mileage go up. Over the course of my 1700 hour TBO I will save 2 GPH on average. Multiply 3400 gallons times your average fuel price. An engine monitor is nice but not necessary. I don't have one, just the basic single point EGT and CHT.


*******

Thanks for the friendly exchange,

"Single point EGT and CHT." Exactly the point. What are the other 5 cylinders doing?


Best Wishes,

Bob

They're doing just fine, according to my mechanic. I got free cylinders from Superior and they were installed at the annual in Sep 06. First annual the next year they were all 80/80. Didn't think that was possible but that's what he measured. Last September they were all about 77 or 78. If you're a ROP guy that's OK but just don't run your engine 50-75 ROP at 65% or higher power. Ever. That's the worst possible for your engine.

With all due respect, I'd like to know why 50 - 75 ROP is bad. If it is, there are a lot of instructors, engine manufacturers and re-builders out there giving us bad information. Two examples are: Lycoming Service Instruction 1094D recommends operating at peak, and Texas Skyways recommends slightly rich of peak for their Continental engines.

Not arguing, just wish to be enlightened.

gb

Because you are subjecting your cylinder heads to the maximum possible heat at that setting. Just rich of peak EGT produces the highest CHT's.

At low power it doesn't matter, the heat generated is not sufficient to do any damage. But higher than 65% and that is the "red box" you want to avoid. You'd be better off operating at peak EGT than just rich of peak.

I am not the world's greatest expert on this, I'm just sharing what I've learned. And that addresses Bob's point above too. At a low power cruise setting you can adjust your mixture anywhere you want that doesn't vibrate the engine off the mounts Doesn't matter if you have a single point probe or the full engine monitor suite your cylinders will be fine. Just make sure you know your power charts and are actually operating at 65-70% like you think you are.

The only advantage to running richer than you need to at low power cruise is to enrichen the oil companies

This is one of those subjects that generate controversy and since I work for neither Shell Oil nor Textron I could really care less what people do. Like politics, you present the information and people either buy into it or they don't

There is a graphic chart showing the relationship between EGT and CHT somewhere, I'll try to find it. Take home message is be greater than 25d lean of peak or much richer than many people are doing now, if you are blasting along at power.

..."LET THE RECORD SHOW....I TOOK THE BLOWS.....AND DID IT MY WAY"

apologies to Frank Sinatra

Thanks for the info. I'm not sure how 75 ROP gives you a hotter CHT, more fuel, more cooling is what I was taught, but I learn something new every day. I fly around below 3000 99% of the time, and never lean. Only LOP experience I have is a local fellow here got a set of GAMI's for a 185 and burned out his brand new exhaust system in short order. Guess he didn't do it right.

Sorry for the hijack.

gb

What I was trying to specifically draw out in this conversation was real cost of ownership. There are a lot of costs entailed that aren't included in gas, payment, and insurance. Everytime you buy a wing spar, replace fabric, or have to replace a broken this or that, it's one more cost of keeping your airplane up in the air. My big fear was getting stuck with something I couldn't afford to keep flying. There are sooooo many airplanes that spend their life collecting dust at the repair shop, I didn't want mine to do the same.

Here's my conclusion, I await your thoughts.

2 Seat Ultralight or LSA:
Very low cost of ownership, cost per hour etc, but won't allow you to fly some days that you might otherwise with a small aircraft. Most of these will get in (and out) of places that you probably wouldn't put your much more expensive certified.

Buy one new and you are quickly approaching the cost of an older used Taylorcraft, Champ, Stinson, etc. If cost were equal, there would be no contest, buy certified. A well taken care of used T-Bird II sells for around $11-15K with the large engine. Assuming it could pass a very thorough pre-buy, this is an enormous savings over new and you bypass all the massive depreciation that you'd otherwise have to eat at resale. There seems to be significant savings in maintenance costs of flying an LSA vs a certified, as well.

Some of the shortcomings, ie: range and cargo space, can be alleviated through aftermarket wing tanks and pods.

Small Starter Certified
Great residual value on resale, faster cruise speed, and a longer legs. Many of these don't actually exceed the useful load that a 2 seat ultralight can, but they have the cubic feet to put it in without adding the drag. Unless the aircraft qualifies for LSA, small improvements and repairs can turn into expensive projects. Overall cost to buy a well taken care of or restored aircraft can quickly approach the $35-40k mark. It's easy to find bargains on the websites, but the seller never advertises "Neglected this airplane for years and falsified my documentation." Weather and wind is less of a concern with the weight and cabin size advantage.

Input?

Tick,
I think why it is hard for guys to tell you exactly what it will cost you to own is because there are WAY too many variables. One of the biggest issues is...are you mechanicly inclined?...can you find an A&P/AI that will sign off your work?...are you good at maintaining your possesions?...Are you "thrifty"?
All these aspects come into play.
I have more than one plane and I can answer yes to most of the above questions and I make it work.

You seem to be pretty set on the T-bird. Why not just go ahead and get it and if/when you feel you need to upgrade do so at that time. You'll never regret learning to fly and the sooner the better. If the T-bird makes you happy that is great. Just get flying!

Unfortunately, I'm not set on anything. Everytime someone posts something new, I learn something new, and I'm even deeper into confusion. I can't say that either way I'd be 100% satisfied I made the right decision either way, that's why I'm doing my homework so far out. I've got a long way to go and a lot of instruction debt to pay off till then.

I just really appreciate all the input everyone has contributed. Good community of people on this site. Thanks.

Tick,

In retirement I do volunteer flying for a humanitarian organization. We get a good deal of our funding from donated airplanes. Some we send to Africa, Asia, Central/South America, Alaska to support our bush pilot operations. The majority are throughly gone over and then sold...using the cash to support our humanitarian missions.

We come across some really nice, inexpensive donations. Right now we have a 1956 C-172 in excellent condition except for a worn paint job. We also have several very nice Cessna 150's. Recently sold an "AirCamper" Twin engine, light, Experimental airplane. We have a J-3 cub that was in the middle of restoration, it would be a great project. Once in while we get a C-140/120/170, the occassional Stinson....every manner of those "dreaded" Maules from old M-4's to an M-7 with only 90 hours TT.

My point is...these birds might serve your purpose and many will sell for between 40% and 75% of your stated budget. We ususally put them on EBAY except for the really expensive stuff. Might know someone who would even offer to ferry one home to you...sleep under the wing along the way. You buy the gas of course!


bob

P.S. An older Maule M-4 will do everything that you want, be economical to own/operate and fall within your budget. Get one from the lower 48 that was only flown to church on Sundays. They exist! Don't let these guys scare you off. My son soloed our Maule at age 16. Properly trained, he has never had a bit of trouble. Besides...if you are going flying in the bush.....flying the Maule will be among the least of your challenges.

maulewaco, I think you hit the nail on the head. Once I get PPL wrapped up, I'd like to go out and score a ride in a Champ, T-Craft, T-Bird, 140,....... That will probably be the best test of whether I think the associated cost of ownership is worth whatever I choose.