DJ,

What is your pilot experience and what aircraft have you flown in the past?

I’m not so sure I fully agree with you. Am I asking a lot of questions, yes. Have I specifically asked about ADs and costs on straight tailed 182s; no.

I like to understand all elements of the equation before making a decision. I would rather adjust the mission if needed to be sure I can afford / justify the total ownership cost of any particular bird.

akschu wrote:

DJ Balla wrote:Poking around online it seems that the 182 has a reputation for high maintenance which I realize is a relative term. Is that due to a big motor with a low TBO time or are there some nasty AD’s to deal with?

What is the typical cost for annual on a straight tail 182?

<sigh> I'm done.

We have steered you away from marginal/low performance aircraft in an attempt to keep you safe and so that you get the right tool for the job, and more specifically towards the 182 because they are the bargain in the segment which puts them in your price range, and because you don't have a requirement for skis or bushwheels, but it doesn't seem like you listen very well and keep circling back.

So read away on the internet, and keep circling around (which has become trolling), but don't expect people to spend more time on this as it's pointless to do so....

Zzz wrote:DJ,

What is your pilot experience and what aircraft have you flown in the past?

I am a low time pilot with ~150 hours TT; 50 in gliders and the rest in ASEl. I have owned an Ercoupe (don’t laugh, it has rudders pedals) for a little over a year when I reentered general aviation. I also have time in Cherokee 180, Decathlon, RV7.

akschu wrote:

<sigh> I'm done.

..

Hope so

DJ Balla wrote:...
I like to understand all elements of the equation before making a decision. I would rather adjust the mission if needed to be sure I can afford / justify the total ownership cost of any particular bird.
...

Good luck with that! You can accurately pin down the cost of the specific airplane you want to buy, the cost of fuel and oil, the cost of insurance and registration and taxes and tie-down fees...after that all you're going to get are trends. You will NEVER accurately calculate the total ownership cost of ANY airplane, but you can rest assured that it will be more than you thought.

You mission...four people into a 2000' strip @ 2000' DA, is still very nebulous. I think some of the static you're getting is based on the perception that you don't know what your mission actually entails. Or, like most people, you're balking at what your stated mission is going to cost you. There's an endless stream of people who want unrealistic performance at an impossible price, and while it's a natural phenonium, it's tiresome to people who have come to terms with reality.

O-470's are probably going to cost considerably more to own and operate than a Lyc 0-360 over the life of the engine. They burn more fuel, they hold more oil, they need four more spark plugs ($450 for fine wire plugs right there), and they usually require a top-end prior to overhaul. But you can also buy a Lyc 0-360 that looks great at the inspection and is going to shit the bed in twenty hours, so you never really know.

What's the ACTUAL load you intend to cary...the REAL weight of the four people, plus 20lbs each for clothes and shoes and phones, plus another 100lbs for the water bottles and ipads and headsets, etc..

Now how much fuel are you going to have on board when you leave...taking into account the general inaccuracy of aircraft fuel gages, and that you're probably not going to be dumping fuel in the grass to get to your magic number. So if you need 25 gallons including reserves and unusable fuel, figure 32 gallons on board for departure.

That right there is the bare-bones minimum weight of your load. If you're camping or fishing or need to bring other stuff...add that weight up, and don't be frugal. Be realistic.

Once you add all that up you'll eliminate a whole lot of potential airplanes because you're over gross, performance be damned.

Now look at the specific airstrips you want to use and determine how much performance you need, and keep in mind that you are NOT going to get book rates of climb, as they were made with a old pilot and a new airplane, and you're just the opposite.

There are 2000' strips where a stock 172 would be adequate, and 2000' strips where a 182 would be a suicide mission. Are you potentially going to have to take off uphill or with a tailwind? How soft is the strip...how tall is the grass? Are there trees or hills at the end of the strip? Do you have to maneuver right after take-off? Are crosswinds common? All that means you need more performance. Potentially a lot more.

You might be fine with a 180hp Maule, or a 172 converted to a 0-360 and CS prop, and those engines should be less expensive to operate hour to hour than a O-470. But the insurance on the Maule will surprise you, and you might well pay more for a converted 172 than you would for a 182 in the same condition, and the price per mile might not be as different as you think.

Of course if you want to modify your mission then all that goes out the window and you can start over. But get some realistic data to work with...actual loads, fuel requirements, strip requirements, etc.. Folks get fatigued by endless speculation and having to point out (again) that the mission is outpacing the wallet.

good luck!

Hammer,

That was PERFECT

Kurt

DJ Balla wrote: Poking around online it seems that the 182 has a reputation for high maintenance which I realize is a relative term. Is that due to a big motor with a low TBO time or are there some nasty AD’s to deal with? What is the typical cost for annual on a straight tail 182?

Curious about the "reputation for high maintenance" which you refer to. Please elaborate.
As far as cost goes--
if you totaled up all the costs you're going to incur with an airplane with buying it, flying it,
maintaining it, and upgrading it......you'd never buy one!
Oh yeah, if those actual incurred costs aren't high enough to scare you off,
don't forget to throw in another 25 an hour or so for an overhaul fund!

FWIW I've owned my 180 about 4-1/2 years now, and I think my actual costs are somewhere around 90/hour.
That's with cheap hangar rent, inexpensive annuals, and some upgrades including buying a fresh seaplane prop.

The wisdom of fixating on the cost of operating one engine over another is questionable in my opinion.

The reality is that it is difficult to predict the duration of life and expense of any old engine that's operational history is unknown.

Regardless of what the seller tells you (never cold started, run twice a week, always in a heated hangar, oil changed at 24 hours, constant oil analysis, never a prop strike on crank, etc...), Unless he's your grandad and you have witnessed a good sampling of day to day operations, the operational history is absolutely unknown to you when purchasing a used airplane.

I have a friend who is approaching 3000 hours on his O-470R and he has never pulled a jug.

I also have a friend who purchased a 250 hour O-320 that ended up wit a lot of ferrous metal circulating, requiring a complete teardown and replacement of major components.

Trends in the cost of caring for and feeding an aircraft engine are established, but the probability of ending up with an outlier is just as important to consider as trends.

I often fly my 180 around with cubs, scouts, citabrias and such. I'll set my RPMs to 2000 and MP at 18 inches and we are burning 7.5 gph at 100 knots. The others are burning 8 gph or more while doing 90 knots. My engine is happy as can be operating like this. If I want to pull a load up out of a hole, climb aggressively, or go 135 knots, that option is available to me for a higher fuel bill if I wish to go there.

My belief is that a plane with 150-180 hp and a fixed pitch prop is a two adult backcountry airplane. 210+ with a constant speed is almost necessary for four adult operations in and out of shortish strips and climbing over obstacles. If a big bore six and CS prop are available within your price range, it's doubtful that you would ever regret having the extra performance.

I read somewhere that a good rule-of-thumb to "estimate" the hourly direct costs for operating a fixed-gear airplane is to take the cost of fuel per hour, and multiply by a factor of 3. For a retractable, add 1 to that factor (x4). For "high-performance" or "complex", add another 1/2 to that factor (complex retractable = 4.5). This estimate covers fuel, oil, database subscriptions, and maintenance – inlcuding the annual inspection costs. It does not account for hangar costs (highly variable based on geography, etc.) or insurance (again, highly variable based on pilot experience, history, etc.). Given the limitations of ANY method to estimate the hourly cost of operating an airplane, this one works amazingly well...

For my first airplane, a Grumman Traveler (IFR equipped, fixed gear, fixed prop, and O-320), I calculated using $5 per gallon and based on burning 8 GPH, I came up with $120 per hour. That number was pretty dead-on accurate for the 3 years I owned that plane.

My second airplane was a Rockwell Commander 114 (Turbo-Normalized IO-540, retractable high-performance complex single-engine). The rule-of-thumb says multiply fuel cost by 4.5 for complex retract, and since it burns 14 GPH on average, the estimated hourly cost would be $315. Again over the 3 years I owned it, that number was pretty accurate.

For the Champion 7ECA I currently own (about as simple an airplane as one could imagine), which burns 4.5 GPH, the estimated hourly cost is $68. That's probably a little bit on the high side based on the last three years of operation, but then again, I'm going to have to re-do the fabric pretty soon, so within the next two years or so, I may well eat up that surplus in the airplane account pretty quickly!

No estimate is perfect, and I tell everyone who asks me for advice that they should keep at least 1/4 the cost of whatever airplane they purchase available for unforeseen repairs. If you buy a $40,000 airplane, that means keeping a cash reserve of $10,000. If it's a $100,000 airplane, I'd keep $25K on hand. Should you find yourself in the position of needing an overhaul right NOW, that fund may not pay for the entire cost of the overhaul, but it will sure take a lot of the sting away!

I have a Tripacer. It is my second one. I love them.

I also have had four people in my Tripacer. I am fairly large, and usually so are the people I am flying. Four small people can ride fine. Four large people is not really an option. Two large people is a good Tripacer load, after that, you really start to have to look carefully at what else you put in. The airplane when heavy will still take off, but the climb is anemic or nonexistent when heavy on a warm day.

Your definition of your mission is a mission that sounds like a problem for a Tripacer in some conditions. If you all weigh less than 160 lbs, then maybe it is feasible. But unless you all remain at that low weight, it won't remain feasible.

So for that specific mission, the answer to your question is, "Buy a Cessna 182."

On the other hand, you seem to be interested in affordability. There is no magic answer to how much any one airplane will cost to own and operate, but smaller, simpler airplanes are generally more affordable. When I started flying, I couldn't afford an airplane, which is how I ended up with a Tripacer...(that's a joke I tell on my poor PA-22...she forgives me though...)

Now, it would probably make sense for me to trade up to a 182 because I am less broke and it is the better airplane for my mission. But I love the affordability of the Tripacer. I can afford to keep flying it, I can afford to teach my son to fly in it (finished that last fall), I can afford to keep on top of maintenance in a pro-active fashion. But we are a family of 4. I can get my family somewhere in 2 loads, but we cannot even put in fuel if the four of us load up as one load.

So the question is which is more important, the mission you stated or the affordability? If owning an airplane will not satisfy you or the other people you need to be keeping happy with this operation (spouse, financial interested parties, etc.) without being able to reliable handle the 2000' runway with 4 people mission that you specify, then you need to buy a 182. If the mission is to have an airplane and be able to afford to fly it and other things like the 2000' runway can be worked around by taking smaller loads in multiple legs, then a Tripacer might be worth considering.

Since you presented a desire for the mission, we are telling you the answer to that question. You need the 182. Unless you change the question.

JP256 wrote: I read somewhere that a good rule-of-thumb to "estimate" the hourly direct costs for operating a fixed-gear airplane is to take the cost of fuel per hour, and multiply by a factor of 3......

Perhaps a more accurate rule of thumb is that an airplane (any airplane) will absorb all the excess money you have.
(Q: How much money does it take to own an airplane?" A: All of it! )
If not for irect operating costs, hangar, and maintenance, then for the "must have" upgrades.
The bad news is that there won't be any money left over for that kitchen remodel your wife wants you to do.
The good news is that there won't be any money left over for the kitchen remodel your wife wants you to do.

The Maule will be a lot more airplane.

TxAgfisher wrote:The Maule will be a lot more airplane.

I have a friend with an M4-210. Yes they are really hard to beat. But the insurance for a low time 5 hr tailwheel pilot is pretty high. If you do not mind me asking do you have hull insurance and what is the stated value and the cost. And how many hrs of time do you have in Maules.

And every Maule owner I know cannot say enough good things about them.

https://ksu.craigslist.org/avo/d/manhat ... 72828.html

Local buddy is selling his 172... I'm too poor to afford it but oooooh the goodies!

jcadwell wrote:DJ Balla, you seem like a straight up player. A dope bro who knows that a pimp's life is much different than that of a square. Draggin 6 holes around means that you can do things that 4 just can't do. Being laid back with the left knob means that you can roll low and slow like a 172, or pump up the volume (along with the tempo) and roll heavier. Me and my ladies can burn less of the stinky stuff for the same speed as the 172. I also get much more play when I'm light, from the extra extra that the 6 delivers.

One of the best posts ever!!!

Can’t believe u didn’t get any traction with it.
Love it!!!

Oh and this guy needs to just buy a 182

Sierra Victor wrote:

jcadwell wrote:DJ Balla, you seem like a straight up player. A dope bro who knows that a pimp's life is much different than that of a square. Draggin 6 holes around means that you can do things that 4 just can't do. Being laid back with the left knob means that you can roll low and slow like a 172, or pump up the volume (along with the tempo) and roll heavier. Me and my ladies can burn less of the stinky stuff for the same speed as the 172. I also get much more play when I'm light, from the extra extra that the 6 delivers.

One of the best posts ever!!!

Can’t believe u didn’t get any traction with it.
Love it!!!

Oh and this guy needs to just buy a 182

Most folks here are still trying to figure out what he said..."burning the stinky stuff" brings up images of latrine barrels, a jerry can full of Jet-A, and a metal fence post to stir it.

Hammer wrote:

Sierra Victor wrote:

jcadwell wrote:DJ Balla, you seem like a straight up player. A dope bro who knows that a pimp's life is much different than that of a square. Draggin 6 holes around means that you can do things that 4 just can't do. Being laid back with the left knob means that you can roll low and slow like a 172, or pump up the volume (along with the tempo) and roll heavier. Me and my ladies can burn less of the stinky stuff for the same speed as the 172. I also get much more play when I'm light, from the extra extra that the 6 delivers.

One of the best posts ever!!!

Can’t believe u didn’t get any traction with it.
Love it!!!

Oh and this guy needs to just buy a 182

Most folks here are still trying to figure out what he said..."burning the stinky stuff" brings up images of latrine barrels, a jerry can full of Jet-A, and a metal fence post to stir it.

Thanks for the memories, Hammer.

Ahhhh, the good old days. When stirring up shit was a requirement and not a privilege.

Sierra Victor wrote:

jcadwell wrote:DJ Balla, you seem like a straight up player. A dope bro who knows that a pimp's life is much different than that of a square. Draggin 6 holes around means that you can do things that 4 just can't do. Being laid back with the left knob means that you can roll low and slow like a 172, or pump up the volume (along with the tempo) and roll heavier. Me and my ladies can burn less of the stinky stuff for the same speed as the 172. I also get much more play when I'm light, from the extra extra that the 6 delivers.

One of the best posts ever!!!

Can’t believe u didn’t get any traction with it.
Love it!!!

Oh and this guy needs to just buy a 182

Indeed! My initial thought was that was one of the best posts I've ever seen.

Troy Hamon wrote:Tripacers do not fly at 130 mph in cruise. If you want faster than 120, it is the wrong plane, and most of them are more in the 105 to 115 mph range unless you really dress them up for speed with small tires and fairings.

Ahh while fitting more than a few 200# people isn't so easy in a Tri Pacer, and a 182 is certainly the right choice here, the Tri Pacer you saw me fly to SZP cruised over on that fine afternoon happily at 130-135mph from WHP - Tri Pacers can cruise quickly if you don't mind burning 9.5GPH

Decision is taken. I will buy an early 182.

Thx to all for the info...and now for some shopping.