Goldinthecreek wrote:Ok guys lets see if I am understanding what everyone is telling me

To fly into the back country and do a little camping
OR
Take 550 pounds in the front seat and 250 in the back for a hamburger

I need $80,000 up front ,. To budget $10,000 per annual and have a emergency fund of $35,000 ?


Honestly thats pretty discouraging.

$10k and $35k are probably too high. But you're asking for an airplane that's wide enough in front for two big guys and will carry 800# of people plus camping gear into and out of camping sites. That's a lot of mission for a piston single. A 180, 182, Dakota, or Maule would do it without the camping gear, though no one will be comfortable. A 206 or Cherokee 6 would do the whole thing.

Speaking of which, don't sweat the Cessna parts cost. Rumor has it that the only cheap parts are for Maules, but you give the savings back on insurance. All of my maintenance money has gone to Continental parts.

Goldinthecreek wrote:For my mission it seemed like certified older planes were a good value.

See the earlier posts about "sorting out all the outstanding maintenance". I think that's why old planes seem like good value, at first glance. Like most old machines, they are in need of much care and attention, which is why they are going cheap.

Typically people buy an old plane and spend a bare minimum on it to just 'keep it going'. Then they are upset when a $10,000 bill arrives out of the blue for a 100hr check.

Whereas some other people buy an old plane then spend another $20k or $30k fixing everything wrong with it. They normally enjoy years of reliable service at fairly steady costs.

You can pay $40k for the plan then $20k to fix everything wrong with it. Or pay $60k up front for tidier newer plane. Both are fine options!

StuBob wrote: Maule would do it without the camping gear, though no one will be comfortable.

Ain't that the truth! I am 160lbs and two in a Maule is cozy.

I was thinking 175 or 170 but there seems to be a consensus that I need a 182 or 205-6-7.
But I think I might see why people are recommending the 182- 205s
When I take those 4 people Im thinking a circle around town a short airplane ride less than a hour,
When Its the two big guys it might be a overnight camping trip ,MOST of my camping and flying will be alone.
Honestly if a hour or two of flying a year is going to increase my operating costs that much I can rent.
Would I be be ahead to rent that bigger plane for the 10 or 20 (2 or 3 trips) hours with 550 in the front seats?

Friends how comfortable you want to be. Even for those overnight trips, 550 side by side will be very tight, even with bubble windows. But I most of your flying is actually solo, then that opens up lots of doors. You could even step into tandem tailwheel like a champ/citabria. If there is rental available that fit your needs for when you want to haul more then that is a viable option.

I get the impression that the OP really hasn't done any homework on airplane ownership. Whenever someone starts talking about low cost ownership, that's my conclusion. There just ain't no such thing! Some airplanes cost less than others to own, but all airplanes are expensive.

My own experience may not be typical, but when I decided to buy my current airplane, I was in the market for an older 172 with a 180hp/CS prop conversion. I found this 1963 cream puff P172D, with all of 930 hours on a Lycoming 360 (known everywhere as a "bullet proof engine") and only 2300 hours on the airframe. It was at a premium price, but I figured that if all was well with both engine and airframe, that premium price was worth it. I planned on spending about $10,000 worth of improvements: new avionics, some doodads here and there, and I'd be set. In fact, right away I blew $8,000 on new navcoms and $1400 on shoulder harnesses.

15 hours later, however, that mid-life engine threw a rod through the top of the case. Suddenly my purchase price increased by $23,000. While it was down for the new engine, I had all the electrics updated and some other stuff done, so 3 months after I'd landed in the field, I got my airplane back, and my wallet was $30,000 thinner.

I've had the airplane for almost 16 years, and I've spent lots and lots on it--more updated avionics, more this, more that, all kinds of stuff, some necessary (like ADS-B Out), some just things I wanted (like the Quattro). But I don't regret it.

On the other hand, I never went into it thinking I was going to have an inexpensive airplane.

Cary

Zzz wrote:….. I now own a Piper Pacer .....

Pics, pics, pics! or it never happened.
(isn't that what everyone here always says?)
Let's see that bad boy, Zane!

hotrod180 wrote:

Zzz wrote:….. I now own a Piper Pacer .....

Pics, pics, pics! or it never happened.
(isn't that what everyone here always says?)
Let's see that bad boy, Zane!

In due time...and in a grandiose, totally overdone fashion. I'll give one clue though: "wanker"

[/quote]In due time...and in a grandiose, totally overdone fashion. I'll give one clue though: "wanker"[/quote]

Wanker - definition of wanker by The Free Dictionary

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wanker

wank·er (wăng′kər) n. Chiefly British Vulgar Slang 1. A person, especially a man, who masturbates. 2. A foolish or detestable person. wanker (ˈwæŋkə) n 1. a ...

Deleted--duplicate post (how'd that happen?)

Lol no I’ve done tons of homework.
What do you think this thread is ?
But be honest how much info on actual operating Costs do you find on the Net ?
I haven’t Found any sites where people keep a flying costs accounting on the internet.
Lots of antidotal stuff like above. But rarely even a yearly lump sum.
A consumer reports type artical on 500 owners of5 models would surely be a godsend !

I don't think you will find much 'hard' data on the internet because plane ownership fluctuates between 'expensive' and 'really expensive'. If you seek foolproof numbers you will almost certainly be disappointed.

I tell budding entrepreneurs to take their commercial projections, then halve their revenue and double their costs as a sanity check. If they can still make it work they might be on to something. Plane ownership is similar, but it doesn't provide revenue. So double your estimated costs and ask yourself if you are still having fun.

Lots of the costs of running my plane are voluntary upgrades, lots are just stuff that went wrong on a 54 year old Cessna airframe. One year the annual is a walk in the park, the next year the little cracks in the ailerons just can't be ignored anymore and several lights need replacing. Thousands add up really quickly.

If anybody asks, I tell them owning my own plane is worth it but if I had a set budget every year and was upset by cost overruns, the answer would certainly be different.

My 2c. Consider a 177B Cardinal, all the space of a 182, but much better access, operating cost of a 172, but much better performance. I'll take mine anywhere I would take a 172 (and places I wouldn't take a 172!) And you should be able to find a good one for less $$ than an equivalent condition 172

Very underrated aircraft and a surprisingly good performer in marginal conditions, good wing and big flaps. Don't bother with an early 150hp, and don't expect it to handle like a 172, because it handles much better

There you go, problem solved

Goldinthecreek wrote:Lol no I’ve done tons of homework.
What do you think this thread is ?
But be honest how much info on actual operating Costs do you find on the Net ?
I haven’t Found any sites where people keep a flying costs accounting on the internet.
Lots of antidotal stuff like above. But rarely even a yearly lump sum.
A consumer reports type artical on 500 owners of5 models would surely be a godsend !

There's actually a fellow here who's compiled that data for a knowledge base article, but we've yet to publish it. So, stay tuned.

Here are some numbers for a Maule:

https://www.montanabyair.com/cost-of-operation

Good honest real world issues but the relative cost is not as shocking as other aircraft manufacturers can be.

But that being said in defense of Maules (and no, the operational savings are NOT offset by higher insurance rates), it sounds like you'd have trouble fitting the mission specs in a Maule due to its size and yours. Maules are 42" wide in the front seats and I think you'd have trouble with that. I saw that the C177 is 48" wide; better fit.

A tandem taildragger could also be a fit for your mission but you'd be hard pressed to find anything useful for less than 6 figures.

I have every penny accounted for that my 170B and 182D gobbles up and I can tell you your budget and mission are not aligned.

Increase your budget or become more flexible on your mission requirements to have a realistic shot at this.

Or do what most people do, just dive in with what you feel is correct and then deal with the consequences afterwards! It’s just money, and besides aviation can be a lot of fun.

https://portland.craigslist.org/wsc/avo ... 39795.html

I don't know anything about the airplane above, but I owned a 180HP 172. It would check most of your boxes, but not all at the same time. It would be uncomfortable for two big guys in the front seat, but would be an affordable choice if you fly alone most of the time.

I sold the 172 to buy a 205. More than twice as nice, at twice the price. It is profoundly more comfortable, faster on the same fuel burn, way faster on more fuel, and can bring whatever my wife and two daughters wants to pack.

As for costs, a hangar is 3K per year for whatever I put in it.

On the 205, my first annual was $2500, which included some teething problems. I have since spent another $2000 fixing the nose strut, adding an alternator, replacing valve cover gaskets, and LED landing lights. I spent another $2000ish on VGs. Totally worth it. I also replaced an oil cooler under warranty with mechanic supervision. I spent about $5600 on fuel for ~80 hours. Insurance on 85K hull is $2000 a year.

So my bill is about $15,000 for the year that was required, plus $2000 for VGs. I'm absolutely certain I spent more on incidental stuff (tires, tubes, oil, etc). I'm at $212 per hour this year, plus whatever I didn't include.

I expect my next annual to be about $1200 unless something major is wrong, but I'll still pay hangar, insurance, and fuel costs that are about the same, so about $12,000 unless something goes wrong or I find new things I 'need' to have. $150 an hour if things go well.

On my 172, annuals were about $1000, insurance was $750, fuel was about $4000, and the hangar was still $3000. So $8750 per year for the same time in the air. $110 an hour.

There isn't a lot of wiggle in most of those prices. I could save a few bucks on my annual by helping more, but it wouldn't be much. I can't rent either plane for the above rates. Even if I could, no FBO is going to let me rent their plane Friday to Sunday for 4 hours of total rental. So I own. It isn't cheap.

It doesn’t matter how well I plan, something will always mess a budget up. There are too many variables that are out of my control. Airplanes, boats, cars, motorcycles, etc. all require stuff when I least expect it. I bought a plane that fits 95% of my mission. Bought the best example I could afford. Do I know exactly what I spend each year for that airplane, no. Do I care, no. I’m in it to have fun. Getting caught up in exacts takes away from the joy of being able to fly. It’s like chasing salmon. I have no idea what I spend putting wild salmon on my table. If I knew the exact number, it would take away from all the fun I had getting them. Doing due diligence to inform prior to purchase is smart. Unrealistic wants is not.

You're never going to get a realistic operational cost on a fifty-year-old airplane. You can figure out fuel burn, insurance, and hangar or tie down fees...the rest is a wild card you will never predict. It might cost a lot, or a hell of a lot, or more than you could possibly imagine.

But one factor that has a HUGE impact on the cost of ownership is whether you're mechanically inclined, and whether you have a IA that will work with you, as well as whether you have any other guidance available when you start out. We bought our first airplane from a mechanical savant, and he taught me a wealth of knowledge about how to own a airplane without being a slave to the $150 per-hour shop.

I've been able to do 95% of the labor on my airplanes, under the guidance of an IA, and that's really the reason we have one. Most of working on a airplane isn't skilled labor, it's grunt labor. I do the grunt part and pay the expert to do the 5% that's really critical and inspect my grunt stuff, then sign the logs. We could afford to pay someone else to do all of it, but we just wouldn't...the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze at that point. I'm not sure I've ever had a annual go much over a thousand dollars, but I've also never had one that took less than a solid week of my time.

For all practical purposes, if you're going to work on your own airplane you need to have a hangar. I see people wrenching on the tarmac, but not for long. I was never sure if renting a hangar cost me money or made me money, but it was pretty close either way. We finally just bought one, so now I don't have to think about it.

I should mention that any and all enjoyment I ever got from working on my airplane is LONG gone, and there never was that much to begin with. I do it because it's part of the bargain, but every time something that's going to take another twenty of my hours comes up I look at the airplane and think "is this really worth it"? I predict that the day I quit flying isn't the day I'm no longer capable, but rather the day the answer to that question is "nope".

Zzz wrote:

Goldinthecreek wrote:Lol no I’ve done tons of homework.
What do you think this thread is ?
But be honest how much info on actual operating Costs do you find on the Net ?
I haven’t Found any sites where people keep a flying costs accounting on the internet.
Lots of antidotal stuff like above. But rarely even a yearly lump sum.
A consumer reports type artical on 500 owners of5 models would surely be a godsend !

There's actually a fellow here who's compiled that data for a knowledge base article, but we've yet to publish it. So, stay tuned.

Yes...it is in the works. I've been distracted with work (earning $$ to fund the aviation addiction). I'll try to get it wrapped up in the next couple weeks.

steve wrote:

In due time...and in a grandiose, totally overdone fashion. I'll give one clue though: "wanker"[/quote]
Wanker - definition of wanker by The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wanker
wank·er (wăng′kər) n. Chiefly British Vulgar Slang 1. A person, especially a man, who masturbates. 2. A foolish or detestable person. wanker (ˈwæŋkə) n 1. a ...[/quote]

Sounds like a desctription of the pilot, not the airplane.